RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3

Sorry, it is actually the second bullet….

 

​​​​​

 

 

 

* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

 

From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:15 PM
To: 'Jonathan Avila' <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>; 'WCAG WG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3

 

Jon,

 

You said: And the deafblind person is a good example as SC 1.2 only requires alternatives for time-based content and NOT text equivalents.  Time-based media is not covered under SC 1.1.1.

 

Did you mean that when you wrote “Time-based media is not covered under SC 1.1.1”?

 

Because it certainly is, time-based media requires “text alternatives at least provide descriptive identification of the non-text content.”, plus the additional requirements (Success Criteria) that fall under Guideline 2.

 

1.1.1’s first bullet is….

 

Time-Based Media: If non-text content is time-based media, then text alternatives at least provide descriptive identification of the non-text content. (Refer to  <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#media-equiv> Guideline 1.2 for additional requirements for media.)

 

​​​​​

 

 

 

* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

 

From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:24 PM
To: WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >
Subject: RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3

 

*  Thanks, Jonathan, that makes sense. Synchronization would be meaningful in most cases (perhaps not as important for someone who is both deaf and blind, but certainly for others).

 

And the deafblind person is a good example as SC 1.2 only requires alternatives for time-based content and NOT text equivalents.  Time-based media is not covered under SC 1.1.1.

 

I recently saw an animated training that didn’t have alternative text for graphics but the person argued that it was timed based media and therefore text based equivalents were not required because they provided an audio track.  Animated training videos that aren’t quite like movies but are time-based chunks fall into a unclear area where you’d like to see text equivalents that were screen reader accessible but the audio seems to meet the requirements.

 

Jonathan

 

Jonathan Avila

Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
 <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com

703.637.8957 (Office) 
Visit us online:  <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> Website |  <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> Twitter |  <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> Facebook |  <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> Linkedin |  <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/> Blog

 <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!

 

From: Mike Elledge [mailto:melledge@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:12 PM
To: Jonathan Avila; WCAG WG
Subject: Re: Clarification of SC 1.2.3

 

Thanks, Jonathan, that makes sense. Synchronization would be meaningful in most cases (perhaps not as important for someone who is both deaf and blind, but certainly for others).

 

Mike

 

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 1:50 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> > wrote:

 

*  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 
 <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com

703.637.8957 (Office) 
Visit us online:  <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> Website |  <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> Twitter |  <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> Facebook |  <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> Linkedin |  <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/> Blog

 <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/> Check out our Digital Accessibility 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