Accessibility Best Practices 1.0
Introduction
The Need for Best Practices. The Accessibility
Best Practices [ABP] process was launched by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting [CPB] in July 2007 as a direct response to research
revealing the many obstacles that prevent viewers from finding public
television programs when they’re looking for something to watch
during primetime.
With the proportion of digitally-equipped primetime
television viewers at nearly two-thirds of the adult population and
the interactive program guide [IPG] emerging as the primary navigation
tool among a majority of consumers, the way that viewers find something
to watch on TV has changed, while public television’s way of
telling people what it has to offer has not. The consequences for public
television have been direct and dramatic. Viewers often report that
they have not watched a particular PBS program or series, not because
they dislike its content or format, but simply because they were unaware of
it.
As more and more viewers make their decisions at the
set, while surfing to specific digital tiers (rather than from bottom
to top in unbroken numerical sequence), and navigating their options
with the assistance of an IPG, our audiences need, as never before,
to be empowered.
The objective of these Accessibility Best Practices is, quite simply,
to empower public television’s audiences by making
our primetime NPS content easier to find.
The benefits
on the local level in making our primetime programs easier to find
would include increased audiences for the National Program Service
[NPS], expanded opportunities to build station membership from an
expanded audience, and the operational efficiencies that can result
from more clear and consistent procedures and technical operations.
The Process of Developing Best Practices. An
interdisciplinary and cross-functional working group representing
local stations, the national organizations, and producers has
been studying the accessibility challenge and deliberating
on alternative strategies since July 2007.[1] The
Content Accessibility Working Group [CAWG] has had access to some of
the best custom consumer research—both qualitative and quantitative—on
the way digitally-equipped (cable, satellite, and telco) viewers navigate
their choices. [2] Members
of the CAWG have looked closely at the procedures and technical operations
and processes related to the transmission of program information—from
the producer to the viewer’s set. And they have vetted their
ideas at local stations, system gatherings, in open and widely-promoted
web forums, as well as in structured and facilitated Web-based focus
groups.[3] The
following is the beta version of the Accessibility Best Practices now
being proposed to the public television System for acceptance and implementation.
Most of these best practices require few if any additional resources
at the local station level, though some may entail changes in local
procedure or a redefinition of roles. Many of these Best Practices
will require particular effort on the part of PBS and the producers
of the programs that make up the primetime NPS. To that extent, they
will require some additional investment of resources on the part of
the System as a whole. But these investments of time, talent, and money
are made in a well-founded conviction that viewers already predisposed
to watch public television will be far more likely to do so—and to do so consistently— if
the practical obstacles that get in their way can be removed. Likewise, new viewers
might be more likely to discover the excellent content offered
by their local public television stations, if we can make it easier
for them to find our programs.
Guide to Reading the Document. This
document begins by presenting the evidence that the working
group considered when defining these Best Practices. It then defines
the general principles and specific
actions to be implemented in each of three areas specifically:
-
program titling and descriptions,
-
promotional tools that can be used during the broadcast
of a program, and
-
the management and transmittal of program information.
These areas are called out for special attention because they offer
the best possibility of achieving the greatest impact in the shortest
amount of time and at the most reasonable cost. Since the primetime
NPS continues to account for the largest share of adult public television
viewing at the majority of stations, the principles and practices outlined
in this beta version apply to this part of a station’s schedule
specifically. And since the use of new platforms (e.g., Web streaming,
podcasting, etc.) to access NPS content, while growing, is still low
in PTV’s target primetime audiences, the focus here is exclusively
on television. Future editions may be expected to apply the principles
of accessibility more widely—encompassing local productions and
acquisitions, as well as new media platforms.
The last section of the document is devoted to what the CAWG has
determined is necessary for effective implementation. Because of the
degree of coordination required among various stakeholders, as well
as the amount of work that remains to be carried out by designated
Implementation Teams, these Best Practices assume the appointment and
funding of an Accessibility Coordinator whose sole responsibility would
be to foster the adoption of the principles and see to the implementation
of the actions outlined herein.
What follows is the final version of the Accessibility Best Practices
that have been developed by the Content Accessibility Working Group
[CAWG]. The concepts for these practices were first put out for public
comment in March, and an early draft of the document was reviewed in
Web-based focus groups during April. We appreciate all those who have
commented in the past. Your input and that of your peers has made this
a stronger document.
- We have
been more careful to lay out the reasons for the Best Practices and
the consumer data supporting them.
- We have
been more clear and realistic about the kinds of commitments required
to make them reality.
- Where
we did not institute a recommended change, we either found a way
to address the issue that the recommendation seemed to reflect or
else explained why this or that particular problem was not being
addressed here.
- And,
wherever possible, we have simplified language, to improve communication.
TYPE YOUR FEEDBACK BELOW
[1] This
process has been led and funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The process has been facilitated by City Square Associates, Inc.
Documentation of the meetings of the CAWG and summaries are available
upon request from CPB.
[2] Research
has included the tracking of technology penetration and program
navigation information over five years through the CPB-funded Awareness,
Attitudes, and Usage [AAU] studies fielded in 2004, 2006, and 2008;
the Home Technology Monitor developed and maintained by Knowledge
Networks/Statistical Research, Inc.; a quantitative re-contact
survey specifically about the methods that viewers use to find
primetime programs conducted in 2007; and a piece of ethnographic
research fielded by Greenfield Consulting and commissioned specifically
to help inform the development of these Best Practices. Summaries
of the research findings are available upon request from CPB.
[3] Summaries
of System Feedback obtained at the Fall 2007 PTPA meeting, January
2008 NETA conference, March 2008 Web Feedback Tool, April 2008
PBS Technology Conference and WebGroups can be obtained from CPB.
|
| |
1. The Basis for the Best Practices
The Intersection of the Desirable and the Possible. From
the start, the CAWG understood that, for Best Practices to achieve their
aim, they would have to be built on a clear understanding of how digitally-equipped
television viewers navigate the myriad viewing options available to them.
The question, when looking at the consumer data available to us, is this: In
the best of all possible worlds, what would we do to make it easier for
viewers to find our shows?
But as experienced professionals in the public television System, CAWG
members also understood that not everything that is desirable is equally
important, and not everything that is important is equally possible.
And so, the question when studying the journey of program information
from producer to the viewer’s
set is this: Given the way this particular system works and the
resources available to change it, what can we do right now?
Consumer
Behavior - IPGs. The recent qualitative and quantitative
viewer research reviewed by the CAWG makes it clear that digitally-equipped
viewers—i.e.,
viewers who use digital cable, satellite, or telco reception—rely
greatly on the text that appears both in their Interactive Program Guides
[IPGs] and at the bottom of the screen when surfing, in order to make
their viewing choices. It is also clear that—however important
series, network, or station brands—viewers
who use IPGs search primarily by subject matter and content.
In this context, and from a consumer standpoint, the titling and descriptions
provided for public television programming in primetime are inconsistent
in their clarity, utility, and appeal. Restrictions imposed by technology—e.g.,
the limited number of characters allowed for a program title in a scheduling
grid—make lengthy compound program titles, or series titles followed by
episode titles, virtually useless by clipping much of the verbiage a viewer
would need to make sense of them. And even where titles are not too long, they
are not always written with a view to stimulating the interest of the broadest
possible audience. Complicating matters is the fact that inefficiencies in the
way program data are transmitted (see “Information Management” below)
make it all too common for a viewer either to find inaccurate program
data in their IPG or no data at all.
The evidence strongly suggests that viewers will be more likely to find,
sample, and watch public television’s primetime offerings when the titles
and descriptions they obtain through their cable, satellite, or telco system
are accurate, concise, and eye-catching.
Consumer Behavior – Lower Thirds and On-air Promotion. In
addition to what appears in their IPGs, and what they see during the
breaks between programs, viewers are increasingly reliant on information
that is provided during
the broadcast of a show—either in the text and images that
can be displayed in the lower third of the screen or through embedded
promotions that appear near, but not at the very end, of a program.
Whether to tell them what they’re currently watching, or the channel to
which their set is currently tuned, or else to remind them of what’s “up
next” or what’s “next on,” these have become
an industry standard to help viewers orient themselves in a cluttered
viewing landscape and to entice viewers of one program to another program
for which there is reason to believe they will have a desire or appetite
to watch.
It is true that viewers occasionally grumble about the messages and
bugs that appear in the lower third of the screen. But there
is also evidence that viewers have become accustomed to the use of these
devices and even disposed to welcome them when they’re providing
information the viewer is looking for, in a manner that is not annoying
or obnoxious.
And while viewers sometimes object to commercial interruptions, viewers
think of program promotion in general—and embedded promotions
specifically—as distinct from advertising: a service rather
than an annoyance, useful information that they can use to plan their
viewing.
Information Management. In addition to studying relevant
consumer behavior and attitudes, we studied our own behavior as a System
that generates, distributes, and promotes content. Although, on both
a local and national level, PTV personnel report inconsistencies and
frustrations in dealing with the main listing services, the origin of
many of the problems that manifest themselves on the viewer’s screen
lies within rather than outside of the public television
System.
For example, the current path by which program information travels from
producer to the viewer’s set involves a multitude of players, both
on the national and local level, and in organizations both within and
outside of the public television system. A careful business process analysis
revealed that, in this current system, the likelihood of inconsistent
or erroneous listings (or no listing at all!) appearing on the viewer’s
set is greater than is acceptable.
As many as three distinct databases are involved in the collection,
management, and transmission of program information—and that’s
just within the public television system. What happens when program information
is transmitted to the listing services—from either PBS or local
stations—greatly increases the likelihood of viewer-facing error,
and there is evidence to suggest that this is causing viewers to gravitate
toward other more reliable options.
It is clear, then, that a comprehensive approach to Accessibility
addresses not only whatappears on viewers’ screens, but also
the systems and proceduresby which the program information and promotional
content are passed through the System. Although many dedicated
professionals have been working independently and without fanfare to
address particular aspects of this situation, a concerted effort and
additional resources will be required to develop solutions that can
be widely implemented.
TYPE YOUR FEEDBACK BELOW |
|
2. The Best Practices
a) Program Titling and Descriptions
Principles
- Titles and descriptions that are created and submitted for
eventual on-screen use will be, going forward, consistently
written with the prospective viewer in mind. This means that,
whatever titles or descriptions may be in use in the early
stages of a particular program or series, those titles and
descriptions which are entered into the databases which feed
ProTrack, or from which information is provided to the main
listing services (TV Guide and Tribune) will need to framed
(or re-framed) primarily for the benefit of the viewer who
will use the information to make a viewing decision.
- Titles henceforth are to be composed in such a way as to
pass “the 26-character test.” That is, if a program
title cannot be deemed intelligible and appealing in 26 letters
or fewer,[4] it
will be considered unacceptable and need to be rewritten. Except
in compelling cases, the communication hierarchy for titles
should be subject matter first, and series brand second.[5] Ample
opportunities exist for a series to define and reinforce its
brand during the broadcast; the purpose of the title
in the IPG is to make the content of the program offering instantaneously
clear and compelling.
- Descriptions are to be composed by producers, producing stations,
and their publicists in varying lengths to accommodate the
different ways in which they will appear on-screen. In every
case, the priority will be the stimulation of viewer interest,
rather than the conveying of a blandly factual and comprehensive
synopsis of the episode. The use of this same descriptive
information in other media—local station program guides,
websites, and newspapers should also be considered in the development
of norms for descriptions.
|
Actions
- A “Titling and Description Implementation Team” consisting
of representatives of the CAWG as well as program producers and
promotion staff will develop simple, clear rules for NPS primetime
program titling and descriptions. These will be incorporated
into an updated PBS Redbook and be considered among the conditions
for broadcast. They are to be published Systemwide in trenches-ready
or “Pocket Guide” format.
- PBS will appoint a “Title and Description Coach” whose
responsibility it will be to work closely with NPS producers
to refine titles and descriptions for maximum impact and appeal.
The “Coach” will collaborate with PBS Research
to develop a simple, cost-effective way of running title-tests
to insure that PBS primetime titles are consistently consumer-facing.
- Summits with senior executives at the main national listing
services—TV Guide and Tribune—will be held to determine
in advance what would be mutually beneficial and to establish
what is realistic and possible so that the guidelines described
above can ultimately impact what viewers see on their TV screens,
find on the Web, or read in the paper. Depending on the outcome
of these summits, a “local station tool kit” will
be developed to include both the “Pocket Guide” referenced
above and specific guidance on how to get the most out of the
relationship with one’s listing services.
|
b) Promotional Tools During the Broadcast:
Embedded
Promos and Use of Lower Thirds
Principles
- Public television will make the fullest possible use of the
lower third of the screen during program broadcast that is,
at the same time, consistent with its distinctiveness as a
non-commercial program service that permits viewers to enjoy
an uncluttered viewing experience. The main strategic uses
of lower thirds will be to deliver valuable program information
(next-ups and next-ons), to reinforce local station identities,
and to cultivate series brands. In their quantity, content,
and design, these images and messages must both be effective
as marketing tools and consistent with public television’s
reputation as a platform in which high quality content can
be enjoyed with a minimum of clutter and distraction.
- The practice of embedded promotion, already well underway,
is to be extended and supported across the primetime NPS schedule.
The embedded promotion platform is to be thought of as a place
from which a series can promote upcoming episodes, or swap
cross-promotional messages with affinity series, or a local
station can feature a particular local programming event. Particularly in
a service like the primetime NPS, with its non-uniform schedule,
the more routine and effective use of both embedded promotion
and lower third messaging is critical in the effort to retain
and build viewership.
- In the case of both embedded promotion and lower thirds,
producers are to be empowered with the information they need
to make sound decisions about where, when, and how the promotional
content is to be inserted so that the integrity of their art
is not violated. Local stations are to be given accurate information
in a timely fashion by producers so that promotional material
can be appropriately inserted, as well as operational flexibility
to adapt to local circumstances and retain opportunities for
local differentiation.
|
Actions
- A “Promotion Implementation Team” consisting of
CAWG members and representatives of the technical, producing,
programming, and marketing disciplines will be convened to formulate
a technical and style guide to govern the design and use of lower
thirds. Like the titling and description rules, these are to
be incorporated into the PBS Redbook and made conditions of distribution.
At the outset of implementation, pilot markets and/or pilot series
will be identified for tests of specific tactics and approaches.
Data will be gathered to gauge the impact of these alternative
approaches.
- PBS will continue to support and extend the use of embedded
promotion. They will begin by updating the existing research
that speaks to the effectiveness of embedded promotion, and then—as
appropriate—communicating the measurable benefits of embedded
promotion more clearly and widely throughout the System. PBS
will develop specific incentives to producers in order to encourage
wider and more consistent adoption across the primetime NPS.
- Going forward, producers will commit themselves to timely delivery
of embedded promotion content as well as time code based insertion
points for lower third promotion. Technical personnel at local
stations will be provided sufficient information and training
to implement both practices effectively and efficiently.
|
c) The Management of Program Information
Principles
- A reasonable consistency in the data formats, fields, and
parameters for public television databases containing program
information will be more conducive to timely, accurate sharing
and transmission of the data that ultimately appears on viewers’ sets.
For the purposes of this principle, “public television
databases” include PBS Orion and Broadview, ProTrack,
as well as proprietary local station reports and forms. The
specifications to be used in achieving this consistency must
take account of the requirements of the main listing services,
as well as of the major cable, satellite, and telco operators
(e.g., IPG restrictions, limitations, and maximums) if they
are to achieve their aim of facilitating timely and accurate
data transmission.
- To the extent possible, procedures should be simplified and
streamlined so that program information is touched only by
as many hands as is absolutely necessary, eliminating inefficiency,
duplication, and multiple opportunities for error.
- The success of these efforts depends on getting the most
complete and accurate program information as early as possible
in the process—beginning with producers, producing stations,
and their publicists—so as to minimize the necessity
of making last-minute changes in title, content, program length,
or other relevant variables.
|
Actions
- A “Data Management Implementation Team” consisting
of representatives from the CAWG as well as PBS and local traffic,
engineering, and programming professionals will work closely
and directly with the team defining the title and description
rules, in order to align database design and management procedures
with the standards set for program titles and descriptions. Their
work will begin with Orion and then extend to traffic software
vendors to alter databases so that the changes implemented will
filter unimpeded throughout the System.
- Since the information to be entered into the data stream described
above originates with producers, the Implementation Team will
work closely with producers to renovate the procedures for creating,
entering, and revising essential program information. Renovated
procedures will take account of both long-lead planning and the
special circumstance of news and public affairs program whose
content and talent may not be determined until a time close to
broadcast. And, for the purposes of accessibility, “essential
program information” will include program title, description,
rating, genre, and captioning status—provision of which
will be considered a condition of distribution.
- Training and support will be provided to producers and others
in transitioning to these new data formats and procedures, monitoring
their impact, and modifying them where necessary on the basis
of experience.
|
[4] The precise
number of characters may vary by listing service or set-top box interface.
Part of the work of the Implementation Team will be to establish
the exact number required to apply to the majority of households
nationwide.
[5] The
Implementation team will work with TV Guide, Tribune Media, TiVo
and others to enlist their support of this titling convention.
TYPE YOUR FEEDBACK BELOW |
|
3. Implementation and Leadership
In the process of developing these Best Practices, the CAWG uncovered
a widespread sentiment in the public television community that numerous
similar efforts have gone aground in the past. Groups have met and talked
for months, only to find that they needed to convene yet another group.
Or else a set of guidelines or a report was issued to little or no effect.
We are determined this initiative will not follow that pattern.
But the complexity of the task and the number of players in a fundamentally
decentralized System means that the only way to achieve success is to
build-in effective coordination and empowered leadership from the start.
The reality is that no one currently—at
either the national or local level—has room in his/her portfolio
or the available bandwidth necessary to take on the leadership and coordination
job.
The implementation of these Best Practices—as well as the
development of future ones in response to changes in the environment
or what is learned from the many controlled experiments—needs to
be owned. In
other words, someone needs to be empowered and recognized by
the System as appropriate to lead this initiative.
A Primetime Content Accessibility Coordinator should be appointed
and empowered to work with PBS and NPS producers, representatives of
the main listing services, as well as local programmers, engineers,
marketers, and traffic personnel to implement these Best Practices,
monitor and measure their effectiveness, and propose adaptations and
additions to keep pace with changes in technology and the viewing landscape.
Without
such a person—or someone or something serving such a person’s
function—it is unlikely that the principles and actions described
herein can be widely embraced or effectively sustained. Sufficient resources—at
least enough to fund a 2-3-year contract and administrative support—need
to be assigned to the task, so that what has been an afterthought up
until now becomes a priority sustained long enough to measure its impact.
A Final Word
As a beta version, it should be clear that these Accessibility
Best Practices are dynamic and, in principle, open to evolution and refinement
on the basis of what is learned from implementation and change that will
inevitably continue to occur in the television landscape. Continual and
close monitoring and measurement of the impact of changes outlined here
will be essential. And it is expected that updates, add-ons, and amendments
will be made to these Best Practices over the course of the coming years.
The hope is that most of what is proposed here will succeed in its objectives.
The likelihood is great that some individual elements will miss their
mark or require retuning. But the only way we will find out is to try.
Given the continued erosion of our audiences in spite of the high quality
of our content, the risks entailed in not trying to meet the
challenges of the digital television age are far greater than any minor
hazard associated with the implementation of the ideas presented here.
TYPE YOUR FEEDBACK BELOW |
|
|
Thanks for your feedback. Before submitting, please
answer the following quick questions. Items marked with * are
required. (Please
note: Your contact information will not be shared with any other group
or organization, nor will your personal identity be connected with any
specific comments you have made.): |
|
What is your name? * |
|
For what station, organization, or company
do you work? * |
|
What is your job title or discipline? *
(e.g., engineer, programmer, general
manager) |
|
What is your email address? * |
|
The Best Practices call for the creation of “Implementation
Teams” for each of the three main areas: Titles and Descriptions,
Promotion During the Broadcast, and Management of Program Information.
Are you interested in being on or working with any of these implementation teams?* |
If you are intersted in working on an implementation team, how would
you like to contribute to the implementation process?
|
|
Please enter the words you see in the box. *
Please enter the words in order
and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from
abusing this service. |
|
|
|