EASIT. Easy Access for Social Inclusion Training.
Unit 3A
Easy-to-understand and subtitling
element 1, Processes, Interview with professionals.
This video includes an interview with Kate Dangerfield
filmmaker and PhD student
at the University of Roehampton in London.
Kate has a background in accessible filmmaking
an area in which she collaborated, amongst others
with the UK charity Sense, the British Film Institute
the Centre for Voluntary Sector Leadership
at the Open University
and PAL.TV.
Her accessible filmmaking work was screened
at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London
as part of the Open Senses festival in 2017.
In this interview, Kate talks about the potential use
of easy-to-understand subtitles for one of her films
the benefits of taking an integrated approach
to media accessibility
and the need to question
whether accessibility is really benefitting all viewers.
Hello. My name's Pablo Romero.
I work at Universidade de Vigo in Spain
and it is a pleasure to be here today
to interview Kate Dangerfield.
Hello, Kate. How are you? -I am fine, thanks.
So, just a brief introduction.
Kate's doing a PhD at the University of Roehampton
in the UK.
This is a practical and theoretical thesis
so a combination of practice and research
involving filmmaking
which is entitled "Within Sound and Image."
Also, we have a written thesis that Kate is writing about it
with the same title plus the subtitle
"The theory and practice of accessible filmmaking."
Kate, can you tell us a little bit about this project
and also about the participants you are working with?
Thanks.
Yes, I am doing a practice and research PhD
and I did workshops
with three different groups of people
and I was working with the charity Sense
the national disability charity in the UK
and the project was funded by the British Film Institute
but we did workshops, three different workshops
filmmaking workshops.
In those workshops, we had the same starting point
but the participants were free to explore their own ideas
and there were three key questions that we were looking at:
which equipment was accessible
how they used film as a means of communication and expression
and how to make the content they made accessible to them.
So, I think that is really the focus of today
but what we then did...
or what I did is that I did interviews with people
who were either involved in the project
or I met through the research.
They were people who would also be considered as disabled people
but not people with...
not people with learning disabilities.
So they commented on...
They watched the films
they talked to me about the project
and also their experiences with film
whether in the arts or in the industry.
And so... then...
So this documentary is the footage from the workshops, the interviews
and that discussion.
Brilliant. So there is two layers, right?
The participants with whom you made the workshops
and then those kind of experts with maybe different disabilities
who were looking at those workshops and watching the footage.
Those two layers.
Kate, could you describe a little bit about...
Because, I recall, as I said before
that when we started this project
you were refering to some of your participants
or even writing about the participants
as deaf-blind participants
but now you talk about participants with complex communication needs.
What is the difference there? Why the change?
Yes. I think that the initial aim
was to look at how content can be accessible to deaf-blind people
that was the initial aim of the research.
Also, I was working with Sense and they considered themselves
at that point as a deaf-blind charity.
But then...
Sorry, but even when you refer to deaf-blind at that stage
you and the charity
just for the people who may not have experience with this
we are not talking about fully deaf and fully blind, are we?
Or not only about that?
Is it about different degrees of visual and hearing loss?
Exactly, different degrees.
So, some people were
but not everybody
and it was very, very different
really fast difference between the people I worked with
which you can see through the film, actually.
Nobody I worked with especifically
was totally deaf and totally blind.
But very, very different experiences for each person.
And I think, so…
Sense is known now as the national disability charity
rather than the deaf-blind charity
so I think there is a shift in that sense
but also looking through the research
and looking into disability studies...
I talk about...
When I say disabled people
I'd say disabled first rather than people with disabilities
and that's something that is tied up with the UK social model of thinking.
And then also as my position as a non-disabled person
I say complex communication needs
because it is about access and that's really my perspective
rather than focussing on their impairments.
But if I'm respeaking with them, I would go by whatever they decided...
How they wanted to term themselves.
That's very interesting.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard that perspective of talking about this
or talking about them as people with complex access needs
just because that’s the way you look at the situation
from your able perspective, of course.
That’s very interesting.
So I would imagine that now one of the challenges
is to make the film accessible.
Because of the nature of this project
that deals with subtitles for easy-to-understand language
which in this project encompasses plain language and easy-to-read
how do you see the role of these subtitles
in a film like yours for example
or what do you think the role could be
and have you considered any…
What have you played with?
What tools are you thinking about using
to make your film accessible in general?
Yes, so really…
From each course of workshops
we looked at different forms of access
so the first guy I was working with needed subtitles
and actually standard subtitles would be totally fine for him.
Okay. -And then...
But then the group in Cambridge that I worked with
that actually audio description was more suitable for them
but also their communication…
Their means of communication
was through something called widget symbols.
Can you explain to us what that is?
Yes. That is like a…
It is pictures to support speech
or some people use it like as speech.
So… I will send you an example of it.
But basically they are small cards or small pictures
which would have like an activity on or anything that they wanted to say
and they would use these symbols as a means to communicate
or to make choices and things like that.
In many ways, that could be seen
as easy-to-understand
type of subtitled content, right?
Yes, I think… I mean it is something that I considered at that point
whether or not it could be something.
Each workshop was about making content accessible
to the people that made the film
so really focussed on individual needs.
But, so...
Actually, for the film that we made with them
we used the widget symbols for the titles and then...
but really tried to focus on images
and there was so very little dialogue in their film that we put together.
That was something we thought about while making it
so taking an accessible filmmaking approach in that sense.
So it wasn’t…
The thing is, I think with those widgets symbols
which is why we went for that approach
was that...
they used them and it’s static
it’s not a moving image
so they have time to consider which symbol they want to use
and then...
it takes time
and actually whether that’s suitable for a film
is a totally different situation. I think
you have to do a lot of research
to work out if it's suitable or not.
One thing that striked me
when I watched the versions you showed me
about your film so far
is that you cannot have the luxury
of focussing only on subtitles
and see if subtitles may be or not simplified
in a different way
because obviously you have to combine different forms of access
almost at the same time, right?
So, to give an idea
and I’m sure we can show some examples
in the final version of this video
you have used audio introductions
you have used audio description
sometimes, those subtitles in themselves are introductions within the film
to certain parts of the film.
You have also used, Kate, a kind of…
You also froze some frames, right?
Frozen frames, so you can pause the film
and describe what's going on
and I guess that description that you’re using
when you pause a particular frame
that would need to be subtitled, right?
Yes.
So, I would imagine…
There is time to do it
because then you are pausing the film. Yes.
Exactly, exactly. So then, even if you were to use subtitles
that maybe are not simplified so to speak
the fact that you’re giving time to read them
also helps in many different ways.
Okay, and since you are combining all these different options then
does that mean you're thinking about
having all those options combined
as an attempt to make one version of the film
that's accessible to everyone, to all?
For my submission there will be one version
and I’m trying to make it as accessible as possible
to everybody that was involved
but…
that is not to say that I consider it to be accessible to everybody.
And so...
So, yeah, I think then, later on
I would consider other options of how to make it accessible
in different ways.
And there’s gonna be...
And actually there’s gonna be two versions.
There's gonna be another version with…
There is one version that’s integrated audio description
and then there is one version
with what'd be considered more standard audio description.
Okay, for those who haven't heard about this
integrated audio description would be the one that's not traditional
that is done in collaboration with the filmmaker
that moves away from guidelines
and includes the audio description as part of an overall description.
So it doesn't feel like an add-on
whereas audio description would be…
a standard audio description would be more of a…
an added-on track
that doesn't merge with the narration.
It's intentionally built for what it is, to provide access.
Yes. The beginning of the film
is integrated audio description
which would be suitable
but then I'm exploring other ideas later in the film.
For instance
there are parts where the sound isn't really good quality
and for somebody who's blind
that's really problematic
whereas some blind people wouldn't mind if…
because it's part of the film
and it's a different experience as it's more about the sound
and maybe not so
especific on what's being said.
They'd be happy with that, but other people
would want to know what's being said, so...
I think...
I can't cater for everybody
but I'm gonna try, as much as I know how to
I'm gonna try and cater for the people involved.
That's very interesting.
As I hear your answers
I can't help but think that...
for viewers who may be thinking
"I was expecting content on subtitles
in E2U language"
there's two take-aways, one being
that, commonly, when dealing with participants like yours
you can't just
separate access services
as completely different sections.
It's all part of complex communication needs.
So they live with those…
The use of simplified subtitles
lives with the rest of the access services, right?
Everything needs to be considered holistically
so you can be able to choose what you need.
That's what I was thinking.
Related to that is the fact that you seem to be
given up on the prospect of creating a version
that caters for all and I wonder whether we are actually guilty of…
because of the catchy nature of the slogan "for all"
guilty of using it in a way that maybe
is not completely accurate because...
it seems difficult to provide a version that's accessible to all.
In some of the videos of this project
we've heard
the discussion of whether these simplified subtitles
could be widespread
or could be an alternative to more standard subtitles.
So, two questions to you, the first one:
Do you think that when...?
First of all, are you given up on the idea of one version for all?
Is it impossible?
Do we have to accept that in order to get to everyone
we will need more versions?
Should we start thinking about that?
Yes, from the research and the people that I've worked with
even so, say
around 10 people
in the workshops
and then
the 4 people that were involved
in the interviews
and even on such a small, small scale
it's not possible to find a way that's accessible for everyone.
So there's this thing… -That's fascinating.
There have to be compromises throughout.
So… yeah… I think…
It's not giving up on access
but it's giving up on...
on the idea that it's possible to…
Absolutely. I don't see that as...
I don't say that in despair
and I don't see any loss of hope there
so I don't come out with a bad feeling.
I just think the first question is the idea that the for all...
or bringing here the idea that the for all may be catchy
but not accurate
and if we want to actually cater for all
we're gonna have to cater for almost everyone, which means
making distinctions and...
In your case, you dealt with only 10 people
and the differences within them
who've been addressed as deaf-blind and people with complex needs...
The differences made it impossible to reach them all
with just the one version. So…
And also has changes like…
one of the participants I worked with in the first workshops
he used subtitles at the beginning
but actually then his hearing aids were tweaked
and he wasn't using subtitles by the end of it
so also this changed over time as well
you know? They're not things you can pinpoint.
It sounds very complex, but also fascinating
because it means that we're gonna have to start thinking
individually about the different needs
instead of just thinking of big groups
that, inevitably, aren't heterogeneous at all.
So, when you do start thinking about that, about...
having those people in mind who you want to get the film to
are E2U subtitles a possibility in some of the versions of the film?
I would definitely if somebody... if somebody contacted me…
What I'm planning to do is…
I'll put the film out with the access I can
and then say that if people need other access…
if they have other access requirements to contact me
I can try and arrange that.
I think it's a possibility if somebody came to me and asked for it.
I would consider it.
And Kate...
I'm trying to empathise with the viewers
who may not have prior knowledge about your project
and may be amazed
by looking at and speaking to what I'd call an accessible filmmaker
in this case, accessible about media access and accessible filmmaker
who's considering the… I mean
we can't expect many people to have your views
as you've been trained in both media access and filmmaking
and you understand
the complex needs that many different individuals may have.
But can we…? So, in your case
in our view, it's great to hear this
but how scalable is this?
How can we have… How can we ensure that we have more filmmakers
who are aware of all this?
Will they feel like it's too much?
How can they be expected to provide
a version with a specific form of access for a specific person?
How is that…
I don't know… How can we keep this up?
Yeah.
Well… I think the main thing is also…
is the shift in thinking
and that doesn't happen overnight.
It's sort of one step at a time with everything.
If you're interested in making things accessible
then possibly look at one thing first and…
And keep trying and, you know?
I think quite often
it's difficult to always get it right and I think...
Just keep trying different options and getting feedback from people.
So... But I think… You know? -I agree, Kate.
It's a shift that doesn't just need to happen
in filmmaking or media accessibility
it's about generally everything being more inclusive.
So, it's a shift in thinking that needs to happen generally.
I agree. When discussing these things I tend to think
that filmmakers need to know, first, about very general access
and disability, starting with the basics.
Then you take them to where we are in media access
which is to the idea of "we have audio description, subtitles
subtitles that could be E2U subtitles
filmmakers can collaborate."
That's where we can take them
but we can take them further, which is where you are
which is fine, but the for all slogan
may not be working because individually
some people are left behind
and then there's a need for more individualised types of access
and looking into more of the trees rather than just the forest.
And it might be more encouraging without the for all
because actually that's pretty daunting.
Thinking that you're catering for everyone...
maybe that's when people shut off.
And the for all could disappoint those people
who are meant to be within this "all" and are not there, right?
It's something that's not possible.
Absolutely. Kate, thank you very much for being here today
it's been great to have you here
to hear about how your project relates to this one
and to hear about the possibility of you using this type of subtitles
in one way or another once there's a need for it.
We'll be keeping an eye on what you do and how you do it.
In my view it's fantastic to see somebody who's so aware
of access and its complexity
and who's also a filmmaker, because, you know
we need more people like you.
It's been great to have you here.
It's been really interesting.
Good luck with your project and we look forward to reading it
and to watching the film. Thanks, Kate.
Thank you.
This video was prepared by Pablo Romero-Fresco
from Universidade de Vigo
and Kate Dangerfield, from the University of Roehampton
and produced by Jesús Meiriño-Gómez from Universidade de Vigo.
EASIT has received funding from the EC programme
Erasmus+ Strategic Partnerships for Higher Education
grant agreement 2018-1-ES01-KA203-05275.
The EC support for this publication
does not endorse the contents
which reflect the authors' views.
The EC cannot be held responsible
for any use of the information contained therein.