E-mail List Archives
Thread: Video Transcript Question (Bump)
Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)
From: L Snider
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2014 11:58AM
Subject: Video Transcript Question (Bump)
No previous message | Next message →
Hi All,
I am trying this one again, as I was having some major email issues when I
sent this the first time!
For videos, I provide CC or open captioning, but I also like to include a
text transcript of the content as well. The content of the videos is
usually interviews, so there are a lot of questions and answers, and
sometimes multiple people talking.
I have done a lot of research and have not yet found a source that talks
about the best way to make that text transcript accessible (other than to
have one-which I have always done).
For example, the documents would be created in Word and would usually only
have a couple of headings at the top, but the rest of the text would just
be Q and A over and over again...Does anyone have a good example of an
accessible text transcript or an online source that talks about this aspect?
Thanks in advance,
Lisa
From: Karl Groves
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2014 6:10AM
Subject: Re: Video Transcript Question (Bump)
← Previous message | Next message →
Lisa,
You should treat the transcript like any other content, really.
Without knowing the exact nature of the videos, it is hard to
recommend an exact structure. For instance, you mention that the text
is "...just Q and A over and over again". Based on that description,
it might make sense for each question to be a heading, under which is
the answer, like so:
<h2>Question: ______</h2>
<p>text of answer</p>
Another idea, especially if the interview is well structured, might be
something like:
<h2>Topic: (time-start to time-end)</h2>
<h3>Question: ______</h3>
<p>text of answer</p>
Keep in mind the audiences of a transcript: They may be people who are
hard of hearing, obviously, but might also be screen reader users or
even users who have cognitive impairments. A well-structured
transcript can help all of those users. For users who are not visually
impaired it might even make sense to include images, such as screen
captures of the interview, especially if visual aids exist in the
video.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:58 PM, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying this one again, as I was having some major email issues when I
> sent this the first time!
>
> For videos, I provide CC or open captioning, but I also like to include a
> text transcript of the content as well. The content of the videos is
> usually interviews, so there are a lot of questions and answers, and
> sometimes multiple people talking.
>
> I have done a lot of research and have not yet found a source that talks
> about the best way to make that text transcript accessible (other than to
> have one-which I have always done).
>
> For example, the documents would be created in Word and would usually only
> have a couple of headings at the top, but the rest of the text would just
> be Q and A over and over again...Does anyone have a good example of an
> accessible text transcript or an online source that talks about this aspect?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Lisa
> > > --
Karl Groves
www.karlgroves.com
@karlgroves
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
Phone: +1 410.541.6829
Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
www.tenon.io
From: L Snider
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2014 11:20AM
Subject: Re: Video Transcript Question (Bump)
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Karl,
Thanks so much. That is how I was thinking of approaching it, with
headings, so that a screen reader user could list them and go to a
particular one. Oh and this transcript will be made accessible for people
with all disabilities, but it was the screen reader part that I was trying
to work out-and headings are great!
Thanks again, appreciate it!
Cheers
Lisa
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Lisa,
>
> You should treat the transcript like any other content, really.
> Without knowing the exact nature of the videos, it is hard to
> recommend an exact structure. For instance, you mention that the text
> is "...just Q and A over and over again". Based on that description,
> it might make sense for each question to be a heading, under which is
> the answer, like so:
>
> <h2>Question: ______</h2>
> <p>text of answer</p>
>
> Another idea, especially if the interview is well structured, might be
> something like:
>
> <h2>Topic: (time-start to time-end)</h2>
> <h3>Question: ______</h3>
> <p>text of answer</p>
>
>
> Keep in mind the audiences of a transcript: They may be people who are
> hard of hearing, obviously, but might also be screen reader users or
> even users who have cognitive impairments. A well-structured
> transcript can help all of those users. For users who are not visually
> impaired it might even make sense to include images, such as screen
> captures of the interview, especially if visual aids exist in the
> video.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:58 PM, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I am trying this one again, as I was having some major email issues when
> I
> > sent this the first time!
> >
> > For videos, I provide CC or open captioning, but I also like to include a
> > text transcript of the content as well. The content of the videos is
> > usually interviews, so there are a lot of questions and answers, and
> > sometimes multiple people talking.
> >
> > I have done a lot of research and have not yet found a source that talks
> > about the best way to make that text transcript accessible (other than to
> > have one-which I have always done).
> >
> > For example, the documents would be created in Word and would usually
> only
> > have a couple of headings at the top, but the rest of the text would just
> > be Q and A over and over again...Does anyone have a good example of an
> > accessible text transcript or an online source that talks about this
> aspect?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Lisa
> > > > > > >
>
>
> --
>
> Karl Groves
> www.karlgroves.com
> @karlgroves
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
> Phone: +1 410.541.6829
>
> Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
>
> www.tenon.io
> > > >
From: John Foliot
Date: Sat, Nov 22 2014 11:58AM
Subject: Re: Video Transcript Question (Bump)
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Lisa,
Overall, I agree with Karl's recommendation, while at the same time pointing
out a few things (that hopefully others might learn from too):
1) Providing a transcript is more than a "nice to have" (in case others
might start thinking that) - it is in fact often a requirement for WCAG AA
Compliance:
1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded): An
alternative for time-based media or audio description of the prerecorded
video content is provided for synchronized media, except when the media is a
media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such. (Level A)
...where the transcript is the 'alternative' to the audio-description. (The
audio description piece of course being a AA requirement:
1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded): Audio description is provided
for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media. (Level AA))
2) You mentioned having a transcript in Word. While obviously we want to
avoid formats that may introduce their own issues (i.e. user does not have
MS Office), there are examples of .rtf and .pdf transcripts that are
provided for download, which technically meet the WCAG Requirement, so
providing the transcript in an alternative format is not forbidden.
However, as always, HTML is the preferred format for interoperability.
Semantically structured HTML (aka POSH - Plain Old Semantic HTML) is still
the best :) Karl's suggestion of using <h>headings is one that I would also
recommend, although depending on the content I might also look at the
viability of definition lists:
<dl>
<dt>Question 1</dt>
<dd>Response to question 1</dd>
<dt>Question 2</dt>
<dd>Response to question 2</dd>
<dt>Question 3</dt>
<dd>Response to question 3</dd>
</dl>
3) Currently HTML5 lacks a programmatic way of *directly linking* a
transcript to a video, which can be problematic, especially if a web page
contains more than one video.
While this is a known issue (and it is being worked on now), I highly
recommend that the link text for your transcript be well labeled; i.e. avoid
this:
<a href="">transcript</a>
.in favor of either:
<a href="">Transcript for the XYZ Video</a> [explicit, clear link text]
or
<a href="" aria-label="Transcript for the XYZ Video ">transcript</a>
.although the second solution is only viable for users with Assistive
Technology.
FWIW.
JF
------------------------------
John Foliot
Web Accessibility Specialist
W3C Invited Expert - Accessibility
Co-Founder, Open Web Camp
>
From: L Snider
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2014 2:19PM
Subject: Re: Video Transcript Question (Bump)
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi John,
Yes, good reminders and the link text example was a good one. The Word
documents will be made into PDF documents, so people can download them. My
feeling was always that if you create an accessible Word>PDF that it was
better than an HTML page as one can download it and read it when they like
(not having to be on the net).
I would be curious to hear your view, and others, on PDF versus HTML (oh
and for forms, HTML is the way to go, not the PDF in my view).
Cheers
Lisa
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Lisa,
>
>
>
> Overall, I agree with Karl's recommendation, while at the same time
> pointing
> out a few things (that hopefully others might learn from too):
>
>
>
> 1) Providing a transcript is more than a "nice to have" (in case others
> might start thinking that) - it is in fact often a requirement for WCAG AA
> Compliance:
>
>
>
> 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded): An
> alternative for time-based media or audio description of the prerecorded
> video content is provided for synchronized media, except when the media is
> a
> media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such. (Level A)
>
>
>
> ...where the transcript is the 'alternative' to the audio-description. (The
> audio description piece of course being a AA requirement:
>
> 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded): Audio description is provided
> for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media. (Level AA))
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) You mentioned having a transcript in Word. While obviously we want to
> avoid formats that may introduce their own issues (i.e. user does not have
> MS Office), there are examples of .rtf and .pdf transcripts that are
> provided for download, which technically meet the WCAG Requirement, so
> providing the transcript in an alternative format is not forbidden.
>
>
>
> However, as always, HTML is the preferred format for interoperability.
> Semantically structured HTML (aka POSH - Plain Old Semantic HTML) is still
> the best :) Karl's suggestion of using <h>headings is one that I would
> also
> recommend, although depending on the content I might also look at the
> viability of definition lists:
>
> <dl>
> <dt>Question 1</dt>
>
> <dd>Response to question 1</dd>
>
> <dt>Question 2</dt>
>
> <dd>Response to question 2</dd>
>
> <dt>Question 3</dt>
>
> <dd>Response to question 3</dd>
>
> </dl>
>
>
>
> 3) Currently HTML5 lacks a programmatic way of *directly linking* a
> transcript to a video, which can be problematic, especially if a web page
> contains more than one video.
>
>
>
> While this is a known issue (and it is being worked on now), I highly
> recommend that the link text for your transcript be well labeled; i.e.
> avoid
> this:
>
> <a href="">transcript</a>
>
>
>
> .in favor of either:
>
>
>
> <a href="">Transcript for the XYZ Video</a> [explicit, clear link text]
>
> or
>
> <a href="" aria-label="Transcript for the XYZ Video ">transcript</a>
>
>
>
> .although the second solution is only viable for users with Assistive
> Technology.
>
>
>
>
>
> FWIW.
>
>
>
> JF
>
> ------------------------------
>
> John Foliot
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> W3C Invited Expert - Accessibility
>
> Co-Founder, Open Web Camp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2014 7:00PM
Subject: Re: Video Transcript Question (Bump)
← Previous message | Next message →
I somewhat disagree with karl's approach. While headings will give it
structure, but if the answers are short, that could mean every other line
or so being a heading. This could lead them lose their value in some
people's eyes. What would you think if you opened up a 2-3 page doc with 20
headings?
Now if the interview had topic break-points or long answers (2+
paragraphs), I would recommend using headings.
I would agree with John with HTML vs PDF, unless you know that most of your
users will read the document when they don't have the internet. I haven't
done testing with Word 2013, but even though there is a way to create an
accessible PDF option in Word, there are false positives that can occur.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:19 PM, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Yes, good reminders and the link text example was a good one. The Word
> documents will be made into PDF documents, so people can download them. My
> feeling was always that if you create an accessible Word>PDF that it was
> better than an HTML page as one can download it and read it when they like
> (not having to be on the net).
>
> I would be curious to hear your view, and others, on PDF versus HTML (oh
> and for forms, HTML is the way to go, not the PDF in my view).
>
> Cheers
>
> Lisa
>
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > Hi Lisa,
> >
> >
> >
> > Overall, I agree with Karl's recommendation, while at the same time
> > pointing
> > out a few things (that hopefully others might learn from too):
> >
> >
> >
> > 1) Providing a transcript is more than a "nice to have" (in case others
> > might start thinking that) - it is in fact often a requirement for WCAG
> AA
> > Compliance:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded): An
> > alternative for time-based media or audio description of the prerecorded
> > video content is provided for synchronized media, except when the media
> is
> > a
> > media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such. (Level A)
> >
> >
> >
> > ...where the transcript is the 'alternative' to the audio-description.
> (The
> > audio description piece of course being a AA requirement:
> >
> > 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded): Audio description is
> provided
> > for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media. (Level AA))
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2) You mentioned having a transcript in Word. While obviously we want to
> > avoid formats that may introduce their own issues (i.e. user does not
> have
> > MS Office), there are examples of .rtf and .pdf transcripts that are
> > provided for download, which technically meet the WCAG Requirement, so
> > providing the transcript in an alternative format is not forbidden.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, as always, HTML is the preferred format for interoperability.
> > Semantically structured HTML (aka POSH - Plain Old Semantic HTML) is
> still
> > the best :) Karl's suggestion of using <h>headings is one that I would
> > also
> > recommend, although depending on the content I might also look at the
> > viability of definition lists:
> >
> > <dl>
> > <dt>Question 1</dt>
> >
> > <dd>Response to question 1</dd>
> >
> > <dt>Question 2</dt>
> >
> > <dd>Response to question 2</dd>
> >
> > <dt>Question 3</dt>
> >
> > <dd>Response to question 3</dd>
> >
> > </dl>
> >
> >
> >
> > 3) Currently HTML5 lacks a programmatic way of *directly linking* a
> > transcript to a video, which can be problematic, especially if a web page
> > contains more than one video.
> >
> >
> >
> > While this is a known issue (and it is being worked on now), I highly
> > recommend that the link text for your transcript be well labeled; i.e.
> > avoid
> > this:
> >
> > <a href="">transcript</a>
> >
> >
> >
> > .in favor of either:
> >
> >
> >
> > <a href="">Transcript for the XYZ Video</a> [explicit, clear link text]
> >
> > or
> >
> > <a href="" aria-label="Transcript for the XYZ Video ">transcript</a>
> >
> >
> >
> > .although the second solution is only viable for users with Assistive
> > Technology.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > FWIW.
> >
> >
> >
> > JF
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > John Foliot
> > Web Accessibility Specialist
> > W3C Invited Expert - Accessibility
> >
> > Co-Founder, Open Web Camp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2014 9:58AM
Subject: Re: Video Transcript Question (Bump)
← Previous message | Next message →
I think whether or not a downloadable transcript would be useful depends on the use cases.
When it comes to using the transcript as an accessible alternative, I think there is a tendency for the user to utilize the transcript just like they would use the video. I do not believe that people typically download video for later viewing offline and so I'm uncertain someone using a transcript as the accessible alternative is likely to behave any differently.
In that case, why not just use HTML for the transcript? They are already viewing a web page in the browser to access the video. Switching to PDF is going to change the user's context. They are going to have to mentally switch their frame of mind from navigating a web page to navigating a PDF document. With HTML, you can keep them in the same mental context. No switching gears. No swapping back and forth between using the web page and navigating the PDF document.
I expect there are use cases where a downloadable PDF transcript would be useful. However, in most cases, I suspect that HTML transcripts maintain a slight advantage over PDF transcripts.
It does sound like maybe some of this conversation might be more about ease of production than use cases. That is definitely a worthwhile consideration. How easy is it to convert the transcript from its original format into another format that is accessible? I have not had to convert a Word document to either an accessible HTML or PDF in some time, so I don't know what the level of effort or skill it would take to do that now. Depending on your video production process, you'll likely have some limitations on the amount of time you have to create an accessible transcript before the video is published. And that could potentially have a large impact on your format choices.
From: L Snider
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2014 1:27PM
Subject: Re: Video Transcript Question (Bump)
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for posting that, it helped me think about this in another way. For
this document, it could go on 30-40 pages and have 100 Q&As! I think I
found a solution with sub headings that would work, and break it up enough
to be useful.
More on the HTML vs. PDF in my next email.
Cheers
Lisa
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> I somewhat disagree with karl's approach. While headings will give it
> structure, but if the answers are short, that could mean every other line
> or so being a heading. This could lead them lose their value in some
> people's eyes. What would you think if you opened up a 2-3 page doc with 20
> headings?
>
> Now if the interview had topic break-points or long answers (2+
> paragraphs), I would recommend using headings.
>
> I would agree with John with HTML vs PDF, unless you know that most of your
> users will read the document when they don't have the internet. I haven't
> done testing with Word 2013, but even though there is a way to create an
> accessible PDF option in Word, there are false positives that can occur.
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:19 PM, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Yes, good reminders and the link text example was a good one. The Word
> > documents will be made into PDF documents, so people can download them.
> My
> > feeling was always that if you create an accessible Word>PDF that it was
> > better than an HTML page as one can download it and read it when they
> like
> > (not having to be on the net).
> >
> > I would be curious to hear your view, and others, on PDF versus HTML (oh
> > and for forms, HTML is the way to go, not the PDF in my view).
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lisa,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Overall, I agree with Karl's recommendation, while at the same time
> > > pointing
> > > out a few things (that hopefully others might learn from too):
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) Providing a transcript is more than a "nice to have" (in case others
> > > might start thinking that) - it is in fact often a requirement for WCAG
> > AA
> > > Compliance:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded): An
> > > alternative for time-based media or audio description of the
> prerecorded
> > > video content is provided for synchronized media, except when the media
> > is
> > > a
> > > media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such. (Level A)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ...where the transcript is the 'alternative' to the audio-description.
> > (The
> > > audio description piece of course being a AA requirement:
> > >
> > > 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded): Audio description is
> > provided
> > > for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media. (Level AA))
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) You mentioned having a transcript in Word. While obviously we want
> to
> > > avoid formats that may introduce their own issues (i.e. user does not
> > have
> > > MS Office), there are examples of .rtf and .pdf transcripts that are
> > > provided for download, which technically meet the WCAG Requirement, so
> > > providing the transcript in an alternative format is not forbidden.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > However, as always, HTML is the preferred format for interoperability.
> > > Semantically structured HTML (aka POSH - Plain Old Semantic HTML) is
> > still
> > > the best :) Karl's suggestion of using <h>headings is one that I would
> > > also
> > > recommend, although depending on the content I might also look at the
> > > viability of definition lists:
> > >
> > > <dl>
> > > <dt>Question 1</dt>
> > >
> > > <dd>Response to question 1</dd>
> > >
> > > <dt>Question 2</dt>
> > >
> > > <dd>Response to question 2</dd>
> > >
> > > <dt>Question 3</dt>
> > >
> > > <dd>Response to question 3</dd>
> > >
> > > </dl>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) Currently HTML5 lacks a programmatic way of *directly linking* a
> > > transcript to a video, which can be problematic, especially if a web
> page
> > > contains more than one video.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > While this is a known issue (and it is being worked on now), I highly
> > > recommend that the link text for your transcript be well labeled; i.e.
> > > avoid
> > > this:
> > >
> > > <a href="">transcript</a>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > .in favor of either:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <a href="">Transcript for the XYZ Video</a> [explicit, clear link text]
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > <a href="" aria-label="Transcript for the XYZ Video ">transcript</a>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > .although the second solution is only viable for users with Assistive
> > > Technology.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FWIW.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > JF
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > John Foliot
> > > Web Accessibility Specialist
> > > W3C Invited Expert - Accessibility
> > >
> > > Co-Founder, Open Web Camp
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
From: L Snider
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2014 1:33PM
Subject: Re: Video Transcript Question (Bump)
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Tim,
Thanks for that feedback.
So here is more information that may change the view...I will produce the
video, and it has captions, description and possibly sign language-all that
is good. Then I am also going to produce a transcript in Word. That is
going to be made into a PDF for all viewers, not just those with
disabilities. So now I am thinking about whether I just put it into
(accessible) HTML for everyone, or use (accessible) PDFs for everyone.
Converting an accessible Word doc into PDF takes no time at all (I am
making the documents straight forward, no forms, no tables, etc.), whereas
HTML will take me time as I have to convert it properly and make sure the
code is good.
I want to thank everyone for making me think, all of you have offered some
great suggestions!
Cheers
Lisa
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Tim Harshbarger <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I think whether or not a downloadable transcript would be useful depends
> on the use cases.
>
> When it comes to using the transcript as an accessible alternative, I
> think there is a tendency for the user to utilize the transcript just like
> they would use the video. I do not believe that people typically download
> video for later viewing offline and so I'm uncertain someone using a
> transcript as the accessible alternative is likely to behave any
> differently.
>
> In that case, why not just use HTML for the transcript? They are already
> viewing a web page in the browser to access the video. Switching to PDF is
> going to change the user's context. They are going to have to mentally
> switch their frame of mind from navigating a web page to navigating a PDF
> document. With HTML, you can keep them in the same mental context. No
> switching gears. No swapping back and forth between using the web page and
> navigating the PDF document.
>
> I expect there are use cases where a downloadable PDF transcript would be
> useful. However, in most cases, I suspect that HTML transcripts maintain a
> slight advantage over PDF transcripts.
>
> It does sound like maybe some of this conversation might be more about
> ease of production than use cases. That is definitely a worthwhile
> consideration. How easy is it to convert the transcript from its original
> format into another format that is accessible? I have not had to convert a
> Word document to either an accessible HTML or PDF in some time, so I don't
> know what the level of effort or skill it would take to do that now.
> Depending on your video production process, you'll likely have some
> limitations on the amount of time you have to create an accessible
> transcript before the video is published. And that could potentially have
> a large impact on your format choices.
>
>