“While the process actually was refined in live theater, it was the network broadcast of ‘The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman’ that was the origin of formalized audio description. Audio description allows blind and visually impaired people to access a program's visual content. The consumer accesses described shows by activating the ‘second audio program,’ or SAP, on the television. The descriptions are timed to occur in between the dialog.

“A sighted person—the ‘writer’—watches the program and tracks any critical visual cues that are not apparent in the dialog. Imagine you have never seen the characters in a show before and you were listening to it with your eyes closed. What important information are you missing?

“The writer creates a script that identifies the critical visual elements, including timing information. For example, suppose someone says ‘Nice shirt!’ to a character. The describer may want to inform the blind audience that the character is wearing a sky-blue shirt studded with rhinestone buttons.”

CaptionMax has supplied audio/video description for a variety of shows, many of which are produced by PBS as public broadcast stations are among the few that regularly include audio/video description to their shows. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires government agencies to describe their videos and multimedia product for blind and low vision people. Shows such as “For Your Home (PBS), “The Piano Guy (PBS),” “Hands On—Crafts for Kids (PBS)” were all audio described by CaptionMax. CaptionMax has also worked with cable stations MTV and Nickelodeon on shows such as “Free Roscoe (MTV),” and “Lazy Town (Nickelodeon)."

Wyant says that one of the problems script writers face is when there isn’t enough space to insert descriptions between dialog. “In a visually rich show, or one that has constant dialog,” Wyant explains, “the challenge is to include sufficient appropriate description without overlapping the dialog. Sometimes, however, the writer may choose to talk over a program's audio to get across visual aspects that may be thought more important than what's being said (or not) in the audio at that point.”

For a service that opens up a whole new world of information and entertainment for the blind and visually impaired community, the regulation of audio/video description has raised many questions in the past few years and continues to be an issue that is devisive in a way that closed captioning never has been.

When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated that as of April 2002 a certain amount of programming must contain video description, organizations such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and, somewhat surprisingly, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) were up in arms. A federal case went before the District of Columbia US Court of Appeals in September, 2002. By November, 2002, a decision had been reached and the rules for audio/video description were, as described in a statement by the FCC “struck down.”

The MPAA’s argument focused on the FCC’s authority as an agency to enact audio/video rules as well as mandate video description. The FCC took what they believed was this authority to both enact rules and mandate description from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which specifically addressed both closed captioning and audio/video description. According the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, however, the act did not give Congress’ consent for the FCC to enact video rules. Instead, the act only discussed a preliminary enquiry that should be carried out by the FCC to further research the need and specificity of proposed rules.

The NFB’s argument focused on what they saw as the failure of the FCC to “assess whether visually impaired persons actually want or need video description as opposed to rules requiring spoken articulation of on-screen text.” The court deemed this argument moot in light of their final ruling that the FCC would no longer be able to mandate or enact audio/video description rules.

When we asked Wyant about the kinds of reactions CaptionMax has received from the blind community, he talked about a majority of people who are extremely enthusiastic and a smaller group who are concerned about the relevance of audio/video description.

“We have four blind members on our Advisory Board. In addition, we regularly communicate with members of the blind community in Minnesota (where we are headquartered) and the greater US. We monitor several listservs that count blind people among their participants. For these consumers, there is simply not enough description today. We can count the number of described network television shows on one hand. Description is nowhere near where captioning is at this point.

"There is a small but vocal group of blind people who do not wish to use audio description. They assert that advocacy efforts are better served on other issues. Our belief is that the blind should not have to advocate for audio description—it is an accessibility issue just like sidewalk wheelchair ramps—and it should be universally available as a matter of course. Then they can choose whether to turn it on.”

There are many organizations, including the American Council of the Blind (ACB), who are fighting to ratify what is now being called the Audio and Video Description Restoration Act. In February, U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, addressed the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet regarding the bill to reintroduce video/audio description. The ACB continues to fight for this bill and has urged people to write to their local representatives to garner further co-sponsorship.

A more nuanced piece of the audio/video description debate surfaces in the argument raised by Circuit Judge Edwards who stated that “there is no doubt that video description rules regulate programming content. Video description is not a regulation of television transmission that only incidentally and minimally affects program content; it is a direct and significant regulation of program content. The rules require programmers to create a second script.”

We spoke to Jay Wyant of CaptionMax regarding the subjectivity/artistic nature of audio/video description and whether he thought it directly affected the program content.

“We have never encountered any content issues from customers or potential customers. While we are adding to the producer's original content with our description, this content is available only on request from the customer on a separate channel—the SAP channel. The modified experience is akin to having captions cover up part of the display on the screen. Just as we take care to place the captions so they minimally impact the screen's image, so we work carefully with the narration so as to fit within the preexisting dialog.

"If a producer were to make a show with audio description in mind, the content might be affected in two different ways: first, the script could be more descriptive: ‘Nice blue shirt—love those rhinestone buttons!’ Second, when there is a lot of visual imagery or background (such a set with a lot of critical detail or a tableau of people or animals moving about in a certain way), provide enough time for the describer to insert a good description in between the dialog.

"Good audio description is unobtrusive. The viewer forgets it's even there. It feels like a natural stream of thought—almost subliminal. Description is almost always purely objective—it typically conveys only the visuals without interpreting those visuals. As Joe Friday said: ‘Just the facts, ma'am.’”

To get a more specific sense of audio/video description, CaptionMax has provided the following excerpt from New Mexico State University's "Southwest Yard & Garden.”

Segment One
HOST: Tom, I really like these red daylilies here. Daylilies are one of my favorite plants, and these are spectacular.
DESCRIBER: Waist-high trumpet-shaped blossoms. Words read Daylily, or Hemerocallis.
HOST: And they look good with these delphiniums right there.
DESCRIBER: Tall spikes of dense white blossoms. A vine with purple flowers grows up the side of the house.
HOST: It's spectacular. Tom, I really like this purple clematis here.
DESCRIBER: They walk on a winding path, passing a raised bed bordered with cobblestones.
GUEST: Curtis, these are those daylilies I was talking about.
HOST: These are beautiful. Dark, velvety reds. And some purples there.
Segment Two
DESCRIBER: In a wildflower garden, a shiny blue ball is tucked into lush green foliage. A pinkish-purple blossom sways on a tall stem. A glass sun ornament decorates another bed.
HOST: We're at the garden of Mary Rabe in Flagstaff, Arizona. As you can see, this is a beautiful garden. But it wasn't always that way.
DESCRIBER: Curtis joins a woman who wears a straw hat.
HOST: Mary, thank you for inviting us to your beautiful garden.
GUEST: Oh, you're welcome. Thanks for being here.


In this issue: