E-mail List Archives
Thread: Native vs Embedded video
Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)
From: Dona Patrick
Date: Thu, Mar 07 2013 2:25PM
Subject: Native vs Embedded video
No previous message | Next message →
I received this question from a developer at work today and I am not sure
of the answer. I've never heard this and a brief search online didn't give
me any answers. I am assuming she is talking about captioned video. Is she
correct?
Thanks,
Dona
My understanding of embedded video and audio players is that they dont
> necessarily have to be compliant as long as a download link to the native
> file is provided. Does that sound right to you?
From: Steve Green
Date: Thu, Mar 07 2013 3:34PM
Subject: Re: Native vs Embedded video
← Previous message | Next message →
They are talking about the accessibility of the media player controls, not the accessibility of the media file.
As such, I am inclined to agree as long as the native file is in a 'sensible' format that is well supported. It is possible to get free media players for most common file formats for most operating systems, albeit that users may well not have these installed, so it would be necessary to provide a link from which they can be downloaded.
It would still be necessary for the media files to have captions and audio descriptions where appropriate.
Although this solution would be technically compliant, in practice we often find that people do not know the keyboard shortcuts for their native media player. Of course there is an onus on them to learn how to use their machine but I suspect that most people are used to playing audio and video through their browser, not the native media player.
Steve Green
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Thu, Mar 07 2013 4:01PM
Subject: Re: Native vs Embedded video
← Previous message | Next message →
I disagree with Steve. As the content provider, you should be providing the
main way to get that content as the accessible way. Making people download
a file if they need an accessible version is forcing them to do an extra
step - along the lines of seperate-but-equal. Which brings up another
point, if you have an inaccessible player, there's a better chance of
causing focus trap, so they'll never get out of the player. Therefore never
able to get to that download link. I wouldn't adopt this mindset because it
could go along with the "oh our video doesn't need to be captioned because
there is a transcript."
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Steve Green
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> They are talking about the accessibility of the media player controls, not
> the accessibility of the media file.
>
> As such, I am inclined to agree as long as the native file is in a
> 'sensible' format that is well supported. It is possible to get free media
> players for most common file formats for most operating systems, albeit
> that users may well not have these installed, so it would be necessary to
> provide a link from which they can be downloaded.
>
> It would still be necessary for the media files to have captions and audio
> descriptions where appropriate.
>
> Although this solution would be technically compliant, in practice we
> often find that people do not know the keyboard shortcuts for their native
> media player. Of course there is an onus on them to learn how to use their
> machine but I suspect that most people are used to playing audio and video
> through their browser, not the native media player.
>
> Steve Green
>
>
From: Steve Green
Date: Thu, Mar 07 2013 4:21PM
Subject: Re: Native vs Embedded video
← Previous message | Next message →
It depends whether your objective is WCAG compliance or some more utopian goal. I would say that providing the native file does comply with WCAG even if it is not the optimal user experience.
As always, context is important. Most of our clients are design agencies who are contractually obliged to build websites that comply with WCAG, so that is what we test for. On the other hand, some of our public sector clients are legally mandated to make their websites as accessible as possible, so they probably would not find the provision of native files to be an acceptable solution.
Steve Green
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Thu, Mar 07 2013 4:45PM
Subject: Re: Native vs Embedded video
← Previous message | Next message →
> I would say that providing the native file does comply with WCAG even if
it is not the optimal user experience.
Then I could say, I don't need to make my website accessible if I provide a
nicely laid out text version. Not the best experience but was a
justification 10 years ago.
> public sector clients are legally mandated to make their websites as
accessible as possible, so they probably would not find the provision of
native files to be an acceptable solution.
In the US, public sector sites still have to follow Section 508. By
default, a web page would fall under 1194.22, web pages (simplified, and
1194.31, 1194.41 by default), since the page has video, 1194.26, video, is
now applicable, requiring captions and audio descriptions. Since there is
really no default video player in a browser, it must be coded/scripted.
Plug-ins and heavily scripted elements, like flash, are better tested under
1194.21, applications, which requires full keyboard access, and UI elements
to be labeled.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Steve Green
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> It depends whether your objective is WCAG compliance or some more utopian
> goal. I would say that providing the native file does comply with WCAG even
> if it is not the optimal user experience.
>
> As always, context is important. Most of our clients are design agencies
> who are contractually obliged to build websites that comply with WCAG, so
> that is what we test for. On the other hand, some of our public sector
> clients are legally mandated to make their websites as accessible as
> possible, so they probably would not find the provision of native files to
> be an acceptable solution.
>
> Steve Green
>
>
From: Steve Green
Date: Thu, Mar 07 2013 5:02PM
Subject: Re: Native vs Embedded video
← Previous message | Next message →
It sounds like we are in significant, if not total, agreement.
WCAG requires websites to be 'reasonably usable', not 'equally usable'. We may not like it, but that's how it's written. Therefore if we are testing for compliance with WCAG, that's the criterion we must use. If a text version passes all the success criteria (and I am not saying it would), then the website is WCAG-compliant even if it's an ugly solution.
As testers, it's not our job to justify anything - we just test against whatever criteria are applicable in the context of each project. We may encourage our clients to go further in order to improve the user experience, but they have no obligation to do so.
Steve Green
From: Dona Patrick
Date: Fri, Mar 08 2013 7:18AM
Subject: Re: Native vs Embedded video
← Previous message | No next message
Thanks for your responses, Steve and Ryan. I neglected to say that this is
for a US Federal Government website -- so by compliant she meant Section
508.
I'd not considered the "keyboard trap" issue and will definitely include
that information in my response to the developer.
Dona
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Steve Green
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> It sounds like we are in significant, if not total, agreement.
>
> WCAG requires websites to be 'reasonably usable', not 'equally usable'. We
> may not like it, but that's how it's written. Therefore if we are testing
> for compliance with WCAG, that's the criterion we must use. If a text
> version passes all the success criteria (and I am not saying it would),
> then the website is WCAG-compliant even if it's an ugly solution.
>
> As testers, it's not our job to justify anything - we just test against
> whatever criteria are applicable in the context of each project. We may
> encourage our clients to go further in order to improve the user
> experience, but they have no obligation to do so.
>
> Steve Green
>
>