Even though I am content with things as they are now, I concur with Sean in that I am not wholly convinced that we are entirely consistent with the Levels assignment between text equivalents and captioning. I will try and be more lucid here than I was on the call. Specifically, 1.1.1 allows that text alternatives may merely provide descriptive identification of the non-text content when that non-text content is primarily intended to create a specific sensory experience. Well, even nominally educational/informational films are creating a visual experience, and the authors have chosen a visual medium for some rather fundamental, perhaps even primary, reason. So it seems rather uneven to allow that some sensory-oriented non-text context needs only descriptive identification (and nothing further, even at Double or Triple A) - but sensory-oriented synchronized media requires captions or audio description or full text alternatives. But I am not troubled enough by this flaw that I think it warrants changing SC!
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 14:28:55 UTC