WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Success Criterion 1.2.3 - transcripts and audio description

for

From: Jason Kiss
Date: Jun 11, 2011 1:57AM

Thanks for the response, Andrew. Given the nature of such an audio-video
clip as described, that's really how I read it as well. I expect that
the success criterion and the accompanying guidance could probably be a
little clearer, but I do appreciate your confirming my suspicions, and
additionally noting the benefit of transcripts for deaf-blind users, a
scenario too often neglected.

Also, apologies to you and the list for that second paragraph in my
original message: darned HTML email, which I rarely use, introduced all
those darned URLs making it pretty unreadable.

Cheers,

Jason


On 11/06/11 16:14, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> On the Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.3 page [
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-audio-desc.html],
> Note 1 says "if all of the information in the video track is already
> provided in the audio track, no audio description is necessary." On
> that same page, Note 2 says that "in Success Criterion 1.2.3, authors
> do have the choice of providing either an audio description or a full
> text alternative."
>
> Let's say we have an audio-video clip for which the video track is
> purely incidental and adds no additional meaning. In other words,
> remove the video track, and all the meaningful content remains in the
> audio track. Does Success Criterion 1.2.3 enable someone to say,
> "Okay, I'm going to provide an audio description for this video
> instead of a text transcript, and since there is no information in
> the video track to add to an audio description, I'm all done." For
> instance, could someone in this case provide an additional audio
> description track that is effectively empty or silent, and reasonably
> claim that they've complied with 1.2.3?
>
> Yes, I believe that they would be able to say that they are all done,
> and the empty audio description track is not necessary.
>
> Or, because there is no meaningful audio description to provide, does
> 1.2.3 thereby require that a transcript be provided?
>
> No, I don't think so. A transcript is still useful of course,
> particularly for users who are deaf-blind, but I don't think that it
> is required in this case.
>
> AWK