W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2012

Re: video and long text descriptions / transcripts

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 15:52:47 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mXyHX3nPt8XzgphJNTaymdoPZ5UrdRm3hV-1OGCJ9FGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:
> John Foliot wrote:
>> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:16 AM, David Singer<singer@apple.com>  wrote:
>>>> On Mar 30, 2012, at 14:52 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>>> We keep talking about "long text descriptions for videos" and
>>>>> "transcripts" as separate things. There is an implied assumption
>>> that
>>>>> we need two different solutions for these, which I would like to
>>>>> challenge.
>> Sorry I have not been able to participate more fully up until now, but
>> with
>> a household move this past weekend, I am now only digging out.
>> Silvia, I would like to ask you what you believe the "longer textual
>> description" does for non-sighted users, and why authors should be
>> providing
>> this information.
> I would also (and I don't mean to single Silvia out here or anything but I
> am just interested in the general issue). I want to see clear use cases.


In my understanding, the one long description that we link to the
video element (or any other element) is a full text replacement for
the element primarily for those who cannot consume the element (i.e.
accessibility users), but also able to be consumed by anyone else. The
main target, however, is the accessibility users - that other needs
are satisfied with the same text is only a side effect.

For example: let's assume a deaf-blind user A and a sighted and
hearing user B. A cannot watch a video that is embedded in a page.
However, the Web developer makes available a text document that
contains a full description of the video and links it to the video, so
that a braille reader will be able to give user A the same experience
as user B, if user B was to watch the video. Now, as it turns out,
user B is in the office and not able to watch the video. But because
we make the full description available to sighted users, too, B can
follow the link and read the document instead of watching the video.
Both user A and B are able to "scan" the document to their needs and
abilities. Both are able to talk about the video to a sighted and
hearing user C, who has actually watched the video, since all of them
have essentially received the same experience.

This is how I envisage the long description to work and this is why I
don't see a difference between the document that the long description
should link to for a video and a transcript (where transcript is
defined as more inclusive than just the dialog).


Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 05:53:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:27 UTC