Thread Subject: Re: Transcripts not required?
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 2:55 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Karen Peltz Strauss: "Re: Transcripts not required?"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Transcripts not required?"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I completely agree with all of your statements. My point is that under
the existing specifications, transcripts are never required for any
media. I am making an argument for changing 6.3-B of the existing
draft so that captions AND a transcript are required for prerecorded
video with concurrent audio. This will adequately provide
accessibility for those that can and want to view the text alternative
in conjunction with the video and for those that cannot access the
video and associated captioning information at all.
We are also working on a tool for making real-time captions accessible
to screen reader (including deaf-blind) users by giving them control
over the timing of the caption displays. This may not result in true
real-time access (the user may get behind a bit), but it is much
better than no access at all.
On 7/20/07, Karen Peltz Strauss < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> The main reason that transcripts are de-emphasized is that it is much
> harder, and really impossible for a person with a hearing loss to actively
> follow the content of a program if the video is occurring without
> simultaneous captions. Transcripts distributed while a program is being
> shown force the use to keep looking up and down (at the transcript), and
> keep his or her place reading while trying to watch the program.
> Transcripts distributed after the program leave these individuals out of the
> mainstream completely.
> Unfortunately, in the past, it was common for governmental agencies and
> other entities to resort to transcripts instead of providing real time
> access, as the event it taking place. Therefore while transcripts can
> supplement real time access, they really should not be a substitute for it.
> However, if there is no other access, such as in the case of deaf-blind
> individuals, then transcripts may be the only accommodation that can meet
> the needs of those individuals.
- Next message in Thread: Karen Peltz Strauss: "Re: Transcripts not required?"
- Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Transcripts not required?"