07 Nov 2002 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes


Avi Arditti, Doyle B, Paul Bowman, Loretta Guarino Reid, Ken Kipnes, Matt Mirabella, Matt May, Lee Roberts, Cynthia Shelley, John Slatin, Andi Snow-Weaver,Gregg Vanderheiden, Jason White


Ben Caldwell
Wendy Chisolm
Preety Kumar
Gian Sampson-Wild
Roberto Scano
Eugenia Slaydon


Action Items

Gregg to post revisions generated by today's discussion to the list.
Andi to post revised level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2

Discussion of Andi's proposal for level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2

CS - I want to see the football (live broadcast) exception back in again
JW - But this is at level 3; it may not be necessary to exempt anything
GV - We might need to exempt anything live; but then what about a videotape?  better to have no exceptions?
CS - Ok, as long as it stays at level 3. If it moved to level 2, I would oppose it.
GV - Perhaps we should make a note of keeping this at level 3, so we don't repeat this
GV - To avoid  problems, captioning should be associated with a talking head, rather than video of critical info
ASW - I need to fix up my example
GV - We should say "does not require dual simultaneous attention in order to be understood". It's important to distinguish where it is necessary from where it is nice. Should it be restricted to instructional material?
ASW - I wouldn't worry about watering this down at level 3
CS - It sounds like we are going beyond the current state of the art in television
GV - We are going beyond the state of practice
JW - The suggestion is to put it at level 3, but don't qualify it
GV - But add the part about not requiring dual simulatenous attention for comprehension
GV - Proposed level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2 is "The presentation does not require the user to view captions and the
visual presentation simultaneously in order to understand the content."

Discussion followed of whether this only applies to captions, or is more general. Andi revises success criteria just to apply to captioning.

Checkpoint 1.1 list discussion

CS - I like Matt's latest proposal. Graham's suggestion is a good attempt to make things simpler, but "whenever possible" is too vague
GV - "Whenever possible" is not testable.
GV - How does the reviewer show that something can't be described in words
CS - Every attempt to require metadata has been unpopular
GV - We have metadata. If there is a tool for metadata, it will be introduced at a higher level, probably at level 3.
CS - "A review has found" instead of "A review has shown"
GV - ...non-text content has been reviewed and is believed that the intended function...
CS - The second sentence is fine, but first sentence needs to be rewritten
ASW  - Isn't the second sentence sufficient?
GV - Does everyone agree we can delete the first item?
(group seems ok with this)
GV - Need to drop item 3 because conformance claims won't be in individual checkpoints
GV - I'm worried that putting things in metadata is worse than making things explicit
CS - But if the information is in metadata, we can provide style sheets to make it available
GV - How will users find "us" for the style sheet
MMir - Do we make the same argument for text equivalents?
CS - How could you put metadata inside a text equivalent? I guess you could have a mark-up language that supports this.
GV - I have a suggestion for rewording of definition; I will send it to Matt Mirabella for review
CS - Many people think tags are metadata
GV - Perhaps we should delete the mention of metadata. Would be less confusing.

GV - Proposed redraft of checkpoint 1.1:

"1.1 For all non-text content provide a text equivalent, or, if the content cannot be expressed in words, provide an identifying text label.

Level 1:
1. Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text equivalent explicitly associated with it.
2. Non-text content that cannot be expressed in words has an  identifying text label explicitly associated with it.

Level 2:

1.  If a text-equivalent has been used:
* The text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it
presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content).

2.  If an indentifying text label has been used:
* The identifying text label has been reviewed and is believed to convey as much of the function and meaning of the non-text content as possible to match the authors intent.

An identifying text label:   is a text label used when a text equivalent cannot be used because the non-text content is such that it cannot be
expressed in words.

* Serves as much of the function of the non-text content as possible.

* May contain structured content"

{{ Discussion of Tablet PC, and whether it is introducing new accessibility challenges. Primarily intended for mobility constrained situations. Can have the full functionality of Windows high-end laptop, plus stylus for handwriting. For some systems, the keyboard is an accessory.}}

Checkpoint 1.2 issues

ASW - Bill Mason misunderstood the success criteria.
CS - If captioning information would delay release of safety-related information, this is a reasonable exception
GV - If you want captions to show up on time, you have to type them ahead a little bit. And in an emergency, people keep talking, so it is very hard to add descriptions, etc.
ASW - I don't think it says that. It says that if it isn't an emergency, a transcript is sufficient
CS - But I thought the discussion was about making sure the emergency information wouldn't be delayed by the captioning. We were trying to apply the FCC rules for television to web content. Those rules had exemptions for a bunch of different things. Like local television programs were exempt, and only national programs need to be captioned. Wendy was the one who did the research on this and led the discussion.
CS -The example was NPR programs providing transcripts
ASW - I think the checkpoint excludes this in the first place
CS - Web radio broadcast shouldn't have stricter standards than regular  radio broadcast
GV - This is a dangerous argument
CS - I don't  think it is possible to put captions on streaming audio
GV - Players like Real Player can play captions; the medium would support it
CS - I'm not sure whether it is feasible with the current technology
PB - We have done something along those lines before. There isn't a commercial product to do it
CS - In our initial discussion, there was lots of discussion of rebroadcasting. They'd take down the NPR web site before adding captions.
GV - This isn't a legal requirement, so they won't really take it down
CS - This is a level 1 requirement. Maybe we need something for web radio at level 2 or 3? Restrict level 1 requirement to multi-media?
GV - We have a broader exception at the bottom of level 1 that should be put into the guideline. "If content is rebroadcast...". So we won't require stricter accessibility on the web. This is a huge exception.
JW - Then if you live someplace where there are no accessibility standards, it can always be rebroadcast.
GW - Otherwise you stop the ability of the internet to be a pipeline. But then people will take things offshore to avoid accessibility.
CS - I don't think people will do that; it's expensive.
GW - We could add something at level 3 to override this exception
CS - There are all sorts of small, independent radio web stations. Does someone have to caption the output on his 1-man radio show? The tools to do this are very expensive. And he is probably just doing it for fun.
GW - At level 1, we'd include an exception.
JW - or the policy maker could make this an exception
GW - Then people will just ignore our guidelines, since our first rule is that you must satisfy all of level 1
JW - We have a policy that we wouldn't make exemptions based on cost.
CS - We can just move it to level 2 or 3.
JW - There is a simple solution. Someone setting a policy would not have to change the wording of our guildelines but could decide to exempt classes of content. e.g., multi-media or audio-only content produced under certain circumstances don't have to follow guidelines. We don't need to create these exceptions based on policy considerations.
CS - Don't phrase this as an exception. Phrase it positively.
GW - But you still need an exception on the criteria that applies to everything.
GW - Maybe we need to say a "timely" transcript. This exception does say non-time-sensitive.
CS - If we add something about it being multi-media, audio-only is not multimedia. We can add something to address audio-only explicitly. Criteria 5 covers city council meetings, Jennie-cam, etc.
GW - Number 2 says all significant dialog and sound in multi-media content is captioned. Add a new item "for web content that is not realtime audio, timesensitive, etc, transcript is available from the same URI (linked)".
CS - Still need to deal with amateur or small budget productions.
JW - I still think that is a policy issue, not an accessibility issue.
MattMay - my wedding video is going to be captioned because the audio is so poor

GV - Proposed changes to success criteria for 1.2

"2. All significant dialogue and sounds in multimedia content are captioned

NEW SUCCESS CRITERIA.  For Web that is real-time audio-only, is not time-sensitive (e.g. not news, not emergency, etc.), and is not interactive, a transcript or other non-audio equivalent is available from the same URI.

[at bottom of level 1 put]

NOTE:  Exceptions for amateur productions etc. are not made here because
they should be made in scope statements of policy setting agencies that
are using these guidelines. "

$Date: 2002/11/07 23:47:36 $ Loretta Guarino Reid