E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

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

From: Maya.Sellon
Date: Thu, Jul 14 2016 12:53AM
Subject: YouTube Live accessibility?
No previous message | Next message →

Hi all!

I just joined, so this is my first post to the forum. :)

I've recently been asked at work how accessible YouTube live is. Since it's a live feed I suggested that a live transcript/captioning would be appropriate which they weren't thrilled to hear. But I'm still trying to look into the service to see if Google might be doing anything about it (I don't know if Google's auto-captioning works?) or to see what, if any, alternatives there might be.

Appreciate any thoughts/advice!

Cheers,
Maya

From: Chaals McCathie Nevile
Date: Thu, Jul 14 2016 4:59AM
Subject: Re: YouTube Live accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:53:41 +0200, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> I just joined, so this is my first post to the forum. :)
>
> I've recently been asked at work how accessible YouTube live is. Since
> it's a live feed I suggested that a live transcript/captioning would be
> appropriate which they weren't thrilled to hear.

They may not be thrilled, but accessibility of video means captions, and
for live video that means live captions.

> But I'm still trying to look into the service to see if Google might
> be doing anything about it (I don't know if Google's auto-captioning
> works?) or to see what, if any, alternatives there might be.
>
> Appreciate any thoughts/advice!

Auto-captioning is generally very useful - the error rate is low enough
that overall it is a win. But for a corporate client I would VERY STRONGLY
advise them to put manual verification into the procedure. When a senior
consultant's title, or an important person's name, is mis-captioned as a
few four-letter words, it should make the argument clear.

Unfortunately the real-world examples I know of have all been carefully
buried by the organisations on whose faces the egg landed, so I cannot
demonstrate live what I mean. But trust me, audiences rarely forget the
organisation's name years after they watch the clip, even if they forget
all the details.

cheers

Chaals

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

From: Preast, Vanessa
Date: Thu, Jul 14 2016 7:41AM
Subject: Re: YouTube Live accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Does this also apply to live distance instruction, such as using Adobe Connect or webinars?

If so, is it acceptable to provide the live captioning only on the occasions when a participant registering for the event indicates the need for live captions? Otherwise the captions would be added to the recording later?

Thanks

From: Maya.Sellon
Date: Thu, Jul 14 2016 9:18AM
Subject: Re: YouTube Live accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks for the advice and good question! I would think most people would not wish to indicate they require an adjustment (that's what our HR department has told me in the past, at least), but I would also be interested in hearing people's opinions on this.

I'm in discussions with the country/business right now because they don't wish to archive the events either. They are hoping to just have it as a once-off and are pushing that live captioning isn't a viable option (cost-wise). I like your example of getting someone's name wrong, though! That should be a sensitive point and a perspective I will definitely try.

From: John Foliot
Date: Thu, Jul 14 2016 10:14AM
Subject: Re: YouTube Live accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Vanessa,

You asked "...is it acceptable...", but that is a very conditional
question. That is more of a legal and compliance question than anything
else, and so the answer to that question likely resides more with your
legal folks. For WCAG compliance however, the answer is found here:

*1.2.4 Captions (Live):* Captions
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#captionsdef> are provided for all live
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#livedef> audio
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#audiodef> content in synchronized media
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#synchronizedmediadef>. (Level AA)

...and so, no, not really.

It is (I would suggest) a risky proposition to presume that captions aren't
needed until requested: not all users who need/want captions are
necessarily going to pre-register and request that. (It sort of reminds me
of the 2nd floor restaurant debating the need for an elevator, as none of
their patrons are in wheelchairs...) Establishing a method to provide
textual alternatives to the audio (and video) streams in advance will
likely also end up being more cost effective over the long run.

I have seen (and been part of) live captioning inside of the Adobe Connect
environment (see:
http://environmentsforhumans.com/2015/accessibility-summit/#.V4e4WLgrKhc),
and as far as I recall, they are using a CART service who are inputting
into the Adobe Connect space, and that 'platform' while not perfect, is
pretty darned good accessibility-wise. (For CART srevices, you might find
this helpful: http://ccacaptioning.org/faqs-cart/)

HTH

JF



On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Preast, Vanessa < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Does this also apply to live distance instruction, such as using Adobe
> Connect or webinars?
>
> If so, is it acceptable to provide the live captioning only on the
> occasions when a participant registering for the event indicates the need
> for live captions? Otherwise the captions would be added to the recording
> later?
>
> Thanks
>
>

From: _mallory
Date: Thu, Jul 14 2016 12:25PM
Subject: Re: YouTube Live accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:59:09PM +0200, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
> Unfortunately the real-world examples I know of have all been
> carefully buried by the organisations on whose faces the egg landed,
> so I cannot demonstrate live what I mean. But trust me, audiences
> rarely forget the organisation's name years after they watch the
> clip, even if they forget all the details.

One was Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's video where he
talked about meeting Indonesia's then-new President, Joko Widodo,
who was auto-craptioned into Joker Widow or something similarly
offensive.

I've kept track of that video via Michael Lockrey and indeed it's
since been fixed.
_mallory

From: Bossley, Pete
Date: Thu, Jul 14 2016 4:06PM
Subject: Re: YouTube Live accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Vanessa,
I would suggest that getting in the flow of captioning everything is a good practice if you can make that happen.
Given that WCAG 1.2.4 requires captions for live events and that it is at base level A, and the clear precedent from the Department of Justice and the Office for Civil Rights is to expect WCAG 2.0 level AA, it is risky for institutions to decide to only caption things on request.
Not everyone that uses captions will request them in advance and there is an argument that not captioning a live event subjects a person with a disability to discrimination because they would have to wait for the captions to be added in order to enjoy the benefits of the event.

From: Chaals McCathie Nevile
Date: Fri, Jul 15 2016 3:45AM
Subject: Re: YouTube Live accessibility?
← Previous message | No next message

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:14:21 +0200, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Hi Vanessa,
>
> You asked "...is it acceptable...", but that is a very conditional
> question. That is more of a legal and compliance question than anything
> else,

Another way of looking at it is a simple logical test:

Is your content accessible, if you don't caption except when requested?

The answer is in one sense pretty obvious: No.

No captions = Not accessible.

Is there an obligation on people to identify as needing captions?

That's much trickier. The answer I give is that there are many who do not
even realise the benefit they get from captions, and are unlikely to think
of asking for them. There are also those who find it very challenging to
make the request - "I don't want people to realise that I can't hear half
of what they say", or the normal case in Spain, where I live, for english
interpretation, of "I don't want people to realise I don't understand half
of what is happening".

So while I think people *should* ask, I think relying on them to do so is
a straightforward failure.

Which is how I get to John's answer: No, it is not "acceptable". Assuming
your goal is to provide accessibility - or even assuming your goal is to
increase efficiency.

On the latter, as well as embarrassing auto-caption "fails", I would point
out that reading a transcript is, for many people, far more efficient than
listening, both in terms of time spent and ability to absorb the content.
So there is generally a significant productivity boost available too. But
that's a digression.

If your goal is risk management, that's indeed a question for your risk
managers. Companies and individuals do lots of things on the basis of
"I'll probably get away with it". But I don't recommend skipping captions
even on that basis, which should not be a big surprise.

In practical cases, looking at the real-world cost of captioning is
probably useful, before making a decision. Compared to most parts of video
production at a corporate level it's often surprisingly cheap. Sometimes
discovering that we're talking a few thousand dollars a year is enough to
convince the bean-counters that it is cheaper to do it than to think up
how to get away with not doing it.

cheers

chaals

and so the answer to that question likely resides more with your
> legal folks. For WCAG compliance however, the answer is found here:
>
> *1.2.4 Captions (Live):* Captions
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#captionsdef> are provided for all live
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#livedef> audio
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#audiodef> content in synchronized media
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#synchronizedmediadef>. (Level AA)
>
> ...and so, no, not really.
>
> It is (I would suggest) a risky proposition to presume that captions
> aren't
> needed until requested: not all users who need/want captions are
> necessarily going to pre-register and request that. (It sort of reminds
> me
> of the 2nd floor restaurant debating the need for an elevator, as none of
> their patrons are in wheelchairs...) Establishing a method to provide
> textual alternatives to the audio (and video) streams in advance will
> likely also end up being more cost effective over the long run.
>
> I have seen (and been part of) live captioning inside of the Adobe
> Connect
> environment (see:
> http://environmentsforhumans.com/2015/accessibility-summit/#.V4e4WLgrKhc),
> and as far as I recall, they are using a CART service who are inputting
> into the Adobe Connect space, and that 'platform' while not perfect, is
> pretty darned good accessibility-wise. (For CART srevices, you might find
> this helpful: http://ccacaptioning.org/faqs-cart/)
>
> HTH
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Preast, Vanessa < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
>> Does this also apply to live distance instruction, such as using Adobe
>> Connect or webinars?
>>
>> If so, is it acceptable to provide the live captioning only on the
>> occasions when a participant registering for the event indicates the
>> need
>> for live captions? Otherwise the captions would be added to the
>> recording
>> later?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>