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

Hi Geoff,

That's great, it seems we are converging.

I am not actually fussed about distinguishing text-based descriptions vs
extended text-based descriptions. I don't think it's a necessary distinction
since the technology for both will be the same in my opinion. We turn one
into the other by changing the speed of the screenreader which to me seems
we have to have the exact same information in the file and the exact same
technology in the browser to deal with them. If we think we need to make
that distinction, I'd be happy to, but I don't think we need it.

Have you considered the one additional use case that I actually introduced
into this discussion in my last email? I wondered if we need to also
consider "enhanced text-based descriptions"? This would be text-based
descriptions that contain enhanced material - such as links to related
material, and  ... hmmm... I can't come up with much else actually. But the
introduction of hyperlinks in text-based video descriptions could turn them
into enhanced descriptions if we re-use the logic used for captions and
enhanced captions. Do you think there is sense in such a use case? In fact,
that question should also go to Janina and others - is that possibly a use
case we haven't considered yet and should add to the requirements document?

Cheers,
Silvia.



On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>