- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:57:32 -0600
- To: "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca>, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B01248EC9@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
David writes: <blockquote> 2) Server side delivery technique which allows descriptions to be turned off if desired. The current wording allows the creation extended descriptions and allows for a mechanism to be added for turning them off. Proprietary software manufacturers can also create their own techniques that would allow descriptions to be turned off. The current wording makes sure there is a version available where descriptions are delivered in a linear order without forcing keystrokes to be used after each caption. And I think that is a good thing. I don't think forcing screen reader users to jump around hundreds of times in a document is fair. It is heartbreaking to work with blind people with repetitive strain </blockquote> I'm sorry, but I don't understand. SC 1.1.6 (which is what this discussion is about) requires a single document containing the text of both the captions and the audio descriptions. As far as I know, this document is not presented by the media player-- it's completely separate from the multimedia presentation. There is nothing to turn on or off. Current media players allow the user to toggle captions and audio descriptions. What am I missing? John "Good design is accessible design." John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C 1 University Station G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/ <http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/> ________________________________ From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David MacDonald Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:46 pm To: 'Andrew Kirkpatrick'; 'WCAG' Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6 Andrew says: >> that's not exactly true, if someone wants to address 1.2.5 to reach level 3 they might need to. [extended descriptions] You are right. 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 would leave it as: 1.1.6 For prerecorded multimedia content, a combined document containing both captions <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#captionsdef> and transcripts of audio descriptions <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#audiodescdef> of video is available. [How to meet 1.1.6 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060117/Overvi ew.html#text-equiv-text-doc> ] And I would add 2 new advisory techniques. 1) Create "skip links" over descriptions in HTML 2) Server side delivery technique which allows descriptions to be turned off if desired. The current wording allows the creation extended descriptions and allows for a mechanism to be added for turning them off. Proprietary software manufacturers can also create their own techniques that would allow descriptions to be turned off. The current wording makes sure there is a version available where descriptions are delivered in a linear order without forcing keystrokes to be used after each caption. And I think that is a good thing. I don't think forcing screen reader users to jump around hundreds of times in a document is fair. It is heartbreaking to work with blind people with repetitive strain injury (RSI). I think we should be helping people with disabilities, rather than giving them compounded disabilities. The current wording allows all the flexibility necessary I would say. It says the combined document is available. It doesn't even say it is the default presentation. And it allows for extended descriptions and it allows for them to be turned off. David MacDonald ...Access empowers people ...barriers disable them... www.eramp.com ________________________________ From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:39 PM To: David MacDonald; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6 David, 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: 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 incorrect. 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. AWK 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/Overvi ew.html#text-equiv-text-doc> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060117/Overvi 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: 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
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 15:57:43 UTC