zlacker

Well, if anyone were going to do it, you'd think no one would be surprised about it being the "National Public Radio"

>>013a+(OP)
Accessibility still matters, or should still matter even if you’re a radio station, but probably especially if you’re a news radio station.

>>dvtrn+N1
How many TV shows have audio descriptions of non verbal parts of what you see on screen?

>>dvtrn+N1
NPR is fantastic when it comes to accessibility by providing transcripts. I linked the page thinking the transcript will come later as they usually do. But turns out it was a wrong link. See elsewhere for the correct link.

>>scarfa+0i
More than zero. It's called closed captioning, isn't it? I've quite often seen closed-captioning that put brief written descriptions of non-verbal depictions in bracket, and it's not entirely common either

https://www.automaticsync.com/captionsync/what-qualifies-as-... (see section: "High Quality Captioning")

>>dvtrn+gE
Close captioning is for people who can’t hear.

I am not aware of many TV shows that offer audio commentary for the visually impaired.

Here is an example of one that does.

https://www.npr.org/2015/04/18/400590705/after-fan-pressure-...

>>scarfa+OE
Sorry, I thought that since we were originally talking about transcriptions of radio news broadcasts and accessibility for the hard of hearing that closed-captioning would be appropriate and relevant. But your point is well met.