WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions

for

From: Randy Pope
Date: Aug 17, 2012 2:53AM

David,

While your interpretation of this provision may be correct, it still does
not address the problem of accessing the information for those who are
DeafBlind. They cannot see the video, the caption or hear the audio format.
The only access that most DeafBlind have, is alternative text of the content
in video or audio format.

This provision and others need to be revised to address the DeafBlind access
to information on the web.

Randy Pope


-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of David Ashleydale
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:32 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions

Hi,

I wish WCAG were written a little more clearly, but I think I've finally
discovered a nuance of 1.2.3 that I had missed during my previous 100
readings of it.

I now interpret 1.2.3 as saying that it is considered satisfied without
anyone doing anything as long as the video in question has no content that
is not also present in the default audio track. For example, if I have a
video that consists entirely of a talking head that is explaining a new
banking service -- and there are no visual cues that a non-sighted user
could miss -- neither a text transcript nor an audio description track are
needed to satisfy 1.2.3. A text transcript or an audio description track are
needed only if there is some content in the video that is only presented
visually. An example of this would be that in the video, one person quietly
approaches another and slips a note into their pocket without them noticing,
then quietly slips away. A non-sighted user of this video would have no
indication this happened unless a text transcript that described this action
or a user-selectable audio track with another narrator who explained this
action when it occurred are provided. In that case, 1.2.3 would require that
either a text transcript or an audio description track be provided.

Am I finally interpreting 1.2.3 correctly? I had previously thought that
1.2.3 was telling me that all videos need text transcripts to be available,
except in the case where some content is presented visually and not aurally,
and an audio description track is provided. In that case 1.2.3 would be
satisfied by the audio description. But my interpretation was that if the
video did not have content that was presented visually not aurally, it would
still need a text transcript.

I find that making text transcripts available for every video is a good
customer experience best practice anyway, and I plan on adding it to our
company's video publishing requirements. But now when someone asks me if
making the transcript available for videos that are fully explained in their
default audio tracks is because of trying to conform to WCAG, I will say no.
We just do it because it's good for usability.

Make sense?

David Ashleydale
messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>