RE: Captions and audio descriptions

Ah, now I understand your concern. I agree that there needs to be only a
single file that is the equivalent of the multimedia. If we provide
suitable examples and sufficient techniques, is the following rewording
correct?

<new proposal>

At level 1:
1. For prerecorded multimedia, one of the following is provided:
* captions, or
* a text alternative that conveys the same information as the
multimedia.

2. For prerecorded multimedia, one of the following is provided:
* audio descriptions, or
* a text alternative that conveys 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.

</new proposal>

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:52 AM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: 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 19:19:19 UTC