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. 

that's not exactly true, if someone wants to address 1.2.5 to reach
level 3 they might need to. 

	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.  

I've proposed this idea based on conversations I've had with a blind
user of audio description.  I don't think that it should always be used,
but it has its place, and not always as an enhanced version.  The
likelihod that we'll see multiple versions of audio descriptions
approaches zero.  I'd like the guideline to read something like:


1.1.6 For prerecorded multimedia content, a combined document presenting
captions and audio description transcription information in a manner
that allows users to access the information in linear order.
I probably don't have the words right, but I don't think that when the
best information we have is either anecdotal or "mesearch" that the WCAG
should be precluding viable techniques.

	 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. 

We need better data from users before declaring that counter intutive is

	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.

I'm not suggesting that this will be the only way, or even the most
common way, just that it shouldn't be prohibited.






	David MacDonald

	...Access empowers people
	            ...barriers disable them...


[] On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino Reid
	Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:27 AM
	To: David MacDonald; Andrew Kirkpatrick; 'Gregg Vanderheiden';
	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. 
	On 2/11/06 7:57 AM, "David MacDonald" <> 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 []
		Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:21 PM
		To: Andrew Kirkpatrick;
		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 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  <>


[] <>
On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
			Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:04 PM
			To: Gregg Vanderheiden;
			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?


				From: Gregg Vanderheiden
[] <>  
				Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:53 PM
				To: Andrew Kirkpatrick;
				Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6
				I don't understand this suggestion.
				 -- ------------------------------ 
				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  <>


[] <>
On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
				Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:38 AM
				Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6

				1.1.6 For prerecorded multimedia
content, a combined document containing captions
<>  intermixed
with the audio description
transcripts is available. [How to meet 1.1.6
ew.html#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:
				This is the first spoken transcript
text. This is more transcript.  (<a href="#desc1">description 1</a>).
This is more transcript.  Blah blah blah....
				<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.



Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 02:39:13 UTC