Thread Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Video Description-Action Needed

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: geoff freed
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 11:50 AM

I agree. However, note that I didn't include any of those methods in
the definition. In fact, I left them all out because I didn't want to
impose any limitations. If you want to illustrate, you could (for
example) link to videos showing regular and extended descriptions, and
to a page where a movie is embedded but has text descriptions on the
page rather than integrated with the movie.

Geoff.


Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> I think we need to be careful here.
>
> If we require video description -- and then define it as including extended
> and descriptions on pages then we are requiring all of these.
>
> I think we need to keep it to being just what we want to require. Then talk
> about extended video descriptions as another topic.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> geoff freed
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 7:53 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Video
>> Description-Action Needed
>>
>>
>> I think it might provide too much information, so I've
>> amended it below.
>> I deleted "usually inserted between dialogue narration"
>> because this imposes a limitation. Videos can now contain
>> extended descriptions, where the video and main audio
>> automatically pause to allow a lengthy description
>> independent of the main timeline. Descriptions can also be
>> supplied as text on a page.
>>
>> Geoff Freed
>> WGBH/NCAM
>>
>> ======
>> __XX_ I'm recommending that the
>> group consider the following changes:
>>
>> RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE:
>> VIDEO DESCRIPTION: Video descriptions make visual media (such
>> as television programs or training videos) accessible to
>> people who are blind or visually impaired. They provide
>> descriptive narration of key visual elements, such as sets,
>> costumes and other important on-screen information that
>> cannot be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Deborah Buck wrote:
>>> The Subpart A Workgroup has drafted a definition for video
>>> description, but would like the TEITAC AV workgroup to weigh in and
>>> provide guidance and feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>> VIDEO DESCRIPTION
>>> This term is not referenced in the 508 law. It does appear in the
>>> standard as "audio description" under the technical standards- §
>>> 1194.24 Video and multimedia products.
>>> The term has not been defined in the standard. This
>> recommendation is
>>> to add a new term added to Subpart A Definitions Section. Please
>>> consider the draft below in light of the expected
>> technical Standard
>>> recommendations from the AV Workgroup. Should the term be
>> changed to Audio Description?
>>>
>>> RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE:
>>> VIDEO DESCRIPTION: The insertion of verbal or auditory
>> description(s)
>>> of on-screen visuals intended to describe important visual details
>>> that are not contained or that cannot be understood from
>> the main audio output alone.
>>> Audio descriptions supplement the regular audio track of
>> the program
>>> and are usually inserted between dialogue narration to provide
>>> information about actions, characters, and on-screen text
>> that appears without verbalization.
>>> Video descriptions are a way to let people who are blind or
>> have low
>>> vision know what is happening on screen.
>>>
>>>
>>> ACTION:
>>> Please indicate whether you can support this definition or if you
>>> think it should be changed- please include your suggested changes:
>>>
>>> ___ I can accept this definition.
>>> ___ I can accept this definition with changes. I'm
>> recommending that
>>> the group consider the following changes:
>>>
>>>
>>> COST BENEFITS OF PROPOSED CHANGE
>>> Do you think this change will result in increased costs?
>>> Do you think this proposed change will result in benefits such as
>>> increased access for people with disabilities, increased
>>> implementation of Section 508, improve the likelihood that
>> developers
>>> and manufacturers can and will build products to meet the
>> applicable standards?
>>>
>>> BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF THESE EMAILS Subpart A Workgroup
>> Members- In
>>> the next few days you will receive several emails from the
>> Subpart A
>>> co-chairs. We have made significant progress in our work of
>> late, but
>>> need to come to some resolution. Recognizing that not all
>> of you have
>>> been able to join the conference calls and participate in our
>>> discussions, we have decided to take this approach to determine
>>> whether we have reached consensus.
>>>
>>> You will receive several emails- the emails will be broken down
>>> between the
>>> 2 sections of Subpart A that we have been addressed to date-
>>> Definitions and Exceptions. Within each of these categories
>> you will
>>> received an email on each of the issues or topics. For
>> example, under
>>> the Definitions section we have been reviewing and have made
>>> recommendations for definitions on accessibility, assistive
>>> technology, comparable access, etc. You will receive individual
>>> emails on each of the terms we've addressed. You will be
>> asked to take action on the terms.
>>> * After reviewing the information you will be asked to indicate
>>> whether you agree with the recommendation or disagree.
>>> * If you disagree, specify the changes you think are
>> needed. If you
>>> need to explain your rationale, please do so. If at all possible,
>>> please do not disagree, but then not provide alternative language.
>>> * The group also needs to deal with cost-benefit impact of the
>>> recommendations. Please indicate whether you think the recommended
>>> changes will have an impact on cost of implementation and what the
>>> benefits will be as a result of the proposed change.
>>> * If you want, you can modify the subject in your
>> response to indicate
>>> whether you accept or reject the proposed language. This
>> will enable
>>> us to sort and categorize the responses more quickly and be
>> prepared
>>> to see where our efforts might need to be focused for our
>> meeting on
>>> Thursday, May 3, 2007.
>>> * Our plan is to have resolution of these topics and transmit the
>>> information to the Access Board. We will then move to developing
>>> recommendations on Subpart A: Application and hopefully
>> close out our work.
>>> If you need back ground information on some of the discussions- you
>>> should refer to the Subpart A Report
>>> http://teitac.org/wiki/Subpart_A_Report_2007-04-18
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Deborah V. Buck, Executive Director
>>> Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP) PO Box 32
>>> Delmar, NY 12054
>>> 518.439.1263 (voice)
>>> 518.439.3451 (fax)
>>> 518.441.7204 (cell)
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> http://www.ataporg.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University