E-mail List Archives

Thread: WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions

for

Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)

From: David Ashleydale
Date: Thu, Aug 16 2012 1:32PM
Subject: WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions
No previous message | Next message →

Hi,

I wish WCAG were written a little more clearly, but I think I've finally
discovered a nuance of 1.2.3 that I had missed during my previous 100
readings of it.

I now interpret 1.2.3 as saying that it is considered satisfied without
anyone doing anything as long as the video in question has no content that
is not also present in the default audio track. For example, if I have a
video that consists entirely of a talking head that is explaining a new
banking service -- and there are no visual cues that a non-sighted user
could miss -- neither a text transcript nor an audio description track are
needed to satisfy 1.2.3. A text transcript or an audio description track
are needed only if there is some content in the video that is only
presented visually. An example of this would be that in the video, one
person quietly approaches another and slips a note into their pocket
without them noticing, then quietly slips away. A non-sighted user of this
video would have no indication this happened unless a text transcript that
described this action or a user-selectable audio track with another
narrator who explained this action when it occurred are provided. In that
case, 1.2.3 would require that either a text transcript or an audio
description track be provided.

Am I finally interpreting 1.2.3 correctly? I had previously thought that
1.2.3 was telling me that all videos need text transcripts to be available,
except in the case where some content is presented visually and not
aurally, and an audio description track is provided. In that case 1.2.3
would be satisfied by the audio description. But my interpretation was that
if the video did not have content that was presented visually not aurally,
it would still need a text transcript.

I find that making text transcripts available for every video is a good
customer experience best practice anyway, and I plan on adding it to our
company's video publishing requirements. But now when someone asks me if
making the transcript available for videos that are fully explained in
their default audio tracks is because of trying to conform to WCAG, I will
say no. We just do it because it's good for usability.

Make sense?

David Ashleydale

From: Jared Smith
Date: Thu, Aug 16 2012 2:00PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →

Your understanding of 1.2.3 is correct. It is intended for users with
visual disabilities who cannot see the video. If there is visual
content, then the user can provide either a descriptive transcript OR
audio descriptions. If they provide a transcript, then audio
descriptions are required by 1.2.5 at Level AA. But if all content is
presented audibly, then there is no requirement to provide a
transcript until 1.2.8 at Level AAA.

It's a bit confusing, and allows multimedia content to be inaccessible
to many users (particularly deaf-blind) at Level AA. What's odd is
that if it is audio-only, then it must have a transcript for Level A
conformance (1.2.1), but if you add a still picture or video to that
audio, WCAG doesn't require a transcript until AAA.

Your findings are what we recommend for optimal accessibility - always
provide both captions and a transcript for multimedia.

I discuss this in a bit more detail at http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/

Jared Smith
WebAIM

From: Randy Pope
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2012 2:53AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →

David,

While your interpretation of this provision may be correct, it still does
not address the problem of accessing the information for those who are
DeafBlind. They cannot see the video, the caption or hear the audio format.
The only access that most DeafBlind have, is alternative text of the content
in video or audio format.

This provision and others need to be revised to address the DeafBlind access
to information on the web.

Randy Pope


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Ashleydale
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:32 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions

Hi,

I wish WCAG were written a little more clearly, but I think I've finally
discovered a nuance of 1.2.3 that I had missed during my previous 100
readings of it.

I now interpret 1.2.3 as saying that it is considered satisfied without
anyone doing anything as long as the video in question has no content that
is not also present in the default audio track. For example, if I have a
video that consists entirely of a talking head that is explaining a new
banking service -- and there are no visual cues that a non-sighted user
could miss -- neither a text transcript nor an audio description track are
needed to satisfy 1.2.3. A text transcript or an audio description track are
needed only if there is some content in the video that is only presented
visually. An example of this would be that in the video, one person quietly
approaches another and slips a note into their pocket without them noticing,
then quietly slips away. A non-sighted user of this video would have no
indication this happened unless a text transcript that described this action
or a user-selectable audio track with another narrator who explained this
action when it occurred are provided. In that case, 1.2.3 would require that
either a text transcript or an audio description track be provided.

Am I finally interpreting 1.2.3 correctly? I had previously thought that
1.2.3 was telling me that all videos need text transcripts to be available,
except in the case where some content is presented visually and not aurally,
and an audio description track is provided. In that case 1.2.3 would be
satisfied by the audio description. But my interpretation was that if the
video did not have content that was presented visually not aurally, it would
still need a text transcript.

I find that making text transcripts available for every video is a good
customer experience best practice anyway, and I plan on adding it to our
company's video publishing requirements. But now when someone asks me if
making the transcript available for videos that are fully explained in their
default audio tracks is because of trying to conform to WCAG, I will say no.
We just do it because it's good for usability.

Make sense?

David Ashleydale
messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2012 4:50AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Randy Pope < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> While your interpretation of this provision may be correct, it still does
> not address the problem of accessing the information for those who are
> DeafBlind.



> This provision and others need to be revised to address the DeafBlind access
> to information on the web.

Their needs are addressed by a different provision, 1.2.8.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2012 6:01AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions
← Previous message | No next message

Randy,
My reading of WCAG is that none of the standards need to modified to support users who are deaf-blind, just that 1.2.8 (requires a text alternative to synchronized media such as a text document which includes the content of the captions and the audio descriptions) is at triple-A and to better encourage the necessary support for these users it would need to be at a higher priority level.

Does that match your interpretation? Are there other success criteria that you're thinking about?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe Systems

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://twitter.com/awkawk
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Pope
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 4:53 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions

David,

While your interpretation of this provision may be correct, it still does not address the problem of accessing the information for those who are DeafBlind. They cannot see the video, the caption or hear the audio format.
The only access that most DeafBlind have, is alternative text of the content in video or audio format.

This provision and others need to be revised to address the DeafBlind access to information on the web.

Randy Pope


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Ashleydale
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:32 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 1.2.3 Text Transcripts or Audio Descriptions

Hi,

I wish WCAG were written a little more clearly, but I think I've finally discovered a nuance of 1.2.3 that I had missed during my previous 100 readings of it.

I now interpret 1.2.3 as saying that it is considered satisfied without anyone doing anything as long as the video in question has no content that is not also present in the default audio track. For example, if I have a video that consists entirely of a talking head that is explaining a new banking service -- and there are no visual cues that a non-sighted user could miss -- neither a text transcript nor an audio description track are needed to satisfy 1.2.3. A text transcript or an audio description track are needed only if there is some content in the video that is only presented visually. An example of this would be that in the video, one person quietly approaches another and slips a note into their pocket without them noticing, then quietly slips away. A non-sighted user of this video would have no indication this happened unless a text transcript that described this action or a user-selectable audio track with another narrator who explained this action when it occurred a
re provided. In that case, 1.2.3 would require that either a text transcript or an audio description track be provided.

Am I finally interpreting 1.2.3 correctly? I had previously thought that
1.2.3 was telling me that all videos need text transcripts to be available, except in the case where some content is presented visually and not aurally, and an audio description track is provided. In that case 1.2.3 would be satisfied by the audio description. But my interpretation was that if the video did not have content that was presented visually not aurally, it would still need a text transcript.

I find that making text transcripts available for every video is a good customer experience best practice anyway, and I plan on adding it to our company's video publishing requirements. But now when someone asks me if making the transcript available for videos that are fully explained in their default audio tracks is because of trying to conform to WCAG, I will say no.
We just do it because it's good for usability.

Make sense?

David Ashleydale