- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:41:42 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, WAI WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, geoff_freed@wgbh.org
I meant to say that an entry in the WCAG Errata would say... --w At 04:37 PM 8/4/00 , Wendy A Chisholm wrote: >CMN: >>The question of context is in large part one of implementation priority - in >>order to make something accessible it does depend to a certain extent on what >>the context is, because in some contexts a full understanding or full >>equivalent is not really necessary, and in others it is important to get as >>close an equivalent as possible. (Think of the different uses of alt, title >>and longdesc for an image as one example of this). >> >>This is an area where accessibility requires considerable thought, skill, or >>experience to do well. (As is writing a music video in the first place.) >>Fortunately, the actual technical barriers are much lower. So in order to >>make these things accessible there is some work to be done. Should we do that >>work in all cases? Of course. Which part to do first? That's a case-by-case >>question. > >WC:: Perhaps we need to use a relative priority along the lines of what we >did for 8.1 ><Q> > Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly > accessible or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if > functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.] ></Q> > >Thus, an entry in the WCAG for Checkpoint 1.3 would read: ><Q> >1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of >a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important >information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation. [Priority >1 if the visual track of the multimedia is important for understanding the >surrounding content, otherwise Priority 2] ></Q> > >That's probably not the smoothest wording, but I hope you get the drift. > >thoughts? >--wendy > >>Some detailed comments interspersed below - look for CMN or WC >> >>Charles >> >> >>On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> The debate that we had on the Evaluation and Repair Tools list (ER) was to >> decide when auditory descriptions must be provided. >> >> Ignoring the "until user agents" clause of checkpoint 1.3, it reads, >> "provide an auditory description of the important information of the >> visual >> track of a multimedia presentation. [Priority 1]." This means that every >> multimedia presentation needs an auditory description. I am not sure that >> is necessary nor feasible. I'll illustrate this with a few examples. >> >>CMN not really. It means that every multimedia presentation with important >>information needs an audio equivalent, which is (admittedly only >>slightly) different). >>WC >> 1. Silent movies >> Usually, there is video and the only audio is music of some sort >> (usually a >> piano). A summary of what has been said is visually displayed every so >> often. Is a transcript (that includes descriptions of major visual >> events) >> enough or does a synchronized auditory description need to be provided? >>CMN >>Until user agents can read the transcript out loud, there needs to be an >>audio version in order to provide accessibility. >>WC >> 2. Music videos >> Music videos are visual expressions of songs. Usually, they show the >> people who have made the music, sometimes they have a story line, there is >> usually lots of lipsynching and dancing. Do they need a synchronized >> auditory description? Oftentimes the video has nothing to do with the >> music. Is a transcript (that includes descriptions of major visual >> events) >> enough? Is a transcript required? >>CMN >>It hinges on the definition of important. It may not be important to know >>more than that the band is playing for the clip of "Ob-la-Di". It may equally >>be important to explain the relevance of the imagery used in the clip of "I >>want to be Jim Morrison" (by the Widowed Isis, for the obsessively >>curious). But there is a question of how to describe it - that there are >>snakes and fire threaded through the clip, or to synchronise it so that >>Sinead's tear is mentioned at the critical point, not beofer or after since >>the emotional impact of that moment is supposed to be important. >> >>-Chaals >>WC >> Does it depend on context? If the movie is being studied for comic timing >> or how to make silent films, then is the auditory description required? If >> someone who is blind is watching the movie with someone who has sight, the >> person who is blind would not know when to express emotion. On the other >> hand, if the silent film is a commercial or a decoration of some sort, is >> the text transcript enough? >> >> In the case of the music video, it seems to make sense to describe >> something like Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video since it has such an >> involved story line. Although I would only synchronize descriptions >> to the >> sections of the video when there is no music but the dialog, action and >> story line continue. However, I would only say this is priority 1 >> (must) if >> the context that the video is presented in is to study the video for some >> reason (music video 101). If it's just for enjoyment (on mtv.com) I would >> lower this to a priority 2 (should). >> >> On the other hand, no matter what the context, I do not see the need to >> provide a synchronized description to Sinead O'Connor's "Nothing Compares >> to You" music video since it's just a close up of her face as she >> sings. If I were working for mtv.com and posting this video, I would >> provide a static, text description of the nature of the video and what she >> looks like, "A close-up of Sinead singing. Her pale white face and bald >> head contrast with the black background. Midway through the song she >> sheds >> a tear and in general looks very anguished...." >> >> The primary question is, what is the minimum requirement that must be met >> to conform to checkpoint 1.3? Must an auditory description be >> provided for >> every multimedia presentation? >> >> Thoughts? Are there other examples where the need for an auditory >> description is questionable? where context may determine if it is required >> or not? >> >> I hope I have not offended anyone. If you disagree with my reasoning, >> I am >> obviously open to discussion since I am posting this to the WCAG list with >> a series of questions and no firm conclusions. I understand that >> independent of context, people want information. I am trying to find a >> reasonable balance between what authors need to provide and what users >> need >> to understand the content. I believe that once we can rely on speech >> synthesis to create a synchronized auditory description this will become >> less of an issue. But until then, there are concerns from authors about >> cost and implementation. If we need to push them we will. However, I >> want >> to be sure of the necessary requirements. >> >> Thanks, >> --wendy >> >> At 09:49 PM 8/2/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> >An Audio equivalent to video is necessary in the same situations that >> a text >> >equivalent is necessary (ignoring the question of whether it is OK to >> rely on >> >synthesising speech from the text equivalent), In My Humble Opinion. >> > >> >I don't know of anyone doing a lot of audio description (but then I >> can point >> >to a lot of other access barriers that people haven't removed yet too). >> > >> >just my personal thoughts on the topic >> > >> >Charles McCN >> > >> >On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote: >> > >> > Ignoring the "until user agents" clause for a minute, when is an audio >> > description necessary? >> > >> > Does anyone know of a site that provides audio descriptions for their >> > multimedia? >> > >> > Wondering, >> > Chris >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org> >> > To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca> >> > Cc: "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; "Al Gilman" >> > <asgilman@iamdigex.net> >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 1:05 AM >> > Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3 >> > >> > >> > > I guess the real question is whether the until user agents >> condition in >> > WCAG >> > > checkpoint 1.3 has been met... >> > > >> > > Thoughts? >> > > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote: >> > > >> > > OK. The requirement for an audio description is not dependant >> on the >> > > presence of a text description. >> > > >> > > > An audio description is required when what you miss by not >> seeing the >> > > video >> > > > is [something in the range of (significant, important, >> critical)]. >> > > > >> > > An audio description is much more difficult to create than a text >> > > description and the file size is much larger. So we need to be >> clear >> > about >> > > when it's required before telling the author to do all this work. >> > > >> > > Do all important/significant/critical videos require an audio >> > description? >> > > >> > > Is an audio description necessary if there is a good text >> description? >> > > >> > > Chris >> > > >> > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net> >> > > To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "WAI WCAG List" >> > > <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 2:07 PM >> > > Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3 >> > > >> > > >> > > > At 11:06 AM 2000-07-28 -0400, Chris Ridpath wrote: >> > > > >I'm looking for some clarification on technique 1.3: >> > > > > >> > > > >"1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text >> > equivalent >> > > of a >> > > > >visual track, provide an auditory description of the important >> > > information >> > > > >of the visual track of a multimedia presentation. [Priority 1]" >> > > > > >> > > > >Does this mean that an audio description is required only if >> > there is >> > a >> > > text >> > > > >equivalent of a visual track? Or, when is an audio description >> > required? >> > > > >> > > > The description is required when it is required, not just >> when it is >> > > provided. >> > > > >> > > > An audio description is required when what you miss by not >> seeing the >> > > video >> > > > is [something in the range of (significant, important, >> critical)]. >> > Once >> > > > User Agents 'all' do synchronized audible playback of a text >> > description >> > > > track as a native function, a synchronized text equivalent >> will meet >> > the >> > > > requirement for a description. Until then, provide audio. >> > > > >> > > > The requirement for a description is determined by the >> complexity and >> > > > importance of the video, not by what the author has done >> about the >> > > > requirement. >> > > > >> > > > The "until user agents" clause only affect whether this >> description >> > must >> > > be >> > > > in audio or may be only in text. It has nothing to do with the >> > criteria >> > > > for when a description is required. >> > > > >> > > > Is that the way others recall, too? >> > > > >> > > > Al >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >Thanks, >> > > > >Chris >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 >> (0) 409 134 >> > 136 >> > > W3C Web Accessibility Initiative >> > http://www.w3.org/WAI >> > > Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 >> > > Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia >> > > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 >> 134 136 >> >W3C Web Accessibility >> Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI >> >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 >> >Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia >> >> -- >> wendy a chisholm >> world wide web consortium >> web accessibility initiative >> madison, wi usa >> tel: +1 608 663 6346 >> /-- >> >> >>-- >>Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 >>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI >>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 >>Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia > >-- >wendy a chisholm >world wide web consortium >web accessibility initiative >madison, wi usa >tel: +1 608 663 6346 >/-- -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative madison, wi usa tel: +1 608 663 6346 /--
Received on Friday, 4 August 2000 17:42:39 UTC