FW: Checkpoint 1.2 - handling comments

I sent this several days ago, but evidently sent it only to Wendy and not to
the entire list.  Apologies for the delay! And thanks to Wendy for catching


At 04:07 PM 12/5/02, you wrote:
>Wendy, thanks for compiling this-- extremely helpful.  Comments below-- 
>I've stripped out everything except for the item(s) I'm commenting on, 
>as per Greg's practice.
>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 jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
>web http://www.ital.utexas.edu
>Comment #1
>- WWAAC (via David Poulson and Colette Nicolle), 4 Nov 2002 [0] minimum 
>level success criteria #1: Wording of this section is unwieldy and 
>difficult to follow.
>- SAP (via Audrey Weinland), 31 Oct 2002 [9]
>Is this point talking about replacing the existing soundtrack with an 
>alternate audio, or having an alternate audio available in addition to 
>the existing soundtrack?
>Proposal #1
>Accept John Slatin's rewording (with Gregg Vanderheiden and Lee 
>input) of the minimum level success criterion #1 [1]:
>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 
>amount of available space available in the existing audio track.  It 
>may also be impossible or inappropriate to freeze the  audio/visual 
>program to insert additional audio description.
>[js editorial only: "... Available space available..." should be 
>""space available" ] ==========
>Comment #3
>IBM (via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002 [8]
>Benefits: The Note ends with a sentence that sounds like a success
>criteria: "Where possible, provide content so that it does not require 
>dual, simultaneous attention or so that it gives the user the ability 
>to effectively control/pause different media signals."
>Proposal #3
>Accept Andi Snow-Weaver's proposal (that reflects mailing list and 
>discussion) [3] of a new success criterion at level 3:
>3. The presentation does not require the user to view captions and the
>visual presentation simultaneously in order to understand the content.
>[js:] I'd suggest changing "view captions" to "read captions"-- reading is
>more complex activity than viewing.
>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.
>[js] I agree with this proposal, and *strongly* endorse use of active 
>voice! Sentences in active voice are (usually) easier to read and make 
>it easier for readers to figure out who does what to whom.  They're 
>also easier to control when you write them!
>Comment #9
>- Diane Dent, 21 Oct 2002 [6]
>level 2 success criterion #1 seems to be missing a word.
>- IBM (via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002 [8]
>Level 2 success criterion #1 should be moved to Level 3
>Proposal #9
>No change proposed.
>Rationale: Diane and Andi commented on the 22 August draft.  In the 28 
>August draft this criterion was reworded. While we might be able to 
>write it more clearly, I don't believe it is missing a word nor that it 
>should be moved to level 3. It currently reads, "the audio description 
>has been reviewed and is believed to 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)."
>[js] I'd suggest changing the wording here to match the new proposed 
>wording for the checkpoint.  I also suggest deleting everything from 
>"...to the extent possible" to the end of the sentence.  Rationale: 
>reviewers are responsible for determining whether the audio description 
>is sufficient, not whether it might have been technically possible to 
>freeze the video.  If reviewers say the description isn't adequate, it 
>would then be up to the developers/authors to figure out if they could 
>freeze the video to drop in expanded description.
>[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0135.html
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0306.html
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0127.html
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0159.html
>[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0239.html
>[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0020.html
>[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0076.html
>[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0111.html
>[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0117.html
>[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0130.html
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative

Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 17:15:45 UTC