Loretta Guarino Reid, Wendy Chisholm, Ben Caldwell, Yvette Hoitink, Roberto Scano, Tom Croucher, Avi Arditti, Dave MacDonald, John Slatin, Andi Snow-Weaver, Roberto Castaldo, Cynthia Shelly, Matt May, Kerstin Goldsmith, Roberto Ellero, Katie Haritos-Shea, Gregg Vanderheiden
Jason White, Michael Cooper, Sailesh Panchang, Doyle Burnett
Proposed charter is under review by Advisory Committee (AC). Deadline for review is 23 October. Please remind your AC rep to review the charter.
Issue 322 (bugzilla), irc log (322)
Related to this issue is the proposal from Joe Clark about handling multimedia. He states that a collated text transcript should not be required because it isn't typically created. At the techniques task force face-to-face, we talked about making multimedia accessible for people who are blind and deaf and the collated transcript seems to be the only method. Writing and recording good audio descriptions is an art; creating a collated transcript is a challenge in and of itself and the challenge increases because of the difficulty in creating audio descriptions. He proposes a phase-in approach for producing content with captions and audio descriptions. In this teleconference, we briefly discussed a common question that we ask while working on WCAG 2.0: do we focus on what makes content accessible or incorporate policy considerations? While there was interest in a phase-in approach it is not clear how to include it in our current format nor how to make it testable.
Part of the group seems to feel that if the collated transcript is the only method of making multimedia accessible for people who are deaf and blind, then it doesn't matter if there is low demand (for collated transcripts) or if producing one is difficult to do. However, for now we resolved that a collated transcript is not required for the minimum level of conformance.
Issue 262 (bugzilla), irc log (262)
Closed. No changes required.
Issue 410 (bugzilla), irc log (410)
Several attempts were made to clarify how "minimum" applies to this checkpoint:
John ran into this issue while working on his draft proposal. He will attempt to incorporate this discussion into his draft.
Issue 355 (bugzilla), irc log (355)
People who have tried to implement marking changes in language are surprised at how much work it requires. However, marking the phrases is the only way to ensure that a screen reader will pronouce words correctly.
How well is it supported? At least 2 screen readers support this technology.
Is the benefit worth the cost? We are not sure. We need to survey users and locate real-world examples. Doing it automatically is difficult. Pronunciation affects understanding.
Is this more appropriate in guideline 1? Is it about making language perceivable or is it more related to providing logical structure so that it can be manipulated with tools?
John took an action to look into idea of moving 3.1 into guideline 1.
Wendy and David will consider polling AT users about language changes.
Wendy will contact organizations in Europe (who are more likely to deal with language-switching issues) to find real-world examples and feedback from users.
Yvette will look for real-world examples.
$Date: 2003/10/10 22:00:13 $ Wendy Chisholm