- From: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:43:39 -0700
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Dear all, I would caution about making sweeping generalizations about audio formats and about their utility. It is also important to look at the specific application and goals and then determine the correct approach. For example, if you are trying to provide not only basic access, but a fantastic reading experience, you may choose to produce an audio version using the DAISY specifications (www.daisy.org). If you can produce the full text and full audio using a talented narrator, , this provides a fantastic reading experience. Reading poetry with synthetic speech is not nearly as good as listening to a well done audio presentation. Many types of literature benefit from this approach. I would agree that having the text, produced using the WAI guidelines in XHTML for Web based delivery is a great approach. Other types of materials may benefit by using a different XML vocabulary. The DAISY specifications are based on W3C standards and use SMIL as the foundation for the synchronization. six types of publications are described. One type is the text with the navigation model; Bookshare.org uses this approach. Many organizations have volunteers available to do narration, but do not have the full text; this is the case for Recording For the Blind & Dyslexic rfbd.org. Some documents, like a dictionary benefit by having much of the material as text and portions, such as the pronunciation of words, captured with audio. It would be great if the full text and full audio could be there most of the time, but choices have to be made considering all the factors. If we are talking about forms, Al's posting from a few days ago sounded like a good approach to explore. The DAISY specifications have not included forms or interactive completion of content (workbooks) as of yet, but work continues in expanding the scope of material covered by DAISY's work. Hope this helps. Best George Best George -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 9:02 PM To: Webmaster@EDD Cc: 'Jonathan Chetwynd'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: Re: Audio formats Without doing a serious assessment of your particular project it is impossible to give an answer I am certain of. But in general, recording the text as audio is a poor way of improving accessibility for people with visual impairments. Many will not get any benefit at all, many will get minimal benefit. If this is done at the expense of providing a good navigable structure (this can be done in recorded audio but is difficult, and for general accessibility must be available in a non-audio form), clear communication, or other important facets of accessibility, then you will be doing an overall disservice to people with visual impairments. You also put yourself at risk of doing a very significant disservice if you rely on the recorded audio to convey any information, or if it is not absolutely accurate as a representation of your content. On the other hand you are likely to help people with significant intellectual disabilities, if you have high-quality recorded audio available as they browse the content. Sites that do this include Mencap - http://www.mencap.org.uk - and Peepo - http://www.peepo.com These sites are not directed at people with visual impairment, but at people with intellectual disabilities. Can you explain more about why your customers believe there is value in recorded audio? It may be that I am missing something particular to your case. cheers Chaals On Tuesday, Feb 11, 2003, at 03:26 Australia/Melbourne, Webmaster@EDD wrote: > I am wondering about the potential for what Chaals referred to as > "dubious > benefit" to be gained by a deployment of textual content in a recorded > audio > format. I understand the benefit of real-time text-to-speech > conversion > through the use of screen reader technology. I believe content that is > tagged correctly probably provides the overall best solution to the > problem > of accessibility for visually impaired end-users, but my customers are > asking for recorded audio. > > My customers believe there is value in providing recorded audio > versions of > textual content. > > I would like to know whether or not recorded audio is something I > should be > looking at as a viable way of improving accessibility of web content. > > I would like to know whether or not anyone is using recorded audio, > especially with the goal of improving accessibility for visually > impaired end-users... and I'd like to hear how it went/is going. > > Thanks > sb > > > >> 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 >> > > -- Charles McCathieNevile charles@sidar.org Fundación SIDAR http://www.sidar.org
Received on Sunday, 16 February 2003 09:42:36 UTC