Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
18
↓
Can Inaccurate Audio Description Be Good? (self.Blind)
submitted by WadjetAD
Hi, my name’s John. I create audio description for Netflix, Disney Plus, HBO Max and other streaming services. By interacting with you I hope to foster a unified voice within the visually impaired community, giving you the power to affect change in the way audio description is made and get the content you want described.
When I ask VI people questions about audio description they are often eager to list titles with audio description they like, along with whatever else they want to say. I like this because it allows me to study description that has been deemed ‘good’ by the people it’s been made for. Through doing this I can learn new practices and incorporate them into my own writing.
Here’s the weird part. A lot of the description recommended to me by the VI community would not get past my company’s Quality Control. It is often riddled with errors -- errors of a kind only sighted people might notice.
In one show, a character’s introduction showed them smoking a joint. However, the description said they were smoking a cigarette. For someone who is completely blind, this error was impossible to notice. It doesn’t greatly affect the plot in any way, but to me it’s still a large oversight. When we first meet a character in a story, every small detail about them matters. There can be quite a large difference between the type of person who would smoke a cigarette versus someone who smokes weed.
Another type of error I noticed was also an inaccuracy, but this one seemed more confusing. The description mischaracterized a draw string hanging from a woman’s nighty as a rope hanging from her arm. I imagine that a completely blind person would assume the rope was important because it was included in description and they might be confused when it never comes back. It has the potential to be incredibly distracting.
This seems a great disservice to the people who trust us to get things right. The VI community has faith that description is correct and by including inaccuracies we essentially ‘trick’ people who trust us. That said, people *liked* the description from the show with these and many more errors.
QUESTIONS:
At its most basic level, audio description is about giving VI people equal access to society. Is access to visual media about being entertained or is it about knowing exactly what happens? What is more important, entertainment or truth? Ideally we should have both.
I notice errors all the time when I watch with description, but I want to ask for the VI perspective here. What is the state of accuracy in audio description? Do you notice errors frequently? Are there any types of errors that are familiar and pop up with consistency? If you feel comfortable, please include your level of blindness with your answer. Perhaps we can find a pattern in errors that affect different segments of the community and have a better chance at solving them.
Thank you for participating in this discussion. I will post a follow-up essay incorporating some of your answers on my blog:
$1
When I ask VI people questions about audio description they are often eager to list titles with audio description they like, along with whatever else they want to say. I like this because it allows me to study description that has been deemed ‘good’ by the people it’s been made for. Through doing this I can learn new practices and incorporate them into my own writing.
Here’s the weird part. A lot of the description recommended to me by the VI community would not get past my company’s Quality Control. It is often riddled with errors -- errors of a kind only sighted people might notice.
In one show, a character’s introduction showed them smoking a joint. However, the description said they were smoking a cigarette. For someone who is completely blind, this error was impossible to notice. It doesn’t greatly affect the plot in any way, but to me it’s still a large oversight. When we first meet a character in a story, every small detail about them matters. There can be quite a large difference between the type of person who would smoke a cigarette versus someone who smokes weed.
Another type of error I noticed was also an inaccuracy, but this one seemed more confusing. The description mischaracterized a draw string hanging from a woman’s nighty as a rope hanging from her arm. I imagine that a completely blind person would assume the rope was important because it was included in description and they might be confused when it never comes back. It has the potential to be incredibly distracting.
This seems a great disservice to the people who trust us to get things right. The VI community has faith that description is correct and by including inaccuracies we essentially ‘trick’ people who trust us. That said, people *liked* the description from the show with these and many more errors.
QUESTIONS:
At its most basic level, audio description is about giving VI people equal access to society. Is access to visual media about being entertained or is it about knowing exactly what happens? What is more important, entertainment or truth? Ideally we should have both.
I notice errors all the time when I watch with description, but I want to ask for the VI perspective here. What is the state of accuracy in audio description? Do you notice errors frequently? Are there any types of errors that are familiar and pop up with consistency? If you feel comfortable, please include your level of blindness with your answer. Perhaps we can find a pattern in errors that affect different segments of the community and have a better chance at solving them.
Thank you for participating in this discussion. I will post a follow-up essay incorporating some of your answers on my blog:
$1
MostlyBlindGamer 7 points 1y ago
I think I know what happened in the joint/cigarette situation. Do you ever watch shows with closed captions on? It's not unusual to find swear words toned down. It also happens a lot in translation and subtitles.
It's an absurd practice, of course.
Otherwise, I can't think of any factual errors I would accept, in return for more entertainment value. I'd rather have expressive descriptions rather than dry ones. I could understand the use of imperfect synonyms or simplifications to save time.
I'm VI and use AD for darker or more hectic shows.
It's an absurd practice, of course.
Otherwise, I can't think of any factual errors I would accept, in return for more entertainment value. I'd rather have expressive descriptions rather than dry ones. I could understand the use of imperfect synonyms or simplifications to save time.
I'm VI and use AD for darker or more hectic shows.
WadjetAD [OP] 3 points 1y ago
That could very well be the case. I used to create captions for a company that would have us remove racial slurs. Whenever I'm calling the shots I choose to present the material as it is.
Thank you for your answers to my questions. You presented your perspective with a lot of nuance and I appreciate that.
Thank you for your answers to my questions. You presented your perspective with a lot of nuance and I appreciate that.
MostlyBlindGamer 3 points 1y ago
No problem, thanks for asking!
Some people consider this a touchy subject. Different cultures have place certain words in different registers, which brings up the distinction between translation and localization - what was said and what would have been said, in the target language and culture.
When it comes to captions and description, I didn't unequivocally on the side of plain transcription.
Some people consider this a touchy subject. Different cultures have place certain words in different registers, which brings up the distinction between translation and localization - what was said and what would have been said, in the target language and culture.
When it comes to captions and description, I didn't unequivocally on the side of plain transcription.
cultfamous 5 points 1y ago
Thanks for reaching out. AD has made my experience of television more enjoyable. But as I experience it more, it’s clear not all AD is created equal. Obviously, basic accuracy needs to be there. I’ve noticed some appalling errors, eg leaving out a character’s physical reaction to a situation that gives insight into their motives or failing to mention someone has left/entered a room at a crucial time. That aspect of AD does require rules and attention to detail to meet its basic purpose. But AD is very much an art form that can be judged subjectively and VI/blind people have their own opinions about that just like anyone else. BTW I’m VI who can see ok if I focus
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 1y ago
Thanks for your response. I am glad to hear AD is making your life better!
What streaming service do you watch on? Do you recall specific programs that contained the errors that upset you? I have an idea of what you're talking about but these type of issues occur in degrees. If I could listen to specific examples of the issues you're citing I could figure out where on the spectrum of under-describing it starts to bother you.
Thanks!
What streaming service do you watch on? Do you recall specific programs that contained the errors that upset you? I have an idea of what you're talking about but these type of issues occur in degrees. If I could listen to specific examples of the issues you're citing I could figure out where on the spectrum of under-describing it starts to bother you.
Thanks!
cultfamous 2 points 1y ago
Perhaps your company should commission a survey of VI people for this level of detail, or even hire some VI consultants
WadjetAD [OP] 2 points 1y ago
Good ideas, both. We have used VI consultants but their input has a different kind of value than regular folks since they are professionals. I have found I get the best information from personal conversations with people who use the service.
A comprehensive survey is something I'm developing, but haven't quite found the right venue/list of questions.
A comprehensive survey is something I'm developing, but haven't quite found the right venue/list of questions.
blind_cowboy 4 points 1y ago
Factual errors annoy the hell out of me. One that I can think of is in the movie Midway. The Arizona was referred to as a carrier. There were not any aircraft carriers in the harbor that morning. The Arizona was a battleship. It ruined the whole movie because I wondered what else was inaccurate.
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 1y ago
I'm sorry to hear that error ruined the movie. Thanks for this anecdote, it's incredibly useful! I wouldn't have imagined this scenario, but now I can feel your frustration.
retrolental_morose 3 points 1y ago
as someone with no sight at all, visual errors in description would almost always go unnoticed. I sometimes see characters named incorrectly by a describer, which is amusing or irritating by turns. on the hole, griping about the relatively few and far-between issues would just serve to stir up I think. I'd far rather spend my energy to increase how much description there is, or gain wider access to it in more places and on more platforms, etc.
My mind still boggles that description is still so separated from its target media that multiple versions of the description (for theatre, for home media, for fre-to-air tv etc) are all rehashed and re-recorded.
My mind still boggles that description is still so separated from its target media that multiple versions of the description (for theatre, for home media, for fre-to-air tv etc) are all rehashed and re-recorded.
WadjetAD [OP] 2 points 1y ago
I think proliferation of description is also the main goal at the moment. But why not make it the best it can be as well?
The multiple versions you experience has to do with the contracts under which description is produced. At the moment, distributers commission audio description for the movies they are licensed to show. So you could understand why they wouldn't be keen to share the work they paid for with their competitors.
The multiple versions you experience has to do with the contracts under which description is produced. At the moment, distributers commission audio description for the movies they are licensed to show. So you could understand why they wouldn't be keen to share the work they paid for with their competitors.
Shadowwynd 3 points 1y ago
"audio description is about giving VI people equal access to society. Is access to visual media about being entertained or is it about knowing exactly what happens?"
Media is part of the cultural fabric (e.g. access to society). People who have never seen Star Wars know who Darth Vader is, know what a lightsaber is, etc. People who have no idea about the "Mandalorian" know about "Baby Yoda". A common example I give to people is the statue "The Thinker". Practically every adult I encounter knows about that statue, the vast majority never having seen it in person. I encounter an illustration in a book of a fish in the "Thinker" pose as way of showing it is intelligent; this is an "inside joke" between the illustrator and myself, because the illustrator assumes I will recognize the pose.
Media can be more than entertainment (not that there is anything wrong with entertainment for its own sake). It can be storytelling and inspiration, it can be reflection on the human soul and the human condition. It can be educational. Accuracy matters; to act otherwise is to steal from the people that Audio Description purports to help.
The important part to realize is that audio description is translation. It is no different than a "cover" of a song or translating speech into sign language. You usually only have a few seconds to insert an audio description, and completely describing everything is impossible in the time given. As such, the goal should be 1) relevant information (in your example, the "rope" on the woman's arm is completely irrelevant) 2) meaning-for-meaning accuracy, not word-for-word (closed captioning and ASL strive for meaning-for-meaning). A classic example: a translator doing word-for-word was unfamiliar with the idiom "I'm tickled to death" and translated it "Poke me until I die" instead of translating the meaning "I'm happy".
Media is part of the cultural fabric (e.g. access to society). People who have never seen Star Wars know who Darth Vader is, know what a lightsaber is, etc. People who have no idea about the "Mandalorian" know about "Baby Yoda". A common example I give to people is the statue "The Thinker". Practically every adult I encounter knows about that statue, the vast majority never having seen it in person. I encounter an illustration in a book of a fish in the "Thinker" pose as way of showing it is intelligent; this is an "inside joke" between the illustrator and myself, because the illustrator assumes I will recognize the pose.
Media can be more than entertainment (not that there is anything wrong with entertainment for its own sake). It can be storytelling and inspiration, it can be reflection on the human soul and the human condition. It can be educational. Accuracy matters; to act otherwise is to steal from the people that Audio Description purports to help.
The important part to realize is that audio description is translation. It is no different than a "cover" of a song or translating speech into sign language. You usually only have a few seconds to insert an audio description, and completely describing everything is impossible in the time given. As such, the goal should be 1) relevant information (in your example, the "rope" on the woman's arm is completely irrelevant) 2) meaning-for-meaning accuracy, not word-for-word (closed captioning and ASL strive for meaning-for-meaning). A classic example: a translator doing word-for-word was unfamiliar with the idiom "I'm tickled to death" and translated it "Poke me until I die" instead of translating the meaning "I'm happy".
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 1y ago
I completely agree. The stories we see in visual media are an integral part of our culture and without them we may fail to fully experience or understand society. I discussed this subject in my first blog post 'What is Audio Description?' Check it out if you're interested!
https://wadjet.com/2021/07/15/what-is-audio-description/
https://wadjet.com/2021/07/15/what-is-audio-description/
oncenightvaler 2 points 1y ago
So you probably have seen this kind of error but the absolute worst one is where the describer mistakes characters for each other. This can easily happen especially if characters have similar names. I caught it a few times on the Mcgyver show and it was annoying because I was like "Wait are they in this scene, or I thought they were in the other setting?" I'm sure it's on several other shows but that's the one that comes to mind at the moment.
truth over entertainment.
truth over entertainment.
JudgeSavings 1 points 1y ago
i have noticed minecraft story mode on netflix do it, but it was in parts that the character wasnt even around at all in the last everything of the show pretty much, like, really
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 1y ago
Thanks for your input. A lot of people in this thread have mentioned this type of error. I bet it is quite common because it's an easy error for a writer to make.
[deleted] 1 points 1y ago
[deleted]
SightlessBastard 1 points 1y ago
Personally, I haven’t discovered many errors in audio descriptions yet. But I am fully blind. So, I probably wouldn’t have noticed the visual errors anyway. What I do notice sometimes is, that some descriptions sometimes get The names of characters mixed up. I am watching Vikings at the moment. It has happened there. I can’t remember the episode though.
Also, they forgot to add the description to one part of an episode, where they talked in subtitles. I think, that was in season three, episode one.
Personally, I think, that audio description should always be as detailed as the scene would be four sighted audience. I like it when shrugs or nods or any other small facial expressions of the characters are included in the description. So yes. Give me as much detail as you can.
Also, they forgot to add the description to one part of an episode, where they talked in subtitles. I think, that was in season three, episode one.
Personally, I think, that audio description should always be as detailed as the scene would be four sighted audience. I like it when shrugs or nods or any other small facial expressions of the characters are included in the description. So yes. Give me as much detail as you can.
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 1y ago
Thanks for your perspective. Those are annoying quality control issues. But those careless mistakes can really take you out of the narrative. I'll have to see what company is creating the description for Vikings.
Since you noticed the errors in describing who is speaking, let me ask you this: Is it only annoying because it breaks the immersion or does it mess up the scene and make you unable to follow who is talking/doing things?
Since you noticed the errors in describing who is speaking, let me ask you this: Is it only annoying because it breaks the immersion or does it mess up the scene and make you unable to follow who is talking/doing things?
SightlessBastard 3 points 1y ago
It’s mostly annoying because it breaks the immersion. But I got never really confused by it. I mean, I could always recognize the characters by their voices. It is just weird, because you hear the name of the characters, who are in the scene, and then, when they start speaking, you notice that it is someone completely different.
By the way. According to the end credits of Vikings, the audio description was produced by a company called zoo digital.
By the way. According to the end credits of Vikings, the audio description was produced by a company called zoo digital.
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 1y ago
Thanks for the clarification and for looking that up. I am actually quite familiar with Zoo's work.
thatblindgirl 1 points 1y ago
I really don’t notice errors all that often. My favorite audio description was for the crown. For that show, they started assigning characters name before they were introduced in the show which was helpful. I also really like when they describe the characters fashion, facial expression, and silent behaviors. So, I do not consider clothing descriptions to be a distraction, rather they add to the characterization.
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 1y ago
Thanks for your perspective. I am a fan of force-naming; it can avoid a lot of confusion. The Crown has excellent description. More people mention it as an example than any other show.
Dantesmansion 1 points 1y ago
I've only seen the Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul AD version but they were really good
WadjetAD [OP] 1 points 1y ago
Great shows! I'll check out the AD.
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.