E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 18 (In chronological order)

From: Steve Green
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 12:07AM
Subject: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5
No previous message | Next message →

This question relates to the common situation where there are no pauses in the audio track into which an audio description could be added. I welcome everyone's thoughts on what is turning out to be a huge area of uncertainty as UK organisations finally start to address the accessibility of video content.

My view is that it should be a AA non-conformance if an audio description is required, but there are not sufficient gaps in the audio track and the client is not willing to create an extended audio description version (which is a level AAA requirement). However, I can't find anything in WCAG or elsewhere that supports this view.

WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5 requires that an audio description is provided for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media. There is an exception for a single talking head, but we can ignore that for the purposes of this question.

As far as I can tell, the Understanding page and techniques do not explicitly address the situation where there are no pauses in the audio track into which an audio description could be added.

Many consultants and organisations have written explanatory articles about this success criterion, and every one of them either avoids the issue completely or states that the success criterion is automatically met if there are no pauses in the audio track into which an audio description could be added.

An example is https://www.visionaustralia.org/community/news/2019-08-23/wcag-confusion-around-audio-description-0, which contains a flow chart halfway down the page. It explicitly states that if there is no room for audio description, it's a pass at level AA, although a media alternative is still required to pass level A.

This seems like a perverse interpretation of the success criterion. If it's correct, it means that video creators can meet level AA while avoiding the need for audio description by ensuring that there are no gaps in the audio track. How can that possibly be right?

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd

From: glen walker
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 12:45AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

That sounds like rubbish. Having gaps in the audio is unrelated to 1.2.5.
There's no indication in the normative SC that gaps are a prerequisite.
"Audio description is provided for all prerecorded video..." It doesn't
say all prerecorded video that has sufficient gaps. It says "all
prerecorded video". If you don't have sufficient gaps to create an AD,
then you need to re-record.

There's a slight hint in the non-normative understanding section that says
"During existing pauses in dialogue, audio description provides information
about action..." So what happens if you don't have "existing pauses"? It
means you weren't thinking about accessibility when it was recorded.
Sorry, you need to fix it. It doesn't say pauses must exist in order to
create AD.

Glen

From: Lars Ballieu Christensen
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 12:59AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

Somehow I believe that re-recording is rarely an option insofar as it only relates to content for which you have the full control. On many cases, audio and video content will originate from other sources, merely to be published on a website. Requiring preexisting audio and video to be re-recorded in order to accommodate accessibility features will make even more cumbersome to add audio descriptions and will likely be considered an undue burden by many..

Venligst/Kind regards

Lars
----
Lars Ballieu Christensen
Rådgiver/Adviser, Ph.D., M.Sc., Sensus ApS
Specialister i tilgængelighed/Accessibility Consultants
Tel: +45 48 22 10 03 – Mobil: +45 40 32 68 23 - Skype: Ballieu
Mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = – Web: https://www.sensus.dk

Vi arbejder for et tilgængeligt og rummeligt informationssamfund
Working for an accessible and inclusive information society



On 23/04/2021, 08.45, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of glen walker" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

That sounds like rubbish. Having gaps in the audio is unrelated to 1.2..5.
There's no indication in the normative SC that gaps are a prerequisite.
"Audio description is provided for all prerecorded video..." It doesn't
say all prerecorded video that has sufficient gaps. It says "all
prerecorded video". If you don't have sufficient gaps to create an AD,
then you need to re-record.

There's a slight hint in the non-normative understanding section that says
"During existing pauses in dialogue, audio description provides information
about action..." So what happens if you don't have "existing pauses"? It
means you weren't thinking about accessibility when it was recorded.
Sorry, you need to fix it. It doesn't say pauses must exist in order to
create AD.

Glen

From: Steve Green
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 1:16AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

That is certainly an argument that organisations make. However, it's not relevant to whether the video complies with WCAG 2.1 AA. Some disability legislation has exemptions for disproportionate burden or embedded third-party content, but WCAG doesn't.

Steve

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 1:17AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

Going to add here that re-recording (i.e. actually shooting more footage
etc) is not the only option. While cumbersome, you can also create a
separate version where you pause / freeze-frame the existing audio/video
and *create* those gaps for the AD.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 1:23AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

Personally, I do think that requiring AD at AA (particularly *because*
it's not something that can be done easily, and might require videos to
effectively be duplicated if they have to have different lengths because
there are no gaps) is quite burdensome depending on the nature of the
original video, and - as ever - the SC lacks nuance here about how
easy/hard it can be to retrofit existing non-AD videos.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

From: Detlev Fischer
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 1:42AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

When there are no gaps, the nuance IMO would come in in assessing the
criticality of content to be audio-described. In 9 out of 10 cases in my
audits, it is transient text (speaker names, initial titles, last frame
info etc) that is missing audiodescription. Sometimes it is critical to
know who's speaking, but in many other cases, it isn't really that
important. From a strict equivalence viewpoint, any speaker name
insertion where the name is not already elegantly included in the audio
and pauses are lacking would require the site owner to go back to the
editing studio for an extended version. I think normatively on level AA
this would be a high ask in cases where the information is non-critical.
(I admit that there is subjectivity in the criticality assessment but
that is the case in many other SCs as well.)
Detlev

Am 23.04.2021 um 09:23 schrieb Patrick H. Lauke:
> Personally, I do think that requiring AD at AA (particularly *because*
> it's not something that can be done easily, and might require videos
> to effectively be duplicated if they have to have different lengths
> because there are no gaps) is quite burdensome depending on the nature
> of the original video, and - as ever - the SC lacks nuance here about
> how easy/hard it can be to retrofit existing non-AD videos.
>
> P

--
Detlev Fischer
DIAS GmbH
(Testkreis is now part of DIAS GmbH)

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45

http://www.dias.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites

From: Lars Ballieu Christensen
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 1:53AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

In my opinion, it is taking formal compliance requirements to the extreme if we are to ask to have audio and video recordings of reality or expressions of art edited to accommodate audio descriptions.

As such, it is a question of getting the accessibility guidelines to work in practice and to find practical solutions to accessibility issues. Adding a separate audio track with audio descriptions could be such a solution.

Venligst/Kind regards

Lars
----
Lars Ballieu Christensen
Rådgiver/Adviser, Ph.D., M.Sc., Sensus ApS
Specialister i tilgængelighed/Accessibility Consultants
Tel: +45 48 22 10 03 – Mobil: +45 40 32 68 23 - Skype: Ballieu
Mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = – Web: https://www.sensus.dk

Vi arbejder for et tilgængeligt og rummeligt informationssamfund
Working for an accessible and inclusive information society



On 23/04/2021, 09.16, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Steve Green" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

That is certainly an argument that organisations make. However, it's not relevant to whether the video complies with WCAG 2.1 AA. Some disability legislation has exemptions for disproportionate burden or embedded third-party content, but WCAG doesn't.

Steve

From: glen walker
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 1:54AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

The original question was whether gaps are a prerequisite or an "out" for
needing AD. The SC does not imply that at all.

The side discussions on whether you need to re-record or create freeze
frames or whether a non-visual action needs to be described or whether AD
is an undue burden are interesting but tangential to the crux of the
question.

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 1:59AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

On 23/04/2021 08:54, glen walker wrote:
> The original question was whether gaps are a prerequisite or an "out" for
> needing AD. The SC does not imply that at all.

Which we had established, yes.

> The side discussions on whether you need to re-record or create freeze
> frames or whether a non-visual action needs to be described or whether AD
> is an undue burden are interesting but tangential to the crux of the
> question.

You playing discussion police? Should we have changed the subject line
of the email?

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

From: Steve Green
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 2:05AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

As the original poster, I entirely agree with Glen's comments. When discussing a specific point, it's not helpful if the discussion gets diverted. For the purpose of this discussion, I am not interested in whether providing AD is difficult or if visual content might not be essential. The starting point is that we have determined that it is essential.

I just wanted to see if there is a consensus as to whether the absence of gaps in the audio provides a get-out. It seems that the consensus in this forum is that it doesn't. Which leaves me wondering why every written reference I can find says that it does.

Steve

From: glen walker
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 2:20AM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

>
> You playing discussion police? Should we have changed the subject line
> of the email?
>

I like to compartmentalize things in my head and wanted to put the "gaps"
discussion in one bucket and the other stuff, which I admitted was
interesting, into other buckets. Whether they take place in the same
thread doesn't matter to me but I wanted to make sure we addressed the
original question. We can easily get off the highway and find ourselves
meandering around side dirt roads and forget where we were going. I often
find lots of really cool stuff on dirt roads and love the adventure but
want to make sure I can find the highway again.

From: Mark Magennis
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 2:29AM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

Another option is the approach we take at Skillsoft with our Percipio eLearning product where we have built functionality into the player to pause the video while audio description (AD) is being read. There is only one version of the video and it has the AD embedded in it. There is a button in the player toolbar to turn the AD on and OFF. We had to do this because most of our videos have audio description but there is never enough gap to insert AD into the audio track and we didn't want to have to host and serve up two versions of every video.

Mark

From: Guy Hickling
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 6:02PM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

The root cause of the problem here is that the Understanding document
attempts to override or restrict what the normative success criterion
specifies. A few other success criteria suffer from this problem as well.

SC1.2.5 quite clearly states "Audio description is provided for all
pre-recorded video content ...". It specifically says "all", without any
caveats. But the Understanding document then tries to alter that by
claiming that this audio provision is to be done "During existing pauses in
dialogue....". The implication is plain - as so many web dev people have
assumed - that if there are no pauses available that let's them out.

Not only does that contradict or soften what the SC itself says, but it
also blandly ignores the fact that about half of all videos ever made have
hardly any spaces in the audio for adding extra. It also ignores that many
videos - particularly educational and technical ones - often have detailed
diagrams or illustrations that require very long spaces to insert a
description.

Creating an Understanding that tries to restrict what the corresponding SC
says is a failure of proper process. We should never see a purely
explanatory, informative document trying to reword or amend the normative
specification.

All new success criteria go through a long process of discussion by many
consultants and contributors. About half way through that process
discussion is thrown open to the public. However the same care is not
always taken with the Understanding documents where, usually it seems to
me, one person is given the job of writing the Understanding. Discussion
and amendment of that is still allowed, but does not in my experience
receive the same level of attention as the normative SCs have already
received. (Quite naturally, I think, I'm not criticising; having gone to
great effort to create the SC, people naturally move on to other important
matters.)

Unfortunately that has left us with a few cases where either the intent of
the SC is watered down, or confusion is caused later for the rest of the
web dev world - as in this particular case, witness all those sources Steve
mentioned that have come to a wrong view about it.

So I think a change in process is needed. I hope it will change in WCAG 3,
to ensure Understanding documents do not ever contradict or restrict what
their SC says, or appear to do so, or cause confusion by saying something
that the SC does not require.

A check should be built into the W3C process for SCs to ensure people vet
each new Understanding document, including subsequent edits and amendments,
to ensure nothing in that document goes against what the carefully crafted
SC already specifies.

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 7:32PM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

Note 2 to the audio description definition in WCAG states "In standard audio description, narration is added during existing pauses in dialogue. (See also extended audio description.)" which seems to scope the definition of audio description to existing pauses - hence why the understanding document is written toward that slant. While definitions are normative - notes are not. it does indicate that was the intention when the note was written - perhaps the note could be updated if the Accessibility Guidelines working group determines today that the technology reasons for that note in 2008 are no longer relevant.
https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-audio-desc-only.html#audiodescdef

Jonathan

From: Shawn Henry
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2021 9:28PM
Subject: Re: Guidance on audio description of visual information [was: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion 1.2.5 ]
← Previous message | Next message →

This resource describes (pun intended) WCAG requirements and "best practices" beyond requirements:
Audio Description of Visual Information -- in Making Audio and Video Media Accessible
https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/description/

It includes several different options for providing description of visual information based on the situation -- e.g., existing video without space in the audio to add audio description of important visuals.

It also links to important guidance for new videos:
Plan for audio description of visual information
https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/av-content/#plan-description

Hope this information helps!

If you have suggestions for improvements to this page (or others), there are links to GitHub and to an e-mail address under "Help improve this page" near the bottom of the page.

Best,
~Shawn
<http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/>;


On 23-Apr-21 3:29 AM, Mark Magennis wrote:
> Another option is the approach we take at Skillsoft with our Percipio eLearning product where we have built functionality into the player to pause the video while audio description (AD) is being read. There is only one version of the video and it has the AD embedded in it. There is a button in the player toolbar to turn the AD on and OFF. We had to do this because most of our videos have audio description but there is never enough gap to insert AD into the audio track and we didn't want to have to host and serve up two versions of every video.
>
> Mark
>
>

From: Guy Hickling
Date: Sun, Apr 25 2021 2:37PM
Subject: Re: Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion1.2.5
← Previous message | Next message →

Having experienced a severe case of this issue myself only last week, I
have raised an issue against the WCAG for it. The problem I had was while
QAing an audit for an art museum website. It had numerous videos that
displayed a painting or sculpture and discussed it at great length for
about 20 minutes, but without anything to tell blind people what the
painting or sculpture actually showed or looked like! Fortunately this was
for an American museum so I pointed out that they need to do it urgently
for the ADA even if not for WCAG compliance! But I do think the WCAG should
provide more clarity on this.

So I have suggested adding a green Note to the Understanding document to
say add pauses where there aren't sufficient pauses already. And others
have built on that with an even stronger recommendation for actually
removing the problematic words from the Understanding document (which will
be a better solution if accepted). So maybe this problem will be sorted in
due course. I'll update this thread if it does.

From: Mallory
Date: Wed, Apr 28 2021 2:45AM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Audio description in WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion1.2.5
← Previous message | No next message

This is what YouDescribe does too. Users can control the volume of the AD audio separately from the video's own audio. Which is cool, but for educational stuff for example it may mean you have to watch the video twice, or go back and forth to play with stuff, depending on how intricate the video's visuals are.

But having a system like that pretty much closes the whole "I don't have pauses so I getses a free pass" excuse :P

cheers
_mallory

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021, at 10:29 AM, Mark Magennis wrote:
> Another option is the approach we take at Skillsoft with our Percipio
> eLearning product where we have built functionality into the player to
> pause the video while audio description (AD) is being read. There is
> only one version of the video and it has the AD embedded in it. There
> is a button in the player toolbar to turn the AD on and OFF. We had to
> do this because most of our videos have audio description but there is
> never enough gap to insert AD into the audio track and we didn't want
> to have to host and serve up two versions of every video.
>
> Mark