Edit comment LC-1283 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-941 Next: LC-1163

Comment LC-1283: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Andrew Arch <andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org> on behalf of Vision Australia; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Comment: It is too easy to fail SC at Level 1 - most organisations I have worked with will not go to this length in most cases, hence will never be able to claim even "A" conformance. In fact, on most Government and corporate sites I have worked with, the provision of a transcript and/or a script gives all the information needed to substitute for the multimedia

Proposed Change:

Level 1 should have SC along the lines of "provide a transcript if spoken words only and no action" and "provide a script including the dialogue if video wit activity"

SC 1.2.1 & 1.2.2 should be moved up a level, and all other SC reconsidered as to the appropriate level.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMB] [On hold, levels, CAPTIONS and AUDIO DESCRIPTION] Discussed in the 10 August 2006 telecon: resolution: send 1283 back to team A to addreess comments http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/10-wai-wcag-minutes.htm 10 August survey results: http://digbig.com/4rnyf Old proposal: Response: â€œGreetings Andrew. It may be the case that you are underestimating the value of captioned video as compared to a transcript. If a transcript script gives all the information needed to substitute for the multimedia for someone who is Deaf, then it should be sufficient for your wider audience, and posting the multimedia is not necessary at all. If the multimedia is important enough to be posted in addition to the transcript, then the multimedia is almost certainly important enough to be captioned.â€? Discussed in the 08 February 2007 telecon: No resolution. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/02/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html action: Sean and Loretta to check on technical feasibility of doing captions internationally Discussed in the 12 April 2007 telecon: Resolution: accept 1283, 1382 as proposed http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html {not-accept}; Resolution: The working group considered carefully the levels assigned to all the GL 1.2 success criteria. SC 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are level A success criteria because vision and hearing impaired users will not be able to access multimedia without this information. SC 1.2.2 can be satisfied by a full transcript. But captioning is a much better augmentation for the deaf than a separate transcript, since much can be communicated non-verbally, even when there is no action.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)