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
Comments
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. |
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).
While Section 508 has effectively made SC 1.2.3 redundant for US Federal
sites (et. al.), that may not be the case everywhere. For that reason I
would oppose removal of this SC.
JF
…On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:54 AM bruce-usab ***@***.***> wrote:
This top card of this issue will be updated as discussion on the issue
progresses.
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)
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#audio-description-or-media-alternative-prerecorded>
is still relevant to the accessibility of web content for people with
disabilities.
The proposal is delete/remove SC 1.2.3 from WCAG 2.2.
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In theory, the concept is easy: At Double A, SC 1.2.3 is superseded by SC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.
In 2008, when WCAG 2.0 was published, the working assumption was that some
regulatory bodies would adopt the Single A level. This has not been the
case. 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)
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#media-alternative-prerecorded> to Single A.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#782?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAJL445SX2TIZ6PAX5TNNYTPZ64DDA5CNFSM4HW7GZKKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4GY2Y5MA>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJL44Y6CI3KRCW7NTDFECDPZ64DDANCNFSM4HW7GZKA>
.
--
*John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
|
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. |
@mbgower wrote:
Can you think of some examples?
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:
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.
I agree, and would also like for us to have a conversation about that! |
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. |
@mraccess77 wrote:
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? |
@johnfoliot wrote:
@DavidMacDonald can you provide the cite for that? I would like to see exactly how they phrase that exception.
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? |
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. |
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.
So one can meet the Level A requirement by conforming to Level AA. Duh! |
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! |
@bruce-usab OP? |
OP == original post / sorry |
@bruce:
Audio Description (prerecorded video) except where the video provides
information related to health and safety of Canadians WCAG 2.0 Success
Criterion 1.2.5 Audio Description
Exclusions for a 10 business day grace period:
- Pre-recorded videos have a 10 business day grace period from time of
publication to when closed captions and transcription of videos must be
provided.
Live Video Captions exclusions refer to closed captioning and transcription
of live video
Audio Description (prerecorded Videos) are only required for videos that
relate to health and safety of Canadians; for remaining prerecorded videos,
audio description is not required.
(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 -
highlight mine - the exclusion/exemption of SC 1.2.5 here means that it
falls back to SC 1.2.3.)
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. 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.
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) ) - remembering that the prioritization of A, AA, and AAA was based
not only on impact to the user, but also effort on the part of the content
creator.
Bottom line here Bruce - I will strenuously oppose the deprecation of SC
1.2.3 in the context of any WCAG 2.x work, unless you can categorically
prove that it is not relevant in the context of internationalization
support.
JF
…On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:33 AM Andrew Kirkpatrick < ***@***.***> wrote:
@bruce-usab <https://github.com/bruce-usab> OP?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#782?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAJL44467K6DCBCMDF2DHOTP2EJK7A5CNFSM4HW7GZKKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXQ2R5I#issuecomment-501328117>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJL4457N7LOMNY543OZFQLP2EJK7ANCNFSM4HW7GZKA>
.
--
*John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
|
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. |
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? |
Laura writes:
*"At first people struggle with the concept of SC 1.2.3 superseding SC
1.2.5 at AA"*
Respectfully Laura, that's upside down: SC 1.2.5 supersedes 1.2.3, and not
vice versa. It is similar to how Success Criterion 1.4.6 Contrast
(Enhanced) at AAA (aka 7:1 color contrast) supersedes Success Criterion
1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) at AA (aka 4.5:1 color contrast) - where
achieving the AAA is harder than achieving the AA
How I explain this:
At the single A level (1.2.3), content creators have a choice: provide
audio descriptions *OR* a transcript, so in the context of what is less
onerous on the content creator, providing a transcript (all things being
equal) is easier to produce than hiring voice talent and seeking gaps in
the existing audio-stream to inject those descriptions. *THAT* is why it is
a single A requirement: it suggests that at a minimum, while not truly
meeting the needs of non-sighted users (at least not elegantly), the
transcript has some utility there none-the-less, albeit less useful,
especially in real-time.
The additional effort of specifically providing AD was deemed "harder" on
the content creator, and thus the AA categorization. (That reasoning, for
example, is also why the Government of Canada has removed that requirement
- see my citation from earlier)
Today the issue is that most sites are either mandated to, or strive to,
meet AA conformance, which is why it seems that 1.2.3 is redundant. However
I assert that this assumption is NOT universal, and thus suggesting that SC
1.2.3 is redundant for *ALL* content creators is an unproven assertion
which I reject.
In the context of teaching this (something I am very familiar with, as it
is part of my role at Deque), I've actually found this particular topic a
good place to inject the "story" about how the SCs arrived at their A, AA,
or AAA levels, and to remind folks that it was based not just on the impact
of the end user - that WCAG 2.0 also considered the impact on authors as
well. (I also surface the contrast between SC 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 to illustrate
the pattern elsewhere in the document.)
When I wrap the "story" in that context, I've not had any confusion from my
students - they seem to get it.
JF
…On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:45 AM Jake Abma ***@***.***> wrote:
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?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#782?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAJL446Z4QEV4TYYLHHHLQDP2ER4NA5CNFSM4HW7GZKKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXRCF2I#issuecomment-501359337>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJL446Y2ZNXJMUMK6YYIZDP2ER4NANCNFSM4HW7GZKA>
.
--
*John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
|
Yes. John, typo. Thanks.
On 6/12/19, John Foliot ***@***.***> wrote:
Laura writes:
*"At first people struggle with the concept of SC 1.2.3 superseding SC
1.2.5 at AA"*
Respectfully Laura, that's upside down: SC 1.2.5 supersedes 1.2.3, and not
vice versa.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Laura
…--
Laura L. Carlson
|
@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.
JF
…On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:45 AM Jake Abma ***@***.***> wrote:
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?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#782?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAJL446Z4QEV4TYYLHHHLQDP2ER4NA5CNFSM4HW7GZKKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXRCF2I#issuecomment-501359337>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJL446Y2ZNXJMUMK6YYIZDP2ER4NANCNFSM4HW7GZKA>
.
--
*John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
|
@johnfoliot wrote:
Thanks!
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.)
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.
Yes, I am prejudiced by my vantage point. The WCAG conformance model is based on wholly meeting levels.
I agree with promoting SC 1.2.8 for 2.2. That would also be a way to resolve this issue. |
@lauracarlson wrote:
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.
How do you feel about making transcripts a requirement at AA or A? |
@bruce-usab wrote:
+1 Laura |
Hi Bruce,
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 impediment
to my 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*.
Actually, I truly think about this in terms of approach. At Single A, the
content author has a choice to meet SC 1.2.3: provided Audio Description
*OR* provide a transcript. But as we get more "demanding" (at the AA
level), the Standard removes that choice and demands Audio Description.
I think part of the issue (and I further believe that Silver will solve
much of this issue), is that for the majority of content creators in the US
Federal sphere (where Section 508 = WCAG A & AA) there is little difference
to the none-aware about the difference between A conformance and AA
conformance, as for them in particular, the distinction has been flattened
down to "here are the 38 Success Criteria you must meet". However, I have
found that when I explain it as "at single A, you have a choice, at double
A you don't" seems to resolve any questions from the classroom.
HTH
JF
…On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:16 AM bruce-usab ***@***.***> wrote:
@johnfoliot <https://github.com/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 impediment
to my 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.
I will strenuously oppose the deprecation of SC 1.2.3 in the context of
any WCAG 2.x work, unless you can categorically prove that it is not
relevant in the context of internationalization support.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#782?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAJL44YLQSAV2PNJUR5AVFTP2OR4JA5CNFSM4HW7GZKKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXW5NOY#issuecomment-502126267>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJL444A2IG7EGM6KPWL4PLP2OR4JANCNFSM4HW7GZKA>
.
--
*John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
|
@jake-abma wrote:
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.
Yes, full stop.
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. |
@johnfoliot wrote:
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. |
Hi Bruce,
Again, I will strenuously oppose making any changes to existing SC in the
2.x family, as it breaks the backward compatibility requirement, and again,
not every territory or site is mandated to meet WCAG A & AA compliance.
(This would include making 1.2.3 simply mandate a transcript - that too
breaks the backward compatibility paradigm). There is ample evidence of
sites meeting this SC long before Section 508 mandated WCAG 2.0
I can support updating the Understanding documents if the current documents
remain unclear (Hello EO WG?), but I will oppose any material change to SC
1.2.3 simply on the basis that it's hard to understand or teach when you
are mandated to meet both A and AA Success Criteria (as is the current case
for Section 508). There is enough evidence of sites meeting this SC long
before Section 508 mandated WCAG 2.0 that it disproves your theory that it
needs fixing.
You initially wrote:
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.
This is a teaching problem then, and not a problem with the actual SC.
...the working assumption was that some regulatory bodies would adopt the
Single A level. This has not been the case.
Not every territory has 'regulatory' pressures to contend with (see:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/).
One such territory is Japan, where our good friend and colleague @makoto
Ueki has spent the past decade-plus advancing web accessibility in his home
country. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but, given that in Japan,
"web accessibility" is "recommended" but not mandated, I'm sure that Makoto
takes his wins where he finds them, and getting a site to even full Single
A compliance would be a win in his camp.
If you can provide evidence of materiel harm because of the current wording
or intent of SC 1.2.3, then I would then re-consider re-opening this now
11-year-old Success Criteria, but personally that would be the very high
bar I would set. It's not the SC that needs fixing, it's (apparently) the
educational material behind it, including understanding why certain SC are
given an A, AA or AAA ranking, and what that means in an International
context.
Respectfully,
JF
…On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:55 AM bruce-usab ***@***.***> wrote:
@johnfoliot <https://github.com/johnfoliot> wrote:
@jake <https://github.com/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 imply, however, 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 do nothing.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#782?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAJL447HZSH53YTNCHZQLA3P2OWPHA5CNFSM4HW7GZKKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXXBBNA#issuecomment-502141108>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJL44ZALXTJTUTOILHIFVDP2OWPHANCNFSM4HW7GZKA>
.
--
*John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
|
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) |
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. |
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 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. |
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)_/¯ |
I agree that you do not understand the concern or my issue.
That is not correct. My problem is with the requirements. I would like to see the normative text improved. |
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 |
@patrickhlauke asked:
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. |
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 1.2.8 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 |
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) |
@johnfoliot wrote:
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 have not proposed anything that breaks backward compatibility.
I understand that you do not think so. Sorry, but you are mistaken about that! :-) |
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:
But at AA you must provide BOTH:
(And respectfully, if that is hard to explain, then I am unsure what to say... 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? |
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:
@lauracarlson also chimed in:
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. |
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. |
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.
I was only trying to make it clear that I read what you wrote.
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.
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. |
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?
(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. |
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:
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).
That might be a cause of different experiences, most people in my training have never read the guidelines. |
@alastc, I agree with (almost) all your points, so I am just nit-picking one thing here…
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.
Yeah, I have a little too much empathy for your situation... |
When videos are a media alternative to other content then they don’t have to meet the audio description requirements |
@mraccess77 wrote:
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. |
@bruce-usab I wonder if the definition of synchronized which is normative covers the AA SC because it address 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. |
Bruce,
I am for making transcripts required at A or AA. I think it will have to be
a new SC (with explanations in the Understanding). I have long felt this
has been needed.
To answer your questions that you would like submitted to survey....
1. Should transcripts be required for prerecorded synchronized media at
either Level A or Level AA?
KHS: *YES*
- No, but I can live with a change.
- No, and I oppose any change for 2.2
- Yes, and I am open to transcripts being Level A or AA. KHS: *YES*
- Yes, but only if transcripts are Level A
- Yes, but only if transcripts are Level AA
1. Should we consider requiring AD for live events at AAA?
KHS: *YES*
From my experience teaching WCAG the media requirements of 1.2.3 and 1.2.5
have always been a source of confusion. Additionally I find that in many
cases teaching those in government often brings more WCAG-first-timers.
I would like to advise the chairs to please monitor this and other threads
as I see disrespect and bullying raising its ugly head yet again (no matter
how many times one tries to qualify with 'Respectfully'). Having to sit by
and listen to someone requiring a member to 'prove' the truth of their
statement and the practice of demeaning the experience of others is very
unfortunate - and a stain on this WG.
Peace out!
** katie **
*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect, Vice President of Accessibility at
EverFi, **Board Member and W3C Advisory Committee Rep for Knowbility *
*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
<ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will
never forget how you made them feel.......
Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.
…On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:37 PM bruce-usab ***@***.***> wrote:
@bruce-usab <https://github.com/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 as to
why the exception appears in 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.3. It is just
less-than-perfect drafting, and 2.2 is a good opportunity to fix this sort
of thing.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#782?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABL6VSVBOLG7CGPB5L53DCLP3O54BA5CNFSM4HW7GZKKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODYGDJCI#issuecomment-504116361>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABL6VSSWVE2WF5NORHF7SW3P3O54BANCNFSM4HW7GZKA>
.
|
Re-labelling as this isn't a 2.2 criteria, and can't be dealt with as a 2.2 update. |
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:
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: