<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Video Accessibility Problems</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/</link>
	<description>Tips and Commentary on Web Accessibility, Usability, and Search Marketing best practices.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:56:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Dolson</title>
		<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-32674</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Dolson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:54:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/#comment-32674</guid>
		<description>It is amazing how much the focus of a lot of practical web accessibility is purely on the visually disabled -- it demonstrates a clear bias for doing what&#039;s easy.

&quot;Easy&quot; is such a dangerous approach to take. You see a lot of articles along the lines of &quot;7 easy ways to improve accessibility&quot; -- they always comment on &lt;code&gt;alt&lt;/code&gt; attributes and never mention captioning or transcription. Technically, it&#039;s not significantly more difficult to add &lt;code&gt;alt&lt;/code&gt; attributes than to add transcription, but the scope of work is much greater. People are lazy, and it makes for unfortunate compromises.

I appreciate your comment! Since this article is almost three years old, I suspect that Abdulrehman won&#039;t be reading your advice, but I&#039;m always glad to re-visit past articles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is amazing how much the focus of a lot of practical web accessibility is purely on the visually disabled&thinsp;&#8212;&thinsp;it demonstrates a clear bias for doing what&#8217;s&nbsp;easy.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">&#8220;</span>Easy&#8221; is such a dangerous approach to take. You see a lot of articles along the lines of &#8220;7 easy ways to improve accessibility&#8221;&thinsp;&#8212;&thinsp;they always comment on <code>alt</code> attributes and never mention captioning or transcription. Technically, it&#8217;s not significantly more difficult to add <code>alt</code> attributes than to add transcription, but the scope of work is much greater. People are lazy, and it makes for unfortunate&nbsp;compromises.</p>
<p>I appreciate your comment! Since this article is almost three years old, I suspect that Abdulrehman won&#8217;t be reading your advice, but I&#8217;m always glad to re-visit past&nbsp;articles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deaf User</title>
		<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-32670</link>
		<dc:creator>Deaf User</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:48:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/#comment-32670</guid>
		<description>Joe Dolson:

Great post. I especially loved this part: 

A lack of technological awareness is part of the problem: but I think that the greater issue is a lack of social awareness. 

Exactly! As a deaf person, I feel annoyed when I attend workshops on accessibility, and web specialists love repeating about how to add &quot;alt&quot; attributes to images, but a very few if any ever think about providing transcripts and captions for audio components of videos and podcasts. I raise my hand every time they talk about how &quot;fully accessible&quot; their websites are except for that media. They whine how expensive it is to add transcripts or embed captions. I disagree. As long as they have that social awareness that you had explained about, they would find effective ways to implement those technical solutions.

After all, the concept of &quot;Do unto others as you would have others do unto you&quot; would apply there. If web owners stop complaining about how &quot;expensive&quot; it is to provide text alternatives, they may invest some money in the beginning, but in the long run they would benefit much more from that by improving their site&#039;s search indexing. Also, if the site has a lot of long videos and audio, transcripts would definitely make it easier for any users to control the speed of reading the written information.

To Abdulrehman:

To let you know, the word &quot;handicapped&quot; is no longer used in descriptions about people with disabilities. Please be careful when choosing words. Some words may offend us. We do not like to perceive ourselves as weak and deserve to be respected. There&#039;s a concept called &quot;people first language&quot; that describes us as people first, not our disabilities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language

Please research more on proper terminology.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe&nbsp;Dolson:</p>
<p>Great post. I especially loved this&nbsp;part: </p>
<p>A lack of technological awareness is part of the problem: but I think that the greater issue is a lack of social&nbsp;awareness. </p>
<p>Exactly! As a deaf person, I feel annoyed when I attend workshops on accessibility, and web specialists love repeating about how to add &#8220;alt&#8221; attributes to images, but a very few if any ever think about providing transcripts and captions for audio components of videos and podcasts. I raise my hand every time they talk about how &#8220;fully accessible&#8221; their websites are except for that media. They whine how expensive it is to add transcripts or embed captions. I disagree. As long as they have that social awareness that you had explained about, they would find effective ways to implement those technical&nbsp;solutions.</p>
<p>After all, the concept of &#8220;Do unto others as you would have others do unto you&#8221; would apply there. If web owners stop complaining about how &#8220;expensive&#8221; it is to provide text alternatives, they may invest some money in the beginning, but in the long run they would benefit much more from that by improving their site&#8217;s search indexing. Also, if the site has a lot of long videos and audio, transcripts would definitely make it easier for any users to control the speed of reading the written&nbsp;information.</p>
<p>To&nbsp;Abdulrehman:</p>
<p>To let you know, the word &#8220;handicapped&#8221; is no longer used in descriptions about people with disabilities. Please be careful when choosing words. Some words may offend us. We do not like to perceive ourselves as weak and deserve to be respected. There&#8217;s a concept called &#8220;people first language&#8221; that describes us as people first, not our&nbsp;disabilities:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language</a></p>
<p>Please research more on proper&nbsp;terminology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Dolson</title>
		<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-29804</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Dolson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:02:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/#comment-29804</guid>
		<description>In fact, &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;, I don&#039;t think that the web is evolving towards podcasts and video. Although the use of both audio and video media is certainly trending to expand, I firmly believe that there will always remain a significant - and probably &lt;em&gt;greater&lt;/em&gt; - portion of the web which is available in plain text. 

&lt;blockquote&gt;

Moreover, if you keep the handicapped people aside videos are in a way more easy for both reader and blogger(in case of a blog). Although we need to think more on this topic.

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Regardless of the &lt;em&gt;obvious&lt;/em&gt; problem with this statement - the assumption that it is in any way acceptable to decide to &quot;leave out&quot; disabled populations - I have to take issue with the idea that videos are easier for both reader and blogger. They may absolutely be easier for &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; readers or bloggers, but to state that they&#039;re easier for all is patently absurd. 

Speaking for myself, I will generally NOT choose to watch a video if there is a text equivalent available. I simply don&#039;t have the time to waste on video when I can get the information in text.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In fact, <strong>no</strong>, I don&#8217;t think that the web is evolving towards podcasts and video. Although the use of both audio and video media is certainly trending to expand, I firmly believe that there will always remain a significant - and probably <em>greater</em> - portion of the web which is available in plain&nbsp;text. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Moreover, if you keep the handicapped people aside videos are in a way more easy for both reader and blogger(in case of a blog). Although we need to think more on this&nbsp;topic.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Regardless of the <em>obvious</em> problem with this statement - the assumption that it is in any way acceptable to decide to &#8220;leave out&#8221; disabled populations - I have to take issue with the idea that videos are easier for both reader and blogger. They may absolutely be easier for <em>some</em> readers or bloggers, but to state that they&#8217;re easier for all is patently&nbsp;absurd. </p>
<p>Speaking for myself, I will generally NOT choose to watch a video if there is a text equivalent available. I simply don&#8217;t have the time to waste on video when I can get the information in&nbsp;text.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abdulrehman</title>
		<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-29798</link>
		<dc:creator>Abdulrehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:41:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/#comment-29798</guid>
		<description>You certainly do have a point there but don&#039;t you think that podcasts and screencasts is eventually what the web is involving into. I&#039;m not raising a big discussion but as you mentioned that the blind can&#039;t see the video, then they can&#039;t read the plain text either. If someone has epileptic photosensitivity, it&#039;s not essentially there to be in videos, what about the Google Ads or other made in flash? They could also contain something like that.

I do agree when you say the deaf will not be able to hear but putting in subtitles would be a good enough to constitute that. Moreover, if you keep the handicapped people aside videos are in a way more easy for both reader and blogger(in case of a blog). Although we need to think more on this topic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You certainly do have a point there but don&#8217;t you think that podcasts and screencasts is eventually what the web is involving into. I&#8217;m not raising a big discussion but as you mentioned that the blind can&#8217;t see the video, then they can&#8217;t read the plain text either. If someone has epileptic photosensitivity, it&#8217;s not essentially there to be in videos, what about the Google Ads or other made in flash? They could also contain something like&nbsp;that.</p>
<p>I do agree when you say the deaf will not be able to hear but putting in subtitles would be a good enough to constitute that. Moreover, if you keep the handicapped people aside videos are in a way more easy for both reader and blogger(in case of a blog). Although we need to think more on this&nbsp;topic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Dolson</title>
		<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-8958</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Dolson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:55:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/#comment-8958</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s certainly one of the issues which slows people from retrofitting a site! It&#039;s true; once the initial hurdle of discovering and learning accessible development methods is passed, the generalities of designing an accessible website are fairly minor. 

Creating accessible content, once you&#039;ve gone beyond plain HTML text, is a much more time consuming process --- and, specifically, it&#039;s always going to be time consuming.  You don&#039;t learn how to do it then find it easy, because it&#039;s not replacing a previous task.  Making multimedia content accessible is an additive task to the other processes of content creation.

Thanks, Adrian!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s certainly one of the issues which slows people from retrofitting a site! It&#8217;s true; once the initial hurdle of discovering and learning accessible development methods is passed, the generalities of designing an accessible website are fairly&nbsp;minor. </p>
<p>Creating accessible content, once you&#8217;ve gone beyond plain <abbr title="HyperText Markup Language">HTML</abbr> text, is a much more time consuming process&thinsp;&#8212;&thinsp;- and, specifically, it&#8217;s always going to be time consuming.  You don&#8217;t learn how to do it then find it easy, because it&#8217;s not replacing a previous task.  Making multimedia content accessible is an additive task to the other processes of content&nbsp;creation.</p>
<p>Thanks,&nbsp;Adrian!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrian</title>
		<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-8912</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2007/02/video-accessibility-problems/#comment-8912</guid>
		<description>I think the biggest actual problem that comes up here is time.
We always talk about making it as easy as possible for someone to use a web site, we praise apps like Wordpress for making it easier for people to set up their own blog etc....

So we know people are kind of lazy, and though they may come out with things like &#039;oh blind people aren&#039;t our audience&#039; or whatever, but that&#039;s mainly trying to justify the fact that they don&#039;t want to add extra time and complexity to the process of adding video to a web site.

I think there&#039;s a lot more chance of getting people to use accessible HTML code than there is to get them to create accessible content all the time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the biggest actual problem that comes up here is time.<br />
We always talk about making it as easy as possible for someone to use a web site, we praise apps like WordPress for making it easier for people to set up their own blog&nbsp;etc&#8230;.</p>
<p>So we know people are kind of lazy, and though they may come out with things like &#8216;oh blind people aren&#8217;t our audience&#8217; or whatever, but that&#8217;s mainly trying to justify the fact that they don&#8217;t want to add extra time and complexity to the process of adding video to a web&nbsp;site.</p>
<p>I think there&#8217;s a lot more chance of getting people to use accessible <abbr title="HyperText Markup Language">HTML</abbr> code than there is to get them to create accessible content all the&nbsp;time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
