Thread Subject: Re: Review of , and questions & concerns with 3Sept07 TEITAC draft
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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Sep 06 2007 8:20 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Review of , and questions & concerns with 3Sept07 TEITAC draft"
- Previous message in thread: Larry Goldberg: "Re: Review of , and questions & concerns with 3Sept07 TEITAC draft"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
6-A does look redundant.
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 4:14 PM
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Review of ,and questions &
> concerns with 3Sept07 TEITAC draft
> > 6-A - Synchronized Alternatives
> > -> this is a very broad provision that applies to practically
> > all media;
> > 6-B and 6-C limits the scope in which alternatives must be
> > synchronized.
> > I think this provision doesn't belong and should be
> removed; certainly
> > it contradicts 6-B(1) and 6-C(1).
> I don't think that it necessarily contradicts b and c, I
> agree that removing it isn't harmful since we added
> "synchronized" to b and c.
> > 6-B - Captioning and Transcripts
> > -> (2) and (3) note that captions must be provided for things with
> > concurrent audio. But really, don't we mean for concurrent spoken
> > audio?
> > Perhaps a nit, as you only caption speech, but...
> Actually you caption more than speech. Subtitles are just
> speech, but captions also include non-spoken information.
> Generally it is true that captions are mostly of speech, but
> not entirely.
> > 6-C - Video Description
> > -> I think (3) is too broad. Think of the situation of a
> > recording of a
> > video slide presentation. If the (accessible) slides are provided
> > separately, and the speaker refers to each slide name/number when
> > moving to a new slide, haven't we made this presentation accessible?
> > Do we need
> > to actually provide verbal descriptions of the slide text?
> I agree - how about:
> 2) materials containing prerecorded video with concurrent
> audio must provide synchronized video descriptions, or a
> separate text description of the video, to convey any
> informational content of the video that is not conveyed
> through other means.
> 3) materials containing live video must provide synchronized
> video descriptions in real time to convey any informational
> content of the video that is not conveyed through other means.
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Review of , and questions & concerns with 3Sept07 TEITAC draft"
- Previous message in Thread: Larry Goldberg: "Re: Review of , and questions & concerns with 3Sept07 TEITAC draft"