- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 21:01:55 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I had been planning to let my nit on this topic wait for WCAG3, but if we're developing resources for use on w3.org, it may be more prudent to address the clash between WCAG 2.x and HTML 5.x sooner, not later. Thanks, John, for pointing people to the Media Accessibility User Requirements (MAUR) we developed (and published as a W3C Note in 2015). This document drove some of the design of accessibility support enabled by the HTML 5 specification. Most particularly I would note that there's the object being described, i.e. the video, and two modalities by which it can be described under HTML 5. One supported modality is audio. This is the traditional one that WCAG references. Unfortunately, WCAG ignores the other available modality supported by HTML 5, i.e. text. All this is described in the MAUR. I would note that Nigel Megitt (of the BBC) has provided an open sourced library for implementing textual descriptions of video. W3C resources should not be ignoring this option. I suppose it doesn't really matter what we call it, as long as a description is provided. Perhaps we can put off the naming clash for WCAG3. A rose by any other name and all that. Nevertheless, seven years is a long time to ignore the provisions of a specification and the accessibility features we worked so hard to incorporate in it. And, WCAG3 is still years away. So, if you create descriptions of video as audio files, well and good. I would just not like to see that terminology creep into additional WAI resources. Best, Janina John Foliot writes: > As a corollary to this discussion, you may also find the MAUR (Media > Accessibility User Requirements) an interesting read: > https://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/ > > Although non-normative in stature, it looks at media accessibilty through a > Best Practices lens, but is quite extensive. > > JF > > On Tue., May 17, 2022, 7:18 p.m. Greg Jellin, <greg@gregjellin.com> wrote: > > > Fantastic resources, Shawn. Thanks. > > > > On 5/17/2022 4:11 PM, Shawn Henry wrote: > > > Hi, Greg, > > > > > > In many cases "integrated description" included in the main video is > > > the best solution. I hope that you find useful information for your > > > situation in the W3C WAI resource "Making Audio and Video Media > > > Accessible", particularly: > > > * https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/description/ > > > * https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/av-content/#integrate-description > > > > > > Hopefully that resource also clears up misunderstandings in this > > > e-mail thread about WCAG requirements at Level A, AA, AAA and meeting > > > people's accessibility needs and preferences. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Indeed the WCAG information could be made more clear, and better cover > > > current technology and options. I encourage you to submit suggestions > > > to improve the wording in the Understanding document. (We can't change > > > the wording in WCAG itself.) It's best if you can submit a GitHub Pull > > > Request. Alternatively, you can use a form or send e-mail. > > > Instructions are here: > > > https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/commenting/ > > > > > > If you have suggestions for the "Making Audio and Video Media > > > Accessible" resource, you can use the e-mail or GitHub links near the > > > end of the page in the 'Help improve this page' box. > > > > > > Best, > > > ~Shawn > > > <http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/> > > > > > > > > > On 17-May-22 4:46 PM, Greg Jellin wrote: > > >> 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 <http://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 > > >>> > > > > -- Janina Sajka (she/her/hers) https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2022 01:02:09 UTC