E-mail List Archives
Thread: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places. Is it compliant?
Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)
From: Mike Warner
Date: Tue, Oct 10 2023 7:01AM
Subject: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places. Is it compliant?
No previous message | Next message →
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
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Tue, Oct 10 2023 7:06AM
Subject: Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places. Is it compliant?
← Previous message | Next message →
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 ADDRESS 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.
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Oct 10 2023 7:07AM
Subject: Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places. Is it compliant?
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Oct 10 2023 8:17AM
Subject: Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places. Is it compliant?
← Previous message | Next message →
> 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
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Tue, Oct 10 2023 8:21AM
Subject: Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places. Is it compliant?
← Previous message | Next message →
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 ADDRESS 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.
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Oct 10 2023 9:31AM
Subject: Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places. Is it compliant?
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Mike Warner
Date: Tue, Oct 10 2023 1:48PM
Subject: Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places. Is it compliant?
← Previous message | Next message →
> 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.
I like that. Thanks,Jared. That's what I was thinking, but expressed
better than I had it in my head!
Thanks!
Mike Warner
Director of IT Services
MindEdge Learning
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 2:00 PM < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Send WebAIM-Forum mailing list submissions to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> = EMAIL ADDRESS 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)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 21:44:29 +0200
> From: Sonja Weckenmann < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessible authentication and "transcription"
> Message-ID: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 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 'transcribingâ 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:01:33 -0400
> From: Mike Warner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in awkward
> places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID:
> <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:06:32 -0400
> From: "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in
> awkward places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID:
> <CAB7CyMuESMhX=CHnUE8WYbceXRwh> 7+ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> 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 ADDRESS 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:07:37 +0100
> From: "Patrick H. Lauke" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in
> awkward places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:17:46 +0000
> From: Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in
> awkward places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID:
> <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> > 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:21:15 -0400
> From: "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in
> awkward places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID:
> <CAB7CyMsxRaS=ANvjH7fC3> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> 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 ADDRESS 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:31:51 +0100
> From: "Patrick H. Lauke" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] closed captions with text that's split up in
> awkward places. Is it compliant?
> Message-ID: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> > > > >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 223, Issue 3
> ********************************************
>
From: Diana Grappasonno
Date: Tue, Oct 10 2023 2:58PM
Subject: Re: closed captions with text that's split up in awkward places. Is it compliant?
← Previous message | No next message
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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Send WebAIM-Forum mailing list submissions to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 'transcribingâ 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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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
>
>
>
> > > > >