Thread Subject: Re: audio-description definition
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.
Return to this mailing list's archives
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Sep 18 2007 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: audio-description definition
I don't think we use the term audio-description, but shouldn't we
recommend that the term be included in the definitions section to point
to video-description to make it clear that we use the other term. both
terms are widely used, so clarifying that we are using one of them would
seem helpful to me.
Allen Hoffman -- DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Tue, Sep 18 2007 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: audio-description definition
Yes, an earlier version appended, "in this and other countries, video
description is also known as audio description, descriptive narration and
other similar terms."
I think that could be added back.
... Larry ...
Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> I don't think we use the term audio-description, but shouldn't we
> recommend that the term be included in the definitions section to point
> to video-description to make it clear that we use the other term. both
> terms are widely used, so clarifying that we are using one of them would
> seem helpful to me.
>
> Allen Hoffman -- DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
>
From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Tue, Sep 18 2007 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: audio-description definition
However, this point of view must be considered:
In standards you only define terms in definition section that you actually
use.
We use the term video description in our definition - so that is what we
define, as it appears in the latest draft:
Video Description
The insertion of verbal or auditory description(s) of on-screen visuals
intended to describe important visual details that are not contained in, or
that cannot be understood from, the main audio output alone. Video
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 appear without verbalization.
Video descriptions are a way to let people who are blind or have low vision
know what is happening on screen.
... Larry ...
Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> I don't think we use the term audio-description, but shouldn't we
> recommend that the term be included in the definitions section to point
> to video-description to make it clear that we use the other term. both
> terms are widely used, so clarifying that we are using one of them would
> seem helpful to me.
>
> Allen Hoffman -- DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
>
From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: audio-description definition
I agree - policymakers generally do not define terms not used in the body of
guidelines or regulations.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Goldberg" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC AV list" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
> However, this point of view must be considered:
>
> In standards you only define terms in definition section that you actually
> use.
>
> We use the term video description in our definition - so that is what we
> define, as it appears in the latest draft:
>
> Video Description
>
> The insertion of verbal or auditory description(s) of on-screen visuals
> intended to describe important visual details that are not contained in,
> or
> that cannot be understood from, the main audio output alone. Video
> 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 appear without verbalization.
> Video descriptions are a way to let people who are blind or have low
> vision
> know what is happening on screen.
>
> ... Larry ...
>
>
> Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>
>> I don't think we use the term audio-description, but shouldn't we
>> recommend that the term be included in the definitions section to point
>> to video-description to make it clear that we use the other term. both
>> terms are widely used, so clarifying that we are using one of them would
>> seem helpful to me.
>>
>> Allen Hoffman -- DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
>>
From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: audio-description definition
I agree about not defining terms we don't use, but I think there is value in
indicating where alternate terms are sometimes used. We would not be
defining those alternate terms, just indicating to users of the document
that they may see another term sometimes used. Allen's point is also
strong: by mentioning the alternate term we are clearly stating that we are
*not* using it in these regs. Consider the poor novice who searches the
document for "audio description", finds nothing, and reports to the boss "I
guess it's not required, because it's not in there."
So I suggest that our definition of "video description" end with "Video
description is sometimes referred to as 'audio description'." We could do
the same with the TTY definition: "TTYs are sometimes referred to as
Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf, or TDDs."
***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Peltz Strauss [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:00 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>
> I agree - policymakers generally do not define terms not used
> in the body of guidelines or regulations.
>
> Karen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Goldberg" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC AV list" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>
>
> > However, this point of view must be considered:
> >
> > In standards you only define terms in definition section
> that you actually
> > use.
> >
> > We use the term video description in our definition - so
> that is what we
> > define, as it appears in the latest draft:
> >
> > Video Description
> >
> > The insertion of verbal or auditory description(s) of
> on-screen visuals
> > intended to describe important visual details that are not
> contained in,
> > or
> > that cannot be understood from, the main audio output alone. Video
> > 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 appear without
> verbalization.
> > Video descriptions are a way to let people who are blind or
> have low
> > vision
> > know what is happening on screen.
> >
> > ... Larry ...
> >
> >
> > Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think we use the term audio-description, but shouldn't we
> >> recommend that the term be included in the definitions
> section to point
> >> to video-description to make it clear that we use the
> other term. both
> >> terms are widely used, so clarifying that we are using one
> of them would
> >> seem helpful to me.
> >>
> >> Allen Hoffman -- DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
> >>
From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: audio-description definition
I agree about not defining terms we don't use, but I think there is value in
indicating where alternate terms are sometimes used. We would not be
defining those alternate terms, just indicating to users of the document
that they may see another term sometimes used. Allen's point is also
strong: by mentioning the alternate term we are clearly stating that we are
*not* using it in these regs. Consider the poor novice who searches the
document for "audio description", finds nothing, and reports to the boss "I
guess it's not required, because it's not in there."
So I suggest that our definition of "video description" end with "Video
description is sometimes referred to as 'audio description'." We could do
the same with the TTY definition: "TTYs are sometimes referred to as
Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf, or TDDs."
***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Peltz Strauss [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:00 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>
> I agree - policymakers generally do not define terms not used
> in the body of guidelines or regulations.
>
> Karen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Goldberg" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC AV list" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>
>
> > However, this point of view must be considered:
> >
> > In standards you only define terms in definition section
> that you actually
> > use.
> >
> > We use the term video description in our definition - so
> that is what we
> > define, as it appears in the latest draft:
> >
> > Video Description
> >
> > The insertion of verbal or auditory description(s) of
> on-screen visuals
> > intended to describe important visual details that are not
> contained in,
> > or
> > that cannot be understood from, the main audio output alone. Video
> > 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 appear without
> verbalization.
> > Video descriptions are a way to let people who are blind or
> have low
> > vision
> > know what is happening on screen.
> >
> > ... Larry ...
> >
> >
> > Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think we use the term audio-description, but shouldn't we
> >> recommend that the term be included in the definitions
> section to point
> >> to video-description to make it clear that we use the
> other term. both
> >> terms are widely used, so clarifying that we are using one
> of them would
> >> seem helpful to me.
> >>
> >> Allen Hoffman -- DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
> >>
From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: audio-description definition
I think this makes sense. In fact, we already note that TTYS are a form of
text telephones, another term for TTYs.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>I agree about not defining terms we don't use, but I think there is value
>in
> indicating where alternate terms are sometimes used. We would not be
> defining those alternate terms, just indicating to users of the document
> that they may see another term sometimes used. Allen's point is also
> strong: by mentioning the alternate term we are clearly stating that we
> are
> *not* using it in these regs. Consider the poor novice who searches the
> document for "audio description", finds nothing, and reports to the boss
> "I
> guess it's not required, because it's not in there."
>
> So I suggest that our definition of "video description" end with "Video
> description is sometimes referred to as 'audio description'." We could do
> the same with the TTY definition: "TTYs are sometimes referred to as
> Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf, or TDDs."
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Peltz Strauss [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:00 AM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>>
>> I agree - policymakers generally do not define terms not used
>> in the body of guidelines or regulations.
>>
>> Karen
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Larry Goldberg" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "TEITAC AV list" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>>
>>
>> > However, this point of view must be considered:
>> >
>> > In standards you only define terms in definition section
>> that you actually
>> > use.
>> >
>> > We use the term video description in our definition - so
>> that is what we
>> > define, as it appears in the latest draft:
>> >
>> > Video Description
>> >
>> > The insertion of verbal or auditory description(s) of
>> on-screen visuals
>> > intended to describe important visual details that are not
>> contained in,
>> > or
>> > that cannot be understood from, the main audio output alone. Video
>> > 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 appear without
>> verbalization.
>> > Video descriptions are a way to let people who are blind or
>> have low
>> > vision
>> > know what is happening on screen.
>> >
>> > ... Larry ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't think we use the term audio-description, but shouldn't we
>> >> recommend that the term be included in the definitions
>> section to point
>> >> to video-description to make it clear that we use the
>> other term. both
>> >> terms are widely used, so clarifying that we are using one
>> of them would
>> >> seem helpful to me.
>> >>
>> >> Allen Hoffman -- DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
>> >>
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: audio-description definition
We are updating a standard which used a set of terms, so if we are
changing terminology used, I think we need to include the alternative
references to ensure a good understanding. This would also apply to the
term "multimedia" vs. "synchronized media". Basically I'd advocate for
readable standards, and let the legal folks in the next phase beat
"proper" legality in to shape.
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:53 AM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
I think this makes sense. In fact, we already note that TTYS are a
form of
text telephones, another term for TTYs.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>I agree about not defining terms we don't use, but I think there is
value
>in
> indicating where alternate terms are sometimes used. We would not be
> defining those alternate terms, just indicating to users of the
document
> that they may see another term sometimes used. Allen's point is also
> strong: by mentioning the alternate term we are clearly stating that
we
> are
> *not* using it in these regs. Consider the poor novice who searches
the
> document for "audio description", finds nothing, and reports to the
boss
> "I
> guess it's not required, because it's not in there."
>
> So I suggest that our definition of "video description" end with
"Video
> description is sometimes referred to as 'audio description'." We
could do
> the same with the TTY definition: "TTYs are sometimes referred to as
> Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf, or TDDs."
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Peltz Strauss [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:00 AM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>>
>> I agree - policymakers generally do not define terms not used
>> in the body of guidelines or regulations.
>>
>> Karen
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Larry Goldberg" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "TEITAC AV list" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>>
>>
>> > However, this point of view must be considered:
>> >
>> > In standards you only define terms in definition section
>> that you actually
>> > use.
>> >
>> > We use the term video description in our definition - so
>> that is what we
>> > define, as it appears in the latest draft:
>> >
>> > Video Description
>> >
>> > The insertion of verbal or auditory description(s) of
>> on-screen visuals
>> > intended to describe important visual details that are not
>> contained in,
>> > or
>> > that cannot be understood from, the main audio output alone. Video
>> > 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 appear without
>> verbalization.
>> > Video descriptions are a way to let people who are blind or
>> have low
>> > vision
>> > know what is happening on screen.
>> >
>> > ... Larry ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't think we use the term audio-description, but shouldn't we
>> >> recommend that the term be included in the definitions
>> section to point
>> >> to video-description to make it clear that we use the
>> other term. both
>> >> terms are widely used, so clarifying that we are using one
>> of them would
>> >> seem helpful to me.
>> >>
>> >> Allen Hoffman -- DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
>> >>
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Sep 19 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: audio-description definition
The term 'audio description' is already used in the 'video description'
definition. So the term would be found on a search.
Because we have it in the definition it would look strange in a note.
Hmmm
Also need to see what will actually fly in the CFR
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Karen Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:53 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>
> I think this makes sense. In fact, we already note that
> TTYS are a form of
> text telephones, another term for TTYs.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
>
>
> >I agree about not defining terms we don't use, but I think
> there is value
> >in
> > indicating where alternate terms are sometimes used. We
> would not be
> > defining those alternate terms, just indicating to users of
> the document
> > that they may see another term sometimes used. Allen's
> point is also
> > strong: by mentioning the alternate term we are clearly
> stating that we
> > are
> > *not* using it in these regs. Consider the poor novice who
> searches the
> > document for "audio description", finds nothing, and
> reports to the boss
> > "I
> > guess it's not required, because it's not in there."
> >
> > So I suggest that our definition of "video description" end
> with "Video
> > description is sometimes referred to as 'audio
> description'." We could do
> > the same with the TTY definition: "TTYs are sometimes referred to as
> > Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf, or TDDs."
> >
> > ***
> > Jim Tobias
> > Inclusive Technologies
> > +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> > +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> > skype jimtobias
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Karen Peltz Strauss [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:00 AM
> >> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
> >>
> >> I agree - policymakers generally do not define terms not used
> >> in the body of guidelines or regulations.
> >>
> >> Karen
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Larry Goldberg" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "TEITAC AV list" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:05 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] audio-description definition
> >>
> >>
> >> > However, this point of view must be considered:
> >> >
> >> > In standards you only define terms in definition section
> >> that you actually
> >> > use.
> >> >
> >> > We use the term video description in our definition - so
> >> that is what we
> >> > define, as it appears in the latest draft:
> >> >
> >> > Video Description
> >> >
> >> > The insertion of verbal or auditory description(s) of
> >> on-screen visuals
> >> > intended to describe important visual details that are not
> >> contained in,
> >> > or
> >> > that cannot be understood from, the main audio output
> alone. Video
> >> > 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 appear without
> >> verbalization.
> >> > Video descriptions are a way to let people who are blind or
> >> have low
> >> > vision
> >> > know what is happening on screen.
> >> >
> >> > ... Larry ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I don't think we use the term audio-description, but
> shouldn't we
> >> >> recommend that the term be included in the definitions
> >> section to point
> >> >> to video-description to make it clear that we use the
> >> other term. both
> >> >> terms are widely used, so clarifying that we are using one
> >> of them would
> >> >> seem helpful to me.
> >> >>
> >> >> Allen Hoffman -- DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology
> >> >>
WebAIM is an initiative of:
