W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: Captions: Understanding SC 1.2.2

From: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:04:04 +0100
Message-ID: <530E72E4.1020102@ramoncorominas.com>
To: Thomas Birch <thomas_birch@ieci.es>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hello, Thomas.

With the information that you provide, it seems that those infomercials 
are just a way of explaining the products and their details in a 
language that people finds easier to understand, so I would say they are 
"alternatives" to the product details. However, take into account that 
many deaf people would also prefer these kind of "easy" explanations, so 
maybe you are doing it harder to understand your page (and therefore 
losing sales).


Thomas wrote:

> When validating videos on a web site, we’re faced with a question 
> regarding captions and criterion 1.2.2.
> First of all, as it states in the Understanding SC 1.2.2 section: "It is 
> acknowledged that at the present time there may be difficulty in 
> creating captions for time-sensitive material…”
> The page we want to validate has a high number of infomercials for many 
> of the products that are sold on the page, and we do understand that 
> adding captions for all these videos is a big effort.
> On the other hand, in the next paragraph of Understanding SC 1.2.2 it 
> states that “Captions are not needed when the synchronized media is, 
> itself, an alternate presentation of information that is also presented 
> via text on the Web page. For example, if information on a page is 
> accompanied by a synchronized media presentation that presents no more 
> information than is already presented in text, but is easier for people 
> with cognitive, language, or learning disabilities to understand, then 
> it would not need to be captioned since the information is already 
> presented on the page in text or in text alternatives (e.g., for images)”.
> On each product page that has a corresponding video, people can access 
> all the product details that are explained in the video via text, but 
> not following the same script that is used in the infomercial (e.g. 
> conversations of the actors). Could these videos be considered to be an 
> alternative presentation to the product details, or are subtitles always 
> required to meet this success criterion in this scenario?
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 23:04:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:50 UTC