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.
An extra bonus video
YouTube: Patrick Lauke, “WCAG Audio Description discussion/issue – illustrative example”, 1:10
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
5 Comments
Reply
The assertion isn’t that 1.2.5 doesn’t apply, but that 1.2.5 is met.In WCAG there is no concept of “doesn’t apply”. Pages need to meet or not meet each criteria.
Also, as stated many times in the discussions, there is no debate about whether all user needs are met by the interpretation you reference here – they are not. The debate is whether WCAG 2.x ‘s SC 1.2.5 requires audio description for a video that has no space for audio description. I hope that this can be clarified in WCAG 3.0.
In response to . Reply In an earlier draft, I qualified “doesn’t apply” by framing it in the context of a WCAG review and VPAT / ACR, where “N/A” is one of the valid choices for an SC. My fault for striking that.
I agree that in the Github discussion nobody debated the value to end users. I don’t think this post suggests otherwise. I also agree that I hope this can be clarified in WCAG 3, but I’d like it even more if could be clarified in WCAG 2 Understanding docs — regardless of which interpretation sticks.
In response to . Reply Slightly off topic, but even in the VPAT template there is no “N/A” for WCAG criteria. From the VPAT template:
Note: When filling in the WCAG tables, a response may use ‘Supports’ where one might otherwise be inclined to use ‘Not Applicable’. This is in keeping with WCAG 2.0 Understanding Conformance: This means that if there is no content to which a success criterion applies, the success criterion is satisfied.
In response to . Reply Not off topic at all!
Because the template says
may use ‘Supports’(and not an RFC 2119 must), I treat that as up to the discretion of the person filling it out. This is partly because of my work with clients wanting to be cautious about claiming support for something that may not exist on their site / in their product.It’s not just me. Some organizations offer VPAT guidance that excludes the note altogether (eg, GSA with supporting anecdotal conversations). In no way is this meant to dismiss what you said, but is instead a reflection of what I have done and seen in practice. And for those playing at home, you can grab the VPAT files at the ITI site.
In response to . Reply Sure, the template says “may” but WCAG is set up that every SC is evaluated as true or false. That’s why a lot of the SC have language like “All non-text content that is presented to the user” – so even if you have zero instances, they all evaluate as true.
Leave a Reply to Andrew Cancel response