- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:42:49 +0100
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On 11/07/2017 15:07, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > Patrick, > I don’t remember the conversation around this specifically, but I do recall there being a lot of concern even about live captions for synchronized media at AA, so this may have been a compromise. > > I can vaguely recall discussion (but may be misremembering) around the volume of audio content that online radio stations and other continuous broadcasters put out, so it may have been done in response to comments. I do see that 1.2.9 was added between CR and PR, but don’t see anything in a quick scan of the minutes. Thanks Andrew. Wondering if this is something that could/should be looked at for WCAG 2.1. Currently, this seems weirdly unbalanced - and as the volume of sync'd media, even just live videos with audio, is becoming more and more common (while at the time of WCAG 2 it may have been more of a rarity?) this will probably start to cause issues or result in weird loopholes. (For instance, if faced with decision of whether to just stream audio or do an audio+video stream, some developers/publishers may opt to just to audio-only since that then has no captioning/alternative requirement under AA - and yes, while 1.1.1 does have a tiny mention about live audio, "text alternatives at least provide descriptive identification of the non-text content" means that all that would be required to pass here too is a simple "there's some live audio here..." type short description). P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2017 14:43:24 UTC