RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7)

Yvette writes:

<blockquote>
I agree with John here. We're setting the bar for what's accessible.
Radio
broadcasts without transcripts aren't accessible, and our guidelines
shouldn't allow them to claim otherwise. 

But that doesn't mean we require talk radio stations to transcribe
everything. It's up to policy makers to decide which content should
conform
at which level: for example 10% of broadcasts need to conform to at
least
level 1. For a 24-hour talk radio station, it might be that only their
news
items are transcribed and the rest of their broadcasts are not made
accessible. This could explained in a conformance statement where the
majority of the broadcasts are scoped out. 
</blockquote>

Agreed! Yvette makes a very important point about scoping here, and I
think it's a point that our documents need to make as well: that a
conformance claim needn't cover every page of a large site-- unless a
government or some other policy body requires that certain sites conform
in every respect.

As with baseline, we may want to provide some guidance about principled
ways of scoping-- that is, ways that organizations can use scoping to
serve customers and clients with disabilities while also meeting the
needs of the organizations themselves.

John


"Good design is accessible design." 
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 Yvette Hoitink
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:06 am
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7)



John Slatin wrote:
> 
> <blockquote>
> Joe writes:
> <blockquote>
> So you want 24-hour talk-radio stations to spend millions of
> dollars every year posting transcripts several days after the fact?
> 
> </blockquote>
> 
> Sorry: my first response was stupid and I apologize.
> 
> The answer, though, is that *if* a 24-hour talk radio station
> archives its broadcasts and posts them to the Web, and *if* 
> that station wants to claim conformance to WCAG 2.0, then 
> yes, I want them to post transcripts.  It's do-able.  NPR 
> does it. Voice of America does it.
> 
> I know those aren't 24-hour talk radio stations.
> Nevertheless, I do think those transcripts should be required 
> *if* the station wants to claim conformance.
> 

I agree with John here. We're setting the bar for what's accessible.
Radio
broadcasts without transcripts aren't accessible, and our guidelines
shouldn't allow them to claim otherwise. 

But that doesn't mean we require talk radio stations to transcribe
everything. It's up to policy makers to decide which content should
conform
at which level: for example 10% of broadcasts need to conform to at
least
level 1. For a 24-hour talk radio station, it might be that only their
news
items are transcribed and the rest of their broadcasts are not made
accessible. This could explained in a conformance statement where the
majority of the broadcasts are scoped out. 

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl

Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 13:18:01 UTC