RE: 1.2: proposed rewording

I like the proposed rewording from "blank" to "available."  But it may
invite abuse unless we're careful to explain that the space is "available"
only if filling it doesn't interfere with what's in the surrounding space.
 
John
 
 

John Slatin, Ph.D. 
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning 
University of Texas at Austin 
1 University Station G9600 
FAC 248C 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 
email  <mailto:jslatin@mail.utexas.edu> jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/>  
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:26 pm
To: 'Lee Roberts'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: 1.2: proposed rewording



Hmmm

 

Good point.

 

How about changing "blank" to "available' space.

 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Lee Roberts
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:25 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: 1.2: proposed rewording

 

This is more of a comment toward the audio description.  On many Public
Broadcast shows the audio track for the the main content is blended with a
softer voice describing the scene and actions in the video portion.  That
then takes two tracks and then mixed into one track.  It also gives the
narrator the opportunity to hear the content audio and watch at the same
time.

 

This concept has been working rather well for a few years now.  Perhaps this
is something we should consider instead of "blank" space in the audio track.

 

Lee 

 

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:56 PM
To: 'john_slatin'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: 1.2: proposed rewording

I like this -but we can't leave the limits out of the checkpoint and just
put them in a note.

 

Hmmm

 

Maybe....something like this. (Edits marked in curly brackets.)

 

1.      an audio description is provided of all significant visual
information in scenes, actions and events that cannot be perceived from the
sound track alone {to the extent possible given sound track constraints}.

Note: When adding audio description to existing materials, the amount of
information conveyed through audio description is constrained by the {amount
of blank space available in} existing audio track.  It may also be
impossible or inappropriate to freeze the audio/visual program to insert
additional auditory description. 


Gregg

------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace, Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu

 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of john_slatin
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:25 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 1.2: proposed rewording

 

Current wording for checkpoint 1.2, success criterion 1, minimum level: 
1. an audio description is provided of all visual information in scenes,
actions and events (that can't be perceived from the sound track).

* The audio description should include all significant visual information in
scenes, actions and events (that can't be perceived from the sound track) to
the extent possible given the constraints posed by the existing audio track
(and constraints on freezing the audio/visual program to insert additional
auditory description). 

Proposed wording 

1.      an audio description is provided of all significant visual
information in scenes, actions and events that cannot be perceived from the
sound track alone.

Note: When adding audio description to existing materials, the amount of
information conveyed through audio description is constrained by the
existing audio track.  It may also be impossible or inappropriate to freeze
the audio/visual program to insert additional auditory description. 

Comment: 
I have moved the word "significant" from the first line of the bulleted item
into the success criterion itself, then deleted the first part of the
bulleted item since it was nearly identical to the success criterion.  I've
also tried to clarify what we say about the constraints on audio
description, by (a) noting that this note applies to audio description
*added to existing material* (i.e., material that doesn't make room for
audio description in the original script); I also broke up the sentence and
got rid of the parenthetical notes.  It's my hope that the result is more
closer to the kind of practice we're proposing for 4.1.

On the other hand, I may have omitted or obscured something essential
here... 

John  

 

John Slatin, Ph.D. 
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning 
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C, Mail code G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 
email  <mailto:jslatin@mail.utexas.edu> jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu> http://www.ital.utexas.edu