RE: Checkpoint 1.2 - handling comments

Comments below marked GV: 

 

Thanks again for all the work Wendy.

 

(again - items not commented on are removed)

 

 

 

Gregg

 

 -- ------------------------------ 

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

 

 

 

==========

 

Proposal #4

Accept John Slatin's rewording of the definition of audio description
[2]:

  audio descriptions are equivalents of visual information from actions,


body language, graphics, and scene changes.  Audio descriptions are
voiced 

(either by a human or

a speech synthesizer) and synchronized with the multimedia presentation.

 

GV: add

NOTE: per checkpoint 1.1, the visual information should also be provided
in text.

 

==========

 

Proposal #5

Accept John Slatin's rewording of the Note that appears in the Benefits
[2]:

Note: Time-dependent presentations requiring people to use a single
sense 

to follow two or more things at the same time may present significant 

barriers to some users. Depending on the nature of the of presentation,
it 

may be possible to avoid scenarios where, for example, a deaf user would
be 

required to watch an action on the screen and read the captions at the
same 

time. However, this would not be achievable for live broadcasts (e.g. a 

football game). Where possible, provide content so that it does not
require 

tracking multiple simultaneous events with the same sense, or give the
user the

ability to effectively control different media signals independently.

 

GV: suggest we change last sentence to end.   "or give the user the
ability to freeze the video so that captions can be read without missing
the video."    

 

It is not necessary to make this general.  Information is not presented
auditorally simultaneously.    It is a visual problem only.
(Simultaneous tactile???)

 

Allowing independent control of media streams raises synchronization
questions. 

 

==========

 

Proposal #6

Accept Andi Snow-Weaver's new example [3].   need to clarify that this
is 

not an example of minimum level conformance, but of level 3.  do we need
to 

label other examples?

Example 4: a cooking video (level 3).

A cooking video shows a chef preparing a recipe. The chef describes the 

ingredients and the process for each step and then performs the step. In


this manner, deaf users can read the voice captions first and then watch


the demonstration.

 

 

GV: I suggest we remove this example.  Most all cooking shows can be
watched with captions without problem.  

 

I think this is too much discussion of something which does not arise
very much.  I think we should keep it brief.

 

==========

 

Comment #7

Ian Jacobs, 06 Oct 2002 [5]

Normative exclusions appear in provisions 2, 4, and after 6. (refer to 

comments on exclusions and inclusions)

 

Proposal #7

No change proposed at this time.

Rationale: Need more research. It is not clear that moving all of the 

exceptions to one spot will make the success criteria easier to 

understand.  It could decrease understandability if people do not easily
or 

correctly identify the exceptions with the criteria.  The exceptions
might 

also be ignored if not included with the criteria.

 

GV:  I agree that the exceptions should stay near what they refer to.
Otherwise the success criteria can easily be lifted without the
exceptions and create much confusion.  

 

 

==========

 

Comment #8

Ian Jacobs, 06 Oct 2002 [5]

(level 2 success criterion #3) "for all live broadcasts that are 

professionally produced." The term "professional" is subject to much 

interpretation. Does this mean "high quality" or "for money"?

 

Proposal #8

reword to: provide captions and audio descriptions for live,
commercially 

produced broadcasts.

Rationale: From what I remember, we were trying to target live
broadcasts 

where it is feasible (i.e., the producer could afford) to provide
real-time 

captioning.  Also, there are several comments about writing criteria in 

active voice, so I attempted that, also.

 

GV:  in making it active it also became imperative.  It needs to stay
declarative.

 

I think that would be 

 

Captions and audio descriptions are provided for live commercially
produced broadcasts. 

 

But a grammarian should check this.

 

==========

 

==========

 

Comment #13

SAP (via Audrey Weinland), 31 Oct 2002 [9]

level 3 success criterion #1: How is {a text document (a "script")...} 

different from a transcript? This would be much easier to meet than the 

current minimum criteria

 

Proposal #13

Reword level 3 success criterion #1 as:

provide a text document that merges all audio descriptions and captions 

into a single transcript (in WCAG 1.0 referred to as a "collated text 

transcript").

Rationale: This attempts to clarify what goes into the text document and


for people  familiar with WCAG 1.0 uses the old terminology.

 

GV:  I think we should stick with script.   Transcript is almost
universally interpreted as the audio information only.    I think we
could say  "into a collated script (which provides dialog, important
sounds and important visual information in a single text document)."

 

Also,  what is really desired I think, is a script, with all important
visual information, not just the visual information that could be
crammed in between the dialog.     Though I think the above suggested
wording is sufficient.  

 

==========