- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:51:56 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-gl@W3.org
>Therefore, it sounds as though we are simply stating a fact -- that >real-time captioning is possible -- rather than a condition. Do we >mean "If the presentation is a real-time broadcast, provide >real-time commentary (as with a sporting event) and real-time >captioning if possible"? If so, perhaps we could say something like >"for a real-time broadcast, real-time commentary (as with a sporting >event) and real-time captioning are provided." It is dangerous to advance sporting play-by-play as anything remotely resembling equivalency with audio description. I have offered clear evidence that the the former is no substitute for the latter: <http://www.joeclark.org/livead.html>. Again it seems that GL members have spent a great deal of time wrangling HTML but very little time watching captioned, described, subtitled, or dubbed television and cinema. It seems that is readily rectified, but in the interim, do not make assumptions about the interchangeability of one technique for another. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques: <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 16:07:48 UTC