Thread Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-ActionNeeded

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-ActionNeeded

x___ I can accept this definition.


Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology


>

From: Gerald Freda
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

To be consistent and not confuse the definition label I support and
recommend the adoption of "audio description" as indicated within 1194.24 of
the technical standard as the definition label.

I also agree with Goeff that since the 1194.24 technical standard is not
only referencing video and including multimedia products that the selected
language should not limiting nor restrictive in nature.

I would recommend a few changes to the definition submitted by Goeff as
indicated below (replace VIDEO with AUDIO as the recommended language, and
replace cannot with may not).

AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be
conveyed by the main audio track alone.

thanks

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

I concur

In WCAG we use Audio Description because it is the term originally used in
WCAG 1.0 and the term used in European (UK at least) Law.

But for 508 I think we should use the term that is in the US Law.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Larry Goldberg
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:59 AM
> To: TEITAC AV list; Geoffrey Freed; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A
> Definitions-Video Description-Action Needed
>
> The Telecommunications Act and the Federal Communications
> Commission both use the term "video description" which is the
> most commonly used term to refer to description of video
> materials; "audio description" has been more commonly
> associated with live theatrical description. I would suggest
> we continue to use the term used since 1990 and adopted by the Federal
> government: "video description."
>
> - Larry
>
>
> Gerald Freda wrote:
>
> > To be consistent and not confuse the definition label I support and
> > recommend the adoption of "audio description" as indicated within
> > 1194.24 of the technical standard as the definition label.
> >
> > I also agree with Goeff that since the 1194.24 technical
> standard is
> > not only referencing video and including multimedia
> products that the
> > selected language should not limiting nor restrictive in nature.
> >
> > I would recommend a few changes to the definition submitted
> by Goeff
> > as indicated below (replace VIDEO with AUDIO as the recommended
> > language, and replace cannot with may not).
> >
> > AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
> >
> > thanks
> >
>




begin 666 ATT00003.txt
M7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?
M7U-"G1E:71A8RUV:61E;R!M86EL:6YG(&QI<W0-"G1E:71A8RUV:61E;T!L
M:7-T+G1E:71A8RYO<F<-"FAT=' Z+R]L:7-T+G1E:71A8RYO<F<O;6%I;&UA
9;B]L:7-T:6YF;R]T96ET86,M=FED96-"@``
`
end

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> >
>




begin 666 ATT00003.txt
M7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?
M7U-"G1E:71A8RUS=6)P87)T82!M86EL:6YG(&QI<W0-"G1E:71A8RUS=6)P
M87)T84!L:7-T+G1E:71A8RYO<F<-"FAT=' Z+R]L:7-T+G1E:71A8RYO<F<O
B;6%I;&UA;B]L:7-T:6YF;R]T96ET86,M<W5B<&%R=&$-"@``
`
end

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> >
>




begin 666 ATT00003.txt
M7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?
M7U-"G1E:71A8RUV:61E;R!M86EL:6YG(&QI<W0-"G1E:71A8RUV:61E;T!L
M:7-T+G1E:71A8RYO<F<-"FAT=' Z+R]L:7-T+G1E:71A8RYO<F<O;6%I;&UA
9;B]L:7-T:6YF;R]T96ET86,M=FED96-"@``
`
end

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

I suggest we insert definition for audio-description that refers to video description to alleviate any misunderstanding. Also, in a recent session at CSUN Joel Schneider from national captioning institute noted that there is a symbol for a/d sometimes used on media. I don't think it matters much on the overall what it is called as long as we all agree on what it is--personally "video description" makes more sense to me as the description is of the important information in the video content not discernible from the audio content alone.

I do not agree with Jeff's language as it focuses on items that are not specifically related to the description of the critical information from a video content. I think the previous language was better.>
Jeff wrote:
> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
>

I might suggest an alternative as:

Video Description: Video description, also often referred to as audio description or audio describing, is the provision via alternate audio track, or interspersing of additional narration in to the existing audio, of verbal descriptions of key pieces of information from an audio/video "multimedia" item, such as a broadcast, DVD, or web page, to allow people with visual disabilities to understand the content as a whole. Video descriptions may include descriptions of movements or actions which are not discernible or identifiable from the audio track alone, facial expressions if important to an understanding of the content, background visuals, sets, or text that appears on screen such as a mailing address or web reference. Video descriptions must not override the original audio content, and in some cases content timing may be lengthened for the audio-description to be inserted.





Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
DHS Office on Accessible systems & Technology
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry Goldberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:59 AM
To: TEITAC AV list; Geoffrey Freed; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Video Description-Action Needed

The Telecommunications Act and the Federal Communications Commission both use the term "video description" which is the most commonly used term to refer to description of video materials; "audio description" has been more commonly associated with live theatrical description. I would suggest we continue to use the term used since 1990 and adopted by the Federal
government: "video description."

- Larry


Gerald Freda wrote:

> To be consistent and not confuse the definition label I support and
> recommend the adoption of "audio description" as indicated within
> 1194.24 of the technical standard as the definition label.
>
> I also agree with Goeff that since the 1194.24 technical standard is
> not only referencing video and including multimedia products that the
> selected language should not limiting nor restrictive in nature.
>
> I would recommend a few changes to the definition submitted by Goeff
> as indicated below (replace VIDEO with AUDIO as the recommended
> language, and replace cannot with may not).
>
> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
>
> thanks
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

I hate to be fussy, but I'd say "should not obscure the main audio content" at the end. There are times where judgement calls need to be made, sometimes that means ducking the primary audio to get important descriptive info in.

AWK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:13 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-video] Subpart A
> Definitions-Video Description-Action Needed
>
> I agree with Geoff revised revision of Video Description here
> below also.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: geoff freed < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >Sent: May 1, 2007 2:38 PM
> >To: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, 'TEITAC Subpart A
> >Subcommittee' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, TEITAC Audio/Video
> >Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-video] Subpart A
> >Definitions-Video Description-Action Needed
> >
> >
> >Here's a revised revision:
> >
> >======
> >Video Description: Video descriptions, also known as audio
> >descriptions, make visual media (such as broadcast programming or
> >videos found on Web sites or DVDs) accessible to people who
> are blind
> >or visually impaired. They provide descriptive narration of
> key visual
> >elements, such as movements and actions, sets, and on-screen
> text and
> >graphics that may not be conveyed by the main audio track
> alone. Video
> >descriptions shall not obscure the main audio content.
> >======
> >
> >I think the last sentence is a good addition, given that in the
> >definition of captions we say that captions shall not
> obscure on-screen
> >info.
> >
> >Comments?
> >Geoff/NCAM
> >
> >
> >
> >Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> >> I think mine emphasize that the important thing is to
> describe the information critical for comprehension of the
> nonverbal content--which to me is kind of overshadowed a bit
> by the costumes, sets, part of yours. if we really want
> short wording, "audio or video description means that you
> include an audio track which describes verbally what's
> happening in the multimedia program so that someone who can't
> see it will know what happened.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: geoff freed [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:21 PM
> >> To: Hoffman, Allen
> >> Cc: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A
> >> Definitions-Video Description-Action Needed
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi, Allen:
> >>
> >> I won't argue with the use of video descriptions vs audio
> descriptions (frankly, I prefer the latter). A Larry said
> elsewhere, we should probably align ourselves with what other
> federal agencies already use, so video descriptions makes sense.
> >>
> >> But aside from the inclusion of language stating that
> video descriptions are AKA audio descriptions, your
> definition is stating the same thing as mine, only in more
> words. Am I missing a critical difference? I'd rather go
> with as few words as possible.
> >>
> >> Geoff/NCAM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> >>> I suggest we insert definition for audio-description that
> refers to video description to alleviate any
> misunderstanding. Also, in a recent session at CSUN Joel
> Schneider from national captioning institute noted that there
> is a symbol for a/d sometimes used on media. I don't think
> it matters much on the overall what it is called as long as
> we all agree on what it is--personally "video description"
> makes more sense to me as the description is of the important
> information in the video content not discernible from the
> audio content alone.
> >>>
> >>> I do not agree with Jeff's language as it focuses on
> items that are
> >>> not specifically related to the description of the
> critical information from a video content. I think the
> previous language was better.> Jeff wrote:
> >>>> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the
> main audio track alone.
> >>>>
> >>> I might suggest an alternative as:
> >>>
> >>> Video Description: Video description, also often
> referred to as audio description or audio describing, is the
> provision via alternate audio track, or interspersing of
> additional narration in to the existing audio, of verbal
> descriptions of key pieces of information from an audio/video
> "multimedia" item, such as a broadcast, DVD, or web page,
> to allow people with visual disabilities to understand the
> content as a whole. Video descriptions may include
> descriptions of movements or actions which are not
> discernible or identifiable from the audio track alone,
> facial expressions if important to an understanding of the
> content, background visuals, sets, or text that appears on
> screen such as a mailing address or web reference. Video
> descriptions must not override the original audio content,
> and in some cases content timing may be lengthened for the
> audio-description to be inserted.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
> >>> DHS Office on Accessible systems & Technology -----Original
> >>> Message-----
> >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> >>> Goldberg
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:59 AM
> >>> To: TEITAC AV list; Geoffrey Freed; 'TEITAC Subpart A
> Subcommittee'
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A
> >>> Definitions-Video Description-Action Needed
> >>>
> >>> The Telecommunications Act and the Federal Communications
> Commission
> >>> both use the term "video description" which is the most commonly
> >>> used term to refer to description of video materials;
> "audio description"
> >>> has been more commonly associated with live theatrical
> description.
> >>> I would suggest we continue to use the term used since 1990 and
> >>> adopted by the Federal
> >>> government: "video description."
> >>>
> >>> - Larry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gerald Freda wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> To be consistent and not confuse the definition label I
> support and
> >>>> recommend the adoption of "audio description" as indicated within
> >>>> 1194.24 of the technical standard as the definition label.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also agree with Goeff that since the 1194.24 technical
> standard
> >>>> is not only referencing video and including multimedia products
> >>>> that the selected language should not limiting nor
> restrictive in nature.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would recommend a few changes to the definition submitted by
> >>>> Goeff as indicated below (replace VIDEO with AUDIO as the
> >>>> recommended language, and replace cannot with may not).
> >>>>
> >>>> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the
> main audio track alone.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks
> >>>>

From: Gerald Freda
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

I concur and support Geoff revised revision on the defintion. thanks

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

I hate to be fussy, but I think I'd write it this way:

======
Video Description: Video descriptions, also known as audio
descriptions, can make visual media (such as broadcast programming or
videos
found on Web sites or DVDs) more accessible to people who are blind or
visually impaired or otherwise have print disabilities. Without
obscuring the main audio content, they provide descriptive narration
of key visual
elements, such as movements and actions, sets, and on-screen text and
graphics that are not usually conveyed by the main audio track alone. .

On May 1, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea wrote:

I agree with Geoff revised revision of Video Description here below
also.

-----Original Message-----
> From: geoff freed < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: May 1, 2007 2:38 PM
> To: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, 'TEITAC Subpart A
> Subcommittee' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, TEITAC Audio/Video
> Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-video] Subpart A Definitions-
> Video Description-Action Needed
>
>
> Here's a revised revision:
>
> ======
> Video Description: Video descriptions, also known as audio
> descriptions, make visual media (such as broadcast programming or
> videos
> found on Web sites or DVDs) accessible to people who are blind or
> visually impaired. They provide descriptive narration of key visual
> elements, such as movements and actions, sets, and on-screen text and
> graphics that may not be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
> Video
> descriptions shall not obscure the main audio content.
> ======
>
> I think the last sentence is a good addition, given that in the
> definition of captions we say that captions shall not obscure on-
> screen
> info.
>
> Comments?
> Geoff/NCAM
>
>
>
> Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>
>> I think mine emphasize that the important thing is to describe the
>> information critical for comprehension of the nonverbal content--
>> which to me is kind of overshadowed a bit by the costumes, sets,
>> part of yours. if we really want short wording, "audio or video
>> description means that you include an audio track which describes
>> verbally what's happening in the multimedia program so that someone
>> who can't see it will know what happened.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: geoff freed [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:21 PM
>
>> To: Hoffman, Allen
>
>> Cc: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-
>> Video Description-Action Needed
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Hi, Allen:
>
>>
>
>> I won't argue with the use of video descriptions vs audio
>> descriptions (frankly, I prefer the latter). A Larry said
>> elsewhere, we should probably align ourselves with what other
>> federal agencies already use, so video descriptions makes sense.
>
>>
>
>> But aside from the inclusion of language stating that video
>> descriptions are AKA audio descriptions, your definition is stating
>> the same thing as mine, only in more words. Am I missing a
>> critical difference? I'd rather go with as few words as possible.
>
>>
>
>> Geoff/NCAM
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>
>>
>>> I suggest we insert definition for audio-description that refers
>>> to video description to alleviate any misunderstanding. Also, in
>>> a recent session at CSUN Joel Schneider from national captioning
>>> institute noted that there is a symbol for a/d sometimes used on
>>> media. I don't think it matters much on the overall what it is
>>> called as long as we all agree on what it is--personally "video
>>> description" makes more sense to me as the description is of the
>>> important information in the video content not discernible from
>>> the audio content alone.
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> I do not agree with Jeff's language as it focuses on items that are
>
>>
>>> not specifically related to the description of the critical
>>> information from a video content. I think the previous language
>>> was better.> Jeff wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio
>>>> track alone.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>
>>
>>> I might suggest an alternative as:
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Video Description: Video description, also often referred to as
>>> audio description or audio describing, is the provision via
>>> alternate audio track, or interspersing of additional narration in
>>> to the existing audio, of verbal descriptions of key pieces of
>>> information from an audio/video "multimedia" item, such as a
>>> broadcast, DVD, or web page, to allow people with visual
>>> disabilities to understand the content as a whole. Video
>>> descriptions may include descriptions of movements or actions
>>> which are not discernible or identifiable from the audio track
>>> alone, facial expressions if important to an understanding of the
>>> content, background visuals, sets, or text that appears on screen
>>> such as a mailing address or web reference. Video descriptions
>>> must not override the original audio content, and in some cases
>>> content timing may be lengthened for the audio-description to be
>>> inserted.
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
>
>>
>>> DHS Office on Accessible systems & Technology -----Original
>
>>
>>> Message-----
>
>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>>
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>
>>
>>> Goldberg
>
>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:59 AM
>
>>
>>> To: TEITAC AV list; Geoffrey Freed; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A
>
>>
>>> Definitions-Video Description-Action Needed
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> The Telecommunications Act and the Federal Communications Commission
>
>>
>>> both use the term "video description" which is the most commonly
>>> used
>
>>
>>> term to refer to description of video materials; "audio description"
>
>>
>>> has been more commonly associated with live theatrical
>>> description. I
>
>>
>>> would suggest we continue to use the term used since 1990 and
>>> adopted
>
>>
>>> by the Federal
>
>>
>>> government: "video description."
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> - Larry
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Gerald Freda wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> To be consistent and not confuse the definition label I support and
>
>>
>>>
>>>> recommend the adoption of "audio description" as indicated within
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 1194.24 of the technical standard as the definition label.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> I also agree with Goeff that since the 1194.24 technical standard
>>>> is
>
>>
>>>
>>>> not only referencing video and including multimedia products that
>>>> the
>
>>
>>>
>>>> selected language should not limiting nor restrictive in nature.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> I would recommend a few changes to the definition submitted by
>>>> Goeff
>
>>
>>>
>>>> as indicated below (replace VIDEO with AUDIO as the recommended
>
>>
>>>
>>>> language, and replace cannot with may not).
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio
>>>> track alone.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> thanks
>
>>
>>>
>>>>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

I like this even better than mine:

Video Description: Video description, also often referred to as audio
description or audio describing, is the provision via alternate audio
track, or interspersing of additional narration in to the existing
audio, of verbal descriptions of key pieces of information from an
audio/video "multimedia" item, such as a broadcast, DVD, or web
page, to allow people with visual disabilities to understand the
content as a whole. Video descriptions may include descriptions of
movements or actions which are not discernible or identifiable from
the audio track alone, facial expressions if important to an
understanding of the content, background visuals, sets, or text that
appears on screen such as a mailing address or web reference. Video
descriptions must not override the original audio content, and in some
cases content timing may be lengthened for the audio-description to be
inserted.

On May 1, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:

I suggest we insert definition for audio-description that refers to
video description to alleviate any misunderstanding. Also, in a
recent session at CSUN Joel Schneider from national captioning
institute noted that there is a symbol for a/d sometimes used on
media. I don't think it matters much on the overall what it is called
as long as we all agree on what it is--personally "video description"
makes more sense to me as the description is of the important
information in the video content not discernible from the audio
content alone.

I do not agree with Jeff's language as it focuses on items that are
not specifically related to the description of the critical
information from a video content. I think the previous language was
better.>
Jeff wrote:
> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
>

I might suggest an alternative as:

Video Description: Video description, also often referred to as audio
description or audio describing, is the provision via alternate audio
track, or interspersing of additional narration in to the existing
audio, of verbal descriptions of key pieces of information from an
audio/video "multimedia" item, such as a broadcast, DVD, or web
page, to allow people with visual disabilities to understand the
content as a whole. Video descriptions may include descriptions of
movements or actions which are not discernible or identifiable from
the audio track alone, facial expressions if important to an
understanding of the content, background visuals, sets, or text that
appears on screen such as a mailing address or web reference. Video
descriptions must not override the original audio content, and in some
cases content timing may be lengthened for the audio-description to be
inserted.





Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
DHS Office on Accessible systems & Technology
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
] On Behalf Of Larry Goldberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:59 AM
To: TEITAC AV list; Geoffrey Freed; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-
Video Description-Action Needed

The Telecommunications Act and the Federal Communications Commission
both use the term "video description" which is the most commonly used
term to refer to description of video materials; "audio description"
has been more commonly associated with live theatrical description. I
would suggest we continue to use the term used since 1990 and adopted
by the Federal
government: "video description."

- Larry


Gerald Freda wrote:

> To be consistent and not confuse the definition label I support and
> recommend the adoption of "audio description" as indicated within
> 1194.24 of the technical standard as the definition label.
>
> I also agree with Goeff that since the 1194.24 technical standard is
> not only referencing video and including multimedia products that the
> selected language should not limiting nor restrictive in nature.
>
> I would recommend a few changes to the definition submitted by Goeff
> as indicated below (replace VIDEO with AUDIO as the recommended
> language, and replace cannot with may not).
>
> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
>
> thanks
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

> VIDEO DESCRIPTION: (often referred to as audio description),
> is the provision of audible descriptions of key aspects of
> the visual information, to allow people who are unable fully
> to see the video to understand the content.

That sounds good.

> Notes: Video descriptions may include
> descriptions of movements or actions which are not
> discernible or identifiable from the audio track alone,
> facial expressions if important to an understanding of the
> content, background visuals, sets, or text that appears on
> screen such as a mailing address or web reference, and so on.

Where would these notes live?

> Video descriptions should normally not obscure the original
> audio content, and in some cases content timing may be
> lengthened for the description to be inserted. Audible

In keeping with Greg's comment, we should talk about extended AD separately, if we discuss at all in 508.

> descriptions are usually supplied interspersed with the
> original audio, or sometimes an alternative audio track is
> made in order to contain both the original and descriptive
> audio material.

I don't knoiw that we need to talk about the technical logistics here. Just like with open/closed captions, open/closed description is dealt with elsewhere.

AWK

>
>
>
> At 23:07 -0400 1/05/07, David Poehlman wrote:
> >I like this even better than mine:
> >
> >Video Description: Video description, also often referred
> to as audio
> >description or audio describing, is the provision via
> alternate audio
> >track, or interspersing of additional narration in to the existing
> >audio, of verbal descriptions of key pieces of information from an
> >audio/video "multimedia" item, such as a broadcast, DVD, or
> web page,
> >to allow people with visual disabilities to understand the
> content as a
> >whole. Video descriptions may include descriptions of movements or
> >actions which are not discernible or identifiable from the
> audio track
> >alone, facial expressions if important to an understanding of the
> >content, background visuals, sets, or text that appears on
> screen such
> >as a mailing address or web reference. Video descriptions must not
> >override the original audio content, and in some cases
> content timing
> >may be lengthened for the audio-description to be inserted.
> >
> >On May 1, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> >
> >I suggest we insert definition for audio-description that refers to
> >video description to alleviate any misunderstanding. Also,
> in a recent
> >session at CSUN Joel Schneider from national captioning
> institute noted
> >that there is a symbol for a/d sometimes used on media. I
> don't think
> >it matters much on the overall what it is called as long as we all
> >agree on what it is--personally "video description"
> >makes more sense to me as the description is of the important
> >information in the video content not discernible from the
> audio content
> >alone.
> >
> >I do not agree with Jeff's language as it focuses on items
> that are not
> >specifically related to the description of the critical information
> >from a video content. I think the previous language was
> better.> Jeff
> >wrote:
> > > AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the
> main audio track alone.
> >>
> >
> >I might suggest an alternative as:
> >
> >Video Description: Video description, also often referred
> to as audio
> >description or audio describing, is the provision via
> alternate audio
> >track, or interspersing of additional narration in to the existing
> >audio, of verbal descriptions of key pieces of information from an
> >audio/video "multimedia" item, such as a broadcast, DVD, or
> web page,
> >to allow people with visual disabilities to understand the
> content as a
> >whole. Video descriptions may include descriptions of movements or
> >actions which are not discernible or identifiable from the
> audio track
> >alone, facial expressions if important to an understanding of the
> >content, background visuals, sets, or text that appears on
> screen such
> >as a mailing address or web reference. Video descriptions must not
> >override the original audio content, and in some cases
> content timing
> >may be lengthened for the audio-description to be inserted.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
> >DHS Office on Accessible systems & Technology -----Original
> >Message-----
> >From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >] On Behalf Of Larry Goldberg
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:59 AM
> >To: TEITAC AV list; Geoffrey Freed; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> >Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-
> >Video Description-Action Needed
> >
> >The Telecommunications Act and the Federal Communications Commission
> >both use the term "video description" which is the most
> commonly used
> >term to refer to description of video materials; "audio description"
> >has been more commonly associated with live theatrical
> description. I
> >would suggest we continue to use the term used since 1990
> and adopted
> >by the Federal
> >government: "video description."
> >
> >- Larry
> >
> >
> >Gerald Freda wrote:
> >
> >> To be consistent and not confuse the definition label I
> support and
> >> recommend the adoption of "audio description" as indicated within
> >> 1194.24 of the technical standard as the definition label.
> >>
> >> I also agree with Goeff that since the 1194.24 technical
> standard is
> >> not only referencing video and including multimedia
> products that the
> >> selected language should not limiting nor restrictive in nature.
> >>
> >> I would recommend a few changes to the definition
> submitted by Goeff
> >> as indicated below (replace VIDEO with AUDIO as the recommended
> >> language, and replace cannot with may not).
> >>
> >> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the
> main audio track alone.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

I like this one a lot.



Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:26 PM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Video Description-Action Needed

I tend to agree with Geoff that shorter is better, and this is getting awfully long. It has too many examples mixed into the text, and it has an explanation of why you might want it which focuses on disability (which I have been told is not the right way to express things).

How is this, split into a crisp definition, and then examples and notes?:

VIDEO DESCRIPTION: (often referred to as audio description), is the provision of audible descriptions of key aspects of the visual information, to allow people who are unable fully to see the video to understand the content.

Notes: Video descriptions may include
descriptions of movements or actions which are not discernible or identifiable from the audio track alone, facial expressions if important to an understanding of the content, background visuals, sets, or text that appears on screen such as a mailing address or web reference, and so on. Video descriptions should normally not obscure the original audio content, and in some cases content timing may be lengthened for the description to be inserted. Audible descriptions are usually supplied interspersed with the original audio, or sometimes an alternative audio track is made in order to contain both the original and descriptive audio material.



At 23:07 -0400 1/05/07, David Poehlman wrote:
>I like this even better than mine:
>
>Video Description: Video description, also often referred to as audio
>description or audio describing, is the provision via alternate audio
>track, or interspersing of additional narration in to the existing
>audio, of verbal descriptions of key pieces of information from an
>audio/video "multimedia" item, such as a broadcast, DVD, or web page,
>to allow people with visual disabilities to understand the content as a
>whole. Video descriptions may include descriptions of movements or
>actions which are not discernible or identifiable from the audio track
>alone, facial expressions if important to an understanding of the
>content, background visuals, sets, or text that appears on screen such
>as a mailing address or web reference. Video descriptions must not
>override the original audio content, and in some cases content timing
>may be lengthened for the audio-description to be inserted.
>
>On May 1, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>
>I suggest we insert definition for audio-description that refers to
>video description to alleviate any misunderstanding. Also, in a recent
>session at CSUN Joel Schneider from national captioning institute noted
>that there is a symbol for a/d sometimes used on media. I don't think
>it matters much on the overall what it is called as long as we all
>agree on what it is--personally "video description"
>makes more sense to me as the description is of the important
>information in the video content not discernible from the audio content
>alone.
>
>I do not agree with Jeff's language as it focuses on items that are not
>specifically related to the description of the critical information
>from a video content. I think the previous language was better.> Jeff
>wrote:
> > AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
>>
>
>I might suggest an alternative as:
>
>Video Description: Video description, also often referred to as audio
>description or audio describing, is the provision via alternate audio
>track, or interspersing of additional narration in to the existing
>audio, of verbal descriptions of key pieces of information from an
>audio/video "multimedia" item, such as a broadcast, DVD, or web page,
>to allow people with visual disabilities to understand the content as a
>whole. Video descriptions may include descriptions of movements or
>actions which are not discernible or identifiable from the audio track
>alone, facial expressions if important to an understanding of the
>content, background visuals, sets, or text that appears on screen such
>as a mailing address or web reference. Video descriptions must not
>override the original audio content, and in some cases content timing
>may be lengthened for the audio-description to be inserted.
>
>
>
>
>
>Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
>DHS Office on Accessible systems & Technology -----Original
>Message-----
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>] On Behalf Of Larry Goldberg
>Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:59 AM
>To: TEITAC AV list; Geoffrey Freed; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-
>Video Description-Action Needed
>
>The Telecommunications Act and the Federal Communications Commission
>both use the term "video description" which is the most commonly used
>term to refer to description of video materials; "audio description"
>has been more commonly associated with live theatrical description. I
>would suggest we continue to use the term used since 1990 and adopted
>by the Federal
>government: "video description."
>
>- Larry
>
>
>Gerald Freda wrote:
>
>> To be consistent and not confuse the definition label I support and
>> recommend the adoption of "audio description" as indicated within
>> 1194.24 of the technical standard as the definition label.
>>
>> I also agree with Goeff that since the 1194.24 technical standard is
>> not only referencing video and including multimedia products that the
>> selected language should not limiting nor restrictive in nature.
>>
>> I would recommend a few changes to the definition submitted by Goeff
>> as indicated below (replace VIDEO with AUDIO as the recommended
>> language, and replace cannot with may not).
>>
>> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
>>
>> thanks
>>

From: geoff freed
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-VideoDescription-Action Needed

Hi, Dave:

I don't know about this. It looks like we're providing too much
information. Also, I wonder about the wisdom of providing more than
one paragraph. In the interest of brevity, I think one would be better.

Geoff/NCAM


On May 2, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Dave Singer wrote:

> I tend to agree with Geoff that shorter is
> better, and this is getting awfully long. It has
> too many examples mixed into the text, and it has
> an explanation of why you might want it which
> focuses on disability (which I have been told is
> not the right way to express things).
>
> How is this, split into a crisp definition, and then examples and
> notes?:
>
> VIDEO DESCRIPTION: (often referred to as audio
> description), is the provision of audible
> descriptions of key aspects of the visual
> information, to allow people who are unable fully
> to see the video to understand the content.
>
> Notes: Video descriptions may include
> descriptions of movements or actions which are
> not discernible or identifiable from the audio
> track alone, facial expressions if important to
> an understanding of the content, background
> visuals, sets, or text that appears on screen
> such as a mailing address or web reference, and
> so on. Video descriptions should normally not
> obscure the original audio content, and in some
> cases content timing may be lengthened for the
> description to be inserted. Audible descriptions
> are usually supplied interspersed with the
> original audio, or sometimes an alternative audio
> track is made in order to contain both the
> original and descriptive audio material.
>
>
>
> At 23:07 -0400 1/05/07, David Poehlman wrote:
>> I like this even better than mine:
>>
>> Video Description: Video description, also often referred to as
>> audio
>> description or audio describing, is the provision via alternate audio
>> track, or interspersing of additional narration in to the existing
>> audio, of verbal descriptions of key pieces of information from an
>> audio/video "multimedia" item, such as a broadcast, DVD, or web
>> page, to allow people with visual disabilities to understand the
>> content as a whole. Video descriptions may include descriptions of
>> movements or actions which are not discernible or identifiable from
>> the audio track alone, facial expressions if important to an
>> understanding of the content, background visuals, sets, or text that
>> appears on screen such as a mailing address or web reference. Video
>> descriptions must not override the original audio content, and in
>> some
>> cases content timing may be lengthened for the audio-description
>> to be
>> inserted.
>>
>> On May 1, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>>
>> I suggest we insert definition for audio-description that refers to
>> video description to alleviate any misunderstanding. Also, in a
>> recent session at CSUN Joel Schneider from national captioning
>> institute noted that there is a symbol for a/d sometimes used on
>> media. I don't think it matters much on the overall what it is
>> called
>> as long as we all agree on what it is--personally "video description"
>> makes more sense to me as the description is of the important
>> information in the video content not discernible from the audio
>> content alone.
>>
>> I do not agree with Jeff's language as it focuses on items that are
>> not specifically related to the description of the critical
>> information from a video content. I think the previous language was
>> better.>
>> Jeff wrote:
>>> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
>>>
>>
>> I might suggest an alternative as:
>>
>> Video Description: Video description, also often referred to as
>> audio
>> description or audio describing, is the provision via alternate audio
>> track, or interspersing of additional narration in to the existing
>> audio, of verbal descriptions of key pieces of information from an
>> audio/video "multimedia" item, such as a broadcast, DVD, or web
>> page, to allow people with visual disabilities to understand the
>> content as a whole. Video descriptions may include descriptions of
>> movements or actions which are not discernible or identifiable from
>> the audio track alone, facial expressions if important to an
>> understanding of the content, background visuals, sets, or text that
>> appears on screen such as a mailing address or web reference. Video
>> descriptions must not override the original audio content, and in
>> some
>> cases content timing may be lengthened for the audio-description
>> to be
>> inserted.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
>> DHS Office on Accessible systems & Technology
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> ] On Behalf Of Larry Goldberg
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:59 AM
>> To: TEITAC AV list; Geoffrey Freed; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-
>> Video Description-Action Needed
>>
>> The Telecommunications Act and the Federal Communications Commission
>> both use the term "video description" which is the most commonly used
>> term to refer to description of video materials; "audio description"
>> has been more commonly associated with live theatrical description. I
>> would suggest we continue to use the term used since 1990 and adopted
>> by the Federal
>> government: "video description."
>>
>> - Larry
>>
>>
>> Gerald Freda wrote:
>>
>>> To be consistent and not confuse the definition label I support and
>>> recommend the adoption of "audio description" as indicated within
>>> 1194.24 of the technical standard as the definition label.
>>>
>>> I also agree with Goeff that since the 1194.24 technical
>>> standard is
>>> not only referencing video and including multimedia products
>>> that the
>>> selected language should not limiting nor restrictive in nature.
>>>
>>> I would recommend a few changes to the definition submitted by
>>> Goeff
>>> as indicated below (replace VIDEO with AUDIO as the recommended
>>> language, and replace cannot with may not).
>>>
>>> AUDIO DESCRIPTION: Audio 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 may not be conveyed by the main audio track alone.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>