A transcript can contain a quotation or explanation in a different language from the rest of the page. If the website treats all of it as one language, assistive technology may interpret the passage poorly. Supply language information with the approved text and ask the publisher to implement it appropriately.
W3C's language-of-parts guidance explains the role of identifying language changes for presentation and pronunciation, with specified exceptions. A qualified reviewer should apply the relevant requirement. The buyer can help by making genuine language changes visible in the publishing handover.
Distinguish language from a proper name
Ask the content or language reviewer to identify passages that change language, rather than tagging every unfamiliar technical term. Project names, borrowed words and identifiers may need different treatment from a complete sentence spoken in another language. The website team should not have to guess from spelling alone.
Keep the approved wording and its language identification together. If the transcript is edited or reorganised during publication, that information should travel with the affected passage. A separate email listing “some foreign text near the middle” is too imprecise for dependable implementation.
Where a translation is supplied alongside the original words, label their relationship. A reader should know which text represents the recording and which is an added translation. This preserves attribution and makes the resource more understandable for people who use either language.
Ask for implementation evidence and a listening check
Have the website supplier confirm how the page language and relevant passage languages are represented. Then ask the agreed reviewer to inspect the result using the appropriate tools and reading setup. The evidence should include the underlying identification as well as the observed experience.
A pronunciation difference in one screen reader does not automatically establish that the publisher used the wrong markup. Available voices and supported language handling vary. The reviewer should distinguish an implementation omission from a limitation of the test environment, rather than repeatedly changing correct text to satisfy one voice.
Check that language information survives common publishing operations. Copying content between a document and a content-management system can preserve visible words while losing structural information. The final page, not the authoring file, is the relevant acceptance object.
A hypothetical bilingual quotation
Imagine a builder's project film includes a short contribution in another language, followed by an approved English translation in the transcript. The published page visually distinguishes the two passages, but the language information is absent from the implementation.
The buyer gives the web team a precise passage map. The reviewer checks the page structure and the supported reading experience after correction. The work does not require re-recording the contribution or altering its meaning; it requires preserving information about how the text should be interpreted.
Build the information into handover
For a multilingual film, include language notes alongside speaker names and approved spellings. Ask who approves those notes and who checks their implementation. This modest addition can prevent a publishing team from treating every transcript as an undifferentiated English text block.
Discuss the film's language and transcript requirements with Live Images. Confirm suitable production scope and specialist input, while leaving webpage language implementation and accessibility evaluation explicitly assigned to the responsible team.
Prepared with AI assistance for Live Images. Planning guidance is general; suitability and production scope must be agreed for your project.