RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3

Ø  It seems to me that a transcript would be preferable to audio descriptions,
Ask yourself if you’d say the same thing for captions, would a transcript be preferable to captions?  You almost certainly say no – so it’s the same way for audio description.  Having a synchronized experience is very important for movies, Tv, and other video and provides an equivalent experience.

I do think there are situations such as videos that demonstrate coding or entering data where a transcript would be better – but I think these are the exception and not the rule.

As for why audio description was level 2 – that’s because it is harder to create after the fact and requires pauses during the video and if you don’t want a separate video you would need a player that supports audio an description track.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
703.637.8957 (Office)
Visit us online: Website<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>

From: Mike Elledge [mailto:melledge@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 1:22 PM
To: WCAG WG
Subject: Clarification of SC 1.2.3

Hi Everyone--

We were discussing SC 1.2.3 (Audio Description or Media Alternative) and were puzzled by the A and AA requirements. I wonder if anyone has had a similar reaction.

In terms of accessibility, wouldn't it be better to require a transcript than an audio description? As I understand it, a transcript would provide a more complete rendering of a video since it would include both audio and visual content, whereas an audio description only includes visual content not contained in the audio track. A transcript would also be more accessible to persons using a Braille reader.

Was the decision to make audio descriptions a Level AA requirement based on how few players could provide them, i.e., the assumption that providing a transcript was easier, therefore more reasonable to meet Level A? Or was a synchronized presentation using audio descriptions considered to be more comparable to a sighted experience than an asynchronous transcript?

It seems to me that a transcript would be preferable to audio descriptions, therefore optional for Level A but required for Level AA, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Thanks!

Mike