In a previous post we wrote about the technology used to allow people with visual and hearing disabilities to enjoy cinematic presentations in a movie theater. It described how for the deaf and hard of hearing technology can either amplify sound or provide digital characters that represent spoken words, sound descriptions, and subtitles in many different languages. We continued with how for those who are blind or low vision, the provision of accessibility can be even more involved starting with the interpretation of what can be seen and translating that interpretation into a script that describes as much as possible. Next, the script must be narrated into a recording and then edited to fit timing and then skillfully mixed with the production to match available silences if possible.
For simplicity and standardization, like closed captioning, audio description content must be included in the final media package that will be presented for distribution to the public audience. While the workflow and distribution chain seem to be consistent with maintaining the presence of closed captioning for the end user, that same production and distribution process seems to have serious inconsistencies with keeping the audio description track available for the same audience. No organization or regulation is in place to ensure that public media content remains accessible to all.
In that previous blog post referring to accessibility in theaters, we posed the question is it possible that content managers allow these missteps to happen more often because they consider secondary audio program (SAP) content like audio description to be a minor amenity for people with disabilities? We suggested that from a financial perspective, it should be that every streaming subscription or sale resulting from embedded advertisement counts. From a social perspective, it should be that every person counts.
Practically, from a business perspective the media industry should consider that it has been noted that many people in the television audience, able-bodied or not, have enjoyed the benefits of audio description and closed captioning. Many people have perceived a more informed experience when they have access to this extended content. Shouldn't everyone, no matter their physical abilities, enjoy a more informed experience when consuming digital media?
Even with social and ethical ideals noted, it is still curious why the producers of programming intended for the consuming public pay significant costs to include accessibility content like closed captioning and audio description, only to allow their own distributors to block or omit the SAP channel. This sounds absurd but is true. Read about an end user's experience with local network television broadcasters and a popular streaming service that seemed to stop serving audio description on their primetime content!