Re: Captions and audio descriptions

I'm not sure what a collated text alternative is.

While a collated text transcript (the term that I think we use for collating
the captions and audio description) would be sufficient, there may be other
acceptable text alternatives, depending on the content.

And it is definitely not synchronized, except at the granularity of the
multimedia object itself.

It might be easier to express this option if we hadn't split 1.1 and 1.2 for
multimedia. But I don't think we want to revisit that decision.


On 11/8/05 8:19 AM, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:

> 
> Hmm interesting
> The alternative would have to be synchronized or it doesn't fit under this
> guideline.
>    
> 
> How about  
> 
> <proposal>
> At level 1:
> 1. For prerecorded multimedia, one of the following is provided:
> * captions, or
> * a collated text alternative that conveys the same information as both the
> audio and video tracks of the multimedia.
> 
> 2. For prerecorded multimedia, one of the following is provided:
> * audio descriptions, or
> * a collated text alternative that conveys the same information as both the
> audio and video tracks of the multimedia.
> 
> At level 2:
> 1. Captions are provided for multimedia.
> 
> 2. Audio descriptions of video are provided for prerecorded multimedia.
> </proposal>
> 
> 
> I think this may work for audio description - in that it would provide
> roughly the same information.   However for Captions it would be much less
> unless much more information about visual track than is usually provided in
> audio descriptions was required.
> 
> 
> 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 Loretta Guarino Reid
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:59 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Captions and audio descriptions
> 
> 
> Michael, Yvette, and I took an action item at the last teleconference to
> propose "compromise" success criterion for captions and audio descriptions.
> 
> <proposal>
> 
> At level 1:
> 1. For prerecorded multimedia, one of the following is provided:
> * captions, or
> * text alternatives that convey the same information as the multimedia.
> 
> 2. For prerecorded multimedia, one of the following is provided:
> * audio descriptions, or
> * text alternatives that convey the same information as the multimedia.
> 
> At level 2:
> 1. Captions are provided for multimedia.
> 
> 2. Audio descriptions of video are provided for prerecorded multimedia.
> 
> </proposal>
> 
> Under this proposal, captions and audio descriptions are sufficient at
> either level, but required at level 2. At level 1, a complete text
> equivalent is a sufficient alternative to either captions or audio
> descriptions. 
> 
> Note that the text equivalent may need to be different from a transcription
> of captions or audio description, since the author cannot assume that the
> user is viewing the multimedia at the same time.
> 
> This proposal combines the success criteria for prerecorded and live
> captions into a single success criteria at level 2. For clarity in
> describing techniques, we may wish to continue to keep them separate.
> 
> Loretta
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 17:19:32 UTC