Sign Language (Prerecorded)
Tier 1 · The normative floor
Baseline compliance
What the normative text of WCAG 2.2 requires, and nothing more. Only a failure of this tier is a WCAG failure.
The bare minimum
Prerecorded audio in synchronized media has sign language interpretation.
Normative text
Verbatim from WCAG 2.2, W3C Recommendation 12 December 2024. Underlined terms are defined below.
Sign language interpretation is provided for all prerecorded audio content in synchronized media.
Definitions used (4)
Glossary definitions are normative. Their notes are informative.
- sign language interpretation
-
translation of one language, generally a spoken language, into a sign language
Informative notes (1)
True sign languages are independent languages that are unrelated to the spoken language(s) of the same country or region.
- prerecorded
-
information that is not live
- audio
-
the technology of sound reproduction
Informative notes (1)
Audio can be created synthetically (including speech synthesis), recorded from real world sounds, or both.
- synchronized media
-
audio or video synchronized with another format for presenting information and/or with time-based interactive components, unless the media is a media alternative for text that is clearly labeled as such
Tier 2 · The gap
Usability & user impact
Where content can meet this criterion and still make things harder for people with disabilities. These are not failures of SC 1.2.6, so raise them as usability defects. Known failures, including failures of related criteria, are listed in Tier 1.
A small or low-resolution interpreter window makes hand shapes and facial expressions hard to read.
Tier 3 · The golden path
Recommended best practice
The pattern that meets the floor, closes the gap, and avoids audit disputes. A recommendation, not a requirement.
Use the sign language your audience uses. Size the interpreter large enough to read, and let users show or hide it.
W3C's Understanding document and techniques for SC 1.2.6 ↗ are informative: sufficient techniques show ways to pass, and documented failures show common ways to fail, but neither changes what the criterion requires.
How SC 1.2.6 maps to the WCAG 3 draft
From this site's reviewed map to the WCAG 3 editor's draft. It's an interpretation: W3C has not published a mapping.
Successor provisions
Related, not a successor
From WCAG 2.2, section 5.1: “The main content of WCAG 2.2 is normative and defines requirements that impact conformance claims. Introductory material, appendices, sections marked as "non-normative", diagrams, examples, and notes are informative (non-normative). Non-normative material provides advisory information to help interpret the guidelines but does not create requirements that impact a conformance claim.”