E-mail List Archives
Re: Transcript vs. Caption
From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Dec 18, 2014 8:05PM
- Next message: John Foliot: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- Previous message: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- Next message in Thread: John Foliot: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- Previous message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- View all messages in this Thread
[John wrote] Full descriptions are provided of all visual information, including visual context, actions and expressions of actors, and any other visual material.
So, if you take the stance of full audio description being a hard requirement and the fact that most multimedia will not have pauses for then from what I've read and seen discussed before SC 1.2.5 AA cannot be met on a technicality of the definition of audio description. So you could run into a situation where you meeting SC 1.2.7 extended audio description and you could meet 1.2.3 with a transcript but you could not meet SC 1.2.5. I do see that the WCAG working group as g8 Extended audio description as a sufficient technique for SC 1.2.5 -- so I hope that we can all agree that an extended audio description would meet SC 1.2.5 despite the definition of audio description in 1.2.5 implying the AD should fit in to the pauses.
> 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.
I concur.
Jonathan
- Next message: John Foliot: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- Previous message: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- Next message in Thread: John Foliot: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- Previous message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Transcript vs. Caption"
- View all messages in this Thread