- From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 08:23:26 +0000
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Cc: web@edd.ca.gov, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Chaals you miss out on a valuable possibility. The work of reading the text is not 'expensive' if the people involved benefit from the experience, and find it empowering. This will also like auditing, provide a first pass on the readability of the text, which other processes generally will not. Ask children whether they prefer an audio tape by a well known and good reader, or a screen reader, and you have you answer. The assumption that a mechanical reproduction of a voice is superior, because the data is 'accessible' is misplaced. They are a separate and useful activity. Jonathan On Sunday, February 9, 2003, at 05:47 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > Yes, DAISY talking books are a technology that enables reasonably > useful audio presentation - particularly if combined with well > marked-up text to start with (the full text enables searching, the > markup makes production easier). > > VoiceXML also provides a reasonably effective approach to managing > interactions with Voice output. Although it is not yet mature with > respect to mixed input (using browsers that have voice output and > text/voice input, for example) it should be practicable to do this. > And it probably makes sense to make the effort - if you can get hold > of some help for a browser. > > But all of these are optimisations made by providing a second version. > Overall it seems to be of minor additional benefit. > > Just using recorded audio and expecting people to listen to it is > probably of dubious benefit - it often interferes with people's speech > technology. Since people need their speech systems running to get as > far as your pages, they are more likely to turn off your audio than > theirs - so you would be doing a lot of expensive recording that your > stated target audience aren't going to appreciate at all. > > Your advice on having decent structure seems to be more valuable in > this case. I would suggest there is little point just recording the > audio unless you have some expectation that the work will be done to > use it in a more advanced audio format provided (and of course > maintained) as an alternative version - a significant undertaking. > > cheers > > Chaals > > On Saturday, Feb 8, 2003, at 05:39 Australia/Melbourne, Madeleine > Rothberg wrote: > >> >> It sounds like you are considering producing audio books. You may be >> interested in the Digital Talking Book specification, which provides >> a way to mark up an audio book to have navigation within it. If the >> audio is combined with the full text of the book, then you have full >> text searching as well as audio playback. >> >> More info from DAISY at: >> http://www.daisy.org >> >> -Madeleine >> >> -- >> Madeleine Rothberg >> The CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media >> madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org >> http://ncam.wgbh.org >> (617) 300-2492 >> >> On Friday, February 7, 2003 1:04 PM, Webmaster@EDD <web@edd.ca.gov> >> wrote: >>> My department is working on ways to increase accessibility of our web >>> content. My advice has stressed the importance of document >>> formatting and >>> tagging that will ensure navigability/usability in conjunction with >>> screen >>> reader browsing software. I never considered audio files to be a >>> particularly effective format for improving accessibility of content >>> for the >>> visually impaired user. >>> >>> One program are would like to deploy audio versions of their >>> departmental >>> forms and manuals (some of which are 50+ pages in length), with the >>> rationale that visually impaired users can then "listen" to the >>> forms. I >>> don't consider this to be an effective use of audio technology, >>> however I >>> have also never seen it used in that way. > -- > Charles McCathieNevile charles@sidar.org > Fundación SIDAR http://www.sidar.org >
Received on Sunday, 9 February 2003 03:21:44 UTC