WCAG 1.2.8: Media Alternative (Prerecorded)

What This Rule Means

WCAG 1.2.8 — Media Alternative (Prerecorded) is a Level AAA success criterion under Guideline 1.2 (Time-based Media). It requires that a full text alternative is provided for all prerecorded synchronized media (content that contains both audio and video tracks) and for prerecorded video-only content. The text alternative must convey all of the information presented in the media, whether that information is delivered through the audio track, the visual track, or both together.

The distinguishing feature of this criterion compared to lower-level requirements such as 1.2.3 (Audio Description or Media Alternative, Level A) is precision and completeness. While 1.2.3 permits providing either an audio description or a text alternative, 1.2.8 demands a text document that stands entirely on its own as a substitute for the media. A viewer who cannot access the video or audio at all — whether due to disability, device limitations, or connectivity — should be able to read the text alternative and gain an equivalent understanding of the content, including all spoken dialogue, described actions, on-screen text, and any other information conveyed visually or aurally.

In practical terms, this means the text alternative is more thorough than a standard transcript. It must describe what is happening visually in the same level of detail that a thorough audio description would provide, while also including the full verbatim or near-verbatim dialogue and any other audio cues (such as music tone, sound effects, or speaker identification) that are meaningful to comprehension. Think of it as a screenplay or detailed script that someone could read and fully understand the content without ever pressing play.

What counts as a pass: A clearly labeled link or embedded text block adjacent to the media player that contains the complete text alternative. The alternative must be easy to find, machine-readable, and cover 100% of the informational content in the media. It can be provided on the same page or on a linked page.

What counts as a fail: Providing only a summary, a partial transcript that omits visual descriptions, captions alone (which are not a full text alternative), or an audio description track alone. Burying the link to the text alternative in a way that makes it difficult to discover also constitutes a failure.

Official exceptions: The criterion explicitly does not apply to media that is itself a media alternative for text — that is, if a video was created specifically to present information that already exists as text on the page, and it is clearly labeled as such, it is exempt. Additionally, live media is not covered by this criterion; 1.2.8 applies only to prerecorded content.

Why It Matters

The populations most directly served by this criterion are people who are deafblind — individuals who experience both significant hearing loss and significant vision loss simultaneously. For these users, neither captions nor audio descriptions are accessible. They rely on braille displays or screen readers converting text to refreshable braille output, and only a complete text alternative can deliver the full content of a video through this channel. This is the primary motivation behind 1.2.8 existing as a distinct, higher-level criterion rather than being absorbed into earlier requirements.

Beyond deafblind users, full text alternatives benefit a broader population. People with cognitive or learning disabilities often find it easier to process information at their own pace through text rather than through time-bound media. A user with attention difficulties may need to re-read a specific section multiple times without seeking through a video. People with motor impairments who find video player controls difficult to operate gain a fully navigable text document. Users in low-bandwidth environments — a significant concern in emerging markets including parts of Turkey — can access information without buffering a video file.

Consider this real-world scenario: A deafblind student using a braille display is enrolled in an online university course. The course features a prerecorded lecture video. Without a full text alternative, this student cannot participate equitably regardless of how sophisticated the video player is. With a comprehensive text alternative covering the professor's spoken content, descriptions of whiteboard diagrams, and identification of visual references cited during the lecture, the student can access the same educational content as sighted, hearing peers.

According to the World Health Organization, approximately 2.2 billion people worldwide have some form of vision impairment, and the WHO estimates that at least 1 billion of these cases are preventable or untreated. Deafblindness, while less prevalent, affects millions globally and disproportionately impacts the elderly as age-related hearing and vision loss compound. In Turkey, the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) reports that over 6 million citizens have some form of disability, underscoring the real domestic scale of this need.

From an SEO and discoverability standpoint, a thorough text alternative is fully indexable by search engines, substantially improving organic reach for video content. Search crawlers cannot parse audio or video streams, so text alternatives provide the only route for that content to appear in keyword-relevant search results.

Related Axe-core Rules

WCAG 1.2.8 requires manual testing. There is no automated axe-core rule that maps directly to this criterion. The reason automated tools cannot reliably evaluate compliance is fundamental: determining whether a text alternative exists, is easy to find, and is complete and accurate requires human judgment about the content of both the media and the accompanying text. An automated tool can detect the presence of a video element and flag it for review, but it cannot watch the video, read the text alternative, and compare the two for equivalence.

• Manual review — video element discovery: Axe-core and Lighthouse can identify <video> elements and <iframe> embeds on a page and flag them as requiring manual accessibility review. When running an axe scan, any detected media element that lacks machine-detectable accessibility attributes may surface under best-practice or needs-review categories, but the tool will explicitly note that a human must verify whether a sufficient text alternative has been provided and whether it is complete.
• Manual review — link and association check: A human tester must verify that the link or section pointing to the text alternative is programmatically associated with the media, clearly labeled (for example, using aria-describedby or a visible adjacent label), and that the destination document genuinely contains a full alternative rather than a partial summary. No automated tool can make this determination reliably.
• Manual review — content equivalence audit: The most critical check — whether the text alternative actually covers all dialogue, all visual descriptions, all on-screen text, and all meaningful audio cues — is entirely a human task. Testers must play the video in full while simultaneously reading the text alternative, comparing them section by section. This is why organizations conducting AAA audits typically dedicate significant time to 1.2.8 compliance reviews.

How to Test

1. Automated scan baseline: Run axe DevTools or Google Lighthouse on the page containing the video. Note any flagged media elements. Axe will not confirm compliance with 1.2.8, but it will surface any obviously missing structural indicators (such as missing track elements) that may also indicate broader media accessibility problems. Record all video and audio elements found for manual follow-up.
2. Locate the text alternative: Manually inspect the page surrounding each video element. Look for a visible link labeled something like "Transcript," "Full text alternative," or "Media script." Check whether the link is keyboard-accessible by pressing Tab to navigate to it without a mouse. If the alternative is embedded on the page itself, verify it is visible and not hidden behind a collapsed accordion or tab that requires JavaScript interaction to reveal.
3. Screen reader verification with NVDA and Firefox: Open the page in Firefox with NVDA active. Navigate to the video element using the virtual cursor. Verify that NVDA announces the presence of a link or labeled section pointing to the text alternative. Activate the link and confirm NVDA can read the full text alternative document without any content being inaccessible.
4. Braille display simulation: If a braille display or braille display emulator is available, navigate to the text alternative and confirm the content renders correctly in linear text form with no meaningful information trapped in images or other non-text formats within the alternative document.
5. VoiceOver and Safari on macOS: Use VoiceOver (Command + F5) with Safari. Navigate using VO + Right Arrow to move through the page. Confirm the link or button leading to the text alternative is announced clearly, the label is descriptive, and activating it brings you to a fully readable text document.
6. JAWS and Chrome: Open the page in Chrome with JAWS running. Use the JAWS virtual cursor to navigate to the video region. Verify that JAWS announces associated text alternative links. Activate the link and read through the alternative document, confirming all content is present and in logical reading order.
7. Content completeness audit: Play the video from beginning to end. As you watch, check the text alternative in parallel. Verify that every line of dialogue is present, every significant visual element (diagrams, on-screen text, actions, facial expressions critical to meaning) is described, and that the narrative flow of the text matches the media. Flag any gaps, omissions, or segments where the text alternative says less than the video shows or tells.
8. Accessibility of the alternative document itself: If the text alternative is on a separate page, run an axe scan on that page and confirm it meets at minimum WCAG Level AA — the text alternative must itself be accessible, with proper heading structure, adequate color contrast, and no non-text content without its own alternatives.

How to Fix

Scenario 1: Video with no text alternative — Incorrect

<!-- Video embedded with no accompanying text alternative -->
<video controls width='800'>
  <source src='product-demo.mp4' type='video/mp4'>
  <track kind='captions' src='captions-en.vtt' srclang='en' label='English'>
</video>
<p>Watch our product demonstration above.</p>

Scenario 1: Video with linked full text alternative — Correct

<!-- Video with a clearly labeled link to a full text alternative -->
<figure>
  <video controls width='800' aria-describedby='demo-description'>
    <source src='product-demo.mp4' type='video/mp4'>
    <track kind='captions' src='captions-en.vtt' srclang='en' label='English'>
  </video>
  <figcaption id='demo-description'>
    Product demonstration video (5 minutes).
    <a href='product-demo-transcript.html'>
      Full text alternative for this video
    </a>
  </figcaption>
</figure>
<!-- The linked page must contain complete dialogue and visual descriptions -->

Scenario 2: Partial transcript provided instead of full text alternative — Incorrect

<!-- Only a summary paragraph is provided, not a complete text alternative -->
<video controls width='800'>
  <source src='annual-report-video.mp4' type='video/mp4'>
</video>
<p>
  <strong>Summary:</strong> In this video, our CEO discusses the company's
  financial highlights for the year, including revenue growth and
  expansion plans.
</p>
<!-- FAIL: A summary does not constitute a full text alternative.
     All dialogue, chart data shown visually, and speaker descriptions
     must be included. -->

Scenario 2: Complete text alternative with visual descriptions — Correct

<video controls width='800' aria-describedby='report-alt-link'>
  <source src='annual-report-video.mp4' type='video/mp4'>
  <track kind='captions' src='captions-en.vtt' srclang='en' label='English'>
</video>
<p id='report-alt-link'>
  <a href='annual-report-full-text-alternative.html'>
    Full text alternative: Annual Report Video — includes complete
    dialogue, descriptions of all charts and graphs, and speaker
    identification
  </a>
</p>
<!-- The linked document includes:
     - Verbatim dialogue with speaker labels
     - Descriptions of each slide and chart shown on screen
     - On-screen numerical data read out as text
     - Descriptions of setting, speaker appearance if relevant to content -->

Scenario 3: Text alternative embedded inline — Correct approach for shorter videos

<section aria-labelledby='tutorial-heading'>
  <h2 id='tutorial-heading'>Accessibility Settings Tutorial</h2>
  <video controls width='800'>
    <source src='settings-tutorial.mp4' type='video/mp4'>
    <track kind='captions' src='captions-en.vtt' srclang='en' label='English'>
  </video>

  <details>
    <summary>Full text alternative for Accessibility Settings Tutorial video</summary>
    <div>
      <p>
        <strong>[00:00 — 00:08]</strong> The screen shows the Accsible widget
        panel open on a sample website. A cursor moves to the Settings icon
        in the top-right corner of the panel.
      </p>
      <p>
        <strong>Narrator:</strong> "Welcome to the Accsible accessibility
        settings tutorial. Today we will walk through each option available
        in the widget panel."
      </p>
      <p>
        <strong>[00:09 — 00:22]</strong> The Settings panel expands to reveal
        five toggle switches labeled: High Contrast, Large Text, Reduced Motion,
        Screen Reader Mode, and Keyboard Navigation. Each toggle is currently
        in the off position.
      </p>
      <!-- Continue for full duration of video -->
    </div>
  </details>
</section>
<!-- Using <details>/<summary> keeps the page clean while ensuring
     the full alternative is on the same page and keyboard accessible -->

Common Mistakes

• Providing captions as the text alternative: Captions synchronize dialogue to video timing but typically omit visual descriptions. They do not satisfy 1.2.8, which requires a standalone text document covering both audio and visual content.
• Providing an audio description track instead of a text alternative: An audio description narrated into the video is beneficial but is not a text-based alternative. Users relying on braille displays or who cannot access audio cannot use an audio description track to meet their needs.
• Writing a summary rather than a full alternative: Summarizing the main points of a video is not equivalent to providing a full text alternative. Every piece of information conveyed in the media — including specific data shown on screen, individual speaker turns, and incidental but meaningful visual details — must appear in the text.
• Hiding the text alternative link in a non-obvious location: Placing the link in a footer, inside a collapsed accordion with no visible indicator, or behind a "More info" button that does not clearly reference the video's text alternative makes discovery difficult and may fail the criterion even if the document itself is complete.
• Using a non-descriptive link label such as "Click here" or "Transcript": If multiple videos are on the same page, generic labels prevent users navigating by links (a common screen reader behavior) from understanding which transcript belongs to which video. Labels should reference the video title.
• Omitting speaker identification in dialogue-heavy videos: When multiple people speak in a video, the text alternative must clearly identify each speaker before their lines. Failing to do so makes the alternative confusing for users who cannot see who is speaking.
• Failing to describe on-screen text and graphics: Charts, diagrams, slides, captions burned into the video, and on-screen text overlays must all be reproduced or described in the text alternative. Many teams focus only on the audio track and miss this visual layer entirely.
• Making the text alternative document itself inaccessible: Publishing the text alternative as an untagged PDF, an image scan of a script, or an HTML page with poor heading structure and missing alt text creates a secondary accessibility barrier. The alternative must itself conform to accessibility standards.
• Not updating the text alternative when the video is updated: When a video is re-edited, dubbed in a new language, or has content revised, the text alternative must be updated in sync. Stale text alternatives that no longer match the current video fail the criterion.
• Assuming captions plus audio description together equal a text alternative: Even combining both tracks does not automatically produce a compliant text alternative, because neither format is a readily accessible text document that can be output to a braille display or read independently without the media player interface.

Relation to Turkey's Accessibility Regulations

Turkey's Presidential Circular 2025/10, published in the Official Gazette No. 32933 on June 21, 2025, establishes mandatory digital accessibility obligations for a broad range of entities operating in Turkey. The circular adopts WCAG 2.2 as its technical reference standard, meaning that the entire WCAG framework — including the structure of Levels A, AA, and AAA — forms the basis of compliance expectations under Turkish law.

The entity types expressly covered by the circular include public institutions and government bodies, e-commerce platforms, banks and financial institutions, hospitals and healthcare providers, telecommunications operators with 200,000 or more subscribers, travel agencies, private transport companies, and private schools authorized by the Ministry of National Education (MoNE). For these organizations, meeting Levels A and AA is the established legal floor for compliance.

WCAG 1.2.8 is a Level AAA criterion, which means it is not legally required under the current text of Presidential Circular 2025/10 for standard compliance. However, its relevance to the Turkish regulatory landscape should not be dismissed. Organizations providing specialized services to users with disabilities — for example, healthcare portals serving patients with combined sensory disabilities, or educational platforms affiliated with MoNE that serve students with deafblindness — may face sector-specific guidance or procurement requirements that effectively raise the expected standard.

Furthermore, the circular signals Turkey's direction of travel toward broader digital inclusion. Demonstrating Level AAA compliance on criteria such as 1.2.8 positions organizations as leaders in accessibility, reduces legal risk as regulations evolve, and supports Turkey's alignment with EU accessibility directives — a relevant consideration for any Turkish organization trading with or operating within European markets, where standards such as EN 301 549 reference WCAG AAA in certain contexts.

For public institutions in particular, proactively implementing full text alternatives for prerecorded media reflects the spirit of the circular's stated commitment to equitable access. Turkey is home to a significant and growing elderly population, and age-related deafblindness is a foreseeable accessibility need for many government digital services. Embedding Level AAA practices now, especially for media-rich content such as public health announcements, legislative session recordings, or educational broadcast archives, is both a practical and ethical step.

Organizations using the Accsible widget SDK should treat 1.2.8 compliance as a content-layer responsibility: the widget can facilitate accessible presentation, but the full text alternatives themselves must be authored and maintained by content teams. Building editorial workflows that require a complete text alternative for every published video is the most reliable long-term strategy for meeting this criterion and for demonstrating best-in-class accessibility in the Turkish and international markets.