- From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:09:10 -0500
- To: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Here's a follow up on the interpretation of 1.3 and 2.4, and whether we should require Headings etc in level 1 of 1.3 Level 1 SC1 I've been speaking with blind users about how feel about the use of headings. Headings are a fundamental way that many blind users navigate, not just a nice extra, more so than in 1999. Headings are easy to program and do not change the default presentation of a site. I think we could put them in Level 1. David MacDonald .Access empowers people .barriers disable them. www.eramp.com -----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 2:19 PM To: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: 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 22:09:27 UTC