- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:26:09 -0500
- To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Gregg wrote: <blockquote> Didn't mean to move it. It used to be in 1.2 -- and since it is dealing with text alternative to multimedia - I talked about it being in 1.2 It can logically be in either. If we are putting all the multimedia clauses in 1.2 then maybe it should be moved to there. What do people think? Move the NON-multimedia alternatives to 1.1 and the multimedia alternatives to 1.2? We can't move all of 1.2 to 1.1 because audio description is not a text alternative. </blockquote> John replies: If there's consensus that multimedia should be treated in a separate guideline (currently 1.2), then I think we should move the requirement for a text including descriptions and transcripts to 1.2 Level 3. But I would argue that we *can* put the multimedia criteria under 1.1. The language I proposed for the top-level guideline uses the phrase "equivalent alternatives" (not "text equivalents" or "text alternatives"). The phrase "equivalent alternatives" also appears in WCAG 1.0 Guideline 1: <q>Guideline 1. Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content.</q> Using the phrase "equivalent alternatives" in the guideline allows two things that may be important: 1. Empty alt attributes (alt="" isn't exactly a *text* alternative); 2. Audio description So I think we could logically treat multimedia under 1.1. However, multimedia is big enough and messy enough that it may well be better to handle it in a guideline of its own, as we do now. But then everything that relates to equivalents for multimedia should be in the multimedia guideline. John "Good design is accessible design." Please note our new name and URL! John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C 1 University Station G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/ -----Original Message----- From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 10:03 am To: John M Slatin; 'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: New rewrite of Guideline 1.1 (action item) Sorry John, Didn't mean to move it. It used to be in 1.2 -- and since it is dealing with text alternative to multimedia - I talked about it being in 1.2 It can logically be in either. If we are putting all the multimedia clauses in 1.2 then maybe it should be moved to there. What do people think? Move the NON-multimedia alternatives to 1.1 and the multimedia alternatives to 1.2? We can't move all of 1.2 to 1.1 because audio description is not a text alternative. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:08 AM To: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG; Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: New rewrite of Guideline 1.1 (action item) I also agree with Gregg's suggestion that we add an explanatory phrase to the L3 success criterion. Gregg suggests the following wording: 1. For multimedia content, a separate text document is provided (similar to a play script ) that includes both descriptions of all important visual information and transcripts of dialogue and other important sounds. I think this is fine. But Gregg adds a new wrinkle by suggesting that this comes under Guideline 1.2-- currently it's under 1.1 Level 3. Gregg, are you proposing that we move this criterion to Guideline 1.2? I ask partly for clarification and partly because there's also been discussion about moving some or all of the success criteria currently under 1.2 into 1.1-- since multimedia is non-text content. Thanks! John "Good design is accessible design." Please note our new name and URL! John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C 1 University Station G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/ -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 8:36 am To: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: New rewrite of Guideline 1.1 (action item) Good. I agree with Gregg suggestion. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu> To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 3:30 PM Subject: RE: New rewrite of Guideline 1.1 (action item) Roberto This level 3 requirement would be a separate text document that contains BOTH the captions and the audio descriptions as text. it is like a script or a screen play. It is only level three and is intended for people with no usable hearing or vision. John - all -- we spend so much time re-explaining this one that I think we need to be very explicit about it. I suggest. 1.2 LEVEL 3 1. For multimedia content, a separate text document is provided (similar to a play script) that includes both descriptions of all important visual information and transcripts of dialogue and other important sounds. IN INFORMATIVE SECTION WRITE Example: For individuals who have limited vision and hearing a separate text document is provided (similar to a play script) that includes both descriptions of all important visual information and transcripts of dialogue and other important sounds. This is also useful to indexing engines. 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 Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 3:06 AM To: John M Slatin; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: New rewrite of Guideline 1.1 (action item) ----- Original Message ----- From: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 11:19 PM Subject: New rewrite of Guideline 1.1 (action item) Level 3 success criteria for Guideline 1.1 1. For multimedia content, a text document is provided that includes descriptions of all important visual information as well as transcripts of dialogue and other important sounds. Roberto Scano: Text documents could be, for eg, also captioning documents like RealText, QuickTime Text, SAMI? These are text files with markup... shall we consider them "text document" ? Otherwise this means that if we want to create captioning for a multimedia content we need to make: - captioning - external text file So, for eg, do u plan to do this? <object id="QT" classid="clsid:02BF25D5-8C17-4B23-BC80-D3488ABDDC6B" width="320" height="270"> <param name="src" value="magpie2_demo.qt.smil" /> <param name="autoplay" value="true" /> <param name="controller" value="true" /> <p><a href="transcript.html" title="full text transcript">Transcript for demo</a></p> <!-[if !IE]> -> <object id="QT" data="magpie2_demo.qt.smil" type="video/quicktime" width="320" height="270"> <param name="autoplay" value="-1" /> <param name="controller" value="-1" /> <p><a href="transcript.html" title="full text transcript">Transcript for demo</a></p> </object> <!- <![endif]-> </object>
Received on Monday, 21 June 2004 11:26:14 UTC