- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:42:28 -0600
- To: "'Bailey, Bruce'" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This is already required. At level 2 you need to provide audio description. So if you are at level 3 and do the text -- you already passed the audio description requirement. 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 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bailey, Bruce Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:59 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: 1.1 level 3 SC > Or do we want to use the same 'screenplay' at L3 as at L1 ? I agree with John and Loretta that wording should be consistent between levels. > Since we have a strong text equivalent option for multimedia at 1.2 L1 - do we really want a weak one at level 3 of 1.1? How about requiring *both* Audio Description and full corrected screenplay at level 3? That is, for L1 the site has a choice of AD or screenplay. For L3 claim, site must provide both. This way, providing the full corrected screenplay does satisfy this particular SC at Triple A "for free". If the site is going for Triple A, they still have to do some extra work. Is there a need to further qualify that some kinds of video don't really benefit from Audio Description, and therefore AD is not required? Is it legitimate for a site with nothing but talking head type videos (captioned of course) to claim they satisfy Level 1? Or, since a talking head type video gains little from audio description, *must* a site provide full corrected screenplay to satisfy Level 1?
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 22:42:33 UTC