RE: Captions and audio descriptions

Because it would be ambiguous i didnt use the word synchronized in the sc.

Collated could also be dropped as long as alternative is singular.  It would
be of no benefit for the audio transcript to be in one file and the video
description in another.   That was all I was attempting to prevent with the
suggestion. 

That would make it 

 <proposal
 At level 1:
 1. For prerecorded multimedia, one of the following is provided:
 * captions, or
 * a single 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 single 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

 
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 11:19 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 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 18:52:47 UTC