- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 11:10:49 -0500
- To: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>, "Philipp Hoschka" <ph@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Actually I think the two document (one with the original video and sound, and the second with the synchonized captioning information) format is probably better, since it can be added later for an uncaptioned video and it allows the captioning presentation to be controlled by the user through the user agent. Jon At 10:17 AM 10/8/98 -0400, Denis Anson wrote: >>With the current SMIL standard would the author need to create two versions >>of their document, one with captions and the other without; or would the >>captioning be an add on to the original document so the user just turns it >>on or off? > >Regardless of what the current standard is, it ought to be a feature of a >single document that can be turned on and off. If the standard makes it >difficult to do the task right, most developers will take the easy >route,and decide that captioning isn't *that* important. > >Denis > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Voice: 217-244-5870 Fax: 217-333-0248 E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Thursday, 8 October 1998 12:12:12 UTC