Archive for the ‘Audio description’ Category

What’s up in Jersey?

Sunday, March 27th, 2005

The state of New Jersey is carrying out a human-rights investigation against Regal Entertainment Group. Previously, Regal was served with a complaint, as were many other theatrical exhibitors in New Jersey, because Regal allegedly discriminated against deaf moviegoers by refusing to provide captioning. Every other movie chain caved immediately and agreed to install Rear Window® captioning, while Regal argues that Rear Window is unpopular and expensive compared to open-captioned films, which some of its theatres already show.

Interestingly, I made myself aware to all parties in that proceeding and explained that I have expertise that could be useful. Nobody took me up on my offer. Perhaps at least the state of New Jersey should have, since a recent press release contains many errors that could have been avoided by somebody with half a clue. (Interestingly, some of those errors have been copied by the Associated Press, which responded to my complaint with a defense that they were simply working from the press release.)

It seems that New Jersey has finally realized that deaf people are not the only disabled group that has trouble enjoying movies. (Lots of deaf people would tell you that only they’re the only important ones, but they would of course be wrong.) Now New Jersey is extending its complaint against Regal to include audio description. Let’s fisk the press release, shall we?

(more…)

Research roundup

Monday, July 26th, 2004

Boy, it’s been a while since I did one of these. A couple of research papers on Web accessibility and one on audio description:

Comparing Website accessibility evaluation methods and learnings from usability evaluation methods” from Peak Usability (195 K PDF)

Tania Lang’s paper states: “The aim of this paper was to determine the most effective accessibility evaluation method to determine Web accessibility and concludes that a fully integrated approach (combining automated and manual evaluation and accessibility testing) is… best.”

The paper states that accessibility and usability evaluations share such measures as:

  • number and severity of problems
  • task completion (yes/no)
  • user satisfaction
  • duration

Lang makes note of the following (excerpted):

  • Whilst there are relatively few papers comparing accessibility evaluation methods, there are numerous papers discussing usability evaluation methods (UEMs). There are many similarities between UEMs and AEMs. For instance, accessibility testing with users generally appear to use similar measures as those used in usability testing such as task completion, satisfaction and efficiency (although user satisfaction is often excluded as a measure in accessibility testing).
  • [A]ccessibility evaluation methods often limit measures to efficiency and effectiveness whereas usability testing usually also includes a measure of user satisfaction (as highlighted in Table 1). The workshop consensus was that accessibility testing should measure efficiency, effectiveness and user satisfaction – the same measures typically used in usability evaluations.
  • May be difficult to determine if issues are accessibility issues or usability issues applicable to all users – need to test with people with no disabilities first to establish a baseline…. Generally if an issue is only experienced by users with a disability, it can be categorised as an accessibility issue.

And by far the best part (also excerpted):

  • Colwell and Petrie… conducted an experimentwith 12 students who were learning HTML. Students were asked to adapt an existing Web page making it accessible by following the WCAG 1.0. Results suggested that several improvements could be made to the WCAG 1.0…: “their structure and tone; navigation within and between the documents; the content and presentation of examples; and additional information to be provided.” [...]
  • Of perhaps greater significance was a second experiment conducted by Colwell and Petrie… which involved accessibility testing of the pages developed by students using WCAG 1.0. 20 visually impaired participants used a wide variety of browsers and screen readers and performed the test in their own environment. Results showed that even though the Web sites were designed using WCAG 1.0, some major usability issues still existed for some participants with specific browsers…. Other results showed that some design changes made by the developers that were not based on the WCAG 1.0 actually appeared to improve accessibility more than some of the changes outlined in the guidelines….

This article, by the way, is in dire need of copy-editing. Among many errors, the man who won a complaint against the Sydney Olympics is Bruce Maguire, not Brian Maguire. (My Reader’s Guide to Sydney Olympics Accessibility Complaint is still online, and was slightly expanded in my book.)

Assessing the accessibility of fifty United States government Web pages: Using Bobby to check on Uncle Sam” (great pun there) by Jim Ellison

You know, we really don’t need any more papers – not a single additional one – in which Web accessibility is tested using some automated method, let alone Bobby. Automated testing can never prove your site is accessible and misses a large number of important criteria. And these papers actually admit those limitations, which are crippling and which undercut the entire project.

I know it’s convenient as hell, but can we stop pretending that automated accessibility checking has any real meaning whatsoever?

En tout cas, this paper is useful for its massive list of references of previous papers. Beyond that, well, we know that even sites with a requirement to be accessible occasionally aren’t, and most of the errors found in this limited survey bordered on the inconsequential.

A comparative assessment of Web accessibility and technical standards conformance in four EU states” by Carmen Marincy and Barry McMullin

This one’s got a bit more going for it, despite also using automated testing. Excerpts:

  • The typical practice of many Web content developers is to test Web site functionality only against a small number of “popular” Web browser platforms in “normal” configurations. Although the content might seem to be rendered correctly in these tests, this does not guarantee that it is designed correctly. By definition, users of specialized assistive technologies are not using “popular” platforms – or at least, not using them in “normal” configurations. Rather, they must depend on equipment tailored to their particular needs. As a result, it frequently happens that sites are poorly accessible, or completely inaccessible, to such users….
  • However, because they do not conform to technical standards for interoperability, their rendering is – at best – unpredictable. This is likely to have a disproportionate affect on users who rely on specialized, tailored, client technologies – specifically, users with disabilities. Content may thus fail to be rendered, may be garbled, or may be otherwise inaccessible to such users. Worse, precious development effort in individualizing assistive technologies may have to be spent on attempting to compensate for these server-side defects, rather than improving the client-side functionality that the user really needs. In the worst case, this effort may have to be wasted repeatedly for each different client accessing each different (non-conformant) server. Obviously, conformance to technical interoperability would substantially reduce or eliminate this waste.
  • Only four U.K. sites (less than 0.2%) and six German sites (less than 0.4%) had completely valid HTML markup. No Irish or French sites had completely valid markup…. Additionally, even after reducing the samples on the basis of usable DOCTYPE information, just one Irish site (3%), 29 U.K. sites (4%), 16 French sites (4%) and 29 German sites (2%) had valid HTML markup in the remaining pages….
  • The site capture mechanism used in this study suffers from significant limitations with respect to sites which require user “registration.” More generally, automated evaluation of “interactive” sites is fundamentally problematic. This is particularly important given the growing number and diverse roles of such sites. A special issue relates to those sites that allow users to “personalize” site appearance or behavior. In those cases, it might be argued that such a site’s content can be tailored to the needs of each user, and is therefore fully accessible even though this may be invisible to an automated mirroring robot. However, since a user needs to access the default Web presentation in order to “personalize” it in the first place, the default configuration – the one that would be automatically retrieved – should be conform to WCAG 1.0.
Sight into Sound” by Lisa Gibson (232 K PDF; text-only)

My esteemed colleague Lisa Gibson was in town from Oz last year on her Drowned World Tour researching audio description. They don’t really have DX in Australia, you see, and her stated goal was “to study and compare different mediums relating to audio description and gain an understanding of the impact of relevant disability access policies in USA, Canada and UK.”

It was curious indeed not to read of Lisa’s triumphant viewing of X-Men 2 here in Toronto. Hey, I was there. It happened.

Also, the section on CRTC audio-description requirements is not quite up-to-date, but then again, even I am not maintaining a centralized list. (I really should, I suppose.) There’s also been a bit more “consumer feedback” on “film-based art” like TV and movies than the report suggests. (I have most of the studies, actually.)

A finding of note:

Discussion was held as to whether the accent of the describer and use of colloquial terms should match the country of origin or the international viewing audience. Many highlighted the need to educate the viewer to new terms, if country-of-origin terms were used (flat vs. apartment [as a rudimentary example]), and a contrasting accent to their unaccustomed ear. In all countries, debate surrounded the use of politically-correct terminology. Whether identification should be made regarding things like race, physical appearance, people with disabilities, etc., and which terms to use. In essence, even censorship [sic] finds its way into audio description in some parts of the world.

And some of the implementation plans are of interest:

  • To hold an annual conference to share, discuss and develop the different facets of audio description with practioners, stakeholders and users.
  • To work towards inviting international speakers to the annual conference. [...]
  • To establish accredited training guidelines and an accreditation process for audio description as a whole within Australia.
  • Incorporate voice training into the training programme to enhance the delivery of the description.

The Passion of the Hypocrites

Friday, April 23rd, 2004

All right, I’ve sat on this for a couple of weeks and now it is finally time to call bullshit on certain deaf people and certain other blind people who appear to have rather less of a commitment to accessibility than we noncrips do.

On the MoPix notification mailing list, suddenly we started seeing notations like the following:

  1. February 13–19: “We’ve been contacted by numerous movie fans and MoPix users who are blind and visually-impaired regarding the soon-to-be-released film, The Passion of the Christ, directed by Mel Brooks [Gibson, shurely?! – later fixed]. Folks want to know if this film will be described. We are working with the film’s distributor now on this issue, and further information will be provided to folks via this list as soon as we have it. Note, the film will be subtitled, and so will not have Rear Window Captions.”
  2. February 20–26: “This film is currently being described in the Media Access Group’s Los Angeles office. Our current estimate is that the description for the film will be available a few days after the film debuts in theaters. We’ll pass along further information about where and when this film will play with descriptive narration as soon as we have it. Note, the film will not have closed captions, as it will be subtitled.”
  3. E-mail: “I believe they have only heard about the description piece from consumers, and so that is their priority as a first-time MoPix participant. You can understand why much of the world would think that the subtitles are enough; as a matter of fact, we haven’t heard from anyone in the deaf/HoH community expressing disappointment that the film will not be captioned. ”

Shall we recap, friends?

Some Hollywood studios are such cheap bastards that they only caption and do not describe their first-run pictures. The number of these films is pushing a hundred at this point:

  • 32 “large-format” pictures (mostly Imax), though do please note that Space Station and Imax NASCAR were indeed described, contrary to WGBH’s misinformation
  • 60 Hollywood pictures

For Austin Powers in Goldmember, which was only MoPixed because I persuaded my generous colleague at Alliance Atlantis to pay for it, costs were estimated as follows for a two-hour runtime:

  • Rear Window captioning: US$2,000 ($16.66/minute)
  • DVS Theatrical narration: $12,000 ($100/minute)
  • MoPix disc engineering and replication: $7,500
  • Total: $21,500

The movie actually ran 94 minutes, so costs were lower, on the order of $18,500. WGBH description is six times as expensive as WGBH captioning. Nonetheless, the entire cost is trivial.

Thus began the rash of captions-only movies.

  • It’s so much cheaper!
  • We know about “clozecaption”; we’ve heard of that before. It’s subtitles, right? We know that.
  • This DVS… I dunno. I just don’t see a lot of blind people going to a movie theatre.
  • Besides, we can reuse the files. We have to caption the thing for home video anyway, so this way we can pretty much do a 2-for-1.

(They can’t actually “reuse” the files unless WGBH captions for home video, which happens from time to time, as in one version of Solaris I’ve seen.)

I accused deaf people of hypocrisy for letting this happen. I know from decades of experience that grassroots deaf people, who don’t even consider themselves disabled except when legally or politically expedient, aren’t really concerned with accessibility. They just want their needs met. If they even bother to think about it at all, here’s what they think: “Accessibility is for disabled people. I don’t need accessibility.”

Some deaf organizations understand the need for universal access. I assume there are scattered deaf individuals who understand the principles at stake. But many grassroots deaf people don’t give a damn. “Give us captioning and you’re done” is the entirety of their attitude.

Now, are blind people any better?

We have, in The Passion of the Christ, the third known theatrical showing of a picture with descriptions only, the others being My Left Foot and Stardom. Perhaps our dear British friends have given that concept a whirl, though they hardly matter, given their capacity to do so very much wrong.

I have done the usual searching (I am rather good at that, you know) and have found no evidence whatsoever that blind groups or individuals have made the following points:

  1. It’s just grand you made the film accessible to us, but we’re not the only ones who need accessible films.
  2. You seem to think subtitles are captions. Have you ever tried understanding a movie with subtitles and no soundtrack? (What is happening to Beatrix in Kill Bill Vol. 2 as she’s loaded onto the bed of that pickup truck? All I see is black screen.)
  3. You’re aware, are you not, that subtitled films are captioned all the time? In fact, Kill Bill has both, if you’d like to have a look.

I need deaf people to publish a logically defensible argument why movies should be captioning-only. I also need blind people to write a similar argument demonstrating that movies should be descriptions-only. I would also entertain a third argument that subtitles are captions. I expect all those arguments to be easily refuted, and would elicit a great torrent of laughter here.

Next I’ll need the same arguments as articulated by service providers, particularly WGBH. I wouldn’t be chuckling at those, I’d wager.

While we’re waiting, I will point out that the only people who seem to give a shit about accessibility for both disability groups are people with no sensory disabilities. Like me.

I’m not going to stop working in a field I’ve devoted half my life to merely because some of the beneficiaries of my work are hypocrites. What I also won’t stop doing is calling them hypocrites. I’ll quit when you do: If you want me to stop calling you hypocrites, quit being hypocritical.

It’s a yes-or-no proposition: Do you support accessible cinema? Movies with captions only or descriptions only aren’t accessible. What, then, are you going to do about it?

Joe does DX

Monday, April 12th, 2004

It can now exclusively be revealed that I write scripts for audio description.

Yes! It’s true. And it’s been a publicly-available fact for over a year – if you happen to watch one of the movies I described and stick around for the credits.

So far, I’ve done a mere two, both of them large-format films: Santa vs. the Snowman and Imax NASCAR [3D]. You quite possibly may have missed Santa vs. the Snowman, but the NASCAR picture is gonna be running for a while. You won’t be able to watch the movie with descriptions in Canada, since no Canadian Imax theatre has a MoPix system. Only some of the U.S. theatres will run it, and it is impossible to find the whole list of theatres online. You’ll have to phone your local house, unfortunately.

At any rate, I wrote the scripts at the request of my friend and esteemed colleague Nancy Harvey of Nancy Harvey Productions. She’s overseen language dubbing for Imax and other productions for many years and has occasionally been responsible for captioning and description. She’s been a big booster, actually, and hired me for this purpose.

Methods

I used to think that videotape remains a tolerable source medium for any kind of accessibility treatment. But I suffered through the minor shifts in read/write heads on even the best of my four VCRs for Santa, which forced me to rewind to get just the right timecode for a description. This time I gave up and went digital. I digitized the NASCAR VHS tape using an EyeTV box and, through some jiggery-pokery, saved it as a slim, tidy 519 MB QuickTime file, which allowed me to stop and start on a dime.

I decided to live dangerously and just run the thing and describe on first viewing rather than watching it in totum first. I am not convinced that a dry-run first viewing is necessary. It’s certainly not necessary if done with sound only and no picture. The ostensible rationale is to make very clear to sighted describers exactly which moments in the production aren’t understandable from the soundtrack alone. But describers can do that while they’re watching the picture for the first time. They’d only write the descriptions when watching the movie anyway; an initial viewing for review is a waste of time.

I did a lot of reading aloud against playback to ensure the descriptions would actually fit, and took into account the fact that I talk faster than narrators. I nailed the time allotments pretty well, as it turned out.

The trickiest part by far was describing one sequence after another of cars racing around tracks. I decided to stick to basics and describe what I observed – not just cars around a track, but specific cars around specific tracks in certain weather with certain crowds, crews, and onlookers.

Keeping the example of 2 Fast [&] 2 Furious quite prominently in mind, I assumed that many viewers attending a NASCAR movie are gonna be car buffs, so whenever possible I identified make and model of vehicle, which in some cases required extensive Googling. Under better conditions, printed sources would be available. (Nancy later asked one of the producers to look a few things up for us, which he did. Fortunately, we had time for that step.) I have a small fear that I flubbed the identification of a few of the cars – if so, for the love of God tell me – but that is merely a fear; I have reasonable confidence that every car I name actually is that model. I’m a car buff myself, you see, despite being unable to drive.

A few visible details were too small to discern in VHS and certainly too small in QuickTime; we had to double-check against the Beta tape in the recording session. Beyond that, so help me, it wasn’t that hard. Watching 130 hours of cinema audio description, plus description on TV and home video for the better part of a decade, has taught me a few things. (But you’ll be able to fact-check my arse; see below.)

Interestingly, this picture, with a 46-minute runtime, took slightly less than six hours to script. That would be considered monumentally fast for one leading description provider I know (where getting through a mere ten minutes per workday is the standard) and possibly a bit slow for another (where turning around a stack of tapes in two or three days from start to finish is the standard). My work time was much faster than with Santa. Using online media helped, but I think I’m just getting better at it.

My triumphant moment: Describing a dualie pickup truck as such – because that’s what it is.

Script mechanics

I wrote the whole script in HTML. I do everything I possibly can in HTML.

I used markup as follows, which you are free to duplicate. The definition list is, by spec, the correct semantic markup for dialogue.

<dt class="T"><span class="hours">01:</span><span class="minutes">03:</span><span class="seconds">42:</span><span class="frames">06</span></dt>

<dt class="lead-in">green flag drop on race day</dt>

<dd class="DX">Shirtless guys in shorts and gals in halter tops watch the race from the roofs of their RVs.<br />

[end before women’s voices]</dd>

I should have used another dd for extros like [end before women’s voices]; I’ll do that next time.

Timecodes were a bother and are possibly a reason not to use semistructured HTML for this application. The tape I was given was 48 seconds off the final tape; I had to add that increment to every timecode. With a great deal of text massaging in BBEdt, whose steps I cannot now recall, I was able to import the text file into Excel and use Belle-Nuit’s timecode macro to add 48 seconds. (The documentation is crap. I know how to use it now and can help you out if need be.) The results were not always correct – in three or four places, our timecodes were off – but the day was saved.

Another downside is printing, with widows and orphans everywhere. Importing into Word was a possibility, but it did not read the indented stylesheets properly. We lived with the widows and orphans; perhaps next time I’ll try harder.

Nancy and I spent an hour on the phone cleaning up the script and flagging parts for fact-checking (“verificationism”).

Recording

We eventually found a narrator, after a circuitous process: Jeremy Harris, the voice of Toronto 1.

It is not an easy task. For this kind of production (essentially a guy movie about guys racing cars for guy spectators), a male narrator is preferable. Key here are clear enunciation and a voice that is mostly unbiased yet prosodically varied enough that you can understand the actual words. Further, you need vocal qualities that are not in the least bit kooky or marginal. That latter requirement immediately disqualifies half the voice talent in town, who are accustomed to “acting” in kooky, marginal radio commercials. It was very easy to listen to MP3s and eliminate candidates right off the bat. That could be a kind of selection error: If all you give us are sound samples of kooky, marginal radio commercials, that’s the only kind of work you’re going to get.

It is difficult to separate kookiness and marginality from the intrinsic qualities of a voice. I am not at all expert in this area, and indeed all I did was suggest names to Nancy, who has an ear for this sort of thing. The criteria may be hard to put into words, which is something I find frustrating, but a good ear can tell at once who works and who doesn’t. Our instincts were correct, and Jeremy gave us a good read.

We made very few corrections to the script, and only a couple of deletions.

Studio session

Now, what went on in the recording studio? Well, you’ve come to the right place: You Are There!

We recorded the description track at a Major Downtown Studio with a sound technician and an assistant who wrangled ProTools on a dual-monitor G3 running OS 9. I brought one of my laptops and a raft of printouts. We had to reboot ProTools and our producer mike didn’t work, but we had no other technical glitches. (We could still talk to Jeremy using the room mike.) Jeremy stood – the entire time, by choice – in the quintessential soundproof booth. I was amazed to learn that his distance from the microophone could be detected by Richard, our technician. Twice without looking, he told Jeremy to move back to his original spot.

Since we knew we weren’t recording a home-video mix that would require ducking and restoring the main audio, we were free to custom-craft a monophonic voice recording meant solely for listening through headphones. (There was no chance of Jeremy’s voice clashing with that of the NASCAR movie’s narrator, Kiefer Sutherland. You the description listener always hear our guy through headphones and Sutherland everywhere but headphones.)

We had the right atmosphere in the room: Time is money, but if anyone heard something amiss with a take, we spoke up. (All of us heard something at one point or another – even Jeremy.) The flaw may not actually have been there – a couple of playbacks proved those takes were fine – but if you don’t speak up, mistakes will slip through. That may nonetheless happen even in high-profile productions; I’ve heard Miles Neff croak here and there in DVS Theatrical. Still, you have to develop an environment where anyone in the room may speak.

(At the one and only DVS recording session I attended, the producer heard us muttering on the couch at the far back of the room. Right into the microphone, he muttered back “Everyone’s a describer.” Indeed we are!)

Now, how long did it take us? A long time. Really quite a long time. Longer than we’d have liked. We could have shortened the session by a small amount in retrospect, and I already have a checklist going that will streamline the process for our next such production, but in all fairness, we were working at Imax levels of sound production and we cut no corners whatsoever. The technician, assistant, and Nancy also did a post-recording mix to remove stray breaths, modulate the volume to match the original sound level, and smooth pacing in a couple of cases. To simulate the actual theatrical experience, they listened to description over (fabulously-high-quality) headphones and main audio through room speakers.

And ironically, unless I fly to Houston or something, I will likely never hear the finished product.

Photos

I told you already: You Are There!

Jeremy, plum tuckered
Jeremy Harris, wearing headphones, a skullcap, and sweatshirt, stands at a podium

We’ve just finished the entire recording session. What better time to snap our narrator’s picture than when he’s pooped? My fave detail here: The folded and discarded script pages on the floor!

View from the big chair
Richard works the controls while Jeremy stands visible through a window in his soundproof booth

Nancy and I sat on a platform at the rear, from which I snapped this photo. (My picture of Nancy is so hideous it’ll never see the light of day.) That’s Richard, the sound technician, at the controls; he’s wearing a Molson Indy T-shirt for the occasion. On the monitor at top left is the credit sequence, which took years off our lives.

Listings

To return to the question of listings: The NASCAR film was captioned by WGBH for the Rear Window® system, but they didn’t do the description. In cases like these, WGBH likes to pretend the movie barely even exists. You can find Imax NASCAR on their Descriptions of First Run Movies Shown with MoPix and All MoPix Films pages, both of which list the movie as captions-only. That was true until last week. Let’s see how long it takes WGBH to update the listings.

Fact-check my arse

In the grand tradition of Web publishing, I hereby invite readers to fact-check my arse. I put two years into watching DVS Theatrical productions, griping about every warble, cough, and malapropism – and laying down for prosperity all appropriate praise for the good work. I told it exactly as I saw it, good, bad, or otherwise. It would be hypocritical to expect listeners of my description track to refrain from doing the same.

I’m merely the writer, not the producer or narrator, and I’m making the following offer purely in that capacity. If you’re at all interested, see if you can figure out where the NASCAR picture is playing in your neck of the woods. Watch and listen. Jot down anything that comes to mind. (I learned the hard way that notes are essential. Just how a blind person takes notes in a movie theatre I haven’t worked out yet, but not all listeners will be blind.) Drop me a line at description at joeclark dot org. All issues will be addressed.

Or you could go all the way and post your comments online. Heck, I do!

Not wanted on the voyage

Monday, March 8th, 2004

I’ll give you my expert opinion right here for free: The Explorer 8000 PVR is completely inaccessible to blind and visually-impaired people. Great way to grow your subscriber base, huh? Make a product that an entire swath of potential customers simply can’t use.

What are the problems?

Visual interface

Like absolutely every other digital cable or satellite box in existence, you control the 8000 by onscreen menus and a remote control. It seems that PVR designers develop products for people exactly like themselves – geeks in their 20s or 30s. They’re good with computers, and maybe they wear glasses (which caused them to get picked on by Nelson Muntz types in gym class), but otherwise they’re perfectly hale and hearty. I merely surmise this; I haven’t talked to the developers, and this is an invitation for them to talk to me to set me straight if I’m wrong.

But where is the contrary evidence? Where is the evidence, anywhere, that Scientific Atlanta developers took disability into account at any time?

The fact that the only way you can control the box is by looking at control screens is a dealbreaker right there. It ensures that the box could never be used by a blind person. Some low-vision people might be able to struggle through, but as we’ll see, they strike out with the 8000, too.

The 8000’s remote control makes things worse, since the too-tight clustering of buttons makes them hard to distinguish by touch and location.

What we need

An interface that works for blind and low-vision people. That will probably mean speech output (and possibly input), plus a redesigned information architecture, and new typefaces.

Fonts

Screenfonts for captioning, subtitling, and PVRs are, in broad terms, a disaster. They’re not custom-designed for their respective media, and they’re not tested. And they’re ugly and there aren’t enough of them.

In the 8000’s case, they’re also ridiculously small.

  • If you have low visual acuity, you could still use the PVR, especially with a nice big TV. You could get right up close to the screen and peer at it. You might have to look at one quadrant at a time. It’s slow, inconvenient, and kludgy, but possible.
  • If you had a small telescope, you could scan even very small fonts adequately well. Perhaps some people would be able to do that. But why should they have to? You’ve got a whole screenful of space to use, yet the PVR displays very small, tightly-spaced sansserif fonts in widely-displaced regions. The 8000 wastes an enormous amount of space. It acts like a 1980s letter-quality printer confronted with an entire page to fill with 50 words: No matter how hard it tries, everything it writes will be small and dispersed.
What we need

Custom-designed, tested screenfonts in selectable sizes.

Colours

Colours are an absolute joke. They’re the worst-designed aspect of both my boxes, the 3200 digital-cable converter and the 8000 PVR. “You can’t possibly be serious” is my response to most of the provided colour combinations, one of which is actually green and hot pink.

Green-and-pink control screen

Worse, most of the other colour combinations use at least one bright hue, which is a problem two ways:

  • Bright pure colours can throb on even quite good NTSC television sets, like mine.
  • Quite a few low-vision people simply can’t tolerate staring at bright illumination.

I have barely been able to make do with the cutely-named Campground colour scheme, which is (variously) black and white type on (variously) beige and brown ground.

What we need

Selectable colour combinations, with several of them dark-on-light (as white or yellow on black, brown, or navy blue).

Audio description

The punchline here is that you have to unplug the PVR and reboot it to listen to audio description on SAP. Space-age, isn’t it?

As explained previously, the Explorer 3200’s interface to turn on Second Audio Program was simply fabulous. You used the same sequence of three keys on the remote to turn it on or off; those keys looked and felt different and were centred around the thumb’s basic location, the Select key; you didn’t have to be able to see to make it work; and nothing went wrong if you tried it on an all-digital station with no SAP. You just zipped your thumb in a circle and hit three keys. It was great.

Whatever could go wrong with that?

Well, first of all, with the 8000’s remote they screwed up the capacity for eyes-free usage. The proprioceptive cues are simply destroyed – yes, all because the Settings key is a different shape in a different place. The method to turn SAP on or off is unchanged, so if you can find the keys to press, it works – if you unplug the power and let the PVR reboot.

Yes, friends, you cannot turn SAP on and off at will. The audio stream simply doesn’t change. If you want to be sure you can turn SAP on, unplug the PVR, let it sit, plug it back in again, and let it reboot. You must cold-reboot the PVR to get SAP to work. I kid you not.

Here are excerpts from my notes:

  • Cannot get any SAP to play, unless SAP and main audio happen to be identical in all cases, which I doubt.
  • The only SAP I could ever get was on Newsworld. Just now on Simpsons, I checked the VCR feed. DX. No DX on main feed until I deselected and reselected SAP.
  • Cannot get SAP going on Simpsons, Newsworld, or anything.
  • Required complete cold boot (impatiently, I did it twice). Silent audio → Disable SAP (main audio) → Enable SAP (DX).
  • Had to unplug power to get SAP to work. Then extreme delay in responding to keypresses (which were buffered). I think it might have started up in SAP, having buffered pre-reboot keystrokes, but I can’t prove that.
  • Yet again had to unplug to get SAP.

For an unspecified time after a cold reboot, the Settings key continues to work: You can keep switching back and forth between SAP and main audio. But at an unspecified later time, the PVR seizes on main audio and won’t let go.

Because rebooting the machine sits outside any rational conception of the normal range of operations, I judge the Explorer 8000 incapable of transmitting SAP audio. Essentially, if you have to put a new battery in your car every day just to drive to the office, does your car actually “work”? Not by any practical definition.

What we need

Control over SAP audio that’s as reliable and easy as the Explorer 3200’s interface.

Recording SAP

One bit of good news? If you manage to get actual SAP set up and running and schedule a recording, you do in fact record the show with SAP audio. Hallelujah!

However: You should be given the option to save both main and SAP audio with every program that has both. You could then select, via an accessible interface, which one you wanted to listen to upon playback. What’s wrong with recording SAP all the time?

  1. You could get bored of the descriptions on a show or movie you intend to watch more than once.
  2. You might not be the only person in the house; not everyone else might need to listen to descriptions all the time.
  3. SAP stays on indefinitely once you turn it on. (I really mean “indefinitely”: You cannot tell just how long.) This means all your shows from that point indefinitely forward will be recorded with SAP audio. You will thus record:
    On a digital channel
    normal stereo sound
    On an analogue channel
    • in the best case, monaural sound (as on a station that duplicates main audio on SAP when there’s no description playing, or does so at all times)
    • silence (for stations with silence on SAP when no description plays; I have at least one such station)
    • some other service, like a radio station or VoicePrint (carried some or all of the time on certain stations’ SAP channels, e.g., VoicePrint on Newsworld, which Canadian subscribers pay for whether they like it or not)
What we need

An option to record both main and SAP audio, either of which could be selected during playback.

So let’s sum up

  • Blind people can’t use the all-visual interface – period.
  • Appalling colours and too-small, uncustomized fonts mean low-vision people must strain to use the interface. Many of them won’t be able to use it at all.
  • You can record a show in SAP, but you’ll end up recording every show with SAP until you turn it off (or the Explorer turns it off unbidden).
  • You can’t turn audio description on and off with any reliability.