- From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 06:23:38 -0500
- To: <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>
- Cc: <ehansen@ets.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>
I DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT, "I don't think the Priority levels are too influenced by how easy they are to accomplishas priorities." As priorities are to be a requirement and enforceable, we want to ensure there is buy-in from the user community and ensure this can be implemented. Or else many people will say this is an undue burden - despite the previous discussions on who can claim this and who cannot. The proposal that I suggest is something that needs to be defined and easily implementable. The toolsets and manpower are just not there yet and is something that can be tightened later. If you do not have user buy-in or raise the standard too high then you have set yourself up for failure. Transcripts is something every staff can do - you just listen and write the text. Whereas real media files are gaining aceptance there are other methods such as Windows Media Player, quick time, audio formats and other files, and not everyone will have the expertise to make captions and descriptions. Lets get the buy-in and acceptance first, rather that alienate the developer community and management. Therefore, I stand by previous statement and believe this to be reasonable and implementable: Priority 1 Transcripts and these can have descriptions (for mulimedia and audio files) Priority 2 Captions Priority 3 Caption with Descriptions /rob
Received on Monday, 6 December 1999 06:31:45 UTC