WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Synchronised media ambiguity again

for

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Sep 7, 2020 6:34AM

On 07/09/2020 13:19, Steve Green wrote:
> I am trying to work out which WCAG success criteria apply to a video in which information is only conveyed visually. There is a continuous music track that is purely decorative. The visual content is not actually a video, but it's an animation with text.
>
> The decision regarding which success criteria apply depends on whether you classify the video as video-only, synchronised media or time-based media. My inclination is to say it's not synchronised media, but in a previous discussion the overwhelming view was that it's synchronised media if audio and video tracks are started by a single action, which they are.

I believe the point was more nuanced at the time (at least from some of
us): if the audio does convey information, then it counts as
synchronised, even though it's not necessarily timed to hit certain
beats of the visual. And unless the audio is completely disjointed from
the video or vice-versa (i.e. literally random pictures that don't even
try to match even even with the mood, or illustrate somehow, the audio /
audio that is pure music and has nothing to do with the actual visuals)
it still would count as "synchronised"

The key for it then needing an audio description is: you can't, as user
who cannot see the video, follow along with a transcript AND the video's
audio playing at the same time.

Now, if the audio in your video is pure muzak, and conveys no info, I
would not consider that stringently "synchronised media", and would not
ding them for not having an audio transcript. They can, if they want to
of course. But it needs at least a transcript.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke