Removed 1.2.7 reference from note 1 #4325
Conversation
This change aligns the guidance in the Understanding documents with the SC text for 1.2.7. The preamble for 1.2.7 states "Where pauses in foreground audio are insufficient to allow audio descriptions to convey the send of the video..." Based on that preamble, it makes no sense for note 1 to reference 1.2.7, since if all important information is "already conveyed in the audio track", it will never meet the preamble condition. This logic is confirmed by the fact that note 1 has never existed in the 1.2.7 Understanding document.
I'm not understanding why "such a video will never meet the preamble condition" would cause the inclusion in the note to "make no sense" - I think it just acts as confirmation that the note does make sense in the context of 1.2.7. My preference would be to continue to include it.
I disagree; I think this just means the 1.2.7 understanding doc should get an update to add the note, too. |
We can't "continue to include" something that isn't there; the 1.2.7 Understanding doc does not have this note, for what seems to me to be a very sound reason.
Can you please explain, @dbjorge? In other words, in order to even be relevant to 1.2.7, there must be information in the audio track not covered by audio. So in what way can a note about "all of the information in the video track is already provided" be relevant? |
As I understand it, the video track is the visual part of the video. The audio track is the acoustic part. Then it is self-explanatory for me that I do not need an additional audio description for 1.2.3, 1.2.5, and 1.2.7 if the audio track sufficiently reproduces the visual content. The only difference between 1.2.5 and 1.2.7 is that I have the excuse of missing pauses in the audio track with 1.2.5, but not with 1.2.7. For me, it is clear that the note in the Understanding should be added to 1.2.7:
|
|
@JAWS-test said
The primary difference between 1.2.5 and 1.2.7 is that 1.2.7 has a "where" preamble which qualifies when it can apply. And that preamble, crucially, disqualifies it from ever needing that first note that appears in 1.2.5. Both 1.2.5 and 1.2.3 lack such a preamble, and so have a note explaining that a sufficiently descriptive audio track can meet the requirement without using any of the listed techniques. |
|
@mbgower "disqualifies it from ever needing that first note" isn't the point. None of the understanding docs need the note; if the note were adding new information, it'd be normative and not a note in an understanding. My point isn't that I think 1.2.7 needs the note to be accurate, my point is that I think the note is just as true for 1.2.7 as it is for 1.2.3 and 1.2.5. I think it's a helpful bit of clarification for all 3 of the cases. |
|
If we are precise, we can remove the note in 1.2.3, 1.2.5 and 1.2.7, as it is already present in the “Key Term” section as note 3 in the definition of Audio Description: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/audio-description-prerecorded#dfn-audio-description |
I strongly disagree with this in regard to the 1.2 criteria. I understand the principle, obviously, but the reality is that time-based media SCs rely on notes. As @JAWS-test writes, this first note is reinforcing the third note of the definition, which reads:
I would prefer to remove note 1 from the 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 Understanding documents and rely on people to apply Note 3 in the definition, than I would to add the note into 1.2.7. But I think we need to do better. The reason it is so important to work towards something more clear and consistent is due to the very inconsistent, and not always great normative language in the SCs and in the definition of "audio description", which without the notes are wide-open to various interpretations. Historically, the 1.2 SCs are the least implemented/supported of any A/AA criteria. However, time-based media has progressively become a much larger part of web content. As technology makes it more feasible for the 1.2 SCs to be implemented, more scrutiny is occurring, and confusion amongst even experienced a11y people is rampant. If you have not done so, I encourage you to review the series of PRs I've created, in the order I indicated in my email, (which I also cite in one of the many video issues that talk about the confusion of interpretations of 1.2 criteria). |
The note does not exist in the 1.2.7 Understanding. However, 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 do not have such qualifying preambles. For people who do not go and look at the normative definitions and chase all the nuances, I think retaining an Understanding doc note 1 is valuable for 1.2.3 and 1.2.5. All this PR does is remove "1.2.7" from that note to make it consistent with reality. If you look through the other PRs I've created, you'll notice that I am doing small incremental changes to align the notes between the Understanding docs and definitions and normative material. My intent doing it this way was to be able to consider each change in isolation, but I'm beginning to wonder if I've created a different problem doing so. |
|
Discussed on backlog call 4/11. We didn't get consensus for the change. |
This change aligns the guidance in note 1 of the Understanding documents with the SC text for 1.2.7.
The preamble condition for 1.2.7 reads "Where pauses in foreground audio are insufficient to allow audio descriptions to convey the send of the video...". Based on that preamble, it makes no sense for note 1 to reference 1.2.7, since if all important information is "already conveyed in the audio track", such a video will never meet the preamble condition.
This logic is confirmed by the fact that note 1 does not exist in the 1.2.7 Understanding document.