JosephScheuhammer's comments on AltToVisual:
1.2 Audio Description
For "Audio Descriptions" I'm not sure of the explanation of the distinction between standard and expanded. Here is my understanding of these categories, using an example.
The current use of ADs is with videos, where the AD is inserted into the sound track when dialogue is absent. The problem is that the sound track, specifically the dialogue, is a given; hence the period of silence has to be used as is. That is, the audio description has to fit within the silent period, meaning it must be quick, but informative.
As an example, imagine a scene in a movie where there is a knock at the door, the character Fred opens the door, steps into the room and says, "Hello Veronica". The audio description might be "Fred opens the door". That description would follow the knock, overlay the sound of door opening, and finish before Fred is heard saying his entrance line.
The advent of digital media allows a greater ability to control the playback of video. It's possible to pause the playback in order to provide even more information. Thus a longer audio description might be "Fred opens the door, and steps into the room. He is wearing a loud, brightly coloured Hawiian shirt, khaki Bermuda shorts, and black high-top sneakers." After that is announced, the video resumes playing as normal -- we hear Fred saying, "Hello Veronica".
Thus, the characterization of standard audio descriptions as "a literal translation", whereas extended provides "information beyond what is represented visually" is not quite right. In the example above, if anything, the extended description is more literal than the standard one ("a picture is worth a thousand words").
I see that an extended AD 'could' provide more information than about the visual, but it need not. The longer AD about Fred above is entirely about his appearance; hence it is not beyond what is represented visually. Is it correctly categorized as "extended"? Is it simply that extended descriptions are longer in duration than standard, and can, as a consequence, provide more than visual information?
AnastasiaCheetham's response: Yes, what you've described is the intention of the standard/expanded distinction. We should fix these explanations.
1.3 Auditory Alternative Indicator / recorded synthetic speech
Re: the qualifier "recorded" here. It implies that a speech synthesizer was used to create the voice, but it was in turn recorded, and it's that recording that is played back. But the description says "Characterizes the auditory alternative as being spoken by a speech synthesizer." That implies 'no' recording; that the speech is in real time.
Isn't the important distinction between "real" and "synthesized", and "recorded" beside the point?
AnastasiaCheetham's response: This vocabulary item should probably be changed to "synthesized speech" - I think that is what is intended, and that is what is being used in the current iteration of revisions. Then, the distinction will be "recorded speech" and "synthesized speech" which seems much more clear.