A descriptive transcript that says “diagram shown” identifies an image without conveying its explanation. When a project film relies on a drawing, flow chart or comparison graphic, decide how the text resource will carry the essential relationships. That decision should involve someone who understands the project as well as the reviewer responsible for the accessible treatment.
W3C's complex-image guidance distinguishes a short identification from a fuller text representation of important information. For a film transcript, apply that principle to the diagram's role in the explanation rather than attempting to describe every visible line.
Start with the question the diagram answers
Ask what the viewer learns from the image that the speech does not already explain. It might show which element connects to another, how two routes differ or which stage precedes the next. Write that information need down before choosing prose, a list or a data table.
A simple sequence may be clearest as ordered steps. A comparison of named options may suit a small table. A spatial interface may need a short orientation followed by the relationship being discussed. The format should reflect the meaning, not copy the graphic's visual arrangement mechanically.
Retain the diagram's qualifications. If the film labels a drawing as conceptual or simplified, the text should preserve that status. Do not turn an illustrative arrow into a verified engineering connection or add dimensions that are not supported by the approved source.
Keep the description attached to its moment
Place the explanation where the diagram matters in the transcript. A reader should not have to reach the end of the page before discovering what a speaker meant by “these two paths”. If a longer description is linked separately, give the link a useful name and provide an obvious route back.
Distinguish added visual description from recorded speech. That helps preserve attribution and prevents a reader from assuming that the participant said words supplied later by an editor. The organisation can choose a clear convention and explain it once near the beginning of the resource.
Have the subject owner review the text for the same boundaries applied to the film. A well-intentioned description can overstate causation, sequence or responsibility if the writer fills gaps from appearance. Where the source is ambiguous, seek clarification rather than making the transcript more certain than the picture.
A hypothetical two-route drawing
Imagine a builder's case study shows a simplified diagram of separate pedestrian and delivery routes. The narration says the routes were considered together, while the image supplies the distinction. A transcript containing only the narration leaves the relationship unclear.
The team adds an approved description identifying the two routes and the point of coordination, without implying that the diagram is a complete operational plan. A reviewer reads the transcript without watching the film and explains the same bounded relationship. That task checks useful meaning rather than visual similarity.
Make the commissioned output explicit
Specify whether the transcript includes the full text explanation, an accessible linked description or another reviewed treatment. Assign content approval, web implementation and accessibility evaluation separately where different people own them.
Discuss the project explanation and companion text with Live Images. Confirm whether the proposed production scope can support the required visual description and which subject-matter or accessibility specialists need to contribute.
Prepared with AI assistance for Live Images. Planning guidance is general; suitability and production scope must be agreed for your project.