RE: The term "auditory description"

At 09:05 PM 7/5/2001 -0400, geoff freed wrote:
>Hi, Kynn and everyone else:
>
>Well, I stick by my original post:  I prefer audio description to auditory
>description.  If you say "auditory description" to someone in the AD
>industry, you'll get a weird look and hear "You mean *audio* description,"
>in reply.  Ian proposed using both terms in the UAAG guidelines ("An
>auditory description (sometimes, "audio description")..."),

I agree, if it really is an industry standard, why then not use it and use 
it consistently. However, as we are making a transition from one term to 
another we have to be careful to link it to an explanation and have both in 
glossary. What Ian suggests above is a good start (but the other way). It 
not using two terms throughout the document but making a link between these 
two terms at the beginning and then using one. Now we could just make the 
audio description the main term and put auditory description in parenthesis.

>something I am
>not crazy about but can live with because the difference between the two is
>rather fine and I don't think it's worth having a _huge_ discussion over it.
>(Which is why I haven't kicked and screamed since Ian came up with that
>compromise.)  But since you've asked... given my druthers, I would rather
>see the WAI use audio description, for all the reasons I've stated before:
>it's an accepted term in the industry (reason enough right there) and has
>been in steady use for a number of years, and it's already part of Section
>508 and the SMIL 2.0 soon-to-be recommendation.  If we use this term
>consistently in all documents, the general public will, in fact, become
>familiar with it and thus come to know what it means.

I agree. When we there is not much difference and it is difficult for us to 
get others to change their terminology, why not change ourselves and be 
consistent. But it is also important to see that the other terms we use are 
different enough so that the whole set makes sense.

Marja


>Geoff Freed
>WGBH/NCAM
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn@reef.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:08 PM
>To: geoff_freed@wgbh.org
>Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
>Subject: The term "auditory description"
>
>
>Hi, Geoff --
>
>In March you wrote to the WAI UA working group about the use of the
>term "auditory
>description" instead of "audio description", as quoted here:
>
> >GF:
> >My only objection to this definition is the term itself.  "Audio
> >description" has become the industry's
> >  generic term for extra tracks of descriptive narration.  It is used
> >in Section 508; in SMIL 2.0, there's an
> >  element called systemAudioDesc, not systemAuditoryDesc, which is
> >used to toggle descriptions on or
> >  off, if present.   Thus, in the interest of conformity and clarity,
> >I think you're better off replacing
> >  "auditory description" with "audio description".
> >
> >Geoff Freed
>WGBH/NCAM
>
>The term has been questioned on the WCAG working group list
>as well, and I'd like to ask you for more information.  Specifically,
>I wrote the following recently as a way of describing how I would
>approach the discrepancy:
> >
> >
> >If there are two audiences here -- people with accessibility familiarity
> >and people without -- it's important to look at not only whether one
> >side would see it as "just wrong" but also -how- wrong that would be.
> >
> >For example, let's imagine a scenario which might or might not be
> >true:
> >
> >* People who are familiar with the term "audio description" understand
> >    instantly what that means.
> >
> >* People not already familiar with the term might have a problem --
> >    "is it a description of the audio? (i.e. a transcript) or is it
> >    verbal audio track describing the video?"  Is an "audio description"
> >    meant to benefit someone who can't hear, or someone who can't
> >    see?
> >
> >* An "auditory description" might be easier for those people who don't
> >    know "audio description" to understand, because it is somewhat less
> >    ambiguous.
> >
> >* In this scenario, the primary variable would be "how bad is it to
> >    use 'auditory description'?", for those users who know the term
> >    "audio description".
> >
> >* Which of the following reactions would someone who understand "audio
> >    description" have when encountering "auditory description":
> >
> >    1.  Mental equivalency of the two terms, even without thinking about
> >        it.
> >    2.  "Auditory description?  What the ****?  I have no idea what
> >        means. *shrug*"
> >    3.  "Oh, those silly W3C people, using 'auditory' when they mean
> >        'audio'. *giggle*"
> >    4.  "Huh, weird, they're calling it 'auditory', not 'audio' -- I
> >        guess they're catering to a dumber audience than me."
> >    5.  "Gosh, my pet peeve meter is tweaked whenever I see that. Ha,
> >        ha."
> >    6.  Unprintable outrage and unveiled scorn for the morons on the
> >        working group who printed such garbage.
> >    7.  Some other reaction.
> >
> >My guess is that reactions #1 or maybe #4 are the most common.  However,
> >if the use of "auditory" instead of "audio" would provoke reactions
> >which lead to outright rejection of the documents in question, then
> >clearly this needs to be given higher weight.
> >
> >Those are my thoughts and a sample hypothetical scenario.
>
>Can you share your own thoughts on this topic, Geoff?  I would like
>to hear what
>you have to say regarding this.
>
>(FWIW, to my ears -- unaccustomed to multimedia accessibility issues -- the
>term "auditory description" seems more explicit than "audio description",
>but I
>don't have your background and would like to benefit from your experience on
>this topic. Thanks.)
>
>--Kynn
>
>(This message is CCd to the W3C's WAI-XTech mailing list -- for more details
>see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech)
>
>--
>Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
>Technical Developer Liaison
>Reef North America
>Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
>Tel +1 949-567-7006
>________________________________________
>BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
>________________________________________
>http://www.reef.com

Received on Friday, 6 July 2001 08:19:13 UTC