E-mail List Archives
Thread: Videos (1.2.3)
Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)
From: David Ashleydale
Date: Tue, Jun 26 2012 5:56PM
Subject: Videos (1.2.3)
No previous message | Next message →
Hi,
I'm confused by 1.2.3 from WCAG. It seems to me that it's saying there are
two alternatives to satisfy it:
1. Provide text transcripts
2. Provide audio description voice overs on a separate user-selectable
track
If an author chooses to satisfy this guideline with the second option,
doesn't that leave out users with auditory disabilities?
And, in fact, 1.2.5 seems to state that you can achieve Level AA
conformance by never doing the first option at all!
What am I missing?
Thanks,
David
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Jun 26 2012 6:12PM
Subject: Re: Videos (1.2.3)
← Previous message | Next message →
On 27/06/2012 00:56, David Ashleydale wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm confused by 1.2.3 from WCAG. It seems to me that it's saying there are
> two alternatives to satisfy it:
>
> 1. Provide text transcripts
> 2. Provide audio description voice overs on a separate user-selectable
> track
>
> If an author chooses to satisfy this guideline with the second option,
> doesn't that leave out users with auditory disabilities?
1.2.3 is aimed at blind/visually impaired users.
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-audio-desc.html
> And, in fact, 1.2.5 seems to state that you can achieve Level AA
> conformance by never doing the first option at all!
Again you're only helping blind/VI users with those.
Other criteria under 1.2 will cover deaf users. for instance 1.2.2 and 1.2.4
From: David Ashleydale
Date: Tue, Jun 26 2012 6:26PM
Subject: Re: Videos (1.2.3)
← Previous message | Next message →
"Other criteria under 1.2 will cover deaf users. for instance 1.2.2 and
1.2.4"
Okay, that makes sense. I guess I was thinking that there might be some
users with hearing disabilities that can't use captions, but could use
transcripts.
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Jun 26 2012 6:29PM
Subject: Re: Videos (1.2.3)
← Previous message | Next message →
On 27/06/2012 01:26, David Ashleydale wrote:
> "Other criteria under 1.2 will cover deaf users. for instance 1.2.2 and
> 1.2.4"
>
> Okay, that makes sense. I guess I was thinking that there might be some
> users with hearing disabilities that can't use captions, but could use
> transcripts.
Any of the "alternative for time-based media"
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#alt-time-based-mediadef criteria will cover
that, I think.
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Jun 26 2012 7:16PM
Subject: Re: Videos (1.2.3)
← Previous message | No next message
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> "Other criteria under 1.2 will cover deaf users. for instance 1.2.2 and
> 1.2.4"
>
> Okay, that makes sense. I guess I was thinking that there might be some
> users with hearing disabilities that can't use captions, but could use
> transcripts.
As you note, 1.2.3 requires either a descriptive transcript or audio
description. The intention is for users with visual disabilities. If
audio descriptions are provided or if the video does not require audio
descriptions (such as a talking head video), then you don't need to
provide a transcript at all until SC 1.2.8 at Level AAA.
As you note, many users could benefit from transcripts. I think this
WCAG structuring could result in less-than-optimal accessibility for
many users, particularly those who are deaf-blind who can only get
media accessibility via transcripts. I wrote about this in more detail
at http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/
Jared