06 Jan telecon


Summary of action items


WC charter under review. cfp next week?

WC other topics? eric's comments?

IJ tricky, UA needs work.

WC proposal for new checkpoint:

1.x Provide captions for each stand-alone audio clip or stream, as appropriate. [Priority 2] Note. For short audio clips, providing a text equivalent as discussed in checkpoint 1.1 is all that is needed. This checkpoint is intended to cover audio clips of speech such as news broadcasts or a lyrical performance.

JW don't think need to separate lyrical vs. not. need a caption of some sort.

WC 1.1 covers short text equivalent.

JW what synchronize music score with audio for those who are hard of hearing.

IJ convey natural language in text. rather than eric's "word-using."

JW as text that is synch w/audio stream

GV audio only, no text what would be the need for captions? if you're supposed to do something then not audio only then it is audio interactive. then words and sounds need to be described. purely instrumental - what say "oboe playing."

GR "beethoven's 6th"

GV but while playing anything synchronized with audio?

JW depends.

GV this is a requirement for everything.

JW debateable. if interactive, yes needs synchronization.

GV audio with has no speech and is not interactive.

JW anythign more than a title?

GV audio not synch with anything else - events, visual, etc.

JW like reaction time test: when hear sound hit button.

GV or it says, "if you want to continue to see this, hit X" yet those examples include words, not sounds. therefore are covered

JW but, instruction beforehand could be, "when tone hits this pitch press button."

WC what synchronize?

JW tone at any time.

WC is synchronizing text the best way to solve that issue.

JW if audio only, no interaction, no caption.

WC @@ propose rewording of

1.x Provide captions for each stand-alone audio clip or stream that includes natural language or requires a coordinated or timed response. [Priority 2] Note. For short audio clips, providing a text equivalent as discussed in checkpoint 1.1 is all that is needed. This checkpoint is intended to cover audio clips of speech such as news broadcasts or a lyrical performance. e.g. re: JW's example.

GR isn't the event, "hit this button when sound played" most likely done w/a script? therefore provide alternative to script.

WC but if selecting button takes you to another page, then provide a static link to that page.

JW what's the priority level of making a script accessible as opposed to providing an alternative. therefore, need to find a way to make scripts accessible. Put that issue to the list or reword so that it is included.

IJ what's the function that's trying to be captured here?

JW audio containing natural lang and one that doesn't. one that does require captions. one that doesn't probably doesn't. if audio correlated with a script and response then are captions appropriate to make it accessible irrespective if alternative to the script provided.

IJ UA requirement that time based info be provided in time-indie manner. therefore the temporal nature of the issue, the UA should be able to handle that. otherwise sounds like a technique for making dynamic content more accessible.

GR regarding online courseware: would you consider musical notation a natural language.

GV and IJ - no.

GV a natural lang is used to communicate. i guess music could be considered a way to communicate.

IJ body language is not a natural language. it is very cultural.

GV all languages are cultural.

IJ that's what makes musical notation a programming language. each thing is well defined.

GV people will listen to indian chanting.

IJ i'm talking about notation. the semantics are well-known.

GV why not true of any written language?

IJ group 4 - context sensitive.

WC spoken or sung language.

JW other circumstances not involving natural language where captions are still desirable.

JW propose text w/out qualification of circumstances. convincing arguments from list either way.

WC reads proposals from 1.3 and 1.4.

JW agrees that 3 ways of synchronizing are techniques.priority is questionable.

WC reads proposal for 1.4

[from eric's e-mail from 28 Dec 1999]

<WC checkpoint-proposal> 1.4 Provide captions and a collated text transcript for each multimedia presentation (e.g., movie or animation). [Priority 1] </C checkpoint-proposal> EH2:: This looks fine to me, unless you lump audio-only presentations in multimedia, in which it might become: 1.4 Provide captions and a collated text transcript for each dynamic audio/visual presentation (e.g., movie or animation). [Priority 1]

IJ defn of multimedia?

WC "mono" or "uni" media vs multimedia.

JW want to distinguish b/c how many tracks and what's required.

GV we're on 1.4? therefore we're discussing multimedia.

IJ bottom line, when unimedia don't need synchronization.

JW when uni, may or may not. depends on circumstances. when audio and video, then definitely need synch of equivalents.

GV if i have a recording of a speech, i need to provide a transcript, but do not need to synch it.

WC eric is arguing that it does need to be synchronized.

GR yes, has argued in UA for cognitive disabilities.

JW issue about priority. lower priority is full transcript, higher is synchronized. having it as synch captions is P1 or P2.

IJ what about video only?

JW same issue arises.

GR definitely. if you have a short silent movie clip you could describe it.

IJ something to be said about the dramatic pause. but that could be conveyed in text.

JW how can we resolve.

GR more complex than arguing 2 sides, also what's practical now and in future.

WC do some tests to see which is more usable.

GV what determines if it is 1,2 or 3 is not usability.

WC more than priority, we're adding a new checkpoint.

GV online learning, if have a group, may miss when people are laughing or reacting if not syncrhonized. listen to speech and have captions, need synchronized.

WC but we're talking about those w/out speech.

IJ 2 axes: multimedia vs unimedia and priority of synchronization. is some cases it is important. other axis: if some speech, then does that make it more important to synchronize. if no speech/language.

WC currenlty 3 a 4th is proposed.

GV speech and non-speech, transcripts, synchronization. all 4 are unimedia. multimedia needs to be captioned and described. we have speech transcript - checkpoint 1.1. audio track - no speech - transcript yes, under 1.1 do we caption/synchronize audio only.

WC yes, eric argues it at p2.

GV at least p3. not sure about p2.

DB why is it a high priority at all?

GV if they can hear but can't hear sometimes, they can listen to speech and use captions as a crutch. reading a transcript is nothing like hearing a speech (for some speakers). this is lost to people who are deaf.

GR also, sophistication of person synchronizing the transcript. add "laughter" etc. i'm taking a class. we have to watch a famous movie. a highly annotated transcript is better than DVS because it gives me more info. how do you put "sarcasm" into a caption. easier to do it in a transcript.

JW GV's point is definitely for people w/residual hearing.

IJ as an imperfect speaker of italian, watching a film that is in a dialect that i don't understand, i get the jokes after the fact.

WC: I'm not convinced that synchronizing a description of audio is the best solution. /* rest of minutes lost */

/* reviewed where we are with new techniques document, user agent support page, other open issues. WC broke issues into 2 lists those that affect errata and those for the next version of the guidelines. */

@@ WC propose wording to list.

@@ WC request review of open issues list, open issues and action items from the list

$Date: 2000/11/08 08:30:14 $ Wendy Chisholm