- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:42:51 -0500
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: "'Bailey, Bruce'" <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>, 'Scott Hollier' <Scott.Hollier@mediaaccess.org.au>, 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-id: <64B98E4A-84D5-488D-898E-01F9488FDA47@trace.wisc.edu>
Good I would include a note however that says this does NOT apply to a situation where there are multiple speakers and the speakers are identified on screen with visual text as they speak. Gregg -------------------------------------------------------- Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. Director Trace R&D Center Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project http://Raisingthefloor.org --- http://GPII.net On Jun 24, 2011, at 9:30 AM, David MacDonald wrote: > Sounds like a good sufficient technique suggestion, > > How about a general technique which I'll submit... something like this: > > > Gxx: Using a static text alternative to describe a "talking head" video. > > Description: > > The purpose of this technique is to provide an alternative to synchronized > media that has no time based important information contained in the video > portion of the media. Such is the case in a "talking head" video where a > person is talking in front of an unchanging background, such as a press > conference, company or Government announcement, etc... In this case there > are no "important visual details" which require Audio Description. A static > text alternative giving a general description of the context of the > environment and any opening/closing credits, and perhaps text at the bottom > of the video with the name of the speaker, that is not be heard in the > audio, but seen on the screen. > > Audio Descriptions are not necessary when there is one person speaking > against a static background, because there is no timed based visual > information in the video that is "important" to the understanding of the > content. The environment is static and therefore can be described in a non > multimedia static format such as alternative text that is programmatically > associated with the video. > > Example 1 > > A video of a CEO speaking to shareholders from his office has a title page > opening the video giving the date, and when the speaker begins, there is a > strip of text at the bottom of the video saying "John Doe, President of XYZ > Cooperation". There is a paragraph below the video which is associated with > the video file using aria-describedby which says: "July 22, 2011, John Doe, > President of XYZ cooperation, speaking from his office" > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf > Of Bailey, Bruce > Sent: June-24-11 9:41 AM > To: David MacDonald > Cc: Scott Hollier; WCAG > Subject: RE: Audio Descriptions for Talking Heads > >> So you are requiring Audio Description of a talking head... the > opening/closing credits, and the name and title of the person speaking? > > First, just to be pedantic, I would recommend fastidiously avoiding > capitalizing the term "audio description" unless you are purposely > referring to DVDs and broadcast television where the descriptive > narration is on a secondary audio track. Second, the "you are > requiring" phrasing of your question also makes me anxious as the Access > Board does not enforce 508. Now that I have my disclaimers out of the > way, let me respond substantively! > > Typically, a person sends me a URL and asks if I think the video > conforms to 508. For talking head videos, often the only thing missing > is narration at the beginning and end. > >> Why can't those be put in static text alternatives, given that they > are not time based (unless the speaker changes)? ... but I think a > static alternative should be sufficient, no? > > Yes, some agencies will choose to remediate existing content by adding > content to "a static alternative" (as you call it), usually a paragraph > which is already associated with the video. I think one could make a > very credible case that this practice conforms to WCAG 2.0. If so, we > probably need a Sufficient Technique to this effect. > >> The problem is not the *amount* of AD required, if even one word is > required it's almost as hard as if there is a lot of it. > > Understood. Most often my advice is in the context of advising > government 508 coordinators what they should be telling their media > folks. The media folks have no idea how to add Audio Descriptions (big > AD) but adding a voice over for the opening title they easily > understand. > >> it is getting into a studio (or buying an expensive software package > that's the big investment)... even if it's just to announce a title... > it might be easier in the future > > As is often the case, accessibility can be trivial when considered early > in the process, but difficult and expensive after the fact! > > >
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 14:43:36 UTC