RE: REwrite of 1.1.6

Its fine if people want to create extended audio descriptions...but they
have absolutely no obligation to do that under our guidelines. 

 

But if they want to do that, it is fine to introduce code to jump *over*
audio descriptions. However, I don't think users who want to use
descriptions should be required jump *to* the descriptions and then back
again to the captions hundreds of times just to read the descriptions. That
would be like reading a novel while turning on and off the light - a
degraded experience.

 

It's hard for me to imagine an organization that would create extended
descriptions to help blind people and then require them to go through the
experience of jumping back and forth every couple of sentences just to get
to them. To me that is counter intuitive.

 

If they want to create extended descriptions, great, put a "skip over" link
for those who don't want to read them. Our current wording completely allows
that. But I don't think we should make people who do want to use
descriptions suffer by adding all kinds of unnecessary keystrokes just to
get to the information.

 

Regards

David MacDonald

.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.

www.eramp.com

  _____  

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:27 AM
To: David MacDonald; Andrew Kirkpatrick; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; WCAG
Subject: Re: REwrite of 1.1.6

 

David, I would potentially expect our transcript to contain collated
captions and extended audio descriptions, that is, all the information
needed to understand the visuals, not just the amount of information that
can fit in the gaps of the dialog in the audio. And for something like a
physics class, which is presenting complex visual encodings of information,
the audio description part might well be something you'd like to skip over
when scanning for some specific piece of information.

I think the goal here is not to require any specific representation of the
information, but to be sure the information is available. I think any
"text-based" representation which is an accessible equivalent to the content
should satisfy, whether it is a plain text transcript, a marked-up html
version of the information that could contain skip links, or a version where
there is a web-like representation of the text with links to pieces of the
content. 

Loretta


On 2/11/06 7:57 AM, "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca> wrote:

>>What's the longest description you've needed to wade through?  That might
be a factor...

It depends.The end of the movie "Apocalypse Now" had long periods of no
dialogue.In that case there would be quite a bit of description between the
dialogue. Audio descriptions are limited to the available space between
dialogue so they are generally short.
 
In your example of the online professor.the descriptions would be generally
very short.especially in a lecture series. and descriptions are limited to
the space between the dialogue on the video. I've never seen a professor who
doesn't talk much in a class. (oops sorry Gregg :-) )
 
I would also suggest that the example is not "equivalent" to that of a
sighted person but rather "enhanced" because sighted people sit through the
descriptions in the video, unless they hit the fast forward button.
 
If we want to create that kind of "enhanced" experience of skipping the
descriptions then I suggest put the burden on the person who wants the
enhanced experience by putting in "skip description" links (like a skip nav)
that the user can use to bounce over the descriptions. (kind of like the
sighted person who would have to hit fast forward)
 
That way the default presentation includes the descriptions (without having
to bounce around) and the enhanced version allows the user to skip over it
with a link. 



David MacDonald



  


  _____  



From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
<mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu%5d>  
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:21 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6

Yes, I see what you are saying.    But I'm not sure what value having the
captions without the description would be?  



Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9> <http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9> 




  _____  



From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
<mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5d>  On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:04 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6
Not everyone will want to read the descriptions intermixed with the
captions.  As a result, while it is fine to say that these different types
of information should be mixed together, it may not create the best
experience.  one method that would allow users to have easy access to the
descriptions within a transcript would be to link to the descriptions (the
descriptions could be in the same file, or even in a separate file) instead
of to include the description text directly. This way, the user could listen
to the description if desired, and skipped more easily.

The reason I mentioned this was that your suggested rewrite to 1.1.6 could
potentially make this technique insufficient to satisfy the requirement, and
I want to make sure that this would be allowed.

Is that more clear?

AWK


  _____  



From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
<mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu%5d>  
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:53 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6

I don't understand this suggestion.
 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9> <http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9> 




  _____  



From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
<mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5d>  On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:38 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6
Gregg,

Proposed
 
 
1.1.6 For prerecorded multimedia content, a combined document containing
captions  <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#captionsdef>
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#captionsdef> intermixed with
the audio description
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#audiodescdef>
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#audiodescdef>  transcripts
is available. [How to meet 1.1.6
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060117/Overview.h
tml#text-equiv-text-doc>
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060117/Overview.h
tml#text-equiv-text-doc> ]

This sounds fine to me, but I think that we should make sure that we accept
the case where a transcript includes links to audio descriptions
interspersed, as an alternative to the actual description text.    For
example:

Transcript:
This is the first spoken transcript text. This is more transcript.  (<a
href="#desc1">description 1</a>).  This is more transcript.  Blah blah
blah....

Descriptions:
<a name="desc1" id="desc1">1. </a>This is the first description

This would improve the experience for many users,and while it is untested,
I'd like to make sure that it is acceptable to use.

AWK