1.2.5: ADD a Guideline to Require Audio Description for Live Content

[BridgesHelpdesk]

As written, 1.2.5 [Audio Description (Prerecorded)] is superfluous. • Guideline 1.2.5 is wholly included in guideline 1.2.3 (Audio Description and Media Alternative) which is a Level A). 1.2.5 is a Level AA guideline. • In contrast, the two “Captions” guidelines are different: Guideline 1.2.2 (Level A) captioning refers only to “prerecorded” material while Guideline 1.2.4 (Level AA) requires “live” audio content to include captioning. Audio Description is a universal design principle that deserves equal footing with captioning. • For live presentations, Audio Description is EASIER and CHEAPER than adding Captions because it can be provided in the original soundtrack and does not require separate personnel and equipment to add captions to content.

RECOMMENDATION: add Audio Description (Live) as a guideline in one of two ways:

1. Add Guideline 1.2.5.1 Audio Description (Live): Audio description is provided for all live video content in synchronized media. (Level AAA) OR
2. Put Audio Description (Live) on equal footing with Captions (Live) by retroactively amending Guideline 1.2.5 to read “Audio Description (Live): Audio description is provided for all live video content in synchronized media. (Level AA)”

[patrickhlauke]

• For live presentations, Audio Description is EASIER and CHEAPER than adding Captions because it can be provided in the original soundtrack and does not require separate personnel and equipment to add captions to content.

audio description needs separate personnel to actually speak the audio description, and potentially additional equipment to provide a second audio stream for users to switch to, creating a multi-audio stream, etc

also, depending on how complex/extensive the audio description needs to be, it's simply not possible to add an exhaustive/comprehensive description into the natural gaps in the "regular" audio. which is why it's sometimes necessary for an audio described version to pause the "regular" video and audio to allow for more time to fit in the AD. and even if not, it's often necessary to very carefully plan the AD to make sure it does fit into the gaps...not something that can easily be done ad-hoc/on the fly in a live setting.

so, overall, i don't think it's quite correct to say that AD for live material is easier/cheaper

[BridgesHelpdesk]

I think the problem is what we define as a video needing audio description. In many, many cases of LIVE presentations, an individual is presenting text, slides, etc. via screen sharing. Unfortunately, screen sharing is not accessible, and it renders the resulting live video inaccessible.

A large amount of live video is not audio described. Live video is used to push a tremendous amount of educational, business-related, and informational content. Most live video used for these purposes is not audio described and thus robs individuals of access to that educational, business-related, and/or informational content.

Accessibility could be easily provided in most of these cases. The presenter could easily simply verbalize the text, slides, etc. being shared. This would not require any additional personnel. For live captioning, both the presenter and the captioner are necessary. Given that live captioning is already required, it does not make sense that audio description (particularly of presenter-provided, text-based content) is not required.

[JAWS-test]

As written, 1.2.5 [Audio Description (Prerecorded)] is superfluous. • Guideline 1.2.5 is wholly included in guideline 1.2.3 (Audio Description and Media Alternative) which is a Level A). 1.2.5 is a Level AA guideline.

Not true.

• 1.2.3 (A) allows the choice between Audio Description or Media Alternative
• 1.2.5 (AA) requires Audio Description
• and 1.2.8 (AAA) requires Media Alternative

[patrickhlauke]

Accessibility could be easily provided in most of these cases. The presenter could easily simply verbalize the text, slides, etc. being shared. This would not require any additional personnel. For live captioning, both the presenter and the captioner are necessary. Given that live captioning is already required, it does not make sense that audio description (particularly of presenter-provided, text-based content) is not required.

"The presenter could..." works if you're in full control of the presenter. If your site is providing a live stream from a third party source, or even a live stream of your CEO or whatever doing a presentation...you can't then say a site fails because they didn't force that presenter to do it right.

Remember that WCAG sets a baseline minimum standard. The onus on making live stream audio described is currently too great, and outside of the control of most site providers.

[patrickhlauke]

and yes, i ignored that part as well, but as @JAWS-test says, the "1.2.5 is superfluous" statement is incorrect. some sites will target Level A only, so for these sites using media alternative would be a viable way to satisfy 1.2.3. it's only if they want to target Level AA that they'll need to do AD.

[BridgesHelpdesk]

WCAG is about providing access. Apparently, it is not (and has not been for years) too great an onus to require captioning for live presentations -- a requirement that necessitates another individual to perform the captioning.

How is it too great an onus to require the mere verbalization of text content provided visually?

[patrickhlauke]

Apparently, it is not (and has not been for years) too great an onus to require captioning for live presentations -- a requirement that necessitates another individual to perform the captioning.

How is it too great an onus to require the mere verbalization of text content provided visually?

see the various automated and manual solutions available out there (sometimes even built into the software/platforms themselves) to add captions to streams. and now compare that to services/solutions to add "live audio description" to streams.

[BridgesHelpdesk]

But when the presenter uses text instead of words, that is an inaccessible choice that can be easily remedied by having the speaker actually speak the words shown on the text. This is an amazingly simple and free means of providing access.

Moreover, the explosion of distance technology has created a desert of information for individuals with print disabilities, Audio description is an easily-available oasis.

While there may be many automated captioning opportunities today, this was not always true. Raising expectations of accessibility increases the availability of tools to ensure accessibility.

In these cases, the tool is already there: the presenter's voice (or a mechanical voice--whatever is being captioned.

[patrickhlauke]

But when the presenter uses text instead of words, that is an inaccessible choice that can be easily remedied by having the speaker actually speak the words shown on the text. This is an amazingly simple and free means of providing access.

you're presupposing that the site owner is also the one in control of the presenter. this is not always the case, and you'd be making sites non-compliant (and, in some jurisdictions, effectively illegal) for hosting a live broadcast that they haven't vetted. so no, this is not going to fly as a normative success criterion.

[BridgesHelpdesk]

Question: When live captioning became required, was there resistance to it?

Could WCAG at least require audio description of intentionally-presented text in live presentations shared by the presenter or the presenter's organization?

For example, there are many, many, many live presentations shared by the presenter that could easily follow this guidance to verbalize text materials shared (and at less expense than the currently-required captioning).

If we walk away from requiring any verbalization/audio description of intentionally-shared text, we are preventing individuals with print disabilities from having the WCAG protections available to individuals without print disabilities (who use the already-required captioning).

[bruce-usab]

For all the reasons articulated in this thread (and related issues), I agree that 1.2.5 should not be changed.

But what about adding a new SC 1.2.10 Audio Description (Live)?

[awkawk]

If we were to have an SC for live audio description, I think that we would need to get into the business of defining what is sufficient for audio description. I envision that people who need to conform to that SC would do it (there wouldn't be many of them just as there aren't many that provide audio description today), but live audio description is super hard and you get no time to think about what to describe and don't know when you will be interrupted by the primary audio. So I expect that the descriptions would be very sparse, if only to avoid audio conflicts.

Then what happens? The site owners want to post a non-live version of the video. Will they get it audio described again, so that it can be a higher quality product that fully takes advantage of the available space in the audio? My guess is they will not, so unless we provide quality expectations to differentiate between live and non-live we might actually be degrading the quality of video description online by mandating live AD.

Certainly, if we were going to do this we would need to vet the idea with video publishers, and I suspect it would need to be Level AAA.

[patrickhlauke]

I think there would be much better mileage here to, rather than try to define an SC, write up an official note/document outlining best practice approaches instead. Rather than trying to crowbar in an unreasonably difficult to achieve SC (for anything other than live video that is in full control of the site owner, which is rarely the case)

[alastc]

Maybe an update to this? https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/av-content/