E-mail List Archives
Thread: Captions and transcripts
Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)
From: Kevin White
Date: Fri, Jan 06 2012 9:09AM
Subject: Captions and transcripts
No previous message | Next message →
Hi All,
I have a client who has asked a question that has got me thinking. The question is basically 'are captions needed if a transcript is provided'? This is for video content that contains dialog only so no audio description is necessary.
My immediate reaction was 'Yes'. However, we had a bit of a chat and there is an argument that suggests the transcript is sufficient. This argument centres on the following paragraph from the W3C (http://tinyurl.com/7g3335j):
Captions are not needed when the synchronized media is, itself, an alternate presentation of information that is also presented via text on the Web page. For example, if information on a page is accompanied by a synchronized media presentation that presents no more information than is already presented in text, but is easier for people with cognitive, language, or learning disabilities to understand, then it would not need to be captioned since the information is already presented on the page in text or in text alternatives (e.g., for images).
What this seems to suggest is that if the information in the video already presented in text on the page then the captions are not required.
Does this not then imply that captions are never required if a full transcript is provided on the page?
Thanks for any thoughts,
Kevin
From: McKeithan, Thomas
Date: Fri, Jan 06 2012 9:24AM
Subject: Re: Captions and transcripts
← Previous message | Next message →
Greetings,
I would suggest that to insure comparable access you should include captions even with the trasnscripts unless you put a note on the page that denotes that the video (media presentation) reflects the written text codified in the transcript. To be safe, I'd include both.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lee McKeithan II
Accessibility Program Manager
National Industries for the Blind
1310 Braddock Place
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703)310-0586 Direct
(202)276-6437 Cell
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
"Believing is achieving, for if I believe, I can and I will achieve."
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Kevin White
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:11 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] Captions and transcripts
Hi All,
I have a client who has asked a question that has got me thinking. The question is basically 'are captions needed if a transcript is provided'? This is for video content that contains dialog only so no audio description is necessary.
My immediate reaction was 'Yes'. However, we had a bit of a chat and there is an argument that suggests the transcript is sufficient. This argument centres on the following paragraph from the W3C (http://tinyurl.com/7g3335j):
Captions are not needed when the synchronized media is, itself, an alternate presentation of information that is also presented via text on the Web page. For example, if information on a page is accompanied by a synchronized media presentation that presents no more information than is already presented in text, but is easier for people with cognitive, language, or learning disabilities to understand, then it would not need to be captioned since the information is already presented on the page in text or in text alternatives (e.g., for images).
What this seems to suggest is that if the information in the video already presented in text on the page then the captions are not required.
Does this not then imply that captions are never required if a full transcript is provided on the page?
Thanks for any thoughts,
Kevin
From: Vincent Young
Date: Fri, Jan 06 2012 9:51AM
Subject: Re: Captions and transcripts
← Previous message | Next message →
> Does this not then imply that captions are never required if a full
transcript is provided on the page?
I don't think so. The paragraph seems to imply that a transcript is
sufficient only if the webpage has descriptive text (not the transcript)
which the video is reiterating. Regardless, we all know the benefits for
all users of adding synchronized transcripts in even these situations. A
crowded noisy bus with no headphones. Umm... captions, yes please.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 8:22 AM, McKeithan, Thomas < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I would suggest that to insure comparable access you should include
> captions even with the trasnscripts unless you put a note on the page that
> denotes that the video (media presentation) reflects the written text
> codified in the transcript. To be safe, I'd include both.
>
> Respectfully,
> Thomas Lee McKeithan II
> Accessibility Program Manager
> National Industries for the Blind
> 1310 Braddock Place
> Alexandria, VA 22314
> (703)310-0586 Direct
> (202)276-6437 Cell
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
> "Believing is achieving, for if I believe, I can and I will achieve."
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Kevin White
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:11 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [WebAIM] Captions and transcripts
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have a client who has asked a question that has got me thinking. The
> question is basically 'are captions needed if a transcript is provided'?
> This is for video content that contains dialog only so no audio description
> is necessary.
>
> My immediate reaction was 'Yes'. However, we had a bit of a chat and there
> is an argument that suggests the transcript is sufficient. This argument
> centres on the following paragraph from the W3C (
> http://tinyurl.com/7g3335j):
>
> Captions are not needed when the synchronized media is, itself, an
> alternate presentation of information that is also presented via text on
> the Web page. For example, if information on a page is accompanied by a
> synchronized media presentation that presents no more information than is
> already presented in text, but is easier for people with cognitive,
> language, or learning disabilities to understand, then it would not need to
> be captioned since the information is already presented on the page in text
> or in text alternatives (e.g., for images).
>
> What this seems to suggest is that if the information in the video already
> presented in text on the page then the captions are not required.
>
> Does this not then imply that captions are never required if a full
> transcript is provided on the page?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Jan 06 2012 10:12AM
Subject: Re: Captions and transcripts
← Previous message | Next message →
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Kevin White < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Captions are not needed when the synchronized media is, itself, an alternate presentation of information that is also presented via text on the Web page.
Note that this same allowance is provided for transcripts (what WCAG
call "alternative for time-based media") and audio descriptions.
I'm the one that recommended this addition to WCAG 2.0. The point was
that if the main content of the page is identical to the video
content, and both are presented together (particularly when the video
is provided to enhance accessibility of that main content to some
users), requiring captions, a transcript, and/or audio descriptions
would simply be yet another unnecessary duplication of this content
that is already fully accessible. In other words, if the video is an
equivalent alternative to the main content, then these additional
alternatives are not required.
It would be hard to argue that a video is an equivalent alternative to
its own transcript. Instead, the transcript is the alternative to the
video. In other words, you wouldn't have provided the transcript if
you didn't have a video there. In this case, the captions AND the
transcript (or, if you prefer, audio descriptions for Level A and AA
conformance) are required.
Hopefully that makes a bit of sense.
Jared
From: Mark Magennis
Date: Fri, Jan 06 2012 11:12AM
Subject: Re: Captions and transcripts
← Previous message | Next message →
In the W3C example, text is the intended vehicle for presenting the information and is designed to contain all of the information. So it's not necessary to provide a second text version (captions) because it won't contain any more information. The visual and auditory content of the video version (a talking head for example) does not contain any more information, it just presents it in a way that's easier for some people to understand.
In your example of the text transcript, the intended vehicle for presenting the information is a video. A captioned video provides deaf or hard of hearing people with access to the auditory information at the same time as the visual information. A transcript does not include the visual information (even if it's just a taking head you have facial expressions and body language), so does not have all the information that a captioned video would.
Mark
On 6 Jan 2012, at 16:11, Kevin White wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have a client who has asked a question that has got me thinking. The question is basically 'are captions needed if a transcript is provided'? This is for video content that contains dialog only so no audio description is necessary.
>
> My immediate reaction was 'Yes'. However, we had a bit of a chat and there is an argument that suggests the transcript is sufficient. This argument centres on the following paragraph from the W3C (http://tinyurl.com/7g3335j):
>
> Captions are not needed when the synchronized media is, itself, an alternate presentation of information that is also presented via text on the Web page. For example, if information on a page is accompanied by a synchronized media presentation that presents no more information than is already presented in text, but is easier for people with cognitive, language, or learning disabilities to understand, then it would not need to be captioned since the information is already presented on the page in text or in text alternatives (e.g., for images).
>
> What this seems to suggest is that if the information in the video already presented in text on the page then the captions are not required.
>
> Does this not then imply that captions are never required if a full transcript is provided on the page?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
From: Randy Pope
Date: Fri, Jan 06 2012 11:21AM
Subject: Re: Captions and transcripts
← Previous message | Next message →
For the deaf-blind people who cannot see or hear, that recommendation would
be suitable if the caption is accessible for those who read the content in
braille and not voice. Otherwise a transcript is needed in addition to the
caption on the video. I know this is a lot of work but most website are not
using the technology that will enable the braille readers to read the
caption on the screen plus the visual description.
Then there is another situation when the video is done in American Sign
Language (ASL) but not in caption for those who don't know ASL. So this
bring this question: should these videos be in caption too?
Since there are some deaf whose first language is ASL and do not understand
English in written form, should there be an alternative format such a video
in ASL that interpret the content on the web? After all there are language
programs that translate English into their native language but nothing to
translated it into ASL.
Just some thoughts I like to throw. Take care.
With Warm Regards,
Randy Pope
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 12:12 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Captions and transcripts
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Kevin White < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Captions are not needed when the synchronized media is, itself, an
alternate presentation of information that is also presented via text on the
Web page.
Note that this same allowance is provided for transcripts (what WCAG call
"alternative for time-based media") and audio descriptions.
I'm the one that recommended this addition to WCAG 2.0. The point was that
if the main content of the page is identical to the video content, and both
are presented together (particularly when the video is provided to enhance
accessibility of that main content to some users), requiring captions, a
transcript, and/or audio descriptions would simply be yet another
unnecessary duplication of this content that is already fully accessible. In
other words, if the video is an equivalent alternative to the main content,
then these additional alternatives are not required.
It would be hard to argue that a video is an equivalent alternative to its
own transcript. Instead, the transcript is the alternative to the video. In
other words, you wouldn't have provided the transcript if you didn't have a
video there. In this case, the captions AND the transcript (or, if you
prefer, audio descriptions for Level A and AA
conformance) are required.
Hopefully that makes a bit of sense.
Jared
From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Jan 06 2012 11:42AM
Subject: Re: Captions and transcripts
← Previous message | Next message →
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Randy Pope < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Then there is another situation when the video is done in American Sign
> Language (ASL) but not in caption for those who don't know ASL. So this
> bring this question: should these videos be in caption too?
For WCAG Level A conformance of video, you must have captions. You
also must have a transcript OR audio descriptions. For Level AA, you
must provide audio descriptions. For Level AAA, you must also provide
a transcript (if you didn't for Level A) and a sign language
alternative.
Of note is that if you provide audio descriptions (of if your video
does not require audio descriptions because all visual content is
presented via audio), you aren't required to provide a transcript
until Level AAA. This, I believe, is very inadequate as neither
captions or audio description provide adequate accessibility for many
users (deaf-blind, etc.).
If you provide a sign language alternative, you will have already had
to provide captions at Level A, so no, I don't believe there is a
requirement to also caption the sign language version as this will
already be available. However, the video could be authored to contain
both the sign language alternative AND the captions (AND even audio
descriptions) in one video presentation.
It's all rather confusing, isn't it?
> After all there are language
> programs that translate English into their native language but nothing to
> translated it into ASL.
There are some technologies that are attempting automated ASL
generation from text. Like all translation technologies, these are far
from perfect.
Jared
From: Terzian, Sharon
Date: Tue, Jan 10 2012 6:33AM
Subject: Re: Captions and transcripts
← Previous message | No next message
The thing is, you COULD make the printed transcript in a very large font (we just went through this discussion over a video presented at TASH)
Sharon Terzian
Webmistress
Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilities
Rhode Island College
http://www.sherlockcenter.org
Adjunct Professor, CIS
College of Management
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 12:12 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Captions and transcripts
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Kevin White < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Captions are not needed when the synchronized media is, itself, an alternate presentation of information that is also presented via text on the Web page.
Note that this same allowance is provided for transcripts (what WCAG call "alternative for time-based media") and audio descriptions.
I'm the one that recommended this addition to WCAG 2.0. The point was that if the main content of the page is identical to the video content, and both are presented together (particularly when the video is provided to enhance accessibility of that main content to some users), requiring captions, a transcript, and/or audio descriptions would simply be yet another unnecessary duplication of this content that is already fully accessible. In other words, if the video is an equivalent alternative to the main content, then these additional alternatives are not required.
It would be hard to argue that a video is an equivalent alternative to its own transcript. Instead, the transcript is the alternative to the video. In other words, you wouldn't have provided the transcript if you didn't have a video there. In this case, the captions AND the transcript (or, if you prefer, audio descriptions for Level A and AA
conformance) are required.
Hopefully that makes a bit of sense.
Jared