1
00:00:07,260 --> 00:00:12,200
Easit. Easy Access for
Social Inclusion Training.

2
00:00:12,440 --> 00:00:15,700
Unit 3B. Easy to understand
and audio description.

3
00:00:15,700 --> 00:00:17,400
Element 1. Processes.

4
00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:20,880
Interview with professionals:
Christopher Taylor.

5
00:00:20,880 --> 00:00:23,400
In this interview,

6
00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:28,000
we will listen to the answers
of Chris Taylor regarding AD.

7
00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:32,200
Taylor is an academic
who has widely researched AD.

8
00:00:32,200 --> 00:00:35,160
He has coordinated
a European Union project,

9
00:00:35,160 --> 00:00:39,000
ADLAB (Audio description:
lifelong access for the blind).

10
00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:41,920
It achieved "success story" status.

11
00:00:41,920 --> 00:00:45,520
Taylor remained active
in the follow-up ADLAB PRO, 

12
00:00:45,520 --> 00:00:47,480
and has recently retired.

13
00:00:47,480 --> 00:00:51,480
I am Chris Taylor
from the University of Trieste.

14
00:00:51,480 --> 00:00:56,000
I've been interested
in audiovisual translation for years,

15
00:00:56,000 --> 00:00:58,900
and in audio description.

16
00:00:58,900 --> 00:01:04,040
I have also coordinated
a European project, ADLAB,

17
00:01:04,040 --> 00:01:09,880
which was taken on 
by Elisa Perego and ADLAB PRO.

18
00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:15,400
Both aimed 
at improving and enhancing

19
00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:18,760
the state of the art

20
00:01:18,760 --> 00:01:22,520
regarding audio description in Europe

21
00:01:22,520 --> 00:01:28,500
and in the rest of the world.

22
00:01:29,400 --> 00:01:35,800
We are now coordinating
a handbook of AD,

23
00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:39,120
which covers the entire globe

24
00:01:39,120 --> 00:01:42,700
on the future prospects of AD.

25
00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:48,080
Do you think that AD
is accessible for all,

26
00:01:48,080 --> 00:01:53,720
e.g. people with cognitive, 
intellectual, learning disabilities,

27
00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:57,160
whose processing times
might be slower?

28
00:01:57,160 --> 00:02:02,040
Museum experience would
suggest this is the case.

29
00:02:02,040 --> 00:02:05,280
Sighted visitors like hearing AD.

30
00:02:05,280 --> 00:02:09,320
Maybe because it is simpler
than normal audio guides.

31
00:02:09,320 --> 00:02:11,960
And then we have your EASIT.

32
00:02:11,960 --> 00:02:16,040
As regards the cinema
this has been less investigated.

33
00:02:16,040 --> 00:02:19,520
I have watched films with AD

34
00:02:19,520 --> 00:02:22,040
and I am not disturbed by it.

35
00:02:22,040 --> 00:02:27,200
And with universal design,

36
00:02:27,200 --> 00:02:30,480
I think some people may opt for it.

37
00:02:30,500 --> 00:02:34,900
Those with cognitive or learning disabilities

38
00:02:34,900 --> 00:02:38,000
might benefit from AD in all settings,

39
00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:42,680
but it would have to be
AD in EASIT form.

40
00:02:42,680 --> 00:02:48,000
The speed, or the enunciation clarity
are important,

41
00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:55,080
and the developments in personalisation
technology would prove useful.

42
00:02:55,080 --> 00:02:59,880
So delivery speed, clarity, 
style, could be adjusted.

43
00:03:01,040 --> 00:03:03,280
Do you think that simplifying AD

44
00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:07,960
for people with cognitive,
intellectual and\or learning disabilities

45
00:03:07,960 --> 00:03:12,760
can be the right way
to go to extend possible users?

46
00:03:12,960 --> 00:03:18,360
Simplification is
an aim of audio description.

47
00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:23,760
In addition to the question 
to speed, clarity, etc.,

48
00:03:23,760 --> 00:03:29,640
people with cognitive, intellectual and/or 
learning disabilities need simplified text.

49
00:03:29,640 --> 00:03:34,000
The move towards plain language

50
00:03:34,000 --> 00:03:39,520
has eliminated jargon
and bureaucratese

51
00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:43,760
for sighted people, in all areas.

52
00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:46,000
So AD as a specialised genre

53
00:03:46,000 --> 00:03:50,320
could benefit
from the same intervention,

54
00:03:50,320 --> 00:03:55,840
sight impaired public
and those with special needs.

55
00:03:55,840 --> 00:04:01,280
If psychologists, teachers
and social workers

56
00:04:01,280 --> 00:04:04,640
are made aware of the progress 
been made,

57
00:04:04,640 --> 00:04:07,120
then I can see it being extended.

58
00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:10,400
What types of simplification
can you think of?

59
00:04:10,400 --> 00:04:12,560
The usual things:

60
00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:15,160
short sentences, less technical terms,

61
00:04:15,160 --> 00:04:18,080
plain language, no bureaucratic language, 

62
00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:21,520
syntactically simple, paratactic sentences,

63
00:04:21,520 --> 00:04:25,640
no subordination,
clear deliberate pronunciation, etc.

64
00:04:25,640 --> 00:04:29,600
But from the audio description
point of view,

65
00:04:29,600 --> 00:04:35,320
simplification can include
describing the minimum

66
00:04:35,320 --> 00:04:38,940
when dealing with sight-impaired people,

67
00:04:38,940 --> 00:04:45,840
and concentrating 
on the image-text matching.

68
00:04:45,840 --> 00:04:51,840
A dyslexic person requires
attention to image-text,

69
00:04:51,940 --> 00:04:56,360
making sure the words
are associated with the visual.

70
00:04:56,660 --> 00:05:00,880
Do you think that all types of AD,

71
00:05:00,880 --> 00:05:04,120
like screen or art AD,

72
00:05:04,120 --> 00:05:07,760
can be simplified
and remain successful?

73
00:05:07,760 --> 00:05:12,640
Yes. Sighted cinema audiences
or museum visitors 

74
00:05:12,640 --> 00:05:14,650
like simple descriptions.

75
00:05:14,650 --> 00:05:20,300
This is especially true
at the end of films or museum visits.

76
00:05:20,300 --> 00:05:24,480
The only exception is live AD.

77
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:30,400
Here the describer
would have to be skillfull

78
00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:33,200
and mindful of the listener’s needs.

79
00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:35,360
The results of the focus group, 

80
00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:38,680
carried out in a previous stage
of the project, 

81
00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:45,040
show that some users may need
more informative than descriptive ADs.

82
00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:51,000
This would imply replacing
descriptions by explanations.

83
00:05:51,000 --> 00:05:56,960
Which strategies
would you apply to implement this?

84
00:05:56,960 --> 00:06:01,600
And in which cases would 
this not be possible?

85
00:06:01,600 --> 00:06:07,080
Bearing in mind the old 
adage “you say what you see”,

86
00:06:07,080 --> 00:06:12,520
and the recommendation
of guidelines to be objective,

87
00:06:12,520 --> 00:06:15,200
not subjective or judgemental,

88
00:06:15,200 --> 00:06:20,040
the informative approach 
would not work for film or TV AD.

89
00:06:20,040 --> 00:06:26,000
Explaining a scene
involves personal interpretation

90
00:06:26,000 --> 00:06:28,680
and transgresses that line,

91
00:06:28,680 --> 00:06:33,880
the blind and sight impaired 
call “condescension” or “pandering”.

92
00:06:33,880 --> 00:06:38,200
It is true that
not everything can be described,

93
00:06:38,200 --> 00:06:42,040
only few elements in the frame
can or should be described,

94
00:06:42,040 --> 00:06:47,480
but most scenes 
can be explained, even briefly.

95
00:06:47,480 --> 00:06:51,480
Thus, in my opinion,

96
00:06:51,480 --> 00:06:56,960
the informative AD is much more
 acceptable, e.g., in museums.

97
00:06:56,960 --> 00:07:00,640
The need to avoid spoon-feeding exists,

98
00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:06,920
but sighted visitors also
require explanations of exhibits.

99
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:13,000
This video was prepared by Elisa Perego
and produced by

100
00:07:13,000 --> 00:07:16,400
Angelika De Marchis, 
Laura Marini, Annalisa Navetta

101
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:18,200
from University of Trieste.

102
00:07:18,200 --> 00:07:20,700
The narrator was Annalisa Navetta.