Creating a new sufficient technique using audio ducking to create audio descriptions

[mbgower]

The fairly long discussion in #1768 surfaces the idea of using audio ducking to provide more opportunities for audio descriptions within a prerecorded video.

Introduction of the same technique is also proposed through PR #1790 to the existing language of 1.2.5

Although this may work better as a discussion, I thought I would initiate it as an issue.

[mbgower]

@mraccess77 made the following comment in 1768:

I worry about audio ducking reducing the volume of audio and playing two audio tracks at once for those who are blind/low vision who are also hard of hearing. I would think that any non-overwritable ducking should be limited to non-spoken audio or important sounds.

[patrickhlauke]

regarding @mraccess77 's comment: absolutely, i thought it was implicit that you'd only duck parts that don't have spoken words/content. worth making it explicit though, just in case

[bruce-usab]

Noting that this (open) issue relates to conversation on 3/28 backlog call.

• Having reread the threads, and since we have this more narrow thread, I recommend closing How to add audio descriptions to videos? #1768 as resolved.
• Rather than a new sufficient technique, I (still) recommend a new Failure around not ducking non-speech audio (in order to dub additional narration).

[mbgower]

@bruce-usab and @patrickhlauke

I (still) recommend a new Failure around not ducking non-speech audio (in order to dub additional narration).

I've created a draft of the first failure technique for 1.2.5 #4390
I'm wondering if we could incorporate the concept of audio ducking into that failure?

I don't feel like we need a separate failure for audio ducking, as it logically seems to be part of a failure called "Failure of Success Criterion 1.2.5 due to not using available pauses in dialogue to provide audio descriptions of important visual content"

I believe the addition of a paragraph that talks about this technique would likely suffice. I don't believe it needs to be part of the check, because the failure already specifies pauses in dialogue, not audio.

I do still feel like audio ducking should be part of a sufficient technique, and based on what I see in the existing techniques, I believe it may work as a separate technique that can be listed as one of the techniques these other grosser techniques (like using a second audio track) employ.

[mbgower]

Currently, the failure has a note that reads

Not all pauses are usable for audio descriptions. If the pauses in dialogue are too short (for instance, less than 2 seconds), or do not occur in proximity to the visual content that needs to be described, they may not be appropriate for audio descriptions.

I suggest removing the note styling and making that be a paragraph, and then adding an additional paragraph to read something like:

In situations where important visual information is being conveyed at the same time as non-spoken audio (such as music and sound effects), the technique of "audio ducking" can be used. This involves dropping the overall sound level so that it is easier to distinguish the narration that is added during pauses in dialogue.

This technique can work well with background music and sounds, but audio ducking has the potential to mask important audio information. Often such audio information can convey much of the sense of what is visually happening. There may be some pauses in dialogue where non-spoken audio information is so important that the addition of audio descriptions is unnecessary or inappropriate.

On the one hand I'm happy about this because it provides some more gauge for "appropriate" in #2 of the check. But it is also, to use Patrick's term, "hand wavy". Two people will rarely agree on when audio descriptions are necessary, but I feel like this wording provides guidance which should lead to more thoughtful implementation, and hopefully more consistent grading of "Pass" and "Fail" than we currently experience.

[mraccess77]

In situations where important visual information is being conveyed at the same time as non-spoken audio, (such as music and sound effects), the technique of audio "ducking" can be used. This involves dropping the overall sound level so that it is easier to distinguish the added narration. This technique can work well with background music and sounds, but audio ducking is less desirable where it masks important audio information.

I like this proposal as it communicates that AD can be used for non-spoken areas when audio ducking is applied.

[mbgower]

I like this proposal

Thanks, @mraccess77. We discussed briefly on the WCAG TF call today. @scottaohara is reviewing this as part of his review of #4390, with the hope that we can merge the above text into the Failure technique.

The TF is also opening an issue to create a sufficient technique that discusses some of the common practices done by creators of audio descriptions.

[mbgower]

The TF is also opening an issue to create a sufficient technique that discusses some of the common practices done by creators of audio descriptions.

I created #4392, since the issue for a new technique discussed at our TF call did not seem to get done.