Re: The term "auditory description"

At 5:52 PM -0400 2001/7/05, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>speaking from the "i don't care what the hell you call it, just make sure
>it's there and that i can access it" camp, i vote to stick with "audio
>description" not because it is the current "buzzword", but for the reasons
>geoff cited in the post to the UA list -- it is a term that has made its
>way into a W3C technical recommendation... [...]

Good points.  Are there any reasons not to make the change?  (I
"feel" subtle differences myself between the two, but I think those
are a result of my unfamiliarity with the 'audio description' term,
and a good glossary could undoubtedly clear things up.)

UAAG takes the approach of using BOTH terms.  Might that be a good
and useful approach, or is it stronger to simply choose one or the
other?  (I think it probably is better to stick with one term here.)

>PS: [...] to my ears, "auditory
>description" sounds pretentious and clinical, but i'm sure that a good
>many of you would use the same adjectives to describe my posts, so take my
>2 cents (american) with as many grains of salt as you deem appropriate...

Dude, this is the W3C, we're -supposed- to sound pretentious and
clinical. ;)

I'm only half-joking here!  Any group which routinely says "user
agents" can't avoid opening itself up to charges of this type.

Kynn Bartlett <>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Tel +1 949-567-7006

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 20:22:38 UTC