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: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:07:20 -0400
To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C89E6628.101F5%geoff_freed@wgbh.org>

hi, judy:

i made the ¡°described video¡± changes to the requirements doc.  with that term as a root, however, when referring to for specific types of description that means you wind up with ¡°described video with text descriptions, ¡°described video with extended audio descriptions,¡± etc.  before i make *those* changes i just want to be sure that¡¯s what you want, as opposed to ¡°video with text descriptions,¡± ¡°video with extended audio descriptions,¡± etc.  i think the the former is redundant and that you can get by with the latter and still make it clear that the video has descriptions.


On 8/27/10 9:55 AM, "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org> wrote:

Hi Geoff,

Thanks very much for your additional editorial pass.

With regard to the options you describe below:

>-- 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)

...this was discussed at Wednesday's Media
Subteam meeting, and after some quick back and
forth, Janina proposed and the group accepted use
of "described video." This is in the minutes. The
intent was to change all references in the
document, where appropriate, to this more
comprehensive term (e.g. unless explicitly
referring to one of the more specific
circumstances). People took on different editing
tasks and perhaps some of this was missed, but
that was my understanding of how we would
proceed. I can't tell from below whether I have
the whole thread, and am heading back into a
meeting -- can you recap please whether that
usage works for you? If so, I think it would be
better to go ahead with those edits today.


- Judy

At 08:33 AM 8/27/2010 -0400, Geoff Freed wrote:

>I can see sense in an enhanced text-based
>description, yes.  One type of related material
>could be multi-level descriptions (simple,
>advanced, etc.), which would be especially
>useful in academic settings.  I wouldn¡¯t rule it
>out at this stage, so it could be added to the list.
>On 8/27/10 7:32 AM, "Silvia Pfeiffer"
><<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.htm>silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>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?
>On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Geoff Freed
><<geoff_freed@wgbh.htm>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.
>On 8/26/10 10:13 AM, "Silvia Pfeiffer"
><http://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.
>On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Geoff Freed
><http://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.
>On 8/25/10 11:12 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer"
><<http://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
><<http://geoff_freed@wgbh.org>http://geoff_freed@wgbh.org> > wrote:
>A few comments below; not too late, I hope.
>] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
><<http://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":

>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 Saturday, 28 August 2010 11:13:29 UTC

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