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

Thank you Greg for filing Ambiguous language defining Audio Description in
Understanding 1.2.5 (WCAG issue #2441)
<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2441>, to clarify that a single audio
track can satisfy 1.2.3 and 1.2.5. I've added a comment there, further
clarifying that the single audio track can either contain traditional
interleaved audio description, or "integrated description" as Shawn
mentioned.

> Peter Shikli wrote “level AA rating requires only that you fit the audio
description in the pauses between dialog”, but when I raised this exact
same issue in the WebAIM forum last year, the consensus was the opposite.

Great point! I would love to see this one resolved... How to add audio
descriptions to video? (WCAG issue #1768)
<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1768>

Cheers,

Mitchell Evan, CPWA
linkedin.com/in/mitchellrevan <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mitchellrevan>
Twitter @mitchellrevan <https://twitter.com/mitchellrevan>
+49 1525 8950540
+1 510 375 6104


On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 03:06, Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
wrote:

> Although https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/description/ contains lots of
> good stuff, it is still ambiguous because the “Description method” section
> does not state which of the steps conform with level AA and which conform
> with level AAA.
>
>
>
> Peter Shikli wrote “level AA rating requires only that you fit the audio
> description in the pauses between dialog”, but when I raised this exact
> same issue in the WebAIM forum last year, the consensus was the opposite.
> See https://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread?thread=10114
>
>
>
> To me, and most in the WebAIM discussion, it seems unlikely that the
> authors of the success criterion would mandate audio description at level
> AA, but then say you don’t need to bother if there are insufficient gaps in
> the audio track.
>
>
>
> If that is indeed correct, you could start with a video that has
> sufficient gaps in the audio track, and achieve level AA conformance by
> cutting out the gaps rather than by adding audio description. It would be
> perverse of WCAG to incentivise such behaviour.
>
>
>
> Steve Green
>
> Managing Director
>
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Sent:* 18 May 2022 01:44
> *To:* Greg Jellin <greg@gregjellin.com>
> *Cc:* Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>; Wai-Ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Seeking clarity regarding the terminology in Success
> Criterion 1.2.5 Audio Description
>
>
>
> 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
> >>>
>
>