Re: Question about 1.2.4 Captions (Live) (AA) and 1.2.9 Audio-only (Live) (AAA)

>> My understanding here is that since it's about captions, and
synchronized media, this does not apply to audio-only (live) content.

It would be tough to get consensus from stakeholders on this... an
interesting problem. The stakeholders this would affect most might be radio
stations. In this case the internet is a broadcasting medium and the page
is being used in a way different from how we would have conceived in the
early 2000s when most of WCAG 2 was written. Certainly at the time we could
not have gotten consensus to require stations to hire a full time
captioning service. I expect there would be a lot of claims of undue
burden.

I think we'll be facing some sever opposition if we make such a huge
increase in requirements in a dot version. In 5 years or so automatic
captioning might make this a lot less of a burden. I'd punt it and add it
to the Silver wish list.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> I would guess the cleanest change to address this would be to to promote
> 1.2.9 from AAA to AA (technically, if live audio as part of
> multimedia/sync'd media/video presentation needs to have captions, then so
> should audio-only - captions or some other form of alternative - as the
> effort required would be same or arguably even lower than injecting
> captions into multimedia/video).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> P
>
>
> On 11/07/2017 15:42, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>