Re: "Auditory" descriptions

Please note the exchange below that occurred on the GL list.

What the UAAG consistently refers to as "auditory description" is closely
related or identical to what has in the past been called "audio
description" or
"video description" at different times and places.

a) we should capture into the glossary the fact that both of the above
Terms of
Art have some currency at large and b) we should have a good reason if we want
to try to establish a new Term of Art for what is essentially the same thing.

[symbolically taking chair hat off]

In terms of Joe's original post, in my limited knowledge he describes the
pre-existing Term of Art correctly.  "Video Description" is fairly widely
recognized but there are problems with treating it as a generic term.  "Audio
Description" is preferred in the trade as a generic term for this practice, so
far as I know.

On the other hand, Joe's claim that "audio description" is the language of
Everyman does not really stand up.  "Audio description" is the term most
widely
accepted among those who know about the topic.  But most people don't know
about the concept.  In plain English for those who are unfamiliar with the
concept, "audio description" is uncomfortably ambiguous.  The concept, roughly
speaking, is "description -- in audio -- of the video."  Just saying either
"audio description" [meaning description in audio] or "video description"
[meaning description of the video] on first reading is ambiguous in plain
English.  English grammar is loose enough so that either reading [in or of] is
plausible and lots of readers won't understand the term just from reading it. 
[Point to Charles.]

My best attempt so far to make a plain English rendering of the concept in two
words is "audible descriptions."  Here 'audible' literally means you can hear
it, and the inference that it is there for you to listen to is not that
much of
a stretch, Semantic Pragmatics aside.

I believe the motivation for using "auditory description," at least in the
User
Agent guidelines, is to fairly specifically move the plane of reference for
the
term to the immediate human interface with their environment.  This is trying
to make a clear separation from audio datatypes as describing the format in
which the User Agent receives content.  The intended sense of 'auditory' here
is "targeted to the sense of hearing as presented in the physical environment
of the human user."  There is some sense that "audio" will carry a data-format
connotation to readers of the User Agent guidelines, and in the context of
those guidelines it is of some value to put an arm's-length of distance
between
that kneejerk reading and the "targeted to the sense of..." concept.

On balance, however, it is not clear why we should try to overturn the current
use of "audio description," particularly when, as in 

<<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/printable.html#def-alternative-equiv1>h
ttp://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/printable.html#def-alternative-equiv1>

it is used in the sense of _reference to existing practice_ to try to
exemplify
a general concept.  "Audio description" will be recognized by most people with
some accessibility familiarity, and as Joe makes clear anything else will be
considered "just wrong" by many of them.

Al

[Charles]

Joe,

english is not a formalised language like french, spanish or icelandic. And
short of a brand name (as far as I know there isn't one, and if there was
then W3C would probably be obliged not to use it in order to comply with
various legal conditions), what is required is a term that describes what is
done. "Auditory description" is one such attempt, probably better than some
and worse than others.

As it happens, I think that working on the substance of the guidelines is a
higher priority than picking a particular terminology for ideas (once it is
clear in the working group that we are all talking about the same idea).
However, we recognise that before the document is finalised, terminology is
important. So there has been for some time an activity within WAI to produce
a single glossary that all our specifications will use, and the mailing list
for comments on the topic has been advertised several times.

That is the wai-xtech@w3.org mailing list, to which I would request you
direct future discussion of teminology.

cheers

Charles McCathieNevile

On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Joe Clark wrote:

  I see that Geoff Freed of WGBH, who works down the hall from people
  who do audio description every single day, has pointed out what I
  have pointed out before: The term for audio description is audio
  description, not auditory description.

  I don't know why you GLers seem to love "auditory" description so
  much. I assume because of the extra syllable. I guess four syllables
  are better than one to technical people, along the lines of putting
  words "real people" use in "quotation marks" so there's enough
  "distance" from the language "real people" use.

  As it is, we have enormous trouble getting people to use the single,
  comprehensible generic term "audio description"; I have heard
  everything from "video description" (now unfortunately official due
  to FCC activity) to "descriptive captioning" to "audio captioning" to
  a range of malapropisms in French.

  I wish GLers would simply say uncle and admit that the use of
  "auditory" description has always been wrong. It's been pointed out
  over and over again. Y'all are willing to rewrite substantive
  sections of the Guidelines to make them more understandable and
  correct, yet there is an unwillingness to correct this basic
  terminology error. This is the wrong point to be all proud about.

  Also, while I'm at it, captions are not all closed; the Guidelines'
  definition of "captioning (sometimes, 'closed captioning')," while
  also not needing a comma, improperly implies that captions and closed
  captions are one and the same. Tell that to the open-captioners.

  Yours in pedantry,


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile   
<http://www.w3.org/People/Charles>http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61
409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    
<http://www.w3.org/WAI>http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
France)

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 09:28:31 UTC