Here's a philosophic question for you:
If audio is described, but no one aurally alerts the audience so that audio description can be engaged, can that audio truly be said to be described?
That's the crux of the problem, as things stand today with the state of DVS. How is a blind "viewer" such as myself to know that a program is audio described?
For as long as there has been DVS. there has been an equal need for an "intel inside" type of sound -- an un-mistakable, extremely brief aural notification (a.k.a. an "earcon") which would serve to advise the blind user that there is audio description available in the same wise that the near ubiquitous and extremely well-recognized closed-captioning icon (a clever adaptation of the dialog bubble utilized in cartooning, with the bubble in the shape of a television set, in which the letters "CC" (an abbreviation, obviously, for "Closed Captioned") appear
i personally have been trying to get advocates for widespread and easily available audio description to agree on this point for as long as i've been aware of DVS, for, currently, the only means whereby a program, as it is being broadcast, communicates to a viewer that it is audio described is purely visual -- via an icon, which (unlike the closed captioning icon, i have never personally seen) has been described to me as an uppercase D from the convexness of which, sound slash echo waves emenate in a reflection of the curved side of the D, creating the illusion of an ear.
The notification sound wouldn't have to be spoken in any natural language, but should be provide an aural warning not only at the commencement of a program or presentation, but whenever the program or presentation is resumed, such as following a commercial or a public TV pledge drive.
Why is this such an urgent issue? DVS is not a novelty, but as necessary to a blind individual's appreciation of audio-visual content as closed captioning is to that of a deaf individual. Unfortunately for blind individuals, such as myself, there are only a pitiful handful of audio-described programs available on television, in contrast to the near-ubiquity of closed captioning. Additionally, once a prime-time program which has been described enters syndication, users of secondary audio programming (SAP) are far more likely to have the program they wish audio described delivered to them in Spanish -- without audio descriptions -- rather than accompanied by DVS. (A welcome exception is TNT's rebroadcasts of "Law & Order", a surprise because the broadcast edition of that program does not, itself, feature DVS.) Likewise, when such programs are made available on DVD, while closed captioning is routinely included in the "mainstream" release of a movie, program, or special, only a small number of DVDs are released with DVS, and those cannot be ordered directly from a video or electronics store or web site, but need to be ordered directly from the main provider of DVS in the U.S., WGBH in Boston.
Whilst i condone, approve, and encourage WGBH's attempts to bring DVS to the masses, movie and television producers have consistently blocked any legislative or regulatory attempts to elevate DVS to the status of closed captioning since the introduction of DVS for film and video by WGBH in 1990. As a blind "viewer", i appreciate every instance of audio description i encounter, but i can also count on my hands (and, in a good month, feet) the number of broadcast programs that are consistently audio described. Moreover, when a program is audio described, rather than utilizing a brief "earcon" -- analogous to the "Intel inside" sound -- a visual icon is used to indicate that audio description is available. Obviously, a visual icon is incapable of communicating to me and other blind users that the current program is available with DVS. (Such an unobtrusive, yet unmistakable, earcon -- lasting no more than 2 or 3 seconds -- should also sound when an audio described program returns from a commercial break, so that viewers who joined the broadcast late are notified that DVS is available.)
So, why do i and other blind television "viewers" not simply leave SAP (Secondary Audio Programming) on all the time? Because SAP is delivered separately from the broadcast audio-video stream, most stations which do not have an active SAP feed will "appear" mute (which makes it difficult to determine which channel you are watching) when the viewer attempts to "channel surf" or will simply deliver alternative audio in Spanish. While i can understand the demographic and economic reasons for the dominance of Spanish SAP, i cannot understand why -- despite hostility from the federal courts towards DVS -- the FCC and Congress have consistently failed to provide the regulatory and legislative basis for a dedicated DVS stream and to better integrate DVS into "mainstream" broadcasting. Federal courts have consistently found that audio description, unlike closed captioning, is editorial content, and -- as such -- violates a program's producers' copyright, as any attempt to mandate DVS has been held to violate a producer/author's First Ammendment right to free, unfettered, and unregulated speech. Obviously, there is an equal -- if not superior -- First Ammendment claim for DVS, indistinguishable from that which provides the legal/regulatory basis for closed captioning.
Created March 3, 2005
Last updated April 11, 2006