Re: The term "auditory description"

speaking from the "i don't care what the hell you call it, just make sure
it's there and that i can access it" camp, i vote to stick with "audio
description" not because it is the current "buzzword", but for the reasons
geoff cited in the post to the UA list -- it is a term that has made its
way into a W3C technical recommendation...  moreover, as joe clark pointed
out on the GL mailing list, since many, if not most, authors will first
encounter the concept of "audio captioning" (oops, now _my_ freudian slip
is showing) via an authoring tool menu item or a book or class on
multimedia authoring using SMIL, we should, at least, acknowledge that
when they do, it is most likely to be referred to either by name
"systemAudioDesc" or an extrapolation of that name, "Audio Desc" or "Audio


PS: on a personal note, i think that the first time i ever heard audio
description slash audio captioning slash descriptive video referred to as
"auditory description" was in WAI guidelines documents -- the closest i
had come to encountering the term in the wild was in references to
"auditory captioning" in academic materials...  to my ears, "auditory
description" sounds pretentious and clinical, but i'm sure that a good
many of you would use the same adjectives to describe my posts, so take my
2 cents (american) with as many grains of salt as you deem appropriate... 

LANGUAGE, n.  The music with which we charm the serpents guarding
another's treasure.  Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
Gregory J. Rosmaita,
         Camera Obscura:

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 17:52:28 UTC