Lisa use case could be improved...

[marcoscaceres]

Maybe?:

A class of students is reading a book in which poems are pictorially presented in different shapes. To have a comparable experience as her sighted classmates, Lisa, who is visually impaired, needs access to the material in braille or auditory form.

[marcoscaceres]

The above is from 2.8 Multimedia PWPs

[iherman]

I would be happy to add Marcos' use case.

@clapierre, would you agree?

[clapierre]

sure sounds good.

[iherman]

Proposed Solution: Add Marcos' use case to 2.8.

@hlflanagan

[avneeshsingh]

The use case is to emphasize the need of pre-formatted Braille, which is different than the dynamic Braile that is used for reading web pages. Addition of audio may reduce emphasis on Braille.

[marcoscaceres]

I don't see why braille should be more prominent than auditory form - both modalities work as effectively as each other AFAIK.

[marcoscaceres]

Put differently, they are not mutually exclusive.

[avneeshsingh]

Braille can be the replica of the print book, by using proper formatting i.e. one can perceive the same effect by using fingers. The visual appeal can be replicated into touch. But when we move to audio, it gets into something very different i.e. explanations using verbal descriptions, which gets into guidelines for audio descriptions.

[marcoscaceres]

Ok, but the point of the use case is that it can be in multiple modalities. I don't want us to get caught up on the details, as it really doesn't matter. What matters is if a useful requirement can emerge from the use cases.

[iherman]

I think we are indeed digressing a bit. Clearly Braille is important, clearly other modalities are important. At this time, the section (on Multimedia PWP) has 5 use cases, 3 out of those is on Braille. This is an imbalance. We have a possible reformulation in issue #102, a proposed reformulation for the one on Nemeth Braille (issue #101). I would propose

1. leave the Lisa use case more or less as is, addressing Braille only
2. have a separate use case describing the fact that some blind readers prefer using audio

I also wonder whether the title is clear enough. We are talking about alternate renditions of the PWP content, the emphasis being on alternate (ie, not reading text only) and not on multimedia. For me, the term multimedia rather means that a 'traditional' text is enriched with graphics, video, audio, etc, which is of course important but is widely available on the Web already, ie, PWP does not bring anything different. The importance in this case is that, say, the same content should be available both in traditional persons who read the books whereas the same content may need other media for other persons.

@clapierre @deborahgu ?

[hlflanagan]

For the title, how about "alternative media"? I'm still not sure I understand the nuances between "rendition" and "version".

[iherman]

"Version", for me, would be more about the content being different, whereas "rendition" is more about the same content being presented in different ways. But these may be minute details...

[marcoscaceres]

"Version", for me, would be more about the content being different, whereas "rendition" is more about the same content being presented in different ways. But these may be minute details...

Agree. No, the use of "version" can indeed be confusing. I support going with "rendition" or "modalities".