Impacts on quality: Enjoyment factors in blind and low vision audience entertainment ratings: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Audio description (AD) is one of the main methods that people who are blind or low vision (B/LV) use to access film, television, and theatre content. AD is a second audio track inserted into the space(s) where speech is absent, which tends to be only a few seconds. Contained in that second track is an audio description of the important visual information contained within a specific scene. However, as there is insufficient time to describe all visual information, decisions about what is important to describe and how to present that information (style) to optimize a B/LV viewer's entertainment experience are required. Most research to date has considered only short-term, single-episode experiences to gauge viewers' reactions to the AD content. In addition, this research typically has used a monotone, single style of audio description, which is defined as "the conventional style" in this paper. We use an integrative style instead, that is defined as 'AD designed to fit a specific show", and differed between shows. We carried out a within-subjects longitudinal study with eight episodes of a dark comedy, using different description styles and describers in order to assess viewer engagement and preferences for AD describer style, language use, timing, and fit to the show. Twenty-four blind participants viewed and rated all eight episodes. Major findings included that most participants found the integrative style entertaining, a fit with the specific episodes, and enjoyable. Some participants, however, preferred the conventional style and struggled with the language and topic of a dark comedy and its associated descriptions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".