Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Revisiting Transcripts and Audio Description (SC 1.2.3/5/8) #782

Open
bruce-usab opened this issue Jun 11, 2019 · 50 comments
Open

Revisiting Transcripts and Audio Description (SC 1.2.3/5/8) #782

bruce-usab opened this issue Jun 11, 2019 · 50 comments

Comments

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor

bruce-usab commented Jun 11, 2019

The purpose of this issue is to determine whether or not WCAG 2.1, success criterion 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) is still relevant to the accessibility of web content for people with disabilities.

The initial proposal was to delete/remove SC 1.2.3 from WCAG 2.2. There may be better alternatives, so really this issue is about revisiting 1.2.3, 1.2.5, and 1.2.8.

In my experience, having one (and only one) instance of a Double A SC wholly replacing a Single A SC has proven to be a surprisingly difficult stumbling block with teaching about WCAG.

In theory, the concept is easy: At Double A, SC 1.2.3 is superseded by SC 1.2.5. In actual practice, the instruction on this detail is not worth the cognitive load required to convey this particular nuance.

Straw Poll:

  • Please vote a Thumbs Up reaction to this comment if your experience teaching about 1.2.3 is similar to my own.
  • Please vote a Thumbs Down reaction to this comment if you teach about WCAG and do not have any particular difficulty with 1.2.3.

In 2008, when WCAG 2.0 was published, the working assumption was that some regulatory bodies would adopt the Single A level. I submit that this (1) has proven to not be the case; and (2) therefore, having an SC that is irrelevant at Double A is harmful and counter-productive.

The simplest course of action would be for 2.2 to not include SC 1.2.3.

We might also consider promoting Success Criterion 1.2.8 Media Alternative (Prerecorded) to Single A.

This top card of this issue will be updated as discussion on the issue progresses.

  • Rephrased assertions as being just my experience (6/12).
  • Added a straw poll request (6/12).
  • Changed issue title and added sentence noting that revisiting 1.2.3, 1.2.5, and 1.2.8 are all in scope (6/14).
  • Requested survey questions to help sort this issue out (6/20).
@bruce-usab bruce-usab self-assigned this Jun 11, 2019
@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Jun 11, 2019

I think there may be situations where one cannot meet the synchronized requirement, for whatever reason. Being able to offer a transcript is better than nothing. I think someone being able to indicate that the transcript is provided is a definsible way to gracefully fail the AA requirement while still providing some facilitation.

@johnfoliot
Copy link

johnfoliot commented Jun 11, 2019 via email

@mraccess77
Copy link

I agree with the concerns that in regions 1.2.5 is exempted and that some videos don't have sufficient pauses for AD. Moving 1.2.8 to Level A should solve that issue and also ensure that there is something available for users who are deafblind. Right now transcripts are not required at Level AA and getting transcripts at Level AA seems reasonable in today's environment.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 12, 2019

@mbgower wrote:

I think there may be situations where one cannot meet the synchronized requirement

Can you think of some examples?

I think someone being able to indicate that the transcript is provided is a defensible way to gracefully fail the AA requirement while still providing some facilitation.

This would be passing 1.2.3 but failing 1.2.5. But is this a good argument for keeping 1.2.5 status quo?

@mraccess77 wrote:

...some videos don't have sufficient pauses for AD.

That use case would not actually fail against 1.2.5 (since, by definition, AD narration is only dubbed over the default sound track). Also, it is pretty easy to find examples of decent AD for pretty intense theatrical uses (e.g., action movies), so I am always skeptical of assertions that an A/V production does not lend itself to AD.

There are times when it is hard to do a great job with AD, and a transcript might be better for those use cases. Also, many people prefer a transcript over AD. And, of course, some users do not benefit at all from AD, but would benefit from a transcript. But I think this all argues for promoting 1.2.8 to Single A.

Moving 1.2.8 to Level A should solve that issue and also ensure that there is something available for users who are deafblind. Right now transcripts are not required at Level AA and getting transcripts at Level AA seems reasonable in today's environment.

I agree, and would also like for us to have a conversation about that!

@mraccess77
Copy link

I have seen many training videos where there is not sufficient pauses to cover what is shown in a screenshare of a system. If there isn't enough room for pauses then you can't fit in the AD and as most agree it's not a failure of 1.2.5 -- but the person who is blind doesn't get the missed information at all and the content passed WCAG A AA. If we had a transcript requirement then at least that information would be available somehow. Agree on your point that there are some types of videos like this were the video is walking through entering code where the transcript would be the preferred method of access by people who are blind. But for other situations like movies the transcript is a very separate alternative that excludes people from the experience. So it really depends on the genre of the video content.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 12, 2019

@mraccess77 wrote:

I have seen many training videos where there is not sufficient pauses to cover what is shown in a screenshare of a system.

That is a great and common example actually! I will even go further, to generalize to like 99% of PowerPoint style presentations where the speaker cannot be bothered to read their slides. So the presenter is talking the whole time, but someone who is listening but not watching is lost.

If a bad presenter like that is being webcast live, they do not fail WCAG at any level! We do not have an AD requirement for live web casting. Maybe we can take a look a that also for 2.2?

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 12, 2019

@johnfoliot wrote:

I'll also note that David remarked on the call today (06/11) that in some territories they have an explicit, policy-driven “exemption” around 1.2.5 (even if all other things considered the requirement is for WCAG AA compliance).

@DavidMacDonald can you provide the cite for that? I would like to see exactly how they phrase that exception.

While Section 508 has effectively made SC 1.2.3 redundant for US Federal sites (et. al.), that may not be the case everywhere.

But it is not just 508. EN 301 549 has the same result, as does every legal settlement that I know of.

Does anyone have examples of WCAG2 being required at the Single A and not the AA Level?

Aside from the Canadian example with exempting 1.2.5, are there other examples where WCAG 2.0 Level AA has been cherry picked?

@mraccess77
Copy link

Some electronic health records requirements called out WCAG A https://www.levelaccess.com/electronic-health-records-accessibility/ but these might have been overcome by ACAA.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 12, 2019

Some electronic health records...

Good catch! But of course, it would be pretty unusual to have multimedia in EHR.

Here is a shortish URL for 45 CFR Part 170: www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt45.1.170

To find where WCAG 2.0 Level A is applicable to EHR, search that page for “170.204(a)(1)”. (Just two instances, but they are quite significant.)

The single cite to WCAG 2.0 Level AA is written as “170.204(a)(2)” and is not actually all that helpful.
Here is that excerpt:

Such access must be consistent and in accordance with the standard adopted in §170.204(a)(1) and may alternatively be demonstrated in accordance with the standard specified in §170.204(a)(2).

So one can meet the Level A requirement by conforming to Level AA. Duh!

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 12, 2019

I have added a straw poll to my original post, and would ask folks to use that to indicate if you find 1.2.3 particularly annoying to teach about (or not).

Please do not use the straw poll to vote if we should deprecate 1.2.3 (or not). That sort of action should wait for a survey, and after more conversation about the issue.

A simple explanation for my experience is that I am poor teacher and/or have dull students!

@awkawk
Copy link
Member

awkawk commented Jun 12, 2019

@bruce-usab OP?

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

OP == original post / sorry

@johnfoliot
Copy link

johnfoliot commented Jun 12, 2019 via email

@lauracarlson
Copy link
Contributor

lauracarlson commented Jun 12, 2019

Hi Bruce and all,

I voted thumbs up as my experience teaching 1.2.3 is similar to yours. At first people struggle with the concept of SC 1.2.5 superseding SC 1.2.3 at AA. Once it is explain then they understand. Maybe that could be explained better in the understanding docs? People I work with have read the understanding docs, and still didn't get it until I explained it.

But I agree with Mike, providing a transcript is a way to fail the AA requirement while still providing some accessibility. If we have evidence that 1.2.3 is used internationally (Canada etc), we shouldn't deprecate it.

@jake-abma
Copy link
Contributor

just a question / thought: why go through all the possible trouble and explaining of deleting a SC while working on Silver? Is it worth the effort or is the expectation of Silver that is will take so much time that the pros win from the cons?

@johnfoliot
Copy link

johnfoliot commented Jun 12, 2019 via email

@lauracarlson
Copy link
Contributor

lauracarlson commented Jun 12, 2019 via email

@johnfoliot
Copy link

johnfoliot commented Jun 12, 2019 via email

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 14, 2019

@johnfoliot wrote:

source: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=23601
Expand the Section “Appendix B: List of Exclusions: Published August 1, 2011”

Thanks!

...the exclusion/exemption of SC 1.2.5 here means that it falls back to SC 1.2.3.

I agree. So if WCAG 2.0 did not have SC 1.2.3, with their language as-is, TBS would not have had a requirement for either AD or transcripts. This observation does temper my enthusiasm for just deleting SC 1.2.3. On the other hand, making 1.2.3 a requirement for transcripts is another possibility...

(FWIW, I actually like how they write up their “list of exclusions” in that it is narrative instead of something terse like “1.2.5 is excepted”. Also, they are citing to 2.0 specifically, so the W3C putting out 2.1 (or 2.2) does make requirements retroactive.)

I fail to see why this is an issue: if you've met SC 1.2.5, then by default you've also met SC 1.2.3.

That is something I am trying to a get sense for. It is an issue because this single instance one SC superseding another SC has been an (unexpected) impediment to my own teaching about WCAG. But my experience might not be representative of others’ experiences. At Level AAA there are a few SC that make Level A and AA irrelevant, but having one-and-only-one example at Level AA is confusing and not necessary.

Your presumption that every site out there is striving for AA full compliance is not based on real evidence, but rather (I will suggest) your vantage point from the US Federal Government perspective.

Yes, I am prejudiced by my vantage point. The WCAG conformance model is based on wholly meeting levels.

Additionally, while I support moving SC 1.2.8 Media Alternative (Prerecorded) (a.k.a. Provide a Transcript) 'higher' in severity, jumping from AAA to A is quite radical. We could move it to a AA SC, in alignment with other video-related SC (1.2.5 Audio Descriptions and 1.2.4 Captions (Live) )

I agree with promoting SC 1.2.8 for 2.2. That would also be a way to resolve this issue.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 14, 2019

@lauracarlson wrote:

Maybe that could be explained better in the understanding docs? People I work with have read the understanding docs, and still didn’t get it until I explained it.

I submit that the Understanding is as good as it could be on this particular point (and if it were written perfectly, it would not matter). I think it is a serious defect with WCAG 2.0. I think the problem comes from WCAG being read (and implemented) by people who mostly ignore the AAA SC, so the single instance of one SC superseding another is weird and strange.

If we have evidence that 1.2.3 is used internationally (Canada etc), we shouldn’t deprecate it.

How do you feel about making transcripts a requirement at AA or A?

@lauracarlson
Copy link
Contributor

@bruce-usab wrote:

How do you feel about making transcripts a requirement at AA or A?

+1

Laura

@johnfoliot
Copy link

johnfoliot commented Jun 14, 2019 via email

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 14, 2019

@jake-abma wrote:

just a question / thought: why go through all the possible trouble and explaining of deleting a SC while working on Silver?

The answer to this question is mostly the same answer as to, “Why work on 2.2 at all?” But IMHO fixing old problems with 2.0 is just as important as adding new SC to 2.2.

Is it worth the effort

Yes, full stop.

...or is the expectation of Silver that is will take so much time that the pros win from the cons?

Yes, there is that too. Also, it seems possible (maybe even probable) that Silver 1.0 won’t have as many requirements as WCAG 2.2. So even after Silver 1.0 is out, 2.2 might be more attractive to certain regulatory agencies.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 14, 2019

@johnfoliot wrote:

@jake - I sort of agree: this seems like a better discussion inside of the Silver work, or at least in that context. I'm quite fearful of tinkering with anything already published as a WCAG 2.x SC - leave sleeping dogs lay and we can address this topic more holistically in the context of Silver.

I don’t disagree that revisiting 1.2.3/1.2.5/1.2.8 makes more sense in context of the Silver work. That does not negate that revisiting 1.2.3/1.2.5/1.2.8 makes some sense in the context of work on 2.2.

Those of us wanting to fix a few broken things about 2.0 gave up that fight so that 2.1 could meet its publication schedule. I submit that the interaction between 1.2.3/1.2.5/1.2.8 is at least as broken as 4.1.1 and the relative luminance formula, and that the change needed is pretty lightweight. If we are making corrective changes to 2.0 anyway, addressing this issue is better than choosing to ignore it.

@bruce-usab bruce-usab changed the title Deprecating SC 1.2.3 Revisiting SC 1.2.3, 1.2.5, 1.2.8 Jun 14, 2019
@bruce-usab bruce-usab changed the title Revisiting SC 1.2.3, 1.2.5, 1.2.8 Revisiting Transcripts and Audio Description (SC 1.2.3, 1.25, 1.2.8) Jun 14, 2019
@bruce-usab bruce-usab changed the title Revisiting Transcripts and Audio Description (SC 1.2.3, 1.25, 1.2.8) Revisiting Transcripts and Audio Description (SC 1.2.3/5/8) Jun 14, 2019
@johnfoliot
Copy link

johnfoliot commented Jun 14, 2019 via email

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member

Coming in late, but for what it's worth, I'd suggest that for content authors, it's orders of magnitude more difficult to provide an alternative version of a video with AD (in terms of production, particularly if it isn't produced in-house) than it is to provide a transcript (and leaving aside the fact as well that it's often not straightforward to just provide a single video with multiple audio tracks that can be selected, and it usually ends up requiring a completely separate video file).

(as a separate topic, i'm also reminded of the weird imbalance in requiring captions for live audio_video at AA, but for live audio only at AAA, but i'll repost this as a separate issue)

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 20, 2019

@johnfoliot:

I think that part of the problem here is that you are proposing multiple actions in one thread.

Yes, but that was by design, as I wanted first to get a sense if there was general agreement that some changes should be made. It seems to me that there is decent support for Revisiting Transcripts and Audio Description.

I naively proposed just deleting 1.2.3 as the simplest/quickest fix, but I now agree that is not the best approach. The actions you enumerate are a good start, but I think that there are few other options as well. For example, rather than than just promoting 1.2.8 to AA, I think it would be a cleaner end-product if 1.2.5 were re-written to require both captions and audio description (because then it could have parallel construction to 1.2.3). But that option presumes that transcripts should be AA and not A, and we have not had even one phone call (let alone a survey) about any of this.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 20, 2019

@patrickhlauke

Coming in late, but for what it's worth, I'd suggest that for content authors, it's orders of magnitude more difficult to provide an alternative version of a video with AD...

Agreed. Especially with the non-uncommon example of the constantly-talking talking-head talking over (but not reading) their slides!

Since transcripts are so much easier than AD, and better for certain use cases, does that not argue for 1.2.8 being promoted to Single A?

Or should we try and craft an exception for transcripts being permissible at AA under certain conditions (e.g., when extended AD is needed to provide comparable information, and regular AD is not good enough)?

I'm also reminded of the weird imbalance in requiring captions for live audio_video at AA, but for live audio only at AAA, but i'll repost this as a separate issue.

I think that is because requiring captions on an audio-only live broadcast is something of a fundamental alteration.

I think it is a bigger gap that we do not have a AAA requirement for AD on live multimedia.

@johnfoliot
Copy link

johnfoliot commented Jun 20, 2019

@bruce-usab

I think it be a cleaner end product if 1.2.5 were re-written

I'll oppose that too I'm afraid, not because I don't understand the concern or your issue, but because it breaks the backward compatibility requirement, by changing normative text after the fact. Our options are limited here, and it also sounds like your problem is not with the requirements, but with how it is explained and taught.

I personally do not think there is a lot of confusion here if you respect the A, AA and AAA model - the issue is that Section 508 flattened that model to make A and AA equivalent (or at least equally required), which WCAG clearly states they are not. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

@johnfoliot

I don't understand the concern or your issue

I agree that you do not understand the concern or my issue.

it also sounds like your problem is not with the requirements

That is not correct. My problem is with the requirements. I would like to see the normative text improved.

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member

I think it is a bigger gap that we do not have a AAA requirement for AD on live multimedia

pardon my ignorance, but...can you even DO audio description of live multimedia? you can't foresee where the gaps in audio/speech occur if you're doing it live...and again from a technical standpoint it's non-trivial, having to provide two separate live streams instead of one

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 20, 2019

@patrickhlauke asked:

can you even DO audio description of live multimedia?

Yes, but it is tricky, and the live event almost certainly would need to be following a script. OTOH live radio of sporting events is essentially live AD.

I will try and dig up some examples (which would be recordings of live events, e.g. the U.S. Presidential Inauguration). One can also find live theatrical productions that offer live AD. The Kennedy Center does a nice job with this. The ACB ADP has a full listing of Performing Arts with Audio Description.

EDIT: I could not quickly find a recording of the AD version of the 2013 inauguration. Here is the LOC page which mentions that it was, as well as this Cool Blind Tech article.

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member

adding though that i can see how/why this whole thing is a confusing mess that should be sorted out...

1.2.3 EITHER provide AD or transcript at level A
1.2.5 provide AD at level AA
1.2.8 provide transcript at level AAA

1.2.8 is easier (technically and logistically) to achieve than 1.2.5, so it's odd that it's AAA compared to 1.2.5 which is AA

and then there's the weird logical conundrum of "at A you have to either do AD - a AA requirement - or transcript - a AAA requirement" ... the levels and just overall logic of that is ... odd

@johnfoliot
Copy link

johnfoliot commented Jun 20, 2019

@bruce-usab

I would like to see the normative text improved.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that is an option open to us, and I will (as repeatedly stated) strenuously oppose any attempt to make changes to WCAG 2.x that break backwards compatibility, sorry. That requirement is sacrosanct.

This normative text has been in place for over a decade now, and it is only now, with the advent of Section 508 adopting WCAG 2.0 A & AA that this has become an issue? I'm sorry, but respectfully, I do not think the source of the issue is with the text(s), but rather in the way it is being taught. I've previously stated I would favor and encourage re-visiting the non-normative Understanding documents around these Success Criteria if that is the root of the misunderstanding, and I'll again suggest that is the better path forward.

I would also support making SC 1.2.8 a AA going forward in WCAG 2.2 (if that helps any)

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

@johnfoliot wrote:

I do not believe that is an option open to us

We do have that option, so long as we do not break backwards compatibility. You were on the call Tuesday and last week when this was discussed.

I will (as repeatedly stated) strenuously oppose any attempt to make changes to WCAG 2.x that break backwards compatibility

I have not proposed anything that breaks backward compatibility.

I do not think the source of the issue is with the text(s).

I understand that you do not think so. Sorry, but you are mistaken about that! :-)

@johnfoliot
Copy link

@patrickhlauke

adding though that i can see how/why this whole thing is a confusing mess that should be sorted out...

Yep, which is why I'd be OK with moving SC 1.2.8 to a AA level, so that we end up with:

At level A:

  • 1.2.3 requires EITHER Audio Description or Transcript

But at AA you must provide BOTH:

  • 1.2.5 provide AD at level AA
  • 1.2.8 provide transcript at level AA

(And respectfully, if that is hard to explain, then I am unsure what to say...
NOT EVERY TERRITORY IS MANDATED TO MEET BOTH A & AA REQUIREMENTS.)

Prior to the Section 508 refresh, 508 demanded less than WCAG A & AA, and yet, at that time, the common thought was "something was better than nothing". Now Section 508 has to meet both the A & AA requirements, but that requirement only extends to US entities covered by that act.

Meanwhile, beyond the reach of Section 508, some entities will strive to at least meet WCAG A (even if not legally required to do so, and again operating under the principle that something is better than nothing) and in those use-cases, those entities are at least required that they provide something to impacted users.

At AA conformance, we increase the demand for both accommodations.

Why is this hard?

@johnfoliot
Copy link

@bruce-usab

You were on the call Tuesday and last week when this was discussed.

Indeed, and I stated then (and will re-state now) that, in the case of SC 4.1.1, "removing" that requirement is moot, because the problem it sought to address is now 'fixed' in the browsers - the "user-agents" remediate the code on the fly. However, I also stated clearly that I would oppose any change to normative text that still has an impact on the content authors, which is what you are proposing here.

Bruce, throughout this thread, you have stated things such as:

"In my experience... (it) has proven to be a surprisingly difficult stumbling block with teaching about WCAG."

"...indicate if you find 1.2.3 particularly annoying to teach about (or not)."

"A simple explanation for my experience is that I am poor teacher and/or have dull students!"

"It is an issue because this single instance one SC superseding another SC has been an (unexpected) impediment to my own teaching about WCAG."

"It is both a teaching problem and a structural problem with the actual SC."

"I mostly teach old tired admin/policy HR folks who were anointed 508 responsibilities under “other duties as assigned” and they have been struggling to make sense of WCAG on their own for many months before I get a chance to help them."

@lauracarlson also chimed in:

At first people struggle with the concept of SC 1.2.5 superseding SC 1.2.3 at AA. Once it is explain then they understand. Maybe that could be explained better in the understanding docs? People I work with have read the understanding docs, and still didn't get it until I explained it.

I cannot help but conclude then that the problem is in the teaching, not in the requirement(s) themselves.

As Laura states, "Maybe that could be explained better in the understanding docs", to which I wholeheartedly agree. I get that you feel something needs fixing, but re-writing an existing SC, or eliminating it because Section 508 coordinators don't understand is something I reject as a viable option - the impact of that decision will extend far beyond the boundaries of the United States.

You've effectively made the point this is hard to teach - so let's fix the teaching materials.

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member

Why is this hard?

can we just chill for a minute here? i'm adding some of my observations, not arguing for one side or another at the moment.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 20, 2019

@johnfoliot

I also stated clearly that I would oppose any change to normative text that still has an impact on the content authors

That cannot be what you exactly mean, since new SC in 2.1 and 2.2 have impact on the content authors. I think I am hearing you say that you would be okay with promoting 1.2.8 but not with incorporating the text of 1.2.8 into 1.2.5 (even though the functional end result would be the same). Am I correct about that? I am agnostic about the mechanics of any change at this point.

Bruce, throughout this thread, you have stated things such as:

I was only trying to make it clear that I read what you wrote.

I cannot help but conclude then that the problem is in the teaching, not in the requirement(s) themselves.

The problem is that the normative text is confusing on its face. If my students were first being introduced to WCAG from my teaching, there would probably not be any difficulty, but that is not usually the case.

An inherit defect with the SC text cannot be resolved by patching Understanding.

You've effectively made the point this is hard to teach - so let's fix the teaching materials.

It is not so hard to teach. It is harder than it needs to be for people to pick up this sort of nuance on their own.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 20, 2019

I have made a request for a couple survey questions:

(1) Should transcripts be required for prerecorded synchronized media at either Level A or Level AA?

  • No, but I can live with a change
  • No, and I disagree with this change for 2.2
  • Yes, and I am open to transcripts being either Level A or AA
  • Yes, but only if transcripts are Level A
  • Yes, but only if transcripts are Level AA

(2) Should we consider requiring AD for live events at AAA?

Please read “transcript” as shorthand for “textual alternative for time-based media”, per the WCAG definition.

I think it is too soon to survey for how to best address (1) and (2) above, as I think we first need to decide if there even should be a change.

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Jun 20, 2019

...some videos don't have sufficient pauses for AD.
...
That use case would not actually fail against 1.2.5 (since, by definition, AD narration is only dubbed over the default sound track).

Hmm, 1.2.5 was raised for our 'showreel' video during 2.1 testing, and I was not convinced that audio desc was useful for that, at least when there is a transcript as well, and it is basically an alternative way of understanding the entire website. (We removed the video from the homepage to sidestep that for 2.1 testing.)

When providing training, our clients are an odd mix of multimedia heavy (e.g. broadcasters), or multimedia light (e.g. companies with the odd video). I generally start with the premise of "what do people do if they can't see it? And how about if they can't hear it?" and work out what the best solutions are.

For the non-broadcasters, even pretty big organisations I've worked with generally provide transcripts and not audio-desc, even whilst aiming for AA in every other respect. The audio-desc recommendation is made, but generally left sitting in a backlog somewhere.

The gripe I have is that the current setup discourages 'supplemental' videos. E.g. you have a page of text content, and a video that is saying the same thing. Great for people (including with cognitive issues) that don't like reading lots of text. I'd like to be able to treat that as a translation rather than independent content... but that would be a bigger change.

If we were starting from scratch (e.g. Silver) I'd propose an equivalent to:

  • A: Transcription & captions, with an exception for the media being an alternative to text content.
  • AA: Audio Desc for organisations over a certain size, or with an exception for it being a media alternative.
  • AAA: Sign language, live captions, live & extended AD.

In the WCAG 2.2 context I'd be happy to move transcripts up, and/or rationalise the requriements so long as they match/exceed the previous requirements (which means I can't have my wish for exceptions to AD).

If my students were first being introduced to WCAG from my teaching, there would probably not be any difficulty, but that is not usually the case.

That might be a cause of different experiences, most people in my training have never read the guidelines.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 20, 2019

@alastc, I agree with (almost) all your points, so I am just nit-picking one thing here…

The gripe I have is that the current setup discourages 'supplemental' videos. E.g. you have a page of text content, and a video that is saying the same thing. Great for people (including with cognitive issues) that don't like reading lots of text. I'd like to be able to treat that as a translation rather than independent content... but that would be a bigger change.

I think the 2.0 phrasing explicitly allows for this use case! All of 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3 include “except when the media is a media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such”. Is that not your “video that is saying the same thing”?

One issue (that I have not submitted yet) is that I am pretty sure that it is essentially a typo that 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 (and 1.2.8 and maybe some of the other AAA in Guideline 1.2) do not include this exception language.

That might be a cause of different experiences, most people in my training have never read the guidelines.

Yeah, I have a little too much empathy for your situation...

@mraccess77
Copy link

When videos are a media alternative to other content then they don’t have to meet the audio description requirements

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 20, 2019

@mraccess77 wrote:

When videos are a media alternative to other content then they don’t have to meet the audio description requirements

I agree with you. This is explicitly true at Single A. Unfortunately, the concept is only implicit with AA, and @alastc mentions getting caught by 1.2.5. This is another example of less-than-perfect drafting on our part.

@mraccess77
Copy link

@bruce-usab I wonder if the definition of synchronized which is normative covers the AA SC because it address media alternatives.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor Author

bruce-usab commented Jun 20, 2019

@bruce-usab I wonder if the definition of synchronized which is normative covers the AA SC because it addresses media alternatives.

It does indeed! Unfortunately, that observation begs the question: Why then does the exception appears in 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.3? Answer: less-than-perfect drafting! I submit that 2.2 is a good opportunity to fix this sort of thing.

I just added a new issue highlighting this defect.

@Ryladog
Copy link

Ryladog commented Jun 21, 2019 via email

@alastc alastc added this to To do in WCAG 2.2 Jan 6, 2020
@alastc alastc moved this from To do to Assigned in WCAG 2.2 Sep 29, 2020
@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Aug 24, 2022

Re-labelling as this isn't a 2.2 criteria, and can't be dealt with as a 2.2 update.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
WCAG 2.2
  
Assigned
Development

No branches or pull requests

10 participants