Edit comment LC-608 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-536 Next: LC-599

Comment LC-608: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Lisa Seeman 3 <lisa@ubaccess.com> on behalf of Invited expert at W3C, UB access; 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:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform3ch.html

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

I am concerned that the requirement for real time synrcrization put a lot of extra work on authors who would like to provide short animations or clips that help people with learning disabilities fulfill a task. On the whole, a lot of multi media, especially in education, is good for many learning disabilities, and these requirements may act as a step backwards for learning disabilities.

Proposed Change:

Make an exception in 1.2 for any content provides extra help visual for tasks and information that has been described in text else wear.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMB] This is a hard one. I remember at CSUN a couple of years ago an organization came and did a demonstration for us during our WG F2F about movies and people with cognitive disabilities. I guess at level 1 it is fine because "real time syncronization is not until Level 2 Captions". I don't know how to "Make an exception in 1.2 for any content provides extra help visual for tasks and information that has been described in text else wear." Should I get back to her and ask how she proposes we do that without drawing a blurry line that would allow videos not to caption live material at level 2. How can we construct this exception so as to enable movies intended to help cognitive disabilities, yet forbid uncaptioned movies that are not intended as suplementary information to help cogintively challenged individuals. -------------- Would like a small team to look into this as a possibility. I think we should try to allow videos for cognitive disabilities that supplement other content. But need to find the distinction between a movies that is supplemnting text content and a movie that is just using text content as a transcript and therefore fail level 2 ------------- Always dangerous to make an exception for access for one group. What if people are hard of hearing? Usually, you do not have to caption if the information is already presented on the same page in text. So if it is video only â€“ you are ok. If it is audio only you are ok. The only exception she needs is if it is audio-visual and the visual is not redundant with the audio. What does she have in mind when she says 'add an animation clip'. if not A+V then synch not needed. GV sent a note to her asking specifically what she meant. Note read: In your comment below you ask for an exception for video that is added to make things clearer for those with cognitive disabilities. Usually, you do not have to caption a video if the information is already presented on the same page in text. So if you are talking about video only â€“ you are ok. If it is audio only you are ok. The only problem would be if you adding audio-visual multimedia and the visual is not redundant with the audio. What do you have in mind when you say 'add an animation clip'. If you really mean just video â€“ and it is an alternate to the text on the page â€“ then you are all set. Not caption or description is required and thus you need no exception. Can you give us a more specific example of what you mean? Thanks ------------------------- note: on the cognitive call Mar 13, 2007 We identified two separate scenarios 1) Video is the primary resource (Movies, news etc...) requires Captions 2) Text is the primary resource and is supplemented be supplemented by movies to help cognitive disabilities. We want to find a way to allow the 2nd circumstance. I think this can be distinguished through human testability. Perhaps we can Captions: Captions are provided for prerecorded multimedia except for video which is supplementary to text which is the primary resource. Team B Meeting: Previous proposal: 1.2.1 Captions: Captions are provided for prerecorded multimedia, except for multimedia equivalents to text that are shorter than 2 minutes and that are clearly labeled as such. @@Add definition to glossary: multimedia equivalents to text multimedia that only presents information that is already presented in text on the same page. Note: Multimedia equivalents to text are provided for those who have trouble understanding the text on a page. From Teleconf Call Lisa: "3 minutes too short" "would this be for all combined or just each one" Chuck: "would like controls to stop and restart. then could be any length. but thinks everything should be captioned". Sofia: "except for items that provide additional supplementary info" Gez: " more specific info about what was already on screen" Discussed in the 12 April 2007 telecon: Resolution: accept 608 as amended http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html {partial accept} DONE Change SC 1.2.1 to read: 1.2.1 Captions: Captions are provided for prerecorded multimedia, except for [multimedia alternatives to text] that are clearly labeled as such. DONE Add definition to glossary: multimedia alternatives to text multimedia that presents no more information than is already presented in in text (directly or via text alternatives). Note: Multimedia alternatives to text are provided for those who benefit from alternate representations of text. DONE Add Failures of 1.2.1 Failure of SC 1.2.1 by providing multimedia without captions when the multimedia presents more information than is presented in its associated text. Failure of SC 1.2.1 by not associating a multimedia alternative with its associated text. DONE Add Examples to 1.2.1 A complex legal document contains multimedia clips for different paragraphs that show a person speaking the contents of the paragraph. Each clip is associated with its corresponding paragraph. No captions are provided for the multimedia. An instruction manual containing a description of a part and its necessary orientation is accompanied by a multimedia clip showing the part in its correct orientation. No captions are provided for the multimedia clip. Internal WD updated 13 April 2007 DONE Add the following paragraph to Intent of Success Criterion 1.2.1: Captions are not needed when the multimedia is, itself, an alternate presentation of information that is also presented via text on the Web page. For example, if information on a page is accompanied by a multimedia presentation that is easier for people with cognitive, language, or learning disabilities to understand, then it would not need to be captioned since the information is already presented on the page in text or in text alternatives (e.g. for images). Internal WD updated 20 April 2007; Resolution: We have added an exception to SC 1.2.1 so that captions are not needed when the multimedia is presenting information that is already available as text: 1.2.1 Captions: Captions are provided for prerecorded multimedia except for multimedia alternatives to text that are clearly labeled as such. We have also updated the intent section for this criterion to reflect this change.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)