Part of Item:
Comment Type: ED
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
Refer to the term ‘full multimedia text alternative including any interaction ’ :
The term needs to be re-worded to be more meaningful and correct. Consider:
‘text alternative for multimedia ‘
Or
‘text alternative for interactive multimedia ‘
SORRY: I submitted this yesterday (June 14) but used the word \'equivalents\' instead of \'alternative\' as I really intended
Proposed Change:
Refer to the term ‘full multimedia text alternative including any interaction ’ :
The term needs to be re-worded to be more meaningful and correct. Consider:
‘text alternative for multimedia ‘
Or
‘text alternative for interactive multimedia ‘
Its description in the glossary should be
‘document including correctly sequenced descriptions of all visual settings, actions, and non-speech sounds combined with descriptive transcripts of all dialogue. This also applies to multimedia-based interactions, if any, with the user.‘
Our current "full multimedia text alternative" term could be confusing. 'Text alternative for multimedia' doesn't work because we already require one of those in SC 1.1.1 but it is just a label. ‘Text alternative for interactive multimedia ‘ doesn't work because this applies to all multimedia, not just interactive multimedia. We are therefore changing it to "full text alternative for multimedia including any interaction."
The success criterion now reads, "1.2.2 Audio descriptions of video, or a full text alternative for multimedia including any interaction, are provided for prerecorded multimedia."