E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 12 (In chronological order)

From: mhysnm1964
Date: Sun, Nov 04 2018 11:19PM
Subject: transcription of audio
No previous message | Next message →

All,



I have just looked through the WCAG 2.1 guidelines and I did not find any SC
for transcription of Video with Audio. Is this a part of WCAG or not? If so,
what SC?



Sean

From: KP
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 3:18AM
Subject: Re: transcription of audio
← Previous message | Next message →

1.2.3 "
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." Would cover that
Sent from my iPhone

> On 5/11/2018, at 19:19, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I have just looked through the WCAG 2.1 guidelines and I did not find any SC
> for transcription of Video with Audio. Is this a part of WCAG or not? If so,
> what SC?
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> > > >

From: Sean Murphy
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 3:21AM
Subject: Re: transcription of audio
← Previous message | Next message →

Is it anything for hearing impairment for transcriptions other than the one you have just stated?

My experience is the part

> On 5 Nov 2018, at 9:18 pm, KP < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> 1.2.3 "
> 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." Would cover that
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 5/11/2018, at 19:19, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have just looked through the WCAG 2.1 guidelines and I did not find any SC
>> for transcription of Video with Audio. Is this a part of WCAG or not? If so,
>> what SC?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> >> >> >> >
> > > >

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 7:43AM
Subject: Re: transcription of audio
← Previous message | Next message →

Sean, just like WCAG 2.0 transcripts for captioned/audio described video with audio is a Level AAA. That is audio description and captions is at AA and providing a transcript in addition is a Level AAA.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/media-alternative-prerecorded

Alternatives like transcripts are required for at Level A for audio only and video only.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8957 office

Visit us online:
Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog

Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free webinars!

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 7:57AM
Subject: Re: transcription of audio
← Previous message | Next message →

> I have just looked through the WCAG 2.1 guidelines and I did not find any SC
> for transcription of Video with Audio. Is this a part of WCAG or not?

The media requirements of WCAG are difficult to understand because of
the odd and confusing terminology. The term "transcript" does not
appear in WCAG. A transcript is, very literally, only the verbatim
version of spoken content. WCAG instead uses the phrase "alternative
for time-based media" to describe the document that presents any
spoken content, content presented only via audio (explosions,
laughter, background music, etc., if they are relevant), or content
presented only via visuals in the media. I typically use the phrase
"descriptive transcript" to explain what this thing is.

Under 1.2.1 (Level A), if you have audio-only content (e.g., an MP3
file or podcast) or video-only content (a video without any spoken
content), then you must provide a descriptive transcript.

Under 1.2.3 (Level A), for multimedia content that presents any
visual-only content, you must provide EITHER a descriptive transcript
or audio description. This is in addition to captions. Because a
transcript is necessary to generate captions, most would provide a
transcript here. However, if there is no visual-only content, then you
don't have to provide either.

Under 1.2.5 (Level AA), you must provide audio description for
multimedia content. As above, this is only necessary if the media has
any visual-only content. This essentially supersedes 1.2.3 above.

In summary, you are not required to provide a transcript for WCAG AA
conformance.

Under 1.2.8 (Level AAA), you must provide a descriptive transcript for
multimedia content.

Because of the numerous and significant benefits of transcripts, we
recommend them for all audio and multimedia content. I believe the
WCAG structure above does not adequately meet the needs of users with
disabilities. If I could restructure things, I would swap 1.2.5 to AAA
and 1.2.8 to Level AA, essentially requiring transcripts at AA and
requiring audio descriptions (if necessary) at AAA.

Thanks,

Jared

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 8:08AM
Subject: Re: transcription of audio
← Previous message | Next message →

> , I would swap 1.2.5 to AAA and 1.2.8 to Level AA, essentially requiring transcripts at AA and requiring audio descriptions (if necessary) at AAA.

I respectfully disagree that audio description should be at Level AAA. Synchronized audio descriptions whether added in the pauses or are written into the narration are as important as captions. Most if not all videos include valuable visual details that are important for users with visual impairments to access. An alternative that is separate is not an equivalent experience.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8957 office

Visit us online:
Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog

Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free webinars!

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 8:49AM
Subject: Re: transcription of audio
← Previous message | Next message →

> I respectfully disagree that audio description should be at Level AAA.

> An alternative that is separate is not an equivalent experience.

Consider someone that is deaf-blind or that requires a text
alternative to multimedia. They currently are provided no alternative
at all under WCAG Level AA. This is hugely impactful to these users.

While most media can be produced to remove the need for audio
description if it is designed to be self-described, the reality is
that due to the cost, effort, and expertise involved, audio
description is nearly non-existent on the web for multimedia that
needs it. On the other hand, if that media is captioned (as required
at Level A), it is trivial to provide a descriptive transcript. WCAG,
however, does not require this until AAA.

I fully realize that my recommendation may come at a cost to users
with visual disabilities encountering multimedia that has visual-only
content. Would the impact on these users needing to access a
transcript be less than the current impact of WCAG AA providing no
accessibility at all for a different, extensive audience? I don't
really know, but I think it's a good question for the W3C to consider.

Of course the best result would be for all media to have captions,
descriptive transcripts, and (if necessary) audio description - and
this is precisely what we recommend.

Jared

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 8:57AM
Subject: Re: transcription of audio
← Previous message | Next message →

> Of course the best result would be for all media to have captions, descriptive transcripts, and (if necessary) audio description - and this is precisely what we recommend.

> Consider someone that is deaf-blind or that requires a text
alternative to multimedia. They currently are provided no alternative
at all under WCAG Level AA. This is hugely impactful to these users.

Yes, so make the transcript requirement Level AA and keep audio description at Level AA as well. I've also noticed some players like YouTube providing the captions in a screen reader consumable way that screen readers could access -- so a requirement to use closed captions in a way that is programmatically available would also be good for some people who are blind and hard of hearing who may be able to get some audio but need captions to fill in the words that are not understandable. Since there are different degrees of vision and hearing loss having intermediate options that allow for flexibility for any formats is optimal -- but likely Level AAA for programmatically determinable captions.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8957 office

Visit us online:
Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog

Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free webinars!

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 11:01AM
Subject: Re: FW: transcription of audio
← Previous message | Next message →

> During the 508 refresh process we submitted comments pursuant to rule making suggesting that a 508 accessible transcript was as good as if not better than audio description in some instances.

I have made numerous repeated recommendations for at least the last 12
years that this be considered and addressed...

I sat on the Section 508 Refresh advisory committee from 2006 - 2008
and fought hard to *maintain* transcripts in the updated Section 508
guidelines. During that same period I made several formal requests
that transcripts not be lost in the transition from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0.
Here's a strong, public plea I made in 2007, before WCAG 2.0 was
finalized, that transcripts be moved from AAA to AA -
https://webaim.org/blog/wcag2-last-call/ Unfortunately transcripts
were not required for multimedia in either the Section 508
recommendations (which were eventually tossed in favor of WCAG 2.0) or
WCAG 2.0 AA. The low vision contingency of the working groups demanded
audio descriptions at the purposeful relegation of transcripts.

Here's another post I made in 2012 recommending this change for WCAG
2.1 - https://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/ Here are my formal
recommendations for improvements to the media success criteria under
WCAG 2.1 documented by the W3C -
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2_Issues_Sorted

Despite these efforts, as near as I can tell there's not been a
formalized discussion or consideration of this by either the WCAG or
Section 508 groups in the last decade.

It is also relevant that the AODA (accessibility law for Ontario)
requires all of WCAG A/AA with the exception of audio descriptions,
yet they do strongly recommend transcripts. WebAIM recommended a
similar deviation from WCAG 2.0 in the potential adoption of ADA
technical guidelines -
https://webaim.org/blog/webaims-sanprm-response/

But that's all the past. What we can do now is advocate that
transcripts be given higher consideration in future guidelines, and
that we all recommend transcripts as best practice, even if not
required in WCAG.

> WCAG 2.0 leave an opening for the argument that transcripts can be use in lieu of audio description under certain circumstances.

Can you explain this more? I see no such flexibility at level AA.

Thanks,

Jared

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 11:24AM
Subject: Re: FW: transcription of audio
← Previous message | Next message →

> > During the 508 refresh process we submitted comments pursuant to rule making suggesting that a 508 accessible transcript was as good as if not better than audio description in some instances.
> I have made numerous repeated recommendations for at least the last 12 years that this be considered and addressed...

Let me understand this -- when a blind person sits down to watch a movie with their friends, family, or children they have to pull out a device to read the transcript with a textual description of what is going on visually rather than have audio description of what is happening announced? While I can understand that a transcript may be more useful in something that is self-paced like a video on how to put together furniture or use a software application - audio description in entertainment, education, etc. is a right that people who are blind have worked hard to defend. I'm not saying requiring transcripts are not important or shouldn't be at level AA -- but saying that something is difficult as the reason not to require it has significant implications when there is no other experience that is equivalent for the people who are blind and can hear. A lot of things are hard -- but if people were actively working to solve these issues it would make it easier for everyone. Text ba
sed audio description that is announced by text-to-speech and part of extended audio description is just as easy as captions to create -- you just need a player that supports it.

Jonathan

Jonathan

From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 12:13PM
Subject: Re: FW: transcription of audio
← Previous message | Next message →

Jonathan -

I think the key phrase from Scott's message was "in some instances". A
transcript is the *only* way for a deaf-blind user to get any
multimedia content. I'd certainly argue that no accessibility at all
is more impactful *for this user* than the difficulty imposed on a
blind user accessing a transcript to get the full multimedia content.

According to WCAG's own considerations for how success criterion are
assigned to levels
(https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#levels), I
just can't see how relegating transcripts to AAA can be justified. A
transcript is "essential", is "possible to satisfy" for all media
content (and has to be generated anyway before captions can be
provided), "could reasonably be achieved", and "has no workarounds"
for deaf-blind and other users. I can't make as strong of arguments on
these points for either audio descriptions or captioning, if a
transcript were provided.

But this shouldn't be a transcript vs. audio description argument -
that's precisely the reason we're in this mess. It should be a
transcript AND audio description argument. Users need both for
accessibility, but WCAG does not currently reflect this. I agree that
moving audio descriptions instead to AAA would not be optimal, but if
I had to choose only one for AA, I would choose transcripts for the
reasons above.

> Text based audio description that is announced by text-to-speech and part of extended audio description is just as easy as captions to create -- you just need a player that supports it.

If it were really this easy we'd actually see audio description in the
wild. There is a special skillset involved in providing good textual
or spoken descriptions of visual-only and audio-only content
(especially in absence of extended audio description) - much more so
than simply transcribing the spoken word. You're absolutely correct
that we need a lot more effort in this area.

Thanks,

Jared

From: KP
Date: Mon, Nov 05 2018 1:17PM
Subject: Re: transcription of audio
← Previous message | No next message

The 1.2.x cover all media. 1.2.1 is for audio/video only, 1.2.2 requires captions, etc.

All allow for no transcription as long as the media is an alternative presentation of information that is already on the page AND it is labelled as such

K

Sent from my iPhone

> On 5/11/2018, at 23:21, Sean Murphy < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Is it anything for hearing impairment for transcriptions other than the one you have just stated?
>
> My experience is the part
>
>> On 5 Nov 2018, at 9:18 pm, KP < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> 1.2.3 "
>> 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." Would cover that
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 5/11/2018, at 19:19, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have just looked through the WCAG 2.1 guidelines and I did not find any SC
>>> for transcription of Video with Audio. Is this a part of WCAG or not? If so,
>>> what SC?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sean
>>>
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>
>> >> >> >> > > > >