Thread Subject: Re: (was) Proposal for anewUserPreferenceSettings(Non-Visual) (changed) a/v-description

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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 5:55 AM

Don:
If you were playing devils advocate, I get a good part.

I think we are saying the same things generally. I think a/v-description is far less needed than regular quality captioning, and am happy with inclusion of the "for comprehension" terms in the requirement, as it does express this adequately. If over-use was the thrust of the previous court case, then this language appears as it is needed and I'd support it for that reason alone.

Maybe I'm writing too early in the day but I can't recall Federally funded films that i felt required description, however, you know when one is so used to not having it the thinking process doesn't really flag things. I also think there are instances where it isn't that people who are blind miss it, but don't know that they are missing. I'll give an example of non Fed items just for illustration's sake.

On TV I have watched some new shows lately where I have trouble distinguishing the actors voices--they really sound similar, and this creates real mental workload figuring out the plot. At least some description identifying the characters in the beginning with their voices might help to speed up this for me. It doesn't really seem obvious, but would be pretty helpful.


Anyway, I really should have cross-posted this with the a/v subgroup. i was just stopped in my tracks on Friday when I read the previous summary of the court case and was not understanding the logic of not wanting description to be available, especially when it is optional. "open" description would be unacceptable to most I'm sure. I tend to be one who feels that if the content can't be understood pretty well from the audio alone, then it may not have been produced as well as the producer may believe. But, then again, I do have a biased perspective.







Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Barrett, Don
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 1:24 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal for anewUserPreferenceSettings(Non-Visual)

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

  • Next message in Thread: None
  • Previous message in Thread: None

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