The note on text transcript vs audio description needs to be clearer (and possibly re-worded)

[Wildebrew]

The note in WCAG 1.2.3
on the differences between text transcript and audio description is highly confusing and cryptic to me, even if I've done accessibility for 10+ years now.

The fundamental problem I have with it, as I understand it, is that it encourages providing audio description over text transcript (a text transcript only meets WCAG at level A whereas an audio description is a level AA requirement).

Accessibility solutions should consider 3 key factors:

• Meeting the needs of maximum number of people with different disabilities
• Technical feasibility
• Ease of use

A transcript:

• Benefits a lot more people than audio description - it can benefit everyone
• Can relatively easily be created and provided by the author
• Is easily consumed by the user, with or without being able to play the video

Audio description:

• Requires a lot of extra work for the video creator
• Is not supported as a configurable channel in most mainstream web-based media players (including YouTube), requiring authors to post two versions of videos, with and without audio description
• Benefits pretty much only blind/low vision users
• Requires users to be able to listen to the video

The note, as I read it, encourages using audio description over text transcript (since it satisfies by 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 in one fell swoop).
I have a hard time supporting that given how many more users of different disabilities potentially benefit from a text transcript.

I personally think that 1.2.5 should be triple A except in more specific circumstances, such as:

• The video has significant portions of onscreen action.
• The video is primarily meant for web-based or streaming entertainment platforms where configurable audio description tracks are supported.

[Wildebrew]

Sorry, I should've clarified in my first comment.
My ask is:
Make the more accessible version the acceptable alternative for the less accessible version, in other words:
A. Remove audio description as an alternative for transcript for WCAG 1.2.3 (for all the reasons listed in my first comment)
B. Add transcript as an alternative method for meeting audio description requirements, 1.2.5

That will prioritize the number of users who benefit, ease of use, and ease of conforming for authors.

[camtin]

That note has always confused me a bit, especially as the WCAG rules are referred to only by number. I usually need to have 6 tabs open to refresh my memory on the ruleset there. Ideally those WCAG numbers would have a tooltip of some sort to see the full SC title.

The guidance I often give around audio descriptions is to try and plan not to need one! Ensure all essential actions and onscreen text are spoken aloud in the main audio track — a technique called integrated description. When scripting the video, imagine the audio being repurposed as a radio commercial: when a logo appears, speak the logo; when essential actions happen, include natural-sounding dialogue to describe those actions. By planning and scripting the video this way in advance, no separate audio description is needed.

Additional notes on this technique: https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/av-content/#integrate-description

Additionally, there are scenarios where audio descriptions might not be necessary:

If the video is a supplementary alternative to text on the page — for example, a recipe page that includes a video of the cooking process — the text already provides the necessary information.

Talking head-style interviews are also often exempt from audio descriptions. Just make sure everyone is introduced in the audio track (not only via onscreen text), and you're good to go.

Your suggestion to make transcripts a Level AA alternative to audio descriptions is thoughtful, but I’m concerned that this might result in a gap in accessibility for blind or visually impaired users who rely on real-time descriptions of visual actions. A transcript simply doesn't replicate that experience-- but it's probably for someone else to explain why it's a Level AA requirement.

Instead, perhaps the conversation could focus on encouraging better support for audio descriptions across media platforms like YouTube, Vimeo, TikTok etc, while keeping the WCAG standards intact.

[Wildebrew]

Im óf course not advocating against audio description as such, but I do not like the proposal that it can serve as an alternative to a transcript, which is accessible to more people. What about deafblind users? Would they benefit more from audio description or a transcript? (no, it's not a trick question) The alternative to something should always be the most universally accessible format, and that format is text. So I propose a change as one of two things: A. Remove this note altogether and make audio description required if the audio track is not sufficient (if this note is removed, a transcript is required as well), or B. Switch it up so a transcript is an alternative to audio description for satisfying both 1.2.3 and 1.2.5

…

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 9:33 PM camtin ***@***.***> wrote: That note has *always* confused me a bit, especially as the WCAG rules are referred to only by number. I usually need to have 6 tabs open to refresh my memory on the ruleset there. Ideally those WCAG numbers would have a tooltip of some sort to see the full SC title. The guidance I often give around audio descriptions is to try and plan *not* to need one! Ensure all essential actions and onscreen text are spoken aloud in the main audio track — a technique called integrated description. When scripting the video, imagine the audio being repurposed as a radio commercial: when a logo appears, speak the logo; when essential actions happen, include natural-sounding dialogue to describe those actions. By planning and scripting the video this way in advance, no separate audio description is needed. Additional notes on this technique: https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/av-content/#integrate-description Additionally, there are scenarios where audio descriptions might not be necessary: If the video is a supplementary alternative to text on the page — for example, a recipe page that includes a video of the cooking process — the text already provides the necessary information. Talking head-style interviews are also often exempt from audio descriptions. Just make sure everyone is introduced in the audio track (not only via onscreen text), and you're good to go. Your suggestion to make transcripts a Level AA alternative to audio descriptions is thoughtful, but I’m concerned that this might result in a gap in accessibility for blind or visually impaired users who rely on real-time descriptions of visual actions. A transcript simply doesn't replicate that experience-- but it's probably for someone else to explain why it's a Level AA requirement. Instead, perhaps the conversation could focus on encouraging better support for audio descriptions across media platforms like YouTube, Vimeo, TikTok etc, while keeping the WCAG standards intact. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4072 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHMYW7KUUTEWEUDQF4SWVTZYSYXBAVCNFSM6AAAAABOMH4BCWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGNZYGIZTGMJQG4> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Work hard. Have fun. Make history.

[camtin]

You're 100% percent right about the need of transcripts for deafblind users, and this is a great point.

I'd agree that not requiring a text transcript (and allowing authors to only have an audio description) for SC 1.2.5 at Level AA feels like it actually contradicts some of the "spirit" of Guideline before it, 1.1 - Text Alternatives.

Definitely interested in the reasoning here and starting to understand your point @Wildebrew