- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:12:43 -0500 (EST)
- To: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
- cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I propose that for this checkpoint the qualification be removed. Whether soeone has the money to provide captions and descritions (and therefore actually does it) is entirely a matter for policy makers to determine. The accessiblility need doesn't change at all, but in some cases it may be a considered policy decision to provide the option of claiming unjustifiable hardship as a reason not to meet the accessibility need. howeer in other cases this is not the case. Australian law requires that government provided services are accessible if it is technically feasible, and high cost is explicitly not allowed as grounds for not doing it. If this exclusion is kept then this checkpoint will not be suitable for policy in Australia and would need to be explicitly called out as such in Australian government information, whereas if it is left out the existing exclusions in policy that cover undue hardship will still mean it makes sense in other jurisdictions as well. cheers Charles On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, john_slatin wrote: >>====== >>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. >> >>==========
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 00:12:44 UTC