Describe talking-head video with static text
Some videos genuinely present nothing visually. One person, speaking to camera. Everything they mean is in what they say, and G203 covers that narrow case with a static text alternative instead of a described version. W3C sets out what the text has to carry. A general description of the environment, any opening and closing credits, and the speaker's name where it appears as on-screen text and is not spoken aloud. The alternative also has to be programmatically associated with the video, which W3C's example does with aria-describedby, so a stray paragraph under the player does not satisfy the test. W3C rules out the multi-speaker case explicitly. This is a sufficient technique for 1.2.3 at Level A and 1.2.5 at Level AA, with no qualifier attached, so where it genuinely applies it settles both.
How we find it in an audit
Our reviewers watch the whole video before accepting the claim. The exception is easy to assert and easy to break. A held-up chart, a slide, a name caption, a demonstration. Any of those means the video is not what this technique covers. Then we check the description exists, covers the environment and the credits, and is tied to the player rather than merely near it.
How affected users experience it
A blind viewer takes a talking-head video at face value if the page says nothing is shown. That trust is the whole point, and it breaks the moment the presenter says 'as you can see here' and holds up a graph. They now know they missed something and have no way to recover it. Being told what the video contains, accurately, is what lets them decide whether to watch it at all.
Passes vs. fails
Passes
A description tied to the player with aria-describedby reads 'The CEO speaks to camera throughout. No information is presented visually.' And it is true.
Fails
An investor update labeled a talking-head video, where the CEO holds up a growth chart saying 'as you can see here' with nothing describing it.
How this gets tested
The W3C publishes test rules that define what a checker looks for here.
- Video element visual content has accessible alternativeA tool finds candidates, you decide
- Video element visual content has strict accessible alternativeA tool finds candidates, you decide
Other ways to satisfy this rule
13 guides on this site are filed under 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded). W3C lists this one as sufficient for that rule on its own. Implement it correctly, in a way your readers' software actually supports, and the rule is met.
- G8sufficientProvide a version with extended audio descriptions
- G58sufficientPut the media alternative link beside the media
- G69sufficientProvide a full transcript of the media
- G78sufficientOffer a selectable audio description track
- G173sufficientOffer a described version of every video
- G226sufficientNarrate visual content within the soundtrack itself
This guide is our interpretation of W3C technique G203: Using a static text alternative to describe a talking head video. W3C publishes its techniques as guidance rather than as the standard, and says so on every one of them. The success criterion is what conformance is measured against, and a technique is one documented way to meet it.