[adp-list] Description Quality
fred olver
goodfolks at charter.net
Thu Jun 7 17:25:41 EDT 2012
Why not, but also for Descriptive video in theaters, I expect it would be
alot cheaper.
Fred Olver
----- Original Message -----
From: "margaret hardy" <katiemags at aol.com>
To: <adp-list at acb.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [adp-list] Description Quality
> for live theatre?
>
> margaret hardy
> katiemags at aol.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fred olver <goodfolks at charter.net>
> To: ACB Audio Description Project Discussion List <adp-list at acb.org>
> Sent: Thu, Jun 7, 2012 1:38 pm
> Subject: Re: [adp-list] Description Quality
>
>
> Someone ought to develop an app so Iphone users can receive audio
> description with their phones or Ipods/ipads.
>
> Fred Olver
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Diane DiSalvo
>
> To: adp-list at acb.org
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 2:32 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [adp-list] Description Quality
>
>
>
>
> Brilliantly stated, as usual, Rick. What you have outlined here is and
> has always been the goal of AudioVision, Inc. That is to say the
> providing of "quality description." As Margaret said, we were able to
> bring in blind patrons to review our process back in the "old days" and
> it was tremendously beneficial in creating the formula we continue to
> operate with today. I too believe that this is the most important issue
> concerning the continued improvement and ultimate success of audio
> description. If those of us working in this field cannot ensure the
> quality of what we produce, we are merely spinning our wheels and doing
> more of a disservice to those we profess to serve.
>
> Thank you so much for your "unique perspective."
> Diane DiSalvo
> Program Director
> AudioVision, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> From: rjboggs at socal.rr.com
> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:24:27 -0700
> To: adp-list at acb.org
> Subject: [adp-list] Description Quality
>
> Hello all,
> I'd like to share my somewhat unique perspective with you, in particular
> with those blind consumers on the list here. I say unique, because
> perhaps sadly, I happen to be the only totally blind professional
> producer of video description and the only producer of video description
> to hire blind professionals to review the description work we do at my
> company. So, I am certainly a consumer. I am also a professional audio
> engineer and voice over artist with a resume of more than 25 years in
> those fields of work.
>
> There are so many issues concerning description, and many more studies
> need to be conducted. Description consumers are so unaware of
> description in general, where to find it, how it is produced, what is
> and is not possible to achieve through description, how to access it when
> it is offered, how to know when and where it is offered, and on and on.
> People can point to the limited studies that have been attempted thus
> far. We know that the AFB study from the late 1990s suggested great
> disparity between blind consumers of description and their opinions
> about what they liked and what they wanted. In my own organization and
> experience producing description, we have continuously attempted to
> collect as much data as possible about consumer opinions related to
> description style and content. I have carefully analyzed all of the
> published "standards" for description as well. It seems there are some
> generally agreed upon principles. Everything else seems to be stylistic
> choices.
> I am concerned that the technology related to description production and
> delivery is already and will continue to be far ahead of the effort to
> learn answers to some critical questions that could best ensure that
> blind consumers of description are served effectively. The "quality" of
> description will forever be an arguable topic with various schools of
> thought advocating their own viewpoints. To imagine that there might
> ever be an agreed upon method by which we can measure the quality of
> description might be a very lofty idea and may be well out of reach in
> reality. However, the concern about the rising quantity of description
> becoming a priority that completely blots out any effort to ensure the
> quality of description offered is a very valid concern. Consumers
> generally have no idea about emerging technology that will soon make the
> production and delivery of description very easy for anyone to do. While
> this will surely increase exponentially the quantity of description
> available, it will also surely dramatically affect the style or quality
> of description available as well.
> The real question here is whether or not the current "leadership" or
> leading producers of description will make any attempt to address this
> issue, or will they simply be satisfied to get their share of the
> growing pie of description work in the marketplace? Anytime non-disabled
> individuals provide a "service" intended to benefit people with
> disabilities, there is a potential for a gap in integrity or
> accountability. Because the service being sold or purchased feels like a
> program to benefit the public, there is possibly a built-in assumption
> by consumers of the service and the onlooking public that those
> providing the service are serving the disabled population in the most
> effective way possible and that doing so is in fact the goal of those
> providing the service. That is a natural dynamic when non-disabled
> people design, operate, and deliver services for disabled populations.
>
> So, I assert that the best way to address the issue of the "quality" of
> description, whatever that might mean, is to ensure that blind
> professionals are reviewing description, are involved in producing
> description, and that, in general, those producing description in any form
> ought to make every effort to be directly accountable to the consumers
> they serve. While this may not result in any particular consistency in
> style or content of description, it will be the only measurable means to
> determine that every effort has been made to serve the consumer; that
> is, let the consumer determine how they are served.
>
> All sorts of arguments can be made by producers of description as to why
> this is not practical, but I run perhaps the smallest of the very active
> description companies who regularly deliver description to government
> agencies, nonprofit organizations, and even television, DVD, and movie
> cinemas, and I have been able to ensure that every program is reviewed
> by professionals who are also blind consumers.
> Since consumers know very little about the service, as I already pointed
> out, they are likely to accept any idea that sounds reasonable that
> might explain why a description producer does not include any blind
> professional review process. I would suggest that no other producer of
> description would likely understand how they might incorporate some form
> of review by blind professionals, since they have no experience doing
> it. As a business person, I definitely appreciate the perceived burden
> that such accountability might seem to be. Purely from a business
> standpoint, any added expense to the production process would be a cost
> that must be minimized in order to achieve maximum profitability.
> Indeed, if blind consumers allow cost and profit margin to be the
> primary or sole considerations for producers, then that will remain a
> legitimate approach to producing description. However, if the forces in
> the marketplace were to shift, and an emphasis on some measure of
> quality, such as review by a blind professional, were to become a major
> concern for buyers of description who might hear lots of feedback from
> consumers of description, that might be a "game changer" forgive the
> over-used pop phrase. If consumers were to apply enough pressure through
> public forums like social media, email petitions, and phone calls and
> letters to government agencies that fund description, networks that
> broadcast description, and theaters, museums, and other venues that
> offer description, asking, demanding, to know if blind professionals
> reviewed the description being offered, then, suddenly, it makes more
> sense for a producer to incorporate such accountability, even if it does
> put a small bend in the bottom line. Consumers most often think like
> consumers, but if blind consumers want to have any impact on the kind of
> description they get in the near future, they really will have to think
> more like business people.
>
> Do we who produce description need to learn much more about what our
> description consumers want? Yes, we do. However, if finding those
> answers takes longer than the roll out of new technology that will flood
> the market with description that may not even really serve consumers,
> then studies may become an irrelevant afterthought. Blind consumers are
> still in a position to have an impact before that horse leaves the barn.
> Waiting until they are completely unhappy with what passes for most
> description will be too late to do much about it.
>
> So, that is my somewhat unique perspective on what I consider to be the
> most important topic or issue concerning description today.
>
> I certainly cannot be accused of trying to be popular.
>
> Rick Boggs
>
> www.audioeyesllc.com
> _______________________________________________ adp-list mailing list
> adp-list at acb.org http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/adp-list
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> adp-list mailing list
> adp-list at acb.org
> http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/adp-list
>
>
> _______________________________________________adp-list mailing
> listadp-list at acb.orghttp://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/adp-list
> _______________________________________________
> adp-list mailing list
> adp-list at acb.org
> http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/adp-list
>
More information about the adp-list
mailing list