- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:00:41 -0600
- To: "'Andrew Kirkpatrick'" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "'Katie Haritos-Shea'" <ryladog@earthlink.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
If the audio file isn't synchronized with the video - it wouldn't be a sufficient technique I wouldn't think. Anyone see a reason why it would ? Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:04 AM > To: Gregg Vanderheiden; Katie Haritos-Shea; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Cc: chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca > Subject: RE: (techs) Test 145 > > > > There are no 'non-associated' audio descriptions that I know of. > > Let's make sure that we're not saying the same thing here. > When I say non-associated audio description I mean that the > audio description in Katie's example appears to be offered as > a separate audio file, which I referred to as not being > associated with the primary media. It is, of course, > asociated in that it is presumably describing that media content. > > My objection is to having that be the only successful pass > example for this guideline. > > AWK > > > > > > > They are synchronized with the video. > > > > We do have a total text version of AV as an option but the video > > descriptions are text, not audio, and are much more extensive. > > > > > > Gregg > > -- ------------------------------ > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org > > > [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick > > > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:27 PM > > > To: Katie Haritos-Shea; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > > > Cc: chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca > > > Subject: RE: (techs) Test 145 > > > > > > > > > > Test 145 is in need of a passing example that incorporates a > > > > transcript or audio file: > > > > > > > > I suggest one that has both: > > > > > > > > 145-7.html Will pass the test. (Link to multimedia file > > > > (.mwv) with a text trancript and and audio file (mp3).) > > > > > > > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 > > > > Transitional//EN""http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> > > > > <html lang="en"> > > > > <head> > > > > <title>OAC Testfile - Check #145 - Positive</title> > > </head> <body> > > > > <p>View <a href="movie.wmv"> the movie </a>. Read the <a > > > > href="movie.txt">Transcript of the Movie</a> or get the <a > > > > href="movie.mp3">Audio Description of the Movie</a>. > > > > </p> > > > > </body> > > > > </html> > > > > > > Does this count? There is a transcript, but I don't think > > that WCAG > > > should be advocating for non-asociated audio descriptions. > > > > > > The problem is that you can't really tell without viewing > > the video or > > > (in the case of SMIL) parsing a meta file. Comments on > the existing > > > techniques: > > > > > > 145-1.html Will fail the test. (Link to multimedia file > > > (.wav) without a text equivalent.) > > > > > > <p>View <a href="movie.wmv">the movie</a>.</p> > > > > > > In 145-1 the text says ".wav" but the movie is a .wmv. I > > assume that > > > the .wmv is correct. If so, I would say that this requires > > > verification since there could be open captions or open audio > > > descriptions (in wmv that the only kind of audio > descriptions there > > > is). This is not an example of a "fail", just a "can't pass". > > > > > > 145-3.html Will fail the test. (Link to multimedia file > > > (.mpg) without a text equivalent.) > > > > > > Ditto for this one - not "fail", just "can't pass". > > > > > > 145-4.html Will fail the test. (Link to multimedia file > > > (.mov) without a text equivalent.) > > > > > > .mov can carry text and audio description information in the .mov > > > file. > > > This example is also not an outright failure. > > > > > > 145-5.html Will fail the test. (Link to multimedia file > > > (.ram) without a text equivalent.) > > > > > > Ram files are often used - they are just simple metadata > files for > > > realplayer that point to other files for the player to > > load. They are > > > useful when playing a smil file since it ensures that the > > smil will be > > > loaded by the realplayer, as the open command is > delivered via the > > > .ram directly to the real player. So, the .ram can point > > to a .smil > > > which may have captions/descriptions (or it could point > to an open > > > captioned/described file). As a result, this is not a good > > example of > > > a failure. > > > > > > 145-6.html Will fail the test. (Link to multimedia file > > > (.aif) without a text equivalent.) > > > > > > Sure, this fails. > > > > > > I assume that the list of "multimedia" file extensions is > > not final - > > > "Multimedia file extensions are .wmv, .mpg, .mov, .ram, and > > .aif.". > > > I'd add asf, swf, avi, rm, dv, flv, divx, 3gp, mp4, and > > others. I'd > > > probably remove .ram since it is just a metafile (if not then you > > > should add wmx and asx since they are equivalent for > windows media). > > > > > > AWK > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 20 November 2006 17:01:01 UTC