WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places. Is it compliant?

for

From: Mike Warner
Date: Oct 10, 2023 1:48PM

> So, one can certainly argue that if the presentation of captions impacts
the ability to understand the media content or results in information that
is not equivalent that they are not actually captions, and thus not WCAG
conformant. How you measure these would be entirely subjective.

I like that. Thanks,Jared. That's what I was thinking, but expressed
better than I had it in my head!

Thanks!
Mike Warner
Director of IT Services
MindEdge Learning


On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 2:00 PM < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> Send WebAIM-Forum mailing list submissions to
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://list.webaim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/webaim-forum
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WebAIM-Forum digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Accessible authentication and "transcription"
> (Sonja Weckenmann)
> 2. closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places.
> Is it compliant? (Mike Warner)
> 3. Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant? (Birkir R. Gunnarsson)
> 4. Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant? (Patrick H. Lauke)
> 5. Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant? (Jared Smith)
> 6. Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant? (Birkir R. Gunnarsson)
> 7. Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant? (Patrick H. Lauke)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 21:44:29 +0200
> From: Sonja Weckenmann < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessible authentication and "transcription"
> Message-ID: < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> > There is some gray area around the idea that they can potentially copy
> it on device, then transfer it to their machine (for instance, emailing
> it over, or with OS integrations that let you have a shared clipboard
> between devices).
>
>
> Do you know about an issue / discussio on that in the Working Group?
> Would it rather be a pass than a fail? I think this may be a common use
> case?
>
> Thanks
> Sonja
>
>
> Am 08.10.2023 um 21:26 schrieb Patrick H. Lauke:
> >
> > On 08/10/2023 20:19, Damon van Vessem wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> I have a question about 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (AA),
> >> specifically
> >> about “transcribing” information. Let’s say a user is trying to sign
> >> in on
> >> their laptop and a 2-factor mechanism requires them to use one-time code
> >> received/generated on their phone. Is this an acceptable solution,
> >> since it
> >> requires them to type (transcribe?) the code on their laptop?
> >
> > If they can only transcribe it manually, then that fails. There is some
> > gray area around the idea that they can potentially copy it on device,
> > then transfer it to their machine (for instance, emailing it over, or
> > with OS integrations that let you have a shared clipboard between
> devices).
> >
> > P
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:01:33 -0400
> From: Mike Warner < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID:
> <
> <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've recently seen closed captions that are very awkward and hard to
> follow. These do not break at natural break points, but in random places.
> One section of a caption has the last two words of a sentence followed by a
> short sentence of a few words, then the first word of the next sentence.
> An example would be "was today. Tomorrow, even better? We" Even when I
> listen to the spoken text, I have a hard time following the caption. The
> caption is not missing any text, so it's not a failure for that success
> criterion.
>
> I don't see anything in W3C or WCAG that mentions how the text should be
> broken up as a success criteria, but I'd really like to say that this is an
> accessibility failure. I'd think that it would fit within the realm of
> cognitive accessibility, if nothing else. The following W3G page mentions
> that people with cognitive and learning disabilities need to see as well as
> hear the content to better understand it, but doesn't speak to the flow of
> the captions themselves.
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspective-videos/captions/
>
> Does anyone know of a rule that would apply to this?
>
> Thanks everyone,
> Mike
>
> Mike Warner
> Director of IT Services
> MindEdge Learning
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:06:32 -0400
> From: "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in
> awkward places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID:
> <CAB7CyMuESMhX=CHnUE8WYbceXRwh> 7+ <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Bare minimum Wcag, yes, it is technically conformant
> WCAG only requires the presence of captions, it doesn't really say
> anything about accuracy or readability of captions.
> I like this article on the topic:
> https://meryl.net/how-to-be-accessibility-ally/
>
> (see the "bare minimum" section).
>
> On 10/10/23, Mike Warner < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I've recently seen closed captions that are very awkward and hard to
> > follow. These do not break at natural break points, but in random
> places.
> > One section of a caption has the last two words of a sentence followed
> by a
> > short sentence of a few words, then the first word of the next sentence.
> > An example would be "was today. Tomorrow, even better? We" Even when I
> > listen to the spoken text, I have a hard time following the caption. The
> > caption is not missing any text, so it's not a failure for that success
> > criterion.
> >
> > I don't see anything in W3C or WCAG that mentions how the text should be
> > broken up as a success criteria, but I'd really like to say that this is
> an
> > accessibility failure. I'd think that it would fit within the realm of
> > cognitive accessibility, if nothing else. The following W3G page
> mentions
> > that people with cognitive and learning disabilities need to see as well
> as
> > hear the content to better understand it, but doesn't speak to the flow
> of
> > the captions themselves.
> > https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspective-videos/captions/
> >
> > Does anyone know of a rule that would apply to this?
> >
> > Thanks everyone,
> > Mike
> >
> > Mike Warner
> > Director of IT Services
> > MindEdge Learning
> > > > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:07:37 +0100
> From: "Patrick H. Lauke" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in
> awkward places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID: < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
> On 10/10/2023 14:01, Mike Warner wrote:
> >
> > I don't see anything in W3C or WCAG that mentions how the text should be
> > broken up as a success criteria
>
> WCAG normatively doesn't say anything about the quality of captions
> (and, strictly, doesn't cover many other aspects of captions; it doesn't
> even explicitly say that they must be accurate - though that's arguably
> implied). It really only says that you must have captions, not how good,
> bad, properly broken up, whether or not they identify different
> speakers, etc. they are.
>
> > but I'd really like to say that this is an
> > accessibility failure.
>
> There are many real-world situations that are accessibility failures,
> but that pass the very basic bar of WCAG. The latter really only
> provides the first step towards truly accessible and usable content.
>
> > Does anyone know of a rule that would apply to this?
>
> I would say it passes WCAG normatively. Then, I'd hang a best practice
> recommendation off of 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded)
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:17:46 +0000
> From: Jared Smith < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in
> awkward places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID:
> <
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> > WCAG normatively doesn't say anything about the quality of captions
>
> While WCAG doesn't define any useful measure of quality, the normative
> definition of captions<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-captions> is
> "synchronized visual and/or text alternative for both speech and non-speech
> audio information needed to understand the media content." The definition
> also has two notes that state "Captions are equivalents…"
>
> So, one can certainly argue that if the presentation of captions impacts
> the ability to understand the media content or results in information that
> is not equivalent that they are not actually captions, and thus not WCAG
> conformant. How you measure these would be entirely subjective.
>
> Jared
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:21:15 -0400
> From: "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in
> awkward places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID:
> <CAB7CyMsxRaS=ANvjH7fC3> <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Well said, as always. ;)
> I should've said that WCAG does not provide much in the way of of
> actual tangible requirements for transcripts, only functional ones.
> This is the biggest strength of WCAG as well as its biggest weakness. ;)
>
>
> On 10/10/23, Jared Smith < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >> WCAG normatively doesn't say anything about the quality of captions
> >
> > While WCAG doesn't define any useful measure of quality, the normative
> > definition of captions<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-captions> is
> > "synchronized visual and/or text alternative for both speech and
> non-speech
> > audio information needed to understand the media content." The definition
> > also has two notes that state "Captions are equivalents…"
> >
> > So, one can certainly argue that if the presentation of captions impacts
> the
> > ability to understand the media content or results in information that is
> > not equivalent that they are not actually captions, and thus not WCAG
> > conformant. How you measure these would be entirely subjective.
> >
> > Jared
> > > > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:31:51 +0100
> From: "Patrick H. Lauke" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in
> awkward places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID: < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
> On 10/10/2023 15:17, Jared Smith wrote:
> >> WCAG normatively doesn't say anything about the quality of captions
> >
> > While WCAG doesn't define any useful measure of quality, the normative
> definition of captions<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-captions> is
> "synchronized visual and/or text alternative for both speech and non-speech
> audio information needed to understand the media content." The definition
> also has two notes that state "Captions are equivalents…"
> >
> > So, one can certainly argue that if the presentation of captions impacts
> the ability to understand the media content or results in information that
> is not equivalent that they are not actually captions, and thus not WCAG
> conformant. How you measure these would be entirely subjective.
>
>
> WCAG subjective? Never! It's a cut-and-dry set of binary pass/fail
> criteria! ;)
>
> Admittedly, there's a lot that could be read into the idea of "needed to
> understand" and "equivalent". I'd argue back that these subjective
> aspects will be highly inconsistent between auditors, and I'd still
> stick with the minimum normatively clear requirements...but we can have
> a fight over this next week in Toronto after my talk ;)
>
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> > > > >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 223, Issue 3
> ********************************************
>