WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Accessibility a external content

for

From: Cyndi Rowland
Date: Mar 30, 2022 2:24PM

Hi Christopher,
My experience is that from a compliance perspective it is all covered, as I assume your question to be on instructional content. If there is instructional content that is not needed, why would it be provided? Even if it were not instructional in nature, you probably do not have to go far to realize those videos may be covered because their use would be covered as a Place of Public Accommodation under ADA.
Certainly, there are solutions to this, including skins that can be used. But I think the best by far is to reach out to the author and ask them if they might caption it so that all can enjoy their content. I do assume that searches for captioned videos of the same content would have already occurred in case there are multiple instances of the same content, some with captions. If you do end up creating the captions, hopefully, you extend the text file to the author so they have an easier time making a captioned instance of their own content, and hopefully, they are a bit more aware of their need to do so in the future.
Cyndi

----------------------------------
[Utah State University]
Cyndi Rowland, Ph.D.
(she/her/hers)
Executive Director
WebAIM; National Center on Disability and Access to Education;
Institute on Disability Research, Policy, and Practice
Office: (435) 797-3381 | Mobile: (435) 760-2691
WebAIM at Utah State University<https://WebAIM.org>

From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > on behalf of Christopher Phillips < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 1:03 PM
To: <EMAIL REMOVED> < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: [WebAIM] Accessibility a external content

Hello everyone –
I am stuck in a discussion around some accessibility policy that we are working and would be grateful for any feedback any of you might have around accessibility standards for external content.

Clearly any links or embeds need to be provided in an accessible way, but my question is more around the accessibility of that external content and considerations around linking to or embedding content that isn't accessible. Sometimes we can impact external content to make it more accessible (e.g. we can wrap our own captions around an uncaptioned video), but my question is around content where doing so isn't possible.

Generally we are more concerned about the content/experiences we manage and less concerned with external content that we link to or share, but there are some nuances that we are wrestling with:


1. Is there a meaningful difference between linking to external content (website, document or video) or embedding external content? For example, consider 3 uncaptioned YouTube videos on a page you own – a) a link, b) an embedded video on a channel you own, or c) an embedded video on a channel you don't own. Would treat any of those differently from others from a compliance perspective?
2. Or perhaps the way something is shared (embedded or linked) is less relevantand we should be looking more at how important or essential the content is to determine of it can be linked to or embedded?

We are also aware that policy decisions may impact some behavior – for example, if we were to require captions on embedded videos but not linked videos – people may decide to link to an uncaptioned 3rd party video rather than embed it even if embedding it would provide a better user experience.

Any feedback or experience is appreciated!

--
Christopher Phillips
Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Coordinator
Center for Innovative Design and Instruction
Utah State University
https://www.usu.edu/accessibility/
435-797-5535