- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:11:48 -0500
- To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Joe wrote: <blockquote> Hence I don't think the rest of John's formulation in his message is relevant for the simple reason that the criterion he's talking about is so badly worded it needs to be removed and replaced with something else. However: > <proposed> > D. Captions and audio descriptions required under guideline 1.2 are > provided in machine-readable form (e.g., as text); or </proposed> Oh, God, no. Bitmap captions are still captions, and how many times must I remind the Working Group that audio descriptions are *audio* and not text? </blockquote> Thanks, Joe. This is what I was trying to get at: I was having trouble understanding the intent of 1.1 L1 SC 1.D as it appears in the 30 July Working Draft. <current> D. Multimedia alternatives are provided according to guideline 1.2... </current> I'm trying to tease out what the current wording means and to find better wording based on a supposition about what I think it might mean. But evidently I didn't even manage to make *that* clear, so let me try again. Possibility #1: the current wording of 1.1 L1 SC1.D is merely a restatement of the 1.2 requirement for captions and audio descriptions. If this is correct, then the item should be deleted because it's redundant-- and because captions and audio descriptions aren't *text* alternatives of any kind-- and 1.1 deals explicitly and exclusively with text alternatives for non-text content. Possibility #2: this In recognition of the fact that captions and audio descriptions are *also* non-text content, this item requires text alternatives for them. the site would have to include one or more text documents to accompany multimedia presentations. These text documents include (1) "text alternatives" whose content is identical to the "bit-mapped captions" that appear in the video, , and (2) transcripts of the audio descriptions. At level 1, it would be permissible to provide these *text alternatives* in multiple documents, whereas at Level 3 they would have to be compiled in a single document. Item D was added to the list of 1.1 success criteria sometime after the call where 1.1 was revised [1]. I don't think I was on the call that day, so am not sure I've captured the intent of the item. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0829.html#start John
Received on Monday, 9 August 2004 17:11:49 UTC