- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:54:35 -0400
- To: W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
- Cc: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren mentioned >> I was a in Dutch government media related meeting a little over a >> month ago and apparently there's a 100x increase in cost in getting >> already recorded videos accessible. In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0798.html Matt May responded > Who would > believe a 100x increase in effort for media accessibility? Actually, in some circumstances, I would. And I can certainly believe it is a frequent bogeyman. It may be worth a note from the PFWG with some guidance on what level of quality is required, and perhaps even pointers to a list of possible providers. For example, these "already recorded videos" may be recorded automatically by an unmanned camera (or by volunteers, or by school kids looking for experience) so that the only marginal cost is the indexing (as simple as "copy to filename yyyy-mm-dd under directory planning-commision/video/") and the bandwidth. Getting a transcript may well require a process designed for legal transcripts, because that was probably the only use considered back when the procedure was originally written. The apparent costs might change if the PFWG were to say something like: """ Automated speech-to-text programs are not sufficient in general, but are adequate to provide a first draft. These automated transcripts should be verified and corrected with the same level of attention used to edit the original source. In some cases, where raw video is posted without review, this may even mean no extra attention. If a responsible person pre-screens the video for appropriateness before posting, then a similarly responsible person should read through the transcript and make corrections. If the video is carefully edited with retakes for problematic portions, then the transcript should be carefully proof-read. """ -jJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 13:55:42 UTC