Talk:ACB/ADP Audio Description Standards

From My mediawiki

This is where pre- or post-edit discussion can occur. Remember to sign your comments by using four tildes (~~~~) so that everyone knows to whom to attribute a comment. You can also post comments to discussions on this page. For more information, read the official MediaWiki help resource about "Talk" pages.

ThomLohman 12:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

JP Udo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, here's my take on this:
Considering that audio description is a relatively new field of study for practitioners and researchers, I believe that the creation of standards that advocate a single narrowly defined version of audio description may seriously thwart the development of alternative strategies or, even, the empirical assessment of older ones. As you may not be aware, there is very little publically available research that demonstrates that the ideas and theories upon which traditional audio description is based are, in fact, leading us in the right direction. However, the problem is not that we have yet to question this direction, but that there doesn't seem to be much concern within the description community to do so. Who knows, it might turn out that we are heading in the right direction or that maybe a minor course correction will be required. We won’t know until we examine the issue more closely and empirically collect data from audio description users.
Audio description standards should also consider that alternative practices and processes exist and find ways to ensure that alternative audio description strategies are not hindered. I believe that it is problematic for us to give people the idea that there is only one way to describe onstage or onscreen action. For example, the working standards state that describer should always describe events in the third person, though the reasoning behind such a decision is not offered. Worse, there is no mention or encouragement of alternative approaches. Hence, the reader is left to assume that conventional and alternative practices and processes have been empirically tested and that only the conventional approach proved useful to audio description users and researchers.
Within these standards, audio description is defined as an adaptive strategy that occurs outside of the content creator’s purview. As you may be aware, there are several media producers and theatre groups that are actively experimenting with audio description that is overseen, if not created entirely by, the members of the creative team. These practices have been documented within academic literature as well as on the web, yet are not mentioned within the working standard. It is my hope that the standards can be revised to ensure that media and live event producers and their creative teams are able to try out new ideas without feeling like outsiders who are going against the “tried and tested” way of doing things.
Standards tend to be a tool through which to ensure uniformity in terms of practice. However, I find that in doing so they often serve to restrict creativity and innovation. Therefore, audio description standards, such as these, should ensure that there is room for growth in many different directions.

Sincerely,
JP Udo SRC Associate, Centre for Learning Technologies, Ryerson University