

RE: HELP!!!! with priority #1.3

From: Steven McCaffrey <SMCCAFFR@MAIL.NYSED.GOV>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:06:12 -0500
Message-Id: <sa34df63.057@MAIL.NYSED.GOV>
To: <alice.anderson@doit.wisc.edu>, <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
 There is a description of text (and non-text) equivalents with examples in the WCAG glossary under "equivalent" and my screen reader at least tells me there is a "definition of text equivalent"

Steve McCaffrey
Senior Programmer/Analyst
Information Technology Services
New York State Department of Education
New York State Workgroup on Accessibility to Information Technology 
Web Design Subcommittee 

>>> "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov> 12/11/00 08:55AM >>>
Dear Alice,

Your message prompted me to notice that the WCAG glossary does not define
either "auditory description" nor "textual equivalents".  Clearly this is an

Textual equivalent (in the context of this discussion) means the transcript
of an audio (or video) presentation.  In many cases, especially dramatic
presentations, textual equivalence is more than just the words which are
spoken, and does need to be fairly descriptive.  The term "audio
description" is something quite different, has nothing to do with text, and
has a specific meaning.

Audio description is a technique of incorporating additional spoken
narrative on a movie's sound track.  By definition then, audio description
IS in time with the presentation, so keeping it synchronized is NOT an
issue.  For a web example, you might take a look at URL:
<http://main.wgbh.org/wgbh/access/dvs/dvsclip.html> (which also includes the
textual equivalent).

Checkpoint 1.3 reads as it does because there is still no technology would
allow text (in any form) to be exposed to a screen reader in time with a
multimedia presentation.  Since there is not a way for an end user to create
dynamic audio description (using speech synthesis and a textual equivalent),
1.3 is basically a requirement for content providers to offer a sound track
incorporating audio description whenever they post multimedia.

Checkpoint 1.4 refers really just to captioning -- since audio description
is synced.  (Although, I guess, it would be theoretically possible NOT to be
synchronized -- but that would be MORE work!  There are plenty of examples
of bad or poorly done audio description.  But, just as there are plenty of
example of badly done web pages, that is not a WCAG checkpoint violation!)

Bruce Bailey

> Behalf Of Alice Anderson
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:53 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org 
> Subject: HELP!!!! with priority #1.3
> Can anyone on the list help with this discussion? thanks in advance.
> No..actually this still doesn't clarify it for me..I read that info
> online, too...which at least helped me to guess that 1.4 referred to
> syncying. But what I still don't understand..text equivalents INCLUDE
> auditory descriptions...SO how does including auditory 
> descriptions help
> when the priority states that some user agents can't read them
> automatically? And what are they referring to when they talk 
> about text
> equivalents if not auditory descriptions?  And if user agents don't
> automatically read them, how does adding additional text equivalents
> solve anything?  And Why would you need an additional 
> priority to tell you
> that these auditory descriptions need to be in sync?
> In my mind, 1.3 is still trying to say something 
> different..and I don't
> really know what...
> snip
Received on Monday, 11 December 2000 15:05:59 GMT
