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: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:03:18 -0400
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C89BC236.1001E%geoff_freed@wgbh.org>

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.


On 8/25/10 11:12 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <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> wrote:

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

From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer [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":

And I use the term "audio-description" now exclusively only when it refers to actual audio tracks:

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.

Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 11:09:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:42 UTC