E-mail List Archives
Re: Transcript vs. Caption
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Dec 18, 2014 7:52PM
- Next message: Jonathan Avila: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- Previous message: John Foliot: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- Next message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- Previous message in Thread: John Foliot: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- View all messages in this Thread
The full alternative for time-based media (transcript with cc and ad information) kicks in with 1.2.8 at AAA.
Triple A or single A, I do agree that deaf-blind users will find a resource like this useful, if not necessary.
> John, I'm trying to figure out what success criteria you are saying
> would require transcripts for WCAG Level AA multimedia conformance if
> audio description was available. My read is that SC 1.2.3 and SC
> 1.2.5 can both be met via audio description. SC 1.2.2 and 1.2.4 can
> be met through captions. The requirement for transcripts when audio
> description and captions is present is something that doesn't appear
> to be clear.
So... technically yes, I suppose you could get by ('legally speaking') with audio description and captions only; however from the Intent of 1.2.3 comes the following:
"The alternative for time-based media reads something like a screenplay or book. Unlike audio description, the description of the video portion is not constrained to just the pauses in the existing dialogue. Full descriptions are provided of all visual information, including visual context, actions and expressions of actors, and any other visual material.
In addition, non-speech sounds (laughter, off-screen voices, etc.) are described, and transcripts of all dialogue are included. The sequence of description and dialogue transcripts are the same as the sequence in the synchronized media itself. As a result, the alternative for time-based media can provide a much more complete representation of the synchronized media content than audio description alone."
I'll suggest here, although concur that it is NOT a formal AA requirement, that providing a Transcript also benefits the deaf/blind user, as well as users with cognition issues.
Old dogs like me will remember there was a lot of concern about releasing WCAG 2.0 because there was very little there for that particular user-group
- thankfully there is some work afoot now (the COGA Task Force at W3C being a major example) to shore up those holes. I've been very close to media accessibility for a while now, and I've always seen the Transcript as a MUST requirement in my mind, although as you note, it currently isn't. I guess it's the difference between meeting the minimum compliance bar, and "doing the right thing" kind of argument...
From a production standpoint however, I'd further argue that once you've got the dialog converted to text (for the captions) and the descriptions as text (suggested by Technique H96: Using the track element to provide audio descriptions), that generating a transcript would likely not require a whole lot more effort (Captions + Descriptions + a tiny bit more if required = Transcript).
Today, I am primarily more concerned about meeting AA for multi-media overall, as my suspicion is that many folks really don't fully understand what is required for the audio description part, given that it seems simply getting captions provided is still an apparent uphill battle for many. The complexity of creating the descriptions (the script), getting it recorded, and then synchronizing those audio descriptions with the primary media asset so that one voice doesn't "step" on the other... add in the lack of any form of native support in user agents... and, we just don't seem to be there quite yet technically; yet there it is, a AA Level conformance requirement.
I was unaware of the Chrome extensions that Loretta pointed out (off to check them out next), and so that shows promise, however having support in only one browser (via user-installed plugins) feels quite brittle to me today - is all.