Thread Subject: Re: Proposal for a newUserPreferenceSettings(Non-Visual)

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: Peter Korn
Date: Sun, Jul 29 2007 4:20 PM

Hi Don,

I'm curious about something you said - "necessary for the comprehension
of the content". I see this language as well in the July 6th draft item
6.3-C. I'd been thinking that any place where there was video and audio
together - in say instructional material - the draft 508 requirements
would require that there be audio descriptions. '

Can you (err...) describe some training material where the audio was
sufficient to understand what was going on, with the need for that video
to be described? I think it could be much more cost effective if we had
a set of guidelines for training material video production that resulted
in a rich enough audio stream by default that video description wasn't
necessary.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Allen, I too love audio description in the proper venue; let me play devil's advocate for a second though and ask you if you have ever encountered a Federally-produced film or other multimedia which really required it in order to increase comprehension. The original standards gave audio description equal weight to captioning and this has confused a lot of people. Obviously, training multimedia where critical actions are not covered by dialog require audio description, but this is generally pretty rare in the Federal arena. I think we should keep the requirement, but continue to clarify as did the original standard that it "support the agency's mission" (an AV of a birthday party wouldn't be covered), and is also "necessary for the comprehension of the content."
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:34 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal for a newUserPreferenceSettings(Non-Visual)
>
> Just curious if we keep audio-description requirements in 508 if we will then run into another of these:
>
> http://www.resource411.com/411Update/Issue_21/Articles/Audio_Description_for_the_Visually_Impaired.cfm
>
>
> For a service (Audio Description) that opens up a whole new world of information and entertainment for the blind and visually impaired community, the regulation
> of audio/video description has raised many questions in the past few years and continues to be an issue that is divisive in a way that closed captioning
> never has been.
>
> When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated that as of April 2002 a certain amount of programming must contain video description, organizations
> such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and, somewhat surprisingly, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) were up in arms. A federal
> case went before the District of Columbia US Court of Appeals in September, 2002. By November, 2002, a decision had been reached and the rules for audio/video
> description were, as described in a statement by the FCC "struck down."
>
> The MPAA's argument focused on the FCC's authority as an agency to enact audio/video rules as well as mandate video description. The FCC took what they
> believed was this authority to both enact rules and mandate description from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which specifically addressed both closed
> captioning and audio/video description. According the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, however, the act did not give Congress' consent for the FCC to enact
> video rules. Instead, the act only discussed a preliminary enquiry that should be carried out by the FCC to further research the need and specificity of
> proposed rules.
>
> The NFB's argument focused on what they saw as the failure of the FCC to "assess whether visually impaired persons actually want or need video description
> as opposed to rules requiring spoken articulation of on-screen text." The court deemed this argument moot in light of their final ruling that the FCC would
> no longer be able to mandate or enact audio/video description rules.
>
> Allen continues:
> For me, as one blind person, having access to audio descriptions, even of varying quality, is an improvement to the currently available information. What i do with it is my business. Since FCC can't apparently rule on such, I due hope we can.
>
> Note, I have not heard a dissenting comment on the audio description requirements to date during these past eleven months or so.
>
> Allen Hoffman
> Department of Homeland Security, Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
>
>
>
>

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