WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Audio description and captions

for

From: Nick Bromley
Date: Jan 29, 2024 7:06AM

The 'Intent' for 1.2.2 sets a precedent of sorts for not needing captions for content that has an alternate presentation: "Captions are not needed when the synchronized media is, itself, an alternate presentation of information that is also presented via text on the Web page."

So, playing devil's advocate, you could argue that not providing captions for audio description follows the same logic. You have one type of visual content (video) with a media alternative (audio description) so no need to have another visual version of that audio content (caption text).

From a general usability perspective there are benefits to captioning AD (e.g. for users with a visual processing impairment), but the intent states the criterion is for "deaf or hard-of-hearing users to watch synchronised media presentations".

So I'd be tempted to pass a video who's AD isn't captioned, but would suggest best practice is to include full captions.


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Steve Green
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 11:41 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Audio description and captions

Thanks, Patrick. Anyone have a contrary view?

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 11:34 AM
To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Audio description and captions

On 29/01/2024 11:19, Steve Green wrote:
> This may be a silly question. In short, if an audio described version of a video is provided, do the captions need to include the audio description?

While it may seem redundant, I'd say the easiest interpretation is that yes, all AD content should also be captioned - if something's spoken (regardless of whether it's the original video's audio, or additional AD), caption it, as I don't think there's enough normative text that would warrant a more nuanced "but surely the AD is redundant since they can see the visuals" logical exemption (though I may be wrong?)

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

* https://www.splintered.co.uk/
* https://github.com/patrickhlauke
* https://flickr.com/photos/redux/
* https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke