- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:24:52 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thank you, Charles, you are right! I am not a person who can interpret music to the same words as most ... I need to know the title of the piece, or the words if a song .... but I am not everyone by any means .... Do agree that sound is often most useful as background, a third dimension to meaning .... I've tentatively added a background music to our personal homepage, http://www.erols.com/stevepem, a patriotic tune appropriate for my mood and the mood of the country .... but other than that, I only use background music if it has meaning to the content of a page ..... someday I'll get one of those controls to turn it off and on, but til then I'm concentrating on when to use it .... Anne At 08:02 AM 9/17/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >Well, like images, sometimes sound is not as helpful, but sometimes it is >much more helpful. And it is one of the media commonly used to convey things >that are difficult to express in words or pictures - that's why it is so >common in movies to have additional sound tracks. > >I am strongly in favour of including it, despite the fact that at the moment >it is the highest-bandwidth component of much multimedia and is not easily >repurposed. > >Let's start without the assumption that what we do every day is accessible - >it may or may not be best practise. > >Chaals > >On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote: > > I did not include sound files as an equivalent for text, although > they can function that way, I don't think sound meets needs as well as > images .... (I am not referring to sound from speech readers, but sound > files on documents). Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 20:48:43 UTC