Re-fashioning fashion: an exploratory study of a live audio-described fashion show

  • J. P. Udo
  • D. I. FelsEmail author
Long Paper


This paper presents a process and its analysis for live audio description of a fashion show that contained only music and no dialogue. The findings of this work suggest that using a content expert with a process that combines conventional audio-description techniques with colour commentary techniques to allow emotion and excitement, as well as description of the important visual elements, is enjoyable and entertaining for blind, low-vision and sighted audiences. Following the proposed process, about 60% of the content of the live show could be described in a timely manner. Finally, it was found that the describer added about three times as many descriptions from a prepared script as were omitted.


Live audio description Access to live content for people with vision impairments 



Funding for this project was generously provided by CulturAll and Canadian Heritage, NSERC # 184220-05 and SSHRC CURA. We also thank our describer, Natalya Ratner, as well as Mass Exodus staff and students for their support and willingness to try something new. We are grateful to all of the students and staff at the Centre for Learning Technologies at Ryerson University and the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre at the University of Toronto, who made this project possible. Thanks to Lisa Copeland for editing assistance. Finally, we thank all of the blind, low-vision and sighted people who participated in this research.


  1. 1.
    American Federation for the Blind. Communicating comfortably. Retrieved 13 November 2006
  2. 2.
    Arts Access Incorporated. Arts access. (n.d.). Retrieved 28 November 2006
  3. 3.
    Arts and visually impaired audiences. Audio describer criteria. (n.d.). Retrieved 14 August 2006
  4. 4.
    Audio Description Associates. About US. (n.d.). Retrieved 29 November 2006
  5. 5.
    Audio Description International. What is audio description? (2006). Retrieved 28 November 2006
  6. 6.
    Birmingham Hippodrome. (2006). Retrieved 28 November 2006
  7. 7.
    Blind Sport New Zealand, Inc. Relax!: A few pointers to help you feel at ease with blind people in day to day situations. (2001). Retrieved 27 November 2006
  8. 8.
    Branje, C., Marshall, S., Tyndall, A., Fels, D.I.: LiveDescribe. AMCIS 2006. Acapulco (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    British Council for the Arts. Arts in performance profile: extant. (n.d.). Retrieved 13 September 2006
  10. 10.
    Centerstage. (n.d.). Retrieved 28 November 2006
  11. 11.
    Cumbernauld Theatre. Box Office. (2003). Retrieved 28 November 2006
  12. 12.
    Derby Playhouse Access. (n.d.). Retrieved 9 August 2006
  13. 13.
    English National Opera. Disabled access. (n.d.). Retrieved 28 November 2006
  14. 14.
    Fels, D.I., Udo, J.P., Diamond, J.E., Diamond, J.I.: A first-person narrative approach to video description for animated comedy. J Vis. Impair. Blindness 100(5), 295–305 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guthrie Theatre. Access services for blind or visually impaired. (n.d.). Retrieved 2 August 2006
  16. 16.
    Hansen, A.D.: Narrating the game: achieving and coordinating partisanship in real time. Res. Lang. Interact. 32(3), 269–302 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload, pp. 139–183. Imprint, North-Holland (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hedrick, T.: The Art of Sportscasting: How to Build a Successful Career. Diamond Communications, SouthBend (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hospital Audiences, Inc. Access for all-preface. (n.d.). Retrieved 13 September 2006
  20. 20.
    Kennedy Centre for the Arts. Audio-described performances. (n.d.). Retrieved 31 October 2007
  21. 21.
    Mass Exodus: open concept mass exodus fashion show (2006)
  22. 22.
    McGuire, J.: Selective perception and its impact on the evaluation of radio sports play-by-play announcers. J. Radio Stud. 9(1), 51–64 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Metropolitan Washington Ear. Audio description. (n.d.). Retrieved 13 September 2006
  24. 24.
    National Center for Accessible Media. Rich media accessibility. (2003). Retrieved 19 October 2004
  25. 25.
    National Theatre. Accessibility for people with disabilities. (n.d.). Retrieved 8 August 2006
  26. 26.
    Orange Tree Theatre. Access. (n.d.). Retrieved 13 September 2006
  27. 27.
    Packer, J., Kirchner, C.: Who’s watching? American Foundation for the Blind. (1997). Retrieved 15 November 2007
  28. 28.
    Peli, E., Fine, E.M.: Evaluating visual information provided by audio description. J. Vis. Impair. Blindness 90(5), 378–385 (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pettitt, B., Sharpe, K., Cooper, S.: AUDETEL: enhancing television for visually impaired people. Br. J. Vis. Impair. 14(2), 48–52 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pitlochry Festival Theatre. Access all areas. (n.d.). Retrieved 29 November 2006
  31. 31.
    Royal Court Theatre. Access for people with disabilities. (n.d.). Retrieved 8 September 2006
  32. 32.
    Royal Lyceum Theatre Audio Description. (n.d.). Retrieved 8 September 2006
  33. 33.
    Royal National Theatre. Disability access information. (n.d.). Retrieved 8 September 2006
  34. 34.
    Royal Shakespeare Company. Access guide. (2006). Retrieved 28 November 2007
  35. 35.
    Schmeidler, E., Kirchner, C.: Adding audio description: does it make a difference? J. Vis. Impair. Blindness 95(4), 198–212 (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Snyder, J.: Audio description: the visual made verbal. (2004). Retrieved 25 November 2006
  37. 37.
    Sutcliffe, A., Rugg, G.: A taxonomy of error types for failure analysis and risk assessment. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 10(4), 381–405 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    US Department of Education—NIDRR effective communication techniques: communicating with people who are deaf or hard of hearing. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 November 2006
  39. 39.
    Vision Australia. Communicating effectively with people who are blind or low impaired. (n.d.). Retrieved 13 November 2006
  40. 40.
    Vocal Eyes. Who we are. (n.d.). Retrieved 9 September 2006
  41. 41.
    Wall, J.S.: TV broadcasting for all: open workshop on standardization in the field of subtitling. Sevilla, Spain (2002)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    W3C. Web content accessibility guidelines. (1999). Retrieved 28 November 2006
  43. 43.
    W3C. Web content accessibility guidelines—working draft. Retrieved 18 March 2008

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ryerson UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations