W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Audio formats

From: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:43:39 -0700
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001001c2d5c9$ccbaeb60$0300000a@dell>

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.



-----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.



On Tuesday, Feb 11, 2003, at 03:26 Australia/Melbourne, Webmaster@EDD 

> 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
> 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
>>>> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:13 UTC