RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3

[Jason] If I remember correctly, and I may be misremembering, I insisted during the development of WCAG 2.0 that this was a manifestly unfair exclusion. Unfortunately, my view did not prevail in the working group, one case that was sufficiently disappointing that I’m reasonably confident it happened, and haven’t forgotten despite the intervening years.

I agree with Jason and Katie as well – this is a hole and should be plugged.

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: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:32 PM
To: 'White, Jason J'; 'Mike Elledge'; Jonathan Avila; 'WCAG WG'
Subject: RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3

Jason,

You are right, and this is something that should be covered in WCAG 2.1, it *seems* easy enough to include. Many people have brought this up over the years.

​​​​​



* katie *

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

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

From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:23 PM
To: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com<mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>>; Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>>; WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3



From: Mike Elledge [mailto:melledge@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:59 PM
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>>; WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
One of the questions we were also discussing was whether transcripts were required if we had captions and an audio description. It doesn't seem like they would be necessary under WCAG 2.0, but they would improve accessibility for deaf/blind users.
[Jason] Captions satisfy 1.2.2. Audio descriptions satisfy the second disjunct of 1.2.3, hence there is no requirement at Level A for a transcript and the content can thus be inaccessible to users who are deaf-blind.
If I remember correctly, and I may be misremembering, I insisted during the development of WCAG 2.0 that this was a manifestly unfair exclusion. Unfortunately, my view did not prevail in the working group, one case that was sufficiently disappointing that I’m reasonably confident it happened, and haven’t forgotten despite the intervening years.
1.2.8 is at level AAA, with the result that Web sites that only aim to conform at Level AA still exclude deaf-blind users from their synchronized media content.

________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________