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: Diana Grappasonno
Date: Oct 10, 2023 2:58PM

Hello Mike et al,

Because there isn't very much guidance on formatting captions in WCAG, we
usually refer to the Captioning Key by DCMP
<https://dcmp.org/learn/captioningkey> (Described and Captioned Media
Program), which does have guidance around line breaks and
caption frame breaks. I believe somewhere in the WCAG documentation, they
also refer to DCMP.


Cheers,
Diana Grappasonno




On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 11:00 AM < <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)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sonja Weckenmann < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 21:44:29 +0200
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessible authentication and "transcription"
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mike Warner < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:01:33 -0400
> Subject: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant?
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:06:32 -0400
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant?
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Patrick H. Lauke" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:07:37 +0100
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant?
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jared Smith < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:17:46 +0000
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant?
> > 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
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:21:15 -0400
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant?
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Patrick H. Lauke" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:31:51 +0100
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant?
>
> 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
>
>
>
> > > > >