WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: Preferred Format for Text Transcript

for

Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)

From: Janet Sylvia
Date: Tue, May 25 2010 10:30AM
Subject: Preferred Format for Text Transcript
No previous message | Next message →

For our web-based captioned video, we also provide links to screen reader accessible HTML files for both Text Transcripts and Descriptive Video.

Someone has suggested .txt may be preferred over .html

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Janet Sylvia
University of Georgia

From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Tue, May 25 2010 11:18AM
Subject: Re: Preferred Format for Text Transcript
← Previous message | Next message →

Janet,

In this situation, either might be OK. I think the big difference would
be the structure. With HTML, you can structure the document (give it
headings, unordered lists, etc) that a screen reader or braille display
will interpret for the user. You can give text files some structure
also. However, the user needs to interpret it.

My opinion is that HTML would make it easier to communicate accurately
the intent of the content.




-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Janet Sylvia
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:33 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] Preferred Format for Text Transcript


For our web-based captioned video, we also provide links to screen
reader accessible HTML files for both Text Transcripts and Descriptive
Video.

Someone has suggested .txt may be preferred over .html

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Janet Sylvia
University of Georgia

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, May 25 2010 11:24AM
Subject: Re: Preferred Format for Text Transcript
← Previous message | Next message →

I think if it was short enough text would be fine but for much longer
ones I'd prefer accessible html.

cheers

Geof

At 12:20 PM 5/25/2010, you wrote:
>Janet,
>
>In this situation, either might be OK. I think the big difference would
>be the structure. With HTML, you can structure the document (give it
>headings, unordered lists, etc) that a screen reader or braille display
>will interpret for the user. You can give text files some structure
>also. However, the user needs to interpret it.
>
>My opinion is that HTML would make it easier to communicate accurately
>the intent of the content.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Janet Sylvia
>Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:33 AM
>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Subject: [WebAIM] Preferred Format for Text Transcript
>
>
>For our web-based captioned video, we also provide links to screen
>reader accessible HTML files for both Text Transcripts and Descriptive
>Video.
>
>Someone has suggested .txt may be preferred over .html
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Thanks,
>Janet Sylvia
>University of Georgia
>
>
>
>
>

From: Daniel Tang (dtang)
Date: Tue, May 25 2010 12:42PM
Subject: Re: Preferred Format for Text Transcript
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello:

Yes. Text is better.

Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Janet Sylvia
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:33 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] Preferred Format for Text Transcript


For our web-based captioned video, we also provide links to screen
reader accessible HTML files for both Text Transcripts and Descriptive
Video.

Someone has suggested .txt may be preferred over .html

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Janet Sylvia
University of Georgia

From: John Foliot
Date: Tue, May 25 2010 1:12PM
Subject: Re: Preferred Format for Text Transcript
← Previous message | Next message →

Daniel Tang (dtang) wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> Yes. Text is better.
>
> Daniel

Hi Daniel,

With all due respect, better for whom? And why?

Text (txt) has no semantic structure, cannot be easily repurposed or
visually styled in a web browser (or other user agent) and is a very
baseline minimum. To suggest in 3 words that it is "better" warrants a
fuller explanation (please).

Janet, obviously I believe that HTML is the better format as it can be
'rendered-down' to text output much more easily than .txt can be 'rendered
up' by end users. I would recommend marked-up texts whenever possible.

There is a very real possibility that using a profile of TTML (DFXP)
[http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/] - formats already supported by many
Flash-based players and likely a candidate for HTML5 - along with a little
bit of XSLT magic you could auto-generate your .html docs from the
time-stamped files, reducing production time and effort. (Note, I have not
yet attempted this myself, but am thinking about it...)

Cheers!

JF

============================
John  Foliot
Program Manager
Stanford Online Accessibility Program
http://soap.stanford.edu
Stanford University
Tel: 650-862-4603

---
Co-chair - W3C HTML5 Accessibility Task Force (Media)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page

============================




>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Janet Sylvia
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:33 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [WebAIM] Preferred Format for Text Transcript
>
>
> For our web-based captioned video, we also provide links to screen
> reader accessible HTML files for both Text Transcripts and Descriptive
> Video.
>
> Someone has suggested .txt may be preferred over .html
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Janet Sylvia
> University of Georgia

From: Rakesh.Paladugula@cognizant.com
Date: Tue, May 25 2010 10:24PM
Subject: Re: Preferred Format for Text Transcript
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 1:39PM
Subject: Re: Preferred Format for Text Transcript
← Previous message | Next message →

As a blind reader .txt used to be the format of choice--as it had less obstacles to access than some other formats which were tied to specific products. .html is the better alternative for the reasons cited here, and works well for most folks. .txt preference is a holdover from the days when formats were all tide closely to products.

I believe the advent of the Web with multiple user-agents has changed this perspective greatly for most blind readers.




-----Original Message-----
From: John Foliot [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:14 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Preferred Format for Text Transcript

Daniel Tang (dtang) wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> Yes. Text is better.
>
> Daniel

Hi Daniel,

With all due respect, better for whom? And why?

Text (txt) has no semantic structure, cannot be easily repurposed or
visually styled in a web browser (or other user agent) and is a very
baseline minimum. To suggest in 3 words that it is "better" warrants a
fuller explanation (please).

Janet, obviously I believe that HTML is the better format as it can be
'rendered-down' to text output much more easily than .txt can be 'rendered
up' by end users. I would recommend marked-up texts whenever possible.

There is a very real possibility that using a profile of TTML (DFXP)
[http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/] - formats already supported by many
Flash-based players and likely a candidate for HTML5 - along with a little
bit of XSLT magic you could auto-generate your .html docs from the
time-stamped files, reducing production time and effort. (Note, I have not
yet attempted this myself, but am thinking about it...)

Cheers!

JF

============================
John  Foliot
Program Manager
Stanford Online Accessibility Program
http://soap.stanford.edu
Stanford University
Tel: 650-862-4603

---
Co-chair - W3C HTML5 Accessibility Task Force (Media)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page

============================




>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Janet Sylvia
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:33 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [WebAIM] Preferred Format for Text Transcript
>
>
> For our web-based captioned video, we also provide links to screen
> reader accessible HTML files for both Text Transcripts and Descriptive
> Video.
>
> Someone has suggested .txt may be preferred over .html
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Janet Sylvia
> University of Georgia

From: ckrugman@sbcglobal.net
Date: Thu, May 27 2010 4:51AM
Subject: Re: Preferred Format for Text Transcript
← Previous message | No next message

As a screen reader user I use HTML when reading.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet Sylvia" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:32 AM
Subject: [WebAIM] Preferred Format for Text Transcript


>
> For our web-based captioned video, we also provide links to screen reader
> accessible HTML files for both Text Transcripts and Descriptive Video.
>
> Someone has suggested .txt may be preferred over .html
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Janet Sylvia
> University of Georgia
>
>
>
>
>