✓ Teams starting with approved written explanations
✓ Readers comparing script, recording and presenter workflows
✓ Editors budgeting review and revisions
— Fake endorsements or fabricated demonstrations
— Guaranteed income, viral reach or automatic courses
— High-stakes training without qualified review
Start with the information, not a badge
Ask what a viewer would miss if they could not hear the soundtrack or see the screen adequately. The answer determines the alternatives needed. W3C’s media guidance distinguishes captions, descriptions of visual information, transcripts and accessible playback. An automatic caption feature addresses only part of that landscape. Do not label a video fully accessible merely because a service generated text or because an editor checked a single control.
Write narration that carries essential context
Where practical, describe the important visual action in the spoken explanation rather than saying only “click here” or “look at this.” Keep descriptions concise enough to support the task without overwhelming the sequence. Some content may need a separate descriptive version or other specialist treatment. Plan that requirement before the final mix, especially when the visuals contain information that is not otherwise present in the narration.
Give the written alternative real value
A transcript can help readers search, revisit a step or access information in a different way. Review it for meaningful structure and include important visual context where needed. It should correspond to the actual release rather than an earlier draft. Captions need their own timing and accuracy review. A raw script copied into a page is not automatically an adequate alternative if the finished video adds important information or changes the explanation.
A fictional accessibility review
An onboarding clip uses a red symbol to indicate a blocked action. The editor adds a clear textual label and explains the state in narration, then checks that captions and the written companion preserve the distinction. The final player is reviewed separately. This example illustrates avoiding color-only meaning; it is not a compliance certification. Use the applicable standards and appropriate expertise for your audience, and keep unresolved requirements explicit rather than substituting a generic accessibility claim.
Where the safety evidence stops
This guide draws on W3C accessible audio/video guidance, Fliki text-to-video workflow. Merchant-controlled records describe the provider’s own capabilities, terms or standards; they do not independently validate those claims. Other cited records provide additional context. A different publisher or a research, regulatory or certification label does not by itself establish independence, relevance or product validation.
Verify any current price, plan limit, label direction, compatibility rule, or commercial term that would materially change the decision. The dated source ledger shows the underlying records so this conclusion can be checked and updated.
Sources used for this page
These records support the facts and comparisons above. Merchant-controlled records are labelled so you can separate product claims from independent evidence.
- W3C accessible audio/video guidance — Standards and certification reference · w3.org · Publisher independence not verified · checked 2026-09-24
- Fliki text-to-video workflow — Merchant documentation · fliki.ai · Merchant-controlled · checked 2026-09-24