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.
From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of John Foliot
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:27 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Transcript vs. Caption
Jonathan Avila wrote:
> 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.