W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Agenda: HTML-A11Y Media Subteam on 25 August at 22:00Z

From: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:16:25 -0400
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C89D16C9.10116%geoff_freed@wgbh.org>

I ran this discussion by some NCAM and DVS colleagues, and most suggested that the confusion could be avoided if we maintained a single subject (video) and modified that as necessary.  With that in mind, consider this:

-- described video (the generic term for all video that contains descriptions of any kind)
-- video with audio descriptions (regular descriptions delivered via audio that fit into natural pauses)
-- video with extended audio descriptions (extended descriptions delivered via audio)
-- video with text-based descriptions (regular descriptions delivered via text)
-- video with extended text-based descriptions (extended descriptions delivered via text)

We could eliminate the last text-based option, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that all text-based descriptions are by nature extended- that would depend on the speed settings of the screen reader, wouldn't it?  My setting of 300 words per minute might not require pausing the video to accommodate a description, whereas your setting of 100 words per might might require a pause.

Geoff/NCAM


On 8/26/10 10:13 AM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Geoff,

in my understanding, audio descriptions have been called this in the past because they are descriptions of the video provided in audio format. That separates them clearly from text video descriptions which are descriptions of the video provided in text format. If we call "audio descriptions" with the term "video description", then we have lost the separation between them being provided as audio and them being provided as text. After all, all descriptions are for the video, so that part seems redundant, but is clearly kept in the general term "described video".

My understanding is that text video-descriptions are something new and haven't really been around yet, so in the past all "audio descriptions" have always been audio recordings for described video. If that is the case, that seems a further argument to keep that terminology as it is.

I agree that we are describing video, but it is equally important to understand and distinguish what we are describing it with. The term "video description" is like the term "described video" a general term for "descriptions" and incorporates both, audio and text, so we cannot really use that. Though being logical, I don't think "audio video description" is a viable alternative.

So, I would say for terminology the following makes sense:

"Described video" is the outcome of providing a "video description" for a video resource.
That video description can be provided as audio, in which case it is an "audio description",
or it can be provided as text, in which case it is a "text video description".
Audio descriptions can be used to extend the timeline which creates the special case of "extended audio descriptions".
Note that text video descriptions are by nature extended.
If we introduce use of enhanced capabilities for text video descriptions as with captions, we can even further sub-classify "enhanced text video descriptions", which I think would be a good thing.

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote:

Hi, Silvia:

I agree that "described video" is a good generic term, and it has also been in use for a long time.  I don't have a problem with its use in the requirements doc.  However, drawing a distinction between what I'll call regular video descriptions (those that are delivered without pausing the video and program audio) and extended descriptions by introducing "audio" or "auditive" will, I think, confuse more than clarify.  You're describing video; you're not describing audio.  Let's choose *one* word and be consistent:  video.  That gives us descriptive video, video descriptions, extended video descriptions and text video descriptions.

I'll make the other edits in the requirements doc today.

Geoff



On 8/25/10 11:12 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com <http://silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi Geoff,

Here is my thinking:

I have used "Described Video" as the over-arching term for any type of time-aligned description whether that is audio or text. The extended audio-description section is particularly focused only on the audio side of "Described Video" only. Anything related to text is already covered in the new "Texted Video-Description" section.

 Introducing the term "Described Video" is actually really nice and helps us use the word "description" for both audio and text. Then the text-only one is "texted video-description" and the audio-only one is "audio-description", which is the much more traditional use of that latter term. Otherwise it would need to become "auditive video-description" and the extended section would become "extended auditive video-description". I can do that if you prefer, but I don't think it makes sense.


More comments inline.


On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org <http://geoff_freed@wgbh.org> > wrote:

A few comments below; not too late, I hope.
geoff/ncam

________________________________________
From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org <http://public-html-a11y-request@w3.org>  [public-html-a11y-request@w3.org <http://public-html-a11y-request@w3.org> ] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer [silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com <http://silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 8:00 PM
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: Re: Agenda: HTML-A11Y Media Subteam on 25 August at 22:00Z

Actually, I also had to apply the new terminology to the other Described Video sections:

The "texted audio description" section is now called "texted video descrition":
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_User_Requirements#Texted_Video-Description

And I use the term "audio-description" now exclusively only when it refers to actual audio tracks:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_User_Requirements#Extended_audio-description

======
GF:
While I think it's agreeable to re-label audio descriptions as video descriptions to conform the term with other usages (the US federal government comes to mind), I think it will be confusing to now use "audio descriptions" to label what are really extended *video* descriptions (and formerly called extended audio descriptions).  Re-labeling them "extended video descriptions" would be less confusing and would be a consistent usage of the term.

Also, now that we're relabeling audio descriptions as video descriptions, it would seem appropriate to no longer label the requirements "AD-1, AD-2," etc., but rather "VD-1, VD-2," etc.  (No comment on the smirks this may cause...).  Ditto for extended video descriptions (EVD).


Yeah, I had done that already.


Finally, a few editorial points that I noticed while scanning this section:
-- "Video descriptions" should be hyphenated only when it's used as an adjective.  Therefore, it's "Video descriptions are one type of...", but it's "A video-description file is one type of...".

Ah ok - I wanted to be consistent. Could you please make those edits, since I will certainly make the wrong call on some of the usage.


-- "Description(s)" and "extended description(s)" aren't proper nouns and should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence.

They were used there as terms as given in the title of the section. But feel free to remove this, too.


-- In the context of this document, "text video descriptions" doesn't need to be hyphenated.

Finally, is "texted (video) descriptions" the final term settled on by the group?  "Texted" sounds as if the descriptions are being sent from a smartphone, which sounds weird, plus "texted" just makes for an awkward phrase.  "Text video descriptions" would be clearer, I think, and less awkward-- the descriptions are just text, after all.

We can use "text-based" or "textual" or just "text" - I don't mind. I find they all sound awkward.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 11:20:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:13 UTC