WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Video Transcript Question (Bump)

for

From: L Snider
Date: Nov 24, 2014 1:27PM

Hi Ryan,

Thanks for posting that, it helped me think about this in another way. For
this document, it could go on 30-40 pages and have 100 Q&As! I think I
found a solution with sub headings that would work, and break it up enough
to be useful.

More on the HTML vs. PDF in my next email.

Cheers

Lisa

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Ryan E. Benson < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> I somewhat disagree with karl's approach. While headings will give it
> structure, but if the answers are short, that could mean every other line
> or so being a heading. This could lead them lose their value in some
> people's eyes. What would you think if you opened up a 2-3 page doc with 20
> headings?
>
> Now if the interview had topic break-points or long answers (2+
> paragraphs), I would recommend using headings.
>
> I would agree with John with HTML vs PDF, unless you know that most of your
> users will read the document when they don't have the internet. I haven't
> done testing with Word 2013, but even though there is a way to create an
> accessible PDF option in Word, there are false positives that can occur.
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:19 PM, L Snider < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >