- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:04:24 -0800
- To: "Roberto Ellero" <rellero@webaccessibile.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think we are all in agreement that captions and audio descriptions are more useful than the sort of text equivalent we are proposing. Keeping the current SC at level 1 is definitely still one option the group could adopt. This proposal was an attempt to find a middle ground for those who think that producing captions and audio descriptions is too difficult for level 1. The working group still needs to decide whether this is a change it wants to adopt. The text equivalent would be a replacement for the multimedia, not something that is used with it. Your example demonstrates why a text equivalent may be more complex than just a transcript of captions. I don't think requiring both a complete text equivalent and captions and audio descriptions at level 1 was being considered. If we are going to keep captions and audio descriptions at level 1, there is no need to require a text equivalent as well. Loretta Guarino Reid lguarino@adobe.com Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Roberto Ellero > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:27 PM > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: Re: Captions and audio descriptions > > > Loretta Guarino Reid: > > 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. > [...] > > > > Roberto Ellero: > > In my opinion, to evaluate this solution for L1 prerecorded multimedia, we > have to consider the real experience of the blind and deaf users. > > A very simple example: a short excerpt from Shakespeare's Richard III, Act > I, Scene 2. > > We have a video track and a sound track. > > The scenario is the following text: > > --------------------------- > > RICHARD > The self-same name, but one of > better nature. > > ANNE > Where is he? > > RICHARD > Here. > > (She spits at him) > > Why dost thou spit at me? > > ANNE > Would it were mortal poison, for > thy sake! > > RICHARD > Never came poison from so sweet a > place. > > --------------------------- > > In this MP3 file you listen to the jaws' synthesis of the text (= text > alternative that convey the same information as the multimedia): > > http://www.robertoellero.it/jaws_richard.mp3 > > Otherwise it is possible to put as text alternative (same function of > synch. audio description) the only original caption, "(She spits at him)", > but obviously it is not easy to understand the exact > position of it, while listening to the original sound track. > > Very frustrating experience. > > In this MP3 file you listen to the original sound track with the audio > caption added with MAGpie (= audio description synchronized): > > http://www.robertoellero.it/richard_soundtracks.mp3 > > I think the first file (text alternative) is a good solution for 1.1, not > for 1.2 ("requirements for > *synchronized* alternatives for multimedia"). > > So the solution for prerecorded multimedia, in my opinion, is both the > following is provided: > audio descriptions (continuous equivalent) *and* text alternative that > convey the same information as the multimedia. > > The same for deaf people, but notice that what is lost in the first MP3 - > for a blind user - is intonation, nuances, expressivity, rhythm, and what > is > lost in a not synchronized text alternative > (instead of captioning) - for a deaf user - is the impossibility to > associate the captions with what is happening in the video track. > > (Accessibility Features of SMIL, W3C NOTE 21 September 1999) > http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL-access/ > "A presentation may occupy multiple sensory channels (eyes, ears, and > touch) > in parallel. Any content, including alternative content, that is presented > to a given sense must be coordinated to ensure > that it remains intelligible when rendered with other content meant for > that > sense. [...] This does not mean creating a > great number of separate presentations but rather one integrated and > accessible presentation." > > As I've already said, I think the better solution is to maintain captions > and audio descriptions to L1. > > Best regards, > Roberto Ellero > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 21:04:04 UTC