[jamesbrownuhh]

It's not quite as easy as it sounds - but Netflix are at least doing something, and starting with their original productions is a logical place to go, because they have complete control of the master copies and can commission an Audio Description soundtrack to run in sync with that.

Adding AD to third-party content is trickier, because for the most part it's not Netflix's content to audio describe in the first place. If the distributor has AD assets available, it's then a complex process of aligning those assets to the pre-existing copy of the asset which Netflix is using. That's not always just "drop and go" because the versions won't necessarily align, or even contain the same visual material (e.g. Cut versions, syndication edits, director's cuts, special editions, etc.)

At the same time, "just use the description from TV" is not that straightforward either - here in the UK, the audio description is almost always produced by the television channel showing the programme, and NOT the programme maker/distributor themselves. Accessing that content now becomes more complicated, both proceedurally and contracturally.

It's not trivial - but at the same time it's not impossible. And for all the stick they get, Netflix actually leads the way in accessible content - there are vast numbers of video on demand services which simply do not even support access technologies in the first place. (It's a bit better in the US, where the FCC lays down rules about availability of captions on online video, admittedly.)

But especially here in the UK, almost no VOD services support even basic subtitles, let alone multiple audio tracks. In contrast, Netflix is a breath of fresh air - they actively seek out and obtain subtitles/captions, and now AD, from the third party producers that they licence content from.

They deserve praise for their attitude in this area, in my view - they put some of the largest media companies in the world to shame. That might sound excessive, but I've lost track of the number of major, major media companies whose reps pass on the company line that accessible VOD is "not possible at the moment", when the reality is that it's perfectly possible, they just choose not to do it or to make it any kind of priority.

With that kind of competition, Netflix is an easy number one in the field. They know their stuff and they're doing what it takes - I've got nothing but respect for them.

[bgruber]

Agreed that starting with their own content makes sense. As for the difficulty of adding existing AD assets, I'm unclear as to why this is any more difficult than adding more language tracks, something Netflix has been doing for years. As for procedural and contractual issues, advocates in the past have gone so far as to get the owners of the assets to agree to license to Netflix free of charge, to no avail.

It's sad that in the UK, VOD services are even further behind on accessibility. I do hope that Netflix is actively seeking out AD, but given their track record so far, I'll believe it when I see it.

Most of all though, I wanted to respond to one particular thing you said: "And for all the stick they get, Netflix actually leads the way in accessible content"

The lesson I've taken from this is that they don't get nearly enough, or perhaps the right kind of, stick. Advocates (and legislators in some countries) have been after Netflix on this issue for years, but what finally seems to have gotten Netflix to take action was when the mainstream media started picking up on the story. That action was swift and completely addressed the story that the media told. I therefore think it important to keep the story going in an attempt to ensure that Netflix keeps working on this problem.

[jamesbrownuhh]

Perhaps the issue just hit home more effectively at Netflix once it was their own content - and particularly content involving a blind central character. Who knows.

I agree that the issue needs to stay in the public eye, but not if it's just going to be bashing Netflix all the time. Don't give the other players like Amazon and Hulu a free pass - ask them where THEIR audio described content is, and when they say there isn't any, ask them why. When they say that they don't, or they can't, ask them why not. Check the On Demand on your cable box - is there any DVS there? Ask them why not. This is a vast issue and just focusing on Netflix alone will not solve the greater problem.

[anigbrowl]

adding more language tracks, something Netflix has been doing for years

Netflix doesn't do that. Producers pay to have that done or take the language track in part-payment from an international distributor who pays to have it done. Also dubbing in new dialog is way easier because you replace existing dialog, you're not trying to fit in around it.

[bgruber]

When I say that it seems no harder than adding more language tracks, what I'm talking about is adding pre-existing description tracks to Netflix. Of course producing new description is harder than adding existing language tracks.

[mentat]

Are you unclear as to why it's harder because you actually have some technical expertise or because you just feel some sort of outrage? Language tracks are usually same sourced, are ADs? I wouldn't know and wouldn't assume because I don't have the expertise nor the outrage.

[Nexxxeh]

>But especially here in the UK, almost no VOD services support even basic subtitles, let alone multiple audio tracks.

Sky Go and Now TV still don't support subtitles. It is infuriating.

Amazon Instant Video however, since very late last year, have subtitles for some of their content. They didn't even put out a press release as far as I can see. They just snuck it in there. The excellent flagship series "Bosch" has subtitles. "Alpha House" doesn't.

I've not had cause to check ITV player or check whatever 5's VoD service is called, but 4oD and iPlayer both have subtitles.

One thing that really pisses me off is that not all of the BBC originated content has subtitles on Netflix. Ridiculous.