Re: Seeking clarity regarding the terminology in Success Criterion 1.2.5 Audio Description

Greg,

The only reason to avoid describing the visuals in the existing audio track is to avoid annoying the sighted folks who wonder why they're listening to what they're seeing. That is why a few video players support a separate, optional AD track. The W3C is not responsible for making sighted folks happy, so they don't care where the AD goes as long as it goes somewhere synchronized to the video or separate as extended AD. If your client is OK with it as part of the video's sound track, it meets 1.2.5.

Cheers,
Peter

----------------------------------------
From: "Greg Jellin" <greg@gregjellin.com>
Sent: 5/17/22 2:50 PM
To: Peter Shikli <pshikli@access2online.com>
Cc: Wai-Ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Seeking clarity regarding the terminology in Success Criterion 1.2.5 Audio Description

Peter,
I hear what you are saying, that using only existing pauses may provide an excuse to provide limited AD, if interpreted that way.
But my main concern is whether the SC requires the AD, no matter how brief, to be included in the integrated (main) soundtrack or is it required to be a separate sound track. I know the answer to this (at least I think I do), but the language used in both the SC and the Understanding regarding the term Audio Description is ambiguous.
This ambiguity creates a lot of confusion amongst A11y folks as well as our clients. I am currently defending a VPAT in which a potential client is making the claim that because a separate AD track is not provided that we are failing 1.2.5.
Greg

On 5/17/2022 2:08 PM, Peter Shikli wrote:
Greg,

Indeed there is lots of confusion regarding that. The simplest way to understand it is that WCAG 2.1 to a level AA rating requires only that you fit the audio description in the pauses between dialog, whereas a level AAA satisfies the requirement with a separate MP3 audio file that accompanies the video. This latter is called an extended audio description. We are big fans of producing such extended audio descriptions compared to the minimalist version to comply at the AA level.

Among other things, many videos do not provide a time slice between the dialog to adequately describe the scene. The level AA rating says it's OK to shortchange the blind in this regard. It's also much harder to embed such a AA audio description as a track on the few video players that support it. I can think of more reasons, but this is why we have produced a fully functional sound studio as part of our accessibility services with trained voiceover artists.

Extended audio descriptions are the right way to meet the needs of the blind.

Cheers,
Peter Shikli
Access2online Inc.
29030 SW Town Center Loop East
Suite 202-187
Wilsonville, OR 97070
503-570-6831 - pshikli@access2online.com
Cell: 949-677-3705
FAX: 503-582-8337
www.access2online.com
Prison inmates helping the internet become accessible

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 1:35 PM Greg Jellin <greg@gregjellin.com> wrote:

Warning, it is a bit challenging to describe my concern so this is a bit verbose.
Success Criterion 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded) states, "Audio description is provided for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media."
In the normative part of the SC there are no exceptions, thus my interpretation is that an Audio Description is always required for synchronized media. Where it gets tricky for me is the definition of Audio Description.
When reading the Understanding (non-normative) doc for 1.2.5 the term Audio Description appears to me to be ambiguously defined. I would argue that the term is being used in some parts of the document to mean a separate audio track that augments the integrated (main) audio of the synchronized media to describe visual details, but in other parts to mean a description of visual details that may be in the integrated audio OR a separate audio track.
So which is is it? Is Audio Description defined describing in audio the visual content as separate track? Or, is Audio Description defined as describing in audio the visual content within the integrated (main) audio OR as a separate track.
This is important, because if WCAG defines Audio Description as always being a separate track, then the SC (normative) requires a separate track for all synchronized media.
Some examples of ambiguous language:
In the Understanding doc (Note section below "Intent") the following is stated, "For 1.2.3, 1.2.5, and 1.2.7, if all of the information in the video track is already provided in the audio track, no audio description is necessary."
My interpretation of that language is that audio description is a separate track, but is only necessary if the main audio track does not sufficiently describe the visual content. The problem is that this directly conflicts with the SC, "Audio description is provided for ALL..."
In the Key Terms section audio description is defined as "narration added to the soundtrack to describe important visual details that cannot be understood from the main soundtrack alone". 

Again, this implies that there is a 2nd (separate) soundtrack.
My sense is that the term Audio Description is being used to have two different meanings (ambiguous). In the SC statement it means that the visual content must be described (either in the integrated audio or a separate audio track) and in the Understanding doc it means explicitly a separate audio track.
Thoughts?

Greg