[Athen] correct terminology -- audio description or video description

[Terrill Thompson]

To the the extent that large corporations influence our society and
language, Netflix uses "audio description":
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/25079

Also, WCAG 2.0 uses "audio description":
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Specific relevant WCAG 2.0 success criteria are:

1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded): An alternative
for time-based media or audio description of the prerecorded video content
is provided for synchronized media, except when the media is a media
alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such. (Level A)

1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded): Audio description is provided for
all prerecorded video content in synchronized media. (Level AA)

1.2.7 Extended Audio Description (Prerecorded): Where pauses in foreground
audio are insufficient to allow audio descriptions to convey the sense of
the video, extended audio description is provided for all prerecorded video
content in synchronized media. (Level AAA)

Personally, I prefer "descriptive narration" as it avoids the confusion
over "audio" vs "video". Unfortunately "descriptive narration" doesn't seem
to be used in any official capacity, so I only use that term if I'm
referring to it casually. Otherwise I use "audio description", mostly to be
consistent with WCAG.  Also, once I've established and defined what exactly
I'm talking about, I will often drop the adjective and refer to it simply
as "description" in subsequent uses.

Regards,
Terrill






---
Terrill Thompson
Technology Accessibility Specialist
DO-IT, Accessible Technology Services
UW Information Technology
University of Washington
tft at uw.edu

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:14 PM, E.A. Draffan <ea at emptech.info> wrote:


> I have some fears about having to have two terms as 'audio description' has

> been accepted in many countries as being a way to describe what is

> happening

> on the screen by using a sound track

> http://hub.eaccessplus.eu/wiki/Audio_description

>

> When I am asked for video description by YouTube it is a piece of text to

> describe the video for marketing purposes.

>

> Feb 2016 3PlayMedia talk about video descriptions being available in text

> for screen reader users or as audio recordings.

> http://www.3playmedia.com/2016/02/01/why-a-transcript-

> is-not-enough-to-make-

> your-videos-compliant-with-accessibility-law/

>

> But yes.... several US organisations supporting those who have visual

> impairments and wikipedia say video descriptions are the same as audio

> descriptions, although the CVAA description does not appear to be very

> explicit

> https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/21st-century-

> communications-and-video-a

> ccessibility-act-cvaa  and in 3PlayMedia's brief about the CVAA - they do

> not touch on the subject.  However, go to neospeech TTS suppliers

> http://blog.neospeech.com/title-2-of-cvaa-video-programming/  and yes text

> to speech can be used!  So can one assume that a text version for video

> descriptions is allowed as long as it is accessible to AT?

>

> Best wishes

> E.A.

>

> Mrs E.A. Draffan

> WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton

> Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103

> http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk

> UK AAATE rep http://www.aaate.net/

>

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: athen-list [mailto:athen-list-bounces at mailman13.u.washington.edu] On

> Behalf Of Jennifer Sutton

> Sent: 03 May 2017 15:01

> To: Access Technology Higher Education Network <

> athen-list at u.washington.edu>

> Subject: Re: [Athen] correct terminology -- audio description or video

> description

>

> Oh, certainly. I'm very aware of audience considerations while

> simultaneously assuring accuracy, such as in legal contexts.

>

>

> Jennifer

>

>

>

> On 5/3/2017 6:57 AM, Sheryl E. Burgstahler wrote:

> > Jennifer,

> > I agree that either term works. Having said that, those of us speaking to

> newbies on the topic need to make sure to explain what we mean and share

> the

> alternative wording in order to minimize confusion.

> > Sheryl

> >

> > On May 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, Jennifer Sutton <jsuttondc at gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Thanks, all, for your responses.

> >>

> >> I did reach out to someone who used to be at WGBH, and that response

> dovetails with what you say here, Steve.

> >>

> >>

> >> My ultimate take-away, as in so many things accessibility-related is

> that

> which term one uses will depend on context.

> >>

> >>

> >> I don't think it is a matter of personal preference, at least in some

> cases.

> >>

> >>

> >> As I understand it (and suspected when I asked the question), there's a

> lot of history and politics behind why there are two terms (and I don't

> just

> mean U.S. government politics).

> >>

> >>

> >> As I understand it, when referring to CVAA, I think "video description"

> may be the preferred term.

> >>

> >>

> >> My concern with relying on the W3C is that they may be less aware of the

> U.S. situation, and in the context of some of what I am doing, that will

> matter.

> >>

> >>

> >> As in so many things, language does matter, and I'm glad I understand

> the

> ramifications of the two terms.

> >>

> >>

> >> Again, thanks to all for your input.

> >>

> >>

> >> Best,

> >>

> >> Jennifer

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> On 5/3/2017 5:51 AM, steve.noble at louisville.edu wrote:

> >>> Hi Jennifer,

> >>>

> >>> The terms are now interchangeable, but the federal government prefers

> the term "video description" and that is the term typically used by

> Congress

> and the FCC. For instance, in 47 CFR 79.3 "Video description of video

> programming," the definition is given:

> >>> "(3) Video description. The insertion of audio narrated descriptions of

> a television program’s key visual elements into natural pauses between the

> program’s dialogue." [see

> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol4/pdf/CFR-

> 2011-title47-vol

> 4-sec79-3.pdf]

> >>> The federal government's use of the term "video description" dates back

> to the early 1990s, and perhaps before. You may want to reach out to Barry

> Cronin for the real scoop, as he was one of the original developers at

> WGBH.

> If you need his contact information, just let me know. In the mean time,

> here's a nice history for you:

> http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1114571.pdf

> >>>

> >>> Hope that helps,

> >>>   --Steve Noble

> >>> steve.noble at louisville.edu

> >>> 502-969-3088

> >>> http://louisville.academia.edu/SteveNoble

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> ________________________________________

> >>> From: athen-list [athen-list-bounces at mailman13.u.washington.edu] on

> behalf of Jennifer Sutton [jsuttondc at gmail.com]

> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 10:14 PM

> >>> To: Access Technology Higher Education Network

> >>> Subject: [Athen] correct terminology -- audio description or video

> description

> >>>

> >>> Greetings, ATHEN list folks (along with a few others I've bcc-ed):

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> I'm sorting through my resources, and I'm confused about what the

> >>> correct term is for adding audio to videos to help explain visual

> >>> elements for blind people.

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> I know that we initially called it "audio description," but I had in

> >>> mind that the term was shifting to "video description" since that

> >>> describes better what it is, at least to a degree.

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> At the same time, I still see current articles and sites calling it

> >>> "audio description."

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> Does anyone have the definitive "scoop?"

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> I'd welcome links/citations in support of responses.

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> Is this, perhaps, one of these situations where we might *like* the

> term

> >>> to change, but the term "audio description" is so prevalent that

> >>> progress is slow?

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> Are there legal ramifications, i.e. maybe some state laws refer to it

> in

> >>> different ways?

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> Thanks in advance. I'm updating some things, and I'd like to get it

> right.

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> If it doesn't matter/they're now considered simply synonymous, I'd like

> >>> to know that, too.

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> Best,

> >>>

> >>> Jennifer

> >>>

> >>> _______________________________________________

> >>> athen-list mailing list

> >>> athen-list at mailman13.u.washington.edu

> >>>

> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__

> mailman13.u.washington.e

> du_mailman_listinfo_athen-2Dlist&d=AwICAg&c=SgMrq23dbjbGX6e0ZsSHgEZX6A4IAf

> 1S

> O3AJ2bNrHlk&r=4WMck1ZVLo4tV0IVllcBNKXCSGU6lUERtx_4HD4DqmE&m=JW7m48F06P_

> 3qz8y

> hj_qyefoBPL6u7prODM_zYMvl60&s=eJLpz-kupRMcVVm1md89p-6zyP_

> nKtvrmQNSmNc1Jo0&e=

> >>> _______________________________________________

> >>> athen-list mailing list

> >>> athen-list at mailman13.u.washington.edu

> >>> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/athen-list

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> athen-list mailing list

> >> athen-list at mailman13.u.washington.edu

> >> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/athen-list

> > _______________________________________________

> > athen-list mailing list

> > athen-list at mailman13.u.washington.edu

> > http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/athen-list

>

> _______________________________________________

> athen-list mailing list

> athen-list at mailman13.u.washington.edu

> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/athen-list

>

> _______________________________________________

> athen-list mailing list

> athen-list at mailman13.u.washington.edu

> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/athen-list

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman12.u.washington.edu/pipermail/athen-list/attachments/20170504/aba2773a/attachment.html>