E-mail List Archives

Re: Read Captions in a display braille?


From: Jorge Fernandes
Date: Jul 31, 2007 5:00PM


Thank you very much for your inputs!!

I particularly appreciate the position of WCAG 2.0 WG. With respect
of your opinions course I'm more confident with WG position because:

## They said: "The preference is given to captions and audio
descriptions because, except those who are deaf-blind, users that we
have heard from want and prefer those accommodations."

In Portugal I'm not wrong if I state that 99% of movies on TV are
originaly English, French, or other languages and have portuguese
captions. In DVDs the portuguese captions are also the rule - here
Tom Hanks don't speak portuguese like we have in the neighbor Spain
where the movies are all in spanish. Until today portuguese blind
people can't follow the captions in braille.

I really think that will be very useful if User Agents can deliver
the captions to blind users in braille.

Ok. I speak about TV experience and not web. But if I put the same
content on web I will have the same problems. Imagine a NewsTV with
some pieces in English or Russian. Also in news, in Portugal, is
usual put portuguese captions in these pieces.

## They said "Also, whenever you go to a full text transcript you
lose much information and experience, and you lose the ability to
experience the content together. Also you lose the ability to
experience together".

Maybe this answer to your question about: why captions in braille?
Seems me a better experience to a blind person follow an English
movie reading the captions in portuguese braille.

And the position of WG is similar of do not accept a double
construction website: one "normal" graphic version and one
"accessible" in text. Like you know this is not accessibility. The
position of WG is more "Design for All" than an transcription file
alone; more 1 Content and Various gracefullies transformations.

And I believe in User Agents, and seems me easier made ONE
transcription file from the MULTIPLY pieces content synchronised
together than the opposite.


Jorge Fernandes

On 31 Jul 2007, at 15:53, Jared Smith wrote:

> On 7/31/07, Moore, Michael < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> I strongly agree with the transcript solution that you suggest. The
>> transcript can provide the following advantages to deaf/blind
>> users and
>> others.
>> In short, whenever possible a transcript should be included with
>> multimedia to ensure access for everyone. If you are going to go
>> through the effort to create captions and audio description you
>> alread
>> have all of the content needed to create a really good transcript.
> Very well stated. Of interest is the fact that transcripts are not
> currently required in WCAG 2.0 unless you are seeking Level AAA
> conformance. Captions are required at Level A, but it seems the
> working group sees transcripts as much less important and a less
> useful 'accommodation' for people with disabilities despite the fact
> that they are the *only* mechanism that some people (particularly the
> deaf-blind) can use to access multimedia content. See my comment and
> the working group response on this issue at
> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=2251
> Jared Smith
> WebAIM