WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Video Transcript Question (Bump)

for

From: L Snider
Date: Nov 23, 2014 2:19PM

Hi John,

Yes, good reminders and the link text example was a good one. The Word
documents will be made into PDF documents, so people can download them. My
feeling was always that if you create an accessible Word>PDF that it was
better than an HTML page as one can download it and read it when they like
(not having to be on the net).

I would be curious to hear your view, and others, on PDF versus HTML (oh
and for forms, HTML is the way to go, not the PDF in my view).

Cheers

Lisa

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Foliot < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Hi Lisa,
>
>
>
> Overall, I agree with Karl's recommendation, while at the same time
> pointing
> out a few things (that hopefully others might learn from too):
>
>
>
> 1) Providing a transcript is more than a "nice to have" (in case others
> might start thinking that) - it is in fact often a requirement for WCAG AA
> Compliance:
>
>
>
> 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded): An
> alternative for time-based media or audio description of the prerecorded
> video content is provided for synchronized media, except when the media is
> a
> media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such. (Level A)
>
>
>
> ...where the transcript is the 'alternative' to the audio-description. (The
> audio description piece of course being a AA requirement:
>
> 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded): Audio description is provided
> for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media. (Level AA))
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) You mentioned having a transcript in Word. While obviously we want to
> avoid formats that may introduce their own issues (i.e. user does not have
> MS Office), there are examples of .rtf and .pdf transcripts that are
> provided for download, which technically meet the WCAG Requirement, so
> providing the transcript in an alternative format is not forbidden.
>
>
>
> However, as always, HTML is the preferred format for interoperability.
> Semantically structured HTML (aka POSH - Plain Old Semantic HTML) is still
> the best :) Karl's suggestion of using <h>headings is one that I would
> also
> recommend, although depending on the content I might also look at the
> viability of definition lists:
>
> <dl>
> <dt>Question 1</dt>
>
> <dd>Response to question 1</dd>
>
> <dt>Question 2</dt>
>
> <dd>Response to question 2</dd>
>
> <dt>Question 3</dt>
>
> <dd>Response to question 3</dd>
>
> </dl>
>
>
>
> 3) Currently HTML5 lacks a programmatic way of *directly linking* a
> transcript to a video, which can be problematic, especially if a web page
> contains more than one video.
>
>
>
> While this is a known issue (and it is being worked on now), I highly
> recommend that the link text for your transcript be well labeled; i.e.
> avoid
> this:
>
> <a href="">transcript</a>
>
>
>
> .in favor of either:
>
>
>
> <a href="">Transcript for the XYZ Video</a> [explicit, clear link text]
>
> or
>
> <a href="" aria-label="Transcript for the XYZ Video ">transcript</a>
>
>
>
> .although the second solution is only viable for users with Assistive
> Technology.
>
>
>
>
>
> FWIW.
>
>
>
> JF
>
> ------------------------------
>
> John Foliot
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> W3C Invited Expert - Accessibility
>
> Co-Founder, Open Web Camp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >