Editorial Note (19 November 2004 WD) Even though there are instances where captions and audio descriptions are not required, this version of Guideline 1.2 does not attempt to address the variations. Instead, it assumes more detail is included in the techniques documents and that policy makers will clarify when captions and audio descriptions are required
comment from september proposal for media-equiv guideline:
An example of such a phase-in is the Telecom act of 1996 that mandates the number of broadcast hours that need to be captioned. It increases to 100% by 1 Jan 2006. (2-6 a.m. is not included, thus 20 of 24 hours is 100%.) 30% of programs aired before 1 Jan 1998 must be captioned by 1 Jan 2003. 75% by 1 Jan 2008.
Propose that WCAG 2.0 not attempt to create a phase-in schedule. Instead, we look at a scoping mechanism that would allow developers to exclude multimedia that hasn't been captioned or described and leave phase-in schedules to policy makers. However, there is a possibility that scoping could be used to ignore accessibility requirements and it doesn't make sense to me for someone to claim their site is accessible when it is not. We should stick to what we know: technology and only focus on creating technology requirements in WCAG 2.0. Leave the policy to policy makers. Until we have a scoping mechanism for conformance and several real-world examples showing how to use it, this issue remains open.
Leaving the details to policy was discussed at the 30 September 2004 telecon and scoping was discussed at the 23 September 2004 telecon. At the July face-to-face, we discussed a policy "guide" for policy makers (12 July 2004 irc log, 13 July 2004 irc log). We currently have a paragraph for "Scoping of Conformance Claims" but a detailed model or example should clarify what is allowed or not. Therefore, there are a variety of loose ends related to this issue.
Related issues:
Propose: Clarify in the sufficient techniques of Guide for Guideline 1.2 L1 SC1 and Guide for Guideline 1.2 L1 SC 2. e.g., for captions (L1 SC1) OR write separate success criteria as with guideline 1.1 (for different functions of non-text content). (John and Wendy had action item to write this proposal from a while ago...still pursue)? OR can we say this is covered by conformance and scoping? If so, do we need a "Guide doc" for conformance? We've talked about one for baseline.
currently reads:
Example 1: a movie with audio description.
Transcript of audio based on the first few minutes of, "Teaching Evolution Case Studies, Bonnie Chen" (copyright WGBH and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc.)
Describer: A title, "Teaching Evolution Case Studies. Bonnie Chen." Now, a teacher shows photographs.
Bonnie Chen: These are all shot at either the Everglades...for today you just happen to be a species of wading bird that has a beak like this."
Describer: She hands them each two flat, thin wooden blades
Propose:
Example 1: a movie with audio description.
Transcript of audio based on the first few minutes of, "Teaching Evolution Case Studies, Bonnie Chen" (copyright WGBH and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc.)
Describer: A title, "Teaching Evolution Case Studies. Bonnie Chen." A teacher shows photographs of birds with long, thin beaks.
Bonnie Chen: "These photos were all taken at the Everglades."
Describer: The teacher hands each student two flat, thin wooden sticks.
Bonnie Chen: "Today you will pretend to be a species of wading bird that has a beak like this."
Describer: The teacher holds two of the sticks to her mouth making the shape of a beak.
John writes: For the example of musical soundtrack with lyrics, I suggest using Stevie Wonder's "What the Fuss" at http://www.steviewonder.net/
Joe is concerned about using copyrighted material.
Discussion: We probably don't need another example in the guidelines (the 2 we have should be enough to clarify audio description and captions), but we may want to develop this idea for the guide for L1 SC2 - depending on how much information we want to provide about captioning music videos.
Propose: from the guide document for guideline 1.2 L1 SC2, in related resources or examples, link to stevie wonder's audio described version of his video for "So What the Fuss?" (ram) (windows media version of "So What the fuss?")
About Guideline 1.1. Moved it to text-equiv.
This about the benefit for Guideline 1.1. Moved to text-equiv.
Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.2 mentions "Sign language interpretation is provided for multimedia". However, there is no such thing as universal sign language. Just as much as we have different spoken languages in different parts of the world, there are different sign languages too. British Sign Language is not the same as American Sign Language, and neither one of those is similar to German Sign Language for example. To provide sign language interpretation for multimedia content therefore must be qualified as to apply for the "native" region for that content. For globally relevant content, there is no real solution, but this reinforces the need for lower level success criteria alternatives like transcripts.
"universal sign language" is not used.
Propose: Explain in the Guide for Guideline 1.2 L3 SC 1 that the sign language to use is the "same" dialect as the spoken language. i.e., if the multimedia were primarily u.s. english, then use american sign language. If british english then use British Sign Language. Then close the issue.
Suggestion is to move audio descriptions to Level 2 because they create "undue hardship." "there is a question of subjectivity in what requires an audio description, and the capacity to include audio descriptions where the video does not have sufficient breaks into which it can be inserted. Including a text version of the audio descriptions as part of a transcript as mentioned for 1a above as a level 1 criteria, would assure that an alternative exists in some form."
Propose: This is related to issue 1151. Propose that we handle this in conformance and scoping and in the guide document for Level 1 SC 2 we discuss when audio descriptions might not be necessary. Then close the issue.
The issue refers to "1.2 SC4" There is no #4. Unsure what the comment refers to.
Propose: Either follow-up with reviewer or close.
Guideline 1.2 - Level 1 - 1a: Text transcripts should remain Level 1 along with captions because low vision users may have difficulty with just captions because the scalability of the text may be insufficient. Users with cognitive impairments will not necessarily get the necessary information with just visual images and captions. A transcript also allows users to interpret the content at their own pace.
Roberto suggests this is a user agent issue - user should be able to increase font size.
Propose: This is a user agent issue. Close the issue.
Guideline 1.2 - Level 1 - 1b: Captioning should remain a Level 1 Success criteria. Very important for all users. Someone who does not have a strong grasp of the language will certainly benefit from captions since audio is not always easy to interpret, even with perfect hearing.
Guideline 1.2 - Level 1 - 2: Audio descriptions should remain Level 1 as well.
Propose: Since captions and audio descriptions are at Level 1, close the issues.
Who Benefits from Guideline 1.2: Both sentences should include " and transcripts" at the end. Otherwise the benefits of transcripts are not made clear.
This assumes that we will adopt the suggestion in issue 1729 (text transcripts for all media at Level 1).
Propose: If we believe that font size of captions is a user agent issue, then do not adopt this suggestion and close the issue.