- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:38:19 +1100
- To: "Webmaster@EDD" <web@edd.ca.gov>
- Cc: "'Jonathan Chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Yep, I have heard of it. A university in Australia did it five or six years ago. It wasn't an overall success then for two types of reason. One problem was that it gets in the way of people using voice output already, so they don't like it. The other problem is that they actually put some audio there instead of text, which doesn't help anyone who can't hear web content (including but not restricted to people who are Deaf), and in trying to rectify that things fell out of date. Providing conflicting information is a problem for everyone, but particularly for people who had relied on the wrong version... I have heard of it done since then, with the same problems. It's actually a fairly common approach, and in my opinion it is the wrong solution for the wrong problem. It creates problems for the people you are trying to help, and I believe it is not a good solution for the people that it can help (people with cognitive disabilities cheers Chaals On Wednesday, Feb 19, 2003, at 03:39 Australia/Melbourne, Webmaster@EDD wrote: > I've never heard of anyone anywhere ever using recorded audio versions > of > written content in an effort to improve accessibility for the visually > impaired community. > > Was wondering if anyone else has. > -- Charles McCathieNevile charles@sidar.org Fundación SIDAR http://www.sidar.org
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 23:38:14 UTC