E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)

From: Steve Green
Date: Mon, Sep 07 2020 6:19AM
Subject: Synchronised media ambiguity again
No previous message | Next message →

I am trying to work out which WCAG success criteria apply to a video in which information is only conveyed visually. There is a continuous music track that is purely decorative. The visual content is not actually a video, but it's an animation with text.

The decision regarding which success criteria apply depends on whether you classify the video as video-only, synchronised media or time-based media. My inclination is to say it's not synchronised media, but in a previous discussion the overwhelming view was that it's synchronised media if audio and video tracks are started by a single action, which they are.

If it's video-only, then 1.2.1 requires an alternative, which would have to be a text version because there are no gaps in the audio track. 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 would not apply, because they relate to synchronised media.

If it's synchronised media, 1.2.1 does not apply. 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 require an audio description. This would need to be a separate audio described version of the video because there are no gaps in the music.

If it's time-based media, then 1.2.3 requires an alternative, which would have to be a text version. 1.2.1 and 1.2.5 would not apply.

I honestly don't know the answer. What do you think? For context, the client is only interested in doing what is necessary to achieve WCAG conformance, not what would be best for the user experience, otherwise we would just tell them to provide both text and audio described versions.

Regards,
Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd
020 3002 4176 (direct)
0800 612 2780 (switchboard)
07957 246 276 (mobile)
020 7692 5517 (fax)
Skype: testpartners
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.testpartners.co.uk
 
Connect to me on LinkedIn - http://uk.linkedin.com/in/stevegreen2

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Sep 07 2020 6:34AM
Subject: Re: Synchronised media ambiguity again
← Previous message | Next message →

On 07/09/2020 13:19, Steve Green wrote:
> I am trying to work out which WCAG success criteria apply to a video in which information is only conveyed visually. There is a continuous music track that is purely decorative. The visual content is not actually a video, but it's an animation with text.
>
> The decision regarding which success criteria apply depends on whether you classify the video as video-only, synchronised media or time-based media. My inclination is to say it's not synchronised media, but in a previous discussion the overwhelming view was that it's synchronised media if audio and video tracks are started by a single action, which they are.

I believe the point was more nuanced at the time (at least from some of
us): if the audio does convey information, then it counts as
synchronised, even though it's not necessarily timed to hit certain
beats of the visual. And unless the audio is completely disjointed from
the video or vice-versa (i.e. literally random pictures that don't even
try to match even even with the mood, or illustrate somehow, the audio /
audio that is pure music and has nothing to do with the actual visuals)
it still would count as "synchronised"

The key for it then needing an audio description is: you can't, as user
who cannot see the video, follow along with a transcript AND the video's
audio playing at the same time.

Now, if the audio in your video is pure muzak, and conveys no info, I
would not consider that stringently "synchronised media", and would not
ding them for not having an audio transcript. They can, if they want to
of course. But it needs at least a transcript.

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: Jonathan C. Cohn
Date: Mon, Sep 07 2020 6:40AM
Subject: Re: Synchronised media ambiguity again
← Previous message | Next message →

And then if you have a transcript, how hard is it to just say music is playing over pictures.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 7, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> On 07/09/2020 13:19, Steve Green wrote:
>> I am trying to work out which WCAG success criteria apply to a video in which information is only conveyed visually. There is a continuous music track that is purely decorative. The visual content is not actually a video, but it's an animation with text.
>> The decision regarding which success criteria apply depends on whether you classify the video as video-only, synchronised media or time-based media. My inclination is to say it's not synchronised media, but in a previous discussion the overwhelming view was that it's synchronised media if audio and video tracks are started by a single action, which they are.
>
> I believe the point was more nuanced at the time (at least from some of us): if the audio does convey information, then it counts as synchronised, even though it's not necessarily timed to hit certain beats of the visual. And unless the audio is completely disjointed from the video or vice-versa (i.e. literally random pictures that don't even try to match even even with the mood, or illustrate somehow, the audio / audio that is pure music and has nothing to do with the actual visuals) it still would count as "synchronised"
>
> The key for it then needing an audio description is: you can't, as user who cannot see the video, follow along with a transcript AND the video's audio playing at the same time.
>
> Now, if the audio in your video is pure muzak, and conveys no info, I would not consider that stringently "synchronised media", and would not ding them for not having an audio transcript. They can, if they want to of course. But it needs at least a transcript.
>
> 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: Jonathan Avila
Date: Tue, Sep 08 2020 7:32AM
Subject: Re: Synchronised media ambiguity again
← Previous message | Next message →

It seems like this is the heart of the discussion - must a video with ambient sound be considered synchronized video with synchronized requirements. This means that captions would be required even if the captions were to only show music symbols or perhaps a short description of the type of music playing. If the video contained images that communicate feeling then audio description would be needed rather than a transcript for Level AA.

Regarding WCAG SC 1.2.1 it seems to say "video only" and "audio only" content. There is no clear situation for combined video and audio content where one aspect is decorative. And what if there were - what is the factor in determining if an image or sound is meaningful or decorative? Music sets mood and images convey feeling.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 8:34 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Synchronised media ambiguity again

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


On 07/09/2020 13:19, Steve Green wrote:
> I am trying to work out which WCAG success criteria apply to a video in which information is only conveyed visually. There is a continuous music track that is purely decorative. The visual content is not actually a video, but it's an animation with text.
>
> The decision regarding which success criteria apply depends on whether you classify the video as video-only, synchronised media or time-based media. My inclination is to say it's not synchronised media, but in a previous discussion the overwhelming view was that it's synchronised media if audio and video tracks are started by a single action, which they are.

I believe the point was more nuanced at the time (at least from some of
us): if the audio does convey information, then it counts as synchronised, even though it's not necessarily timed to hit certain beats of the visual. And unless the audio is completely disjointed from the video or vice-versa (i.e. literally random pictures that don't even try to match even even with the mood, or illustrate somehow, the audio / audio that is pure music and has nothing to do with the actual visuals) it still would count as "synchronised"

The key for it then needing an audio description is: you can't, as user who cannot see the video, follow along with a transcript AND the video's audio playing at the same time.

Now, if the audio in your video is pure muzak, and conveys no info, I would not consider that stringently "synchronised media", and would not ding them for not having an audio transcript. They can, if they want to of course. But it needs at least a transcript.

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: Tue, Sep 08 2020 8:26AM
Subject: Re: Synchronised media ambiguity again
← Previous message | Next message →

We can cope with the subjectivity of whether an image or sound is decorative - we deal with subjectivity all the time. I don't know what other people do, but we explain our judgements in our reports, especially in VPATs. And that's what leaves us open to opposing views. If you just say an SC is "not applicable", other people usually won't dig any deeper. But if you say it's "not applicable because...", then you're inviting criticism. I don't mind that as long as the criteria for testing are clear, and herein lies the problem.

My issue is working out exactly what the various success criteria really mean. I get the impression that most people just aren't considering this, or that they are working off paraphrased versions of the success criteria (which I have certainly seen some companies do). When you read the SCs, you realise they are full of ambiguities, omissions and even contradictions.

Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Jonathan Avila
Sent: 08 September 2020 14:32
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Synchronised media ambiguity again

It seems like this is the heart of the discussion - must a video with ambient sound be considered synchronized video with synchronized requirements. This means that captions would be required even if the captions were to only show music symbols or perhaps a short description of the type of music playing. If the video contained images that communicate feeling then audio description would be needed rather than a transcript for Level AA.

Regarding WCAG SC 1.2.1 it seems to say "video only" and "audio only" content. There is no clear situation for combined video and audio content where one aspect is decorative. And what if there were - what is the factor in determining if an image or sound is meaningful or decorative? Music sets mood and images convey feeling.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 8:34 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Synchronised media ambiguity again

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


On 07/09/2020 13:19, Steve Green wrote:
> I am trying to work out which WCAG success criteria apply to a video in which information is only conveyed visually. There is a continuous music track that is purely decorative. The visual content is not actually a video, but it's an animation with text.
>
> The decision regarding which success criteria apply depends on whether you classify the video as video-only, synchronised media or time-based media. My inclination is to say it's not synchronised media, but in a previous discussion the overwhelming view was that it's synchronised media if audio and video tracks are started by a single action, which they are.

I believe the point was more nuanced at the time (at least from some of
us): if the audio does convey information, then it counts as synchronised, even though it's not necessarily timed to hit certain beats of the visual. And unless the audio is completely disjointed from the video or vice-versa (i.e. literally random pictures that don't even try to match even even with the mood, or illustrate somehow, the audio / audio that is pure music and has nothing to do with the actual visuals) it still would count as "synchronised"

The key for it then needing an audio description is: you can't, as user who cannot see the video, follow along with a transcript AND the video's audio playing at the same time.

Now, if the audio in your video is pure muzak, and conveys no info, I would not consider that stringently "synchronised media", and would not ding them for not having an audio transcript. They can, if they want to of course. But it needs at least a transcript.

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: Tue, Sep 08 2020 10:04AM
Subject: Re: Synchronised media ambiguity again
← Previous message | No next message

On 08/09/2020 15:26, Steve Green wrote:
[...]
> My issue is working out exactly what the various success criteria really mean. I get the impression that most people just aren't considering this, or that they are working off paraphrased versions of the success criteria (which I have certainly seen some companies do). When you read the SCs, you realise they are full of ambiguities, omissions and even contradictions.

Oh absolutely. That's pretty much my whole rant from last year's
presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tghv881ac :)

It's a dirty secret that WCAG is exceedingly "wooly" in many many areas.

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