RE: Question about Alternative Means

Hi Sam,
 
I think it's best to consider these questions in a longer timeframe and
wider context than "What can I do to fix the mess I'm in right now?" (which
obviously does deserve some attention). For example:
 
1.       Your site uses an inaccessible media player. Who provides that
player? Do they have an accessible version that would easily fit into your
site's codebase? Do your developers understand the accessibility issues
behind media players, and have they/can they do some research on your
near-term and long-term options? 
2.       You use an inaccessible video that you don't own. Who owns it? Are
they aware of the accessibility issue, and willing to add captions and
description? Would they welcome or permit you to do that, and re-distribute
it to their other outlets?
3.       What's the timeline on the next refresh of the site, and how can
you factor accessibility into it, and beyond, as part of your site's
development process? 
4.       What's the buy-in from executives and other decision makers and
influencers on accessibility? You probably already know that accessibility
is a big deal in all the federal HIT initiatives as well as consumer-driven
advocacy on this issue. KP is a very visible entity, in a state known for
aggressive advocacy. You can count on some attention.
 
There are probably other process-oriented touchpoints. So I think we'd all
encourage you to think in wider terms, if the current situation allows you
to.
 
***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.908.907.2387 v/sms
skype jimtobias
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Sam.Choi@kp.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 1:39 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Question about Alternative Means
 

Hi, 

We are working on remediating some older sites and have run across some
videos and flash elements that are not accessible. 

A tester has pointed out that the video has some controls in it for a
sighted user that are unlabeled, so a visually disabled user would not be
able to use them. 

We have proposed creating a transcript of the video, but the tester has
objected, saying that a transcript is inadequate for the following reasons: 

1)  A user with low vision or with difficulty with fine motor skills would
not be able to use the buttons to control the video -- and ought to be able
to do so. 

2)  A transcript is inadequate because a deaf user might not be able to
synchronize what is being said with who, in the video, is saying it --
captions should be added. 

Our problem is that we did not create the video and do not have copyright of
the video.  It would legally questionable for us to modify them. 

What I am having some difficulty with is this: 

Why is a transcript not adequate?  I am not an attorney, but when I read the
actual law, it seems pretty clear.  In the case of undue burden on
development or remediation, an alternative means to the content is
sufficient. 

So ... in my layman's translation of this ... if we provide an elevator or
ramp (the transcript), why do we have to do anything further with the stairs
(the video)? 

Opinions?  Discussion? 

Cheers, 
Sam Choi
(626) 381-6107 - office
8-331-6107 - tieline
(626) 660-6409 - cell

Crux Status: http://wiki-tech.kp.org/mediawiki/index.php/CRUX_R4
Crux DPL: http://10.209.148.133/
Crux Home: http://wpc.tic.ca.kp.org/dpl/crux/index.shtml
UX Governance:
http://wiki-tech.kp.org/mediawiki/index.php/Uxgovernancegroup#UX_Governance_
Group

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,
you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing
its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and
any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.  Thank you.