Thread Subject: Re: teitac-websoftware 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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 12:45 PM

Agreed.
EWG can do that.



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

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:50 AM
To: TEITAC AV list
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] teitac-websoftware Proposal for a
newUserPreferenceSettings(Non-Visual)

That would work for me - and I would leave it up tot he EWG to figure
out where and how an explanatory note is inserted.

- Larry


Hoffman, Allen wrote:

> Since the referenced materials are not completed now, might it make
> sense as part of the explanatory materials to note just what you said
> here Larry? TEITAC might then recommend that the Access-Board
> incorporate any new information from such guidance materials if they
> are available in time for the final rule.
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 8:42 PM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] teitac-websoftware Proposal for a
> newUserPreferenceSettings(Non-Visual)
>
> I would be glad to chime in here...
>
> I think the examples given are good ones and point to the dire need
> for guidelines for producing video description, how, when, where.
>
> Luckily, the American Foundation for the Blind along with the National

> Center for Accessible Media at WGBH (NCAM), under contract from the
> Described and Captioned Media Program administered by the National
> Association of the Deaf, is embarking on creating just such
guidelines.
> A first draft has already been worked over by an expert committee of
> academics, educators, producers, consumers and others. The work on
> these guidelines should be completed in a year or so.
>
> One easily agreed-upon point in the draft guidelines is that you do
> not ever describe someone's physical appearance or race unless those
> aspects are germane to the understanding of the video material. Unless

> there was a reason for including the short, fat, silver-haired, etc.
> attributes, those phrases should never have been used. Use of such
> terms points to an inexperienced video description author who did not
> contemplate the rationale for adding such descriptions (hope it wasn't

> WGBH who did that
> work!)
>
> Ditto for the issue of the producer making a unilateral decision that
> the voice-over was providing enough description and thus no need for
> an added video description track. Was that producer expert on the
> needs of blind and visually impaired people, has he or she ever really

> listened to good video description in order to understand that "key
> visual elements" went undescribed?
>
> Again, solidly researched and tested guidelines will help
tremendously.
> Patience - AFB's eventual document should be quite valuable.
>
> - Larry
>
>
> Jasionowski, Tony wrote:
>
>> To: AV Subcommittee,
>> The recent discussion below in Websoftware may be of interest to some

>> members in AV, therefore, I included AV in this discussion for any
>> comments.
>> Thanks.
>> Tony Jasionowski
>> Panasonic
>> AV Sub Committee Co-chair
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>
>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:40:11 -0400
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal fora
>> newUserPreferenceSettings(Non-Visual)
>> To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Cc: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> We get a number of questions from agencies (including my own) about
>> audio description. Generally, the videos being created are
>> informational, not
>>
>> instructional. We've taken the position that if the agency feels the

>> need to make the film, they must feel the message is mission-based
>> and
>
>> therefore, should be accessible to all.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing Don's and Allen's opinions about a
>> couple of examples. The first one involved a video my office had
>> made
>
>> to play at booth we were staffing at a government conference. We
>> used
>
>> a video produced by filming the previous year's conference which
>> included a short film clip from a commercial-hit cartoon movie about
>> prehistoric animals,
>>
>> including fish. We made it conform to 508 by close captioning and
>> audio
>>
>> describing the video. It was a two-step process - we first sent it
>> to
>
>> a
>>
>> company that created the closed-captions and then to another that
>> added the audio description.
>>
>> The audio description added a lot - it described the people who came
>> and
>>
>> went from the podium and stage, what they carried and what they did.
>> The
>> people in filmed from the previous year's conference were all
>> relatively
>>
>> well-known IT executives from Federal as well as industry. It also
>> described in detail the fish that went whizzing by the screen in the
>> cartoon clip - far more data than the average viewer would ever
>> gather
>
>> and even fewer could identify by genus. It also raised some
>> interesting societal issues - the description labeled one government
>> exec as silver-haired, another as short and portly and another as
>> thin, tall black man. The folks captured in the video seem a bit
>> uncomfortable about the
>>
>> descriptions - our video gave voice to unspoken "opinions" that
>> created discomfort for others.
>>
>> My second example involves an architectural tour of some historic
>> Federal office spaces. It was developed in house for Federal
>> employees and was closed captioned but not audio described. An
>> executive narrated the film by, for the most part, sitting in her
>> office on a couch with flowers on a nearby table and a flag in the
>> background - a pretty typical executive pose. She provided the
>> voice-over of the tour and described the features of the offices the
>> video depicted as well as the history behind them.
>> Occasionally, additional images were shown, of Indian chiefs in an
>> antique photo, several somber men in late-eighteenth century dress.
>> From her script, you made a hazy deduction that they attended
>> important events in
>>
>> these offices but from the description, you wouldn't have known
>> anything
>>
>> about the participants. The film producers thought that they didn't
>> need to audio describe the film because the script read by the exec
>> described
>>
>> the rooms well.
>>
>> We generally advise Federal video-producers that it isn't necessary
>> to
>
>> audio-describe "talking-heads" - people standing in one place, maybe
>> behind a podium, just speaking to the camera. Is that good? Should
>> we be providing a physical description of the speaker? Can we cross
>> a
>
>> proprietary line where we offend by describing physical attributes
>> that might not be flattering to the speaker and cause other problems?
>
>> Is there anything we can add to the proposed language to address such

>> concerns?
>>
>>

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