RE: proposed enhanced definition for caption

This is normative.

 

I think we should adopt the new definition with the word 'important' removed
if it is a problem.   I think that it is a useful word but if left out I
think captioning guides can be used to moderate sound effect captioning.  So
the safe thing may be to delete important and accept revised definition.

 

Lets put is on a survey next weeks meeting.  (or this week if we have a misc
survey).  

 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Tim Boland
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:17 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: proposed enhanced definition for caption

Is the proposed definition "normative" in any sense, or will it be used in
the context of a normative requirement?
   If so, then use of the word "important" in the proposed definition seems
somewhat subjective to me
and not objectively testable (if testability is an issue).    Would we lose
any meaning by taking the word "important" out?
What are the implications of taking the word "important" out?

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST



At 10:07 AM 1/31/2006 -0800, you wrote:




Based on conversations with Andrew Kirkpatrick:

<current>

Synchronized transcripts of dialogue and important sound effects. Captions
provide access to multimedia for people who are deaf or hard of hearing

</current>

<proposal>

Synchronized transcripts of dialogue and unspoken information such as
important sound effects and speaker placement and identification

</proposal>

Loretta Guarino Reid

lguarino@adobe.com

Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering