[Owen Caldwell]: Midterm Portfolio – #4 Audio Description

The Project


Project Description 

Using pre-captioned footage from my Caption Project, I inserted INLINE and EXTENDED audio descriptions so that blind and visually impaired individuals may access the project.

Documentation 

To start, I got a sense of how audio descriptions work by listening to YouDescribe videos, examples in class, and I tested a few shows on streaming services. Generally speaking, audio descriptions should describe what is happening on screen in direct, plain language. I decided I wouldn’t take my AD for this specific piece in any special direction— the video is quick between narration and dialogue; I wanted to deliver the information quickly and concisely. Plus, the tone of the video is historical, clinical, serious, and I think the descriptions generally match that tone.

I started by writing a script. I avoid using “we see” to start descriptions, as I had commonly placed in the first draft. I realized that this choice of wording is a terrible irony for anyone using audio description. I think in one or two places I still refer to an “us” (being the audience), which I’ve seen before and I think is fine to use.

In my browser I placed my caption project on one side and a google document on the other, so that I can pause at a moment, copy the time code, write a fitting line for the scene, and decide whether what I’ve written can fit in between dialogue, in which case I mark the line as “INLINE” or if the line is too long or in a tough spot, I mark the line as “EXTENDED.”

A split-screen view of a browser. TO THE LEFT: A youtube page with a paused video frame and the title "Captions Project." TO THE RIGHT: A half-finished google document titled "AD Script."

I ended up with fifteen “lines” of AD total. I saw other scripts in class and thought maybe mine was a little short, but I’m going to roll with it and see what people think the final comparison.

Onto Premiere!

Here’s what my timeline looks like.

A video editing software timeline with cascading blocks of orange, blue, green, and purple.

The original video and audio track is highlighted in BLUE

the captions are highlighted in ORANGE

The audio freeze frames for extended AD are highlighted in PURPLE

And the audio descriptions themselves are highlighted in GREEN

I used a special tool that my friend taught me how to use to make those gaps in the video, for where extended portions of AD go, and made the freeze frames as well. I made sure the freeze frames capture the initial moment relevant to the accompanying extended line, and that the cut before and after were clear of dialogue or important audio.

I adjusted the levels of the original video to closely match the AD, and for certain sections of INLINE AD I lowered the original audio.

Thats all folks!

Reflection Questions

  • What is the theme of the work? How is that theme particularly expressed through the modality of the week?

The piece “Incredible Machine” is about advancements in computer technology and the ways in which computers are making engineers and designers’ jobs easier, and thats ironic to me in the context of accessibility because the field seems to have been neglected despite these advancements. Many tools and practices developed on computers for media industries do not make providing accessibility features feel as intuitive as, say, mixing audio or adding on-screen graphics.

  • Which elements of the work are beautifully/wonderfully/perfectly expressed through the modality?

One scene I found particularly interesting audio-describing was when a golden computer chip is shown on screen, followed by the icey-gaze of a computer operator. The AD is quick enough that the pacing isn’t ruined, and listening to the AD by itself (as it is extended) and with the original audio is as chilling as the original visuals.

  • Which elements are lost or inexpressible through the modality of the week?

I feel like AD is meant to be fast. If an AD author writes too much, they may botch the flow of the piece, or overwhelm the audience with a bog of auditory information. With that being said, I think AD brought the most important details out into the forefront of the piece, but more visual-specific nuances are hard to express in words: like the red and blue lighting, the sweatiness of the operators and their robot-like postures, the ancient looming machines of the laboratory, and how the uncanny narrating affects these visual perceptions. In this way, AD can only go so deep into a particular piece.

  • Who does this project exclude, Who would not be able to interact with this work, and who is this modality not accessible for?

Audio Description relies entirely on the audience’s auditory capabilities. Audiences with hearing loss or impairment would not be able to leverage audio description in order to get information about the piece.

  • Now that you’ve identified who is excluded, what is one way you could remix this piece to include another population? (You don’t have to make this part, but think about it and write about it).

This project formed a combination of captions and audio description, which I think covers a lot of bases. I wanted to lean a bit on the practice of plain-language writing to make the ADs faster and more concise, but if I wanted to broaden the accessibility of the project I could easily see myself writing in full-blown plain language.