Hi Kat!
Katrina wrote:
Guideline 1.2 sounds a bit suss to me; maybe I have not understood?
For those playing along at home, the latest version of 1.2 (27 APR 06)
is available here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/guidelines.html#media-equiv
Also, how can you get level 3 compliance with an audio description
(1.2.2 and 1.2.3) and a sign-language interpreter (1.2.5), using
American sign language? That is *useless* to my little sister who is
severly-hearing impaired, and doesn't use American sign language.
From my reading of the spec, Level 3 compliance requires a
sign-language intrepreter (1.2.5), extended audio descriptions (1.2.6),
AND a full multimedia text alternative including any interaction (1.2.7)
for any pre-recorded multimedia
Admittedly, it only seems to indicate only the requirement for a
sign-language interpreter in the case of live multimedia, with both
1.2.6 and 1.2.7 being dropped in that instance
The idea being that the text alternative would be in a language (or
languages) that your sister (or anyone else in the intended audience) is
likely to be able to read
Also, when looking at how to meet the sign-language interpreter
requirements
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/Overview.html#G54) a
Note under the Description reads:
"Since sign language is not usually a signed version of the printed
language, the author has to decide which sign language to include.
Usually the sign language of the primary audience would be used. If
intended for multiple audiences, multiple sign languages may be used.
Refer to advisory techniques for multiple sign languages."
So, whilst some examples may refer to American Sign Language (ASL), it
is certainly not indicated as the suggested or required language. My
understanding is that it would be up to the author to determine what is
the appropriate sign language to use for their intended audience - and
that the *actual* audience would then entitled to challenge that
determination...
None of this precludes Lisa's points regarding the higher-level issues
of the global nature of the web in opposition to the relatively
localised nature of sign languages
Does all this mean that if a signing person from outside the US wants to
get the full benefit of the AAA-compliant features of a multimedia
site built in the US they need to learn ASL?
I think it probably does
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
