The CSUN talk proposal document

Greetings all

 

Here is the document I submitted to the CSUN conference 2015.

Cheers

-Birkir

 

 

From: Hanno Lans [mailto:hanno@datascape.nl] 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:11 AM
To: auto-wcag Mailing List
Cc: kamyar
Subject: Re: Feedback on SC1-2-2 from autowcag meeting 25 September 2014

 

 

Op 2 okt. 2014, om 16:10 heeft kamyar <kamyar.rasta@tingtun.no> het volgende
geschreven:








-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Feedback on SC1-2-2 from autowcag meeting 25 September 2014
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:16:11 +0200
From: kamyar <kamyar.rasta@tingtun.no>
To: Hanno.Lans@Kinggemeenten.nl, wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>,
mikael Snaprud <mikael.snaprud@tingtun.no>

Hi Hanno,
Here is the discussion on tests that you have made,
SC1-2-2-video-element-without-track and SC1-2-2-video-element during the
autowcag meeting on 2014-09-25. This is a compilation of comments on the
discussion page of each test and descriptions of comments and new
suggestions.

Best Regards,
Kamyar

------
Attendees:
Annika, Birkir, Kamyar, Wilco

Review 1.2.2 Video without tracks:
https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/SC1-2-2-video-element-without-tr
ack

Most comments are in the discussion page on the wiki already:
https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:SC1-2-2-vid
eo-element-without-track
<https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:SC1-2-2-vi
deo-element-without-track&oldid=581> &oldid=581

- Step 1 should be manual. There is no aria role to specify content as a
media alternative to text.
- This page doesn't use the same logic flow as the test on for example
this page: https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/SC4-1-1-tag-nesting
- A few of the steps do contain outcome tables but don't explicitly
state when to return those outcomes (although most of the time it is
clear from the text). For example "For each spoken audio fragment the
frame contains text" (step 4) could be
- Testmode is missing on each step and selector.
- "IF NOT for each spoken audio fragment the frame contains text: RETURN
{{{id}}}"
--Wfiers

- Suggestion: Move the manual steps that check open captions to a
separate test. This test could be applied to other videos as well (not
just video elements).
- The test mode of the steps should be either automatic or manual.
SemiAuto should not be used (in step 1 and 2). In this case the step
should be spilt into two steps.
--Anietzio

Birkir: We may add a separate technique for flash to automatic detection
of flash videos. The flash objects needs to be asked if they contain
video. Wilco: there is no any technique to detect videos. However, video
players can identify them.

 

I personally think we shouldnt invest in flash techniques. html5 video is
the standard. You will also see that websites include a script with an
automatic fallback or upgrade to/from html5 with all videoplayers: if the
browser can handle html5, the video will be served as html5 (JW player,
Youtube etc). If we test in a HTML5 compatible environment, this script will
serve us HTML5 VIDEO and not an OBJECT. 

If we want to test the fallback methods, we have to test in an HTML4 as well
as a HTML5 environment.

 

 


SUGGESTION: Extent this test to object element. Look at video and object
elements to capture all of the possible variation of it.

 

If we want we can add a test for objects containing a video file as a
parameter. When they have a video file as a parameter we might assume that
the object is used for video

NB: if there is an object without a video file, it could be a video as well.

NB2: the file might be a videocontainer with a caption stream.

 

For me I think that as soon as we detect a OBJECT we should return a
can'ttell, manual testing needed for this successcriterion.

So, I can include an extra text for objects.

 


-----------------------------

Review 1.2.2 Video element:
https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/SC1-2-2-video-element
Comments on discussion page:
https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:SC1-2-2-vid
eo-element
<https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:SC1-2-2-vi
deo-element&oldid=579> &oldid=579

- This page doesn't use the same logic flow as the test on for example
this page:

https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/SC4-1-1-tag-nesting

I have added a few IF ELSE and GO TO statements



- A few of the steps do contain outcome tables but don't explicitly
state when to return those outcomes (although most of the time it is
clear from the text). For example "File content contains time codes and
text" (step 4) could be
"IF File content does't contains time codes and text: RETURN
SC122-videoelement-fail#"
- Testmode is missing on each step and selector.
- The page states "success criterion doesn't take into account language
changes. So it is valid to have spoken text in language 1, subtitles in
language 2 and page content in language 3." But I would argue that in
that case the captions are not an equivalent to the audio track.
--Wfiers

 

I don't understand when we have to return a pass or a fail because of the
language. 

Let's assume we have a German website, that contains a video Obama visiting
Merkel.

 

Obama and Merkel are talking in English.

- Is it required for WCAG2 to have the spoken text translated in subtitles
in the German language?

- Is it required for WCAG2 to have captions in the German language?

- Is it required for WCAG2 to have the audio description in the German
language?

 

- Suggestion: Add reference to Technique H95
- Selector: There is not track-attribute in HTML5. It should say: "track
element with kind attribute".

Agreed



- Step 2: Not clear what happens if the attribute is found.

Something is missing from description. Maybe it should say "go to the
next step". Not clear do we treat subtitles different from captions...

 

That's also not clear for me. I would argue that when there is no additional
non-spoken information needed, only a subtitle file is needed, and only if
additional clues are needed, a separate caption file is needed. Or is a
caption file always required?....





Suggestion: Step 1 and Step 2 could be merged to the selector because
there is no difference in how captions and subtitles are treated.

 

We should discuss if we treat them the same


- Step 8: What is the intention of this step? Why is there no need for
further testing for 'talking head' videos?

Suggestion: Remove this step.

 

There is an exclusion in wcag2 especially for talking head videos. I
included this as this test could be done automatically with image
recognition and we can skip the other steps. It is a precondition test.

When it is not a talking head video we have to deal with checks for
background, 

 

- Step 10: What is a "background fragment"? Step 11: What is a "speaker
fragment"? Please clarify.

 

Hmm, yeah, we need better definitions. Any suggestions to specify these
situations?





- Suggest to split this test into two parts. (1) automated part checking
for the presence and correct format of the file. (2) Manual check that
the captions describe the video.

 

How could we split a test in two parts in the format?




- The test mode of the steps should be either automatic or manual.
SemiAuto should not be used (in step 6 and 8). In this case the step
should be spilt into two steps.

ok





--Anietzio

SUGGESTION: remove the graded rating scheme from these tests.
SUGGESTION: We do not include synchronized media in to selector. We just
select video in object element, we can automate that, otherwise we have
to ask user to verify every page with synchronized media.

 










 

 <http://www.datascape.nl/> DatascapeHanno Lans  <http://www.datascape.nl/>
www.datascape.nl
Middenweg 73, 2024 XA Haarlem
06-26076205 |  <mailto:hanno@datascape.nl> hanno@datascape.nl |
<http://twitter.com/#!/hannolans> @hannolans