Re: 19 Jun 2003 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes

>           + Checkpoint 1.2, adding the text transcript to required sc is
>             basically making the required harder

Transcripts shouldn't be *required*.

> we were thinking that
>             if audio and captions are already required, then text
>             transcript is basically already done,

When you say "basically," how many Line 21 or WST caption files have you
attempted to convert to a manner of presentation *and markup* that would
make them intelligible as transcripts?

(The converse is actually also true: If you start out with a transcript
presented and marked up for reading as a printed or onscreen document, how
to you convert it to captions? Cf.
<http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter13.html#h3-1685>.)

>             to the required set.  If audio description goes away from
>             required sc, then text transcript will get moved along with
>             it to another checkpoint that is already extended, or will
>             get moved to its own extended checkpoint

Why are the terms "transcript" and "audio description" even appearing in
the same sentence? Transcripts of descriptions are a non-starter.
Descriptions must be *synchronized* with the video.

>           + Checkpoint 1.5, best practise #2 is not redundant because it
>             is saying that the content itself must present ways for the
>             user to manipulate structure.

Explain what that means, other than "Authors must code a system to let
visitors arbitrarily and randomly recode their HTML." Oh, and it's gotta
still meet the guidelines afer being recoded, right?

>             without completely taking the extended idea off the table?
>           + Checkpoint 1.6, best practise #2 - this is not required, but
>             it DOES simulate color-blind people, but not people who have
>             color deficiency.

For heaven's sake, colourblindness and colour deficiency ARE THE SAME
THING.

>  Gray scale is not the end of the line for
>             color deficiency, with different types falling on the way to
>             gray scale.

*Only* achromats (0.003% of the population) see in greyscale. *Nobody*
else does. The above *perpetuates* the Working Group's entrenched
misunderstanding of colour deficiency, which I have attempted to remedy
*at length* in writing *and* face-to-face.

Please, Working Group, GET A GRIP. How many times must you be corrected on
a falsehood before you finally quit reiterating the falsehood?

--

  Joe Clark  |  joeclark@joeclark.org
  Author, _Building Accessible Websites_
  <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>

Received on Saturday, 13 September 2003 14:08:27 UTC