- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:21:28 +0000 (UTC)
- To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- cc: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> 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--
Indeed.
> Possibility #2: this In recognition of the fact that captions and audio
> descriptions are *also* non-text content,
Captions are text.
> this item requires text alternatives for them.
Oh? When does that end?
page --> HTML --> multimedia object --> captions --> equivalent for
captions --> equivalent for equivalent for captions --> ... -->
equivalent(n) for equivalent(n-1) for captions
> 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,
Absurd. You can just read the damned captions. Why should I have to type
them out again?
And have you ever tried to read an unadorned file full of captions?
> and (2) transcripts of the audio descriptions.
Also absurd. Audio descriptions are *audio*, not text. Even the blind
members of the Working Group, who must surely have experience with audio
descriptions, continue to defend the lie that the true nature of
descriptions is the written word. It isn't.
Just forget about this second option, which is an *embarrassment*.
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2004 17:35:22 UTC