1.2.5: Adversarial Conformance

I made a demo for WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded) AA and have embedded it further down the page. It’s a bit of a download, so either ignore it, be patient, or steal wifi from your local chain restaurant.

Conformance

Success Criterion 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded) AA in its entirety:

Audio description is provided for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media.

The definition of audio description, and one of its notes, frames this post:

audio description

narration added to the soundtrack to describe important visual details that cannot be understood from the main soundtrack alone

Note 2

In standard audio description, narration is added during existing pauses in dialogue. (See also extended audio description.)

The piece I marked, during existing pauses in dialogue, has led to a lengthy discussion in issue #4460: 1.2.3 / 1.2.5 Audio description – No pause and, to a lesser extent, PR #1790 Tweak understanding for 1.2.3 and 1.2.5. In the discussion, one of the Working Group members states this about pauses and passing SC 1.2.5:

I think this is very clearly answered. it says you need to use pauses to include audio description. […] if you have no pauses – you have used them all (none)- and you MEET the requirement.

The assertion isn’t that 1.2.5 doesn’t apply, but that 1.2.5 is met. No pauses means no requirement for audio description, which means a pass for SC 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded).

But wait — there’s a bonus.

Authors can satisfy Success Criterion 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) Level A with either an alternative for time-based media or [an] audio description. Note the “or” operator in that statement. Since 1.2.5 covers the audio description piece, when SC 1.2.5 is met, SC 1.2.3 is also met.

With these interpretations, it’s possible to create a video with pauses so brief between bits of narration or dialogue (as with many corporate social media posts) that you can skip an audio description and meet 1.2.5. Then you are off the hook for a media alternative (such as a transcript) under 1.2.3. There’s even a reference chart from another Working Group member showing the relationship.

Which means the following video passes both 1.2.3 and 1.2.5.

Adversarial

WCAG is renowned for being open to interpretation. Sometimes, as this case, the interpretation is trying to balance original intent versus current approaches. However, too often it’s trying to twist the language to satisfy a particular outcome.

This is something I call adversarial conformance. HAL the UI designer can claim that it followed WCAG even though it’s clear that HAL expended effort on minimally conforming while negative outcomes are seemingly obvious.

This assumes your users actually care about your videos, even those that are little more than marketing fluff or radicalization schemes. Or trying to deal with a homicidal AI that couldn’t be talked down.

Related

• 1.4.10: Adversarial Conformance
• 2.4.11: Adversarial Conformance
• 2.5.8: Adversarial Conformance