Context and Intent
Two words that turn “taste debates” into decisions that hold up.
In Part 2, I described the Friday-night scramble, and why it creates that weird feeling of risk, even when the work looks fine. This is the simplest set of shared rules I know.
Context and intent, the simplest “rules” I know
I keep coming back to two words that sound basic, but they cut through chaos fast.
Context and intent.
Context is what happens right before, and right after.
Intent is what the moment is trying to make the audience feel and understand.
Here’s a simple example I use a lot:
Someone slaps someone else.
That slap can mean ten different things, depending on context.
If right before, they were playfully dancing around, the slap might read as teasing. Or flirtation. Or a joke that went too far.
If right before, two enemies faced off in a high-stakes standoff, the slap can read as domination. Or betrayal. Or escalation.
Same action. Different meaning.
That is context.
Now add intent.
What is this moment trying to do to the viewer?
Make them laugh?
Make them flinch?
Make them worry?
Make them understand who has power now?
When a team is aligned on context and intent, the “voice problem” stops being subjective.
Notes stop being taste wars.
Instead of “I don’t like it,” it becomes, “Does this match what the moment is doing?”
That shift is agency.
It is also the secret sauce of performance.
I’ve watched context and intent light up voice actors, executive rooms, training sessions, and speaking engagements. Not because it’s complicated. Because it’s actionable. You can use it in the next five minutes.
Two Questions I Use in Real Conversations
If you want the tool without the philosophy, here it is:
1. What do we want the audience to feel and understand in this moment?
2. What are we doing that pulls attention away from that?
That’s it.
Those two questions can clean up a surprising amount of noise, including:
Why audio description sounds flat or rushed even when the script is solid
Why a voice choice feels “fine” but not trustworthy
Why a synthetic voice works in one place and breaks the spell in another
Why a team keeps re-litigating the same decision every release
The All-or-Nothing Trap With AI Voices
I’m not interested in schooling the industry. I’m in it. I understand why teams cling to all-or-nothing thinking.
Binary decisions feel safe.
Always use AI.
Never use AI.
It gives people something concrete to hold.
But it also replaces thinking with a stance. And stance does not protect trust.
The decision is rarely about the technology alone.
It’s about the moment.
Sometimes a synthetic voice is perfectly fine. Especially when the job is informational and the emotional load is low.
Sometimes it’s a terrible fit. Especially when the moment needs warmth, grief, humor, tension, intimacy, or a precise human rhythm.
Most teams only debate cost and speed. That’s understandable. Those are the numbers in front of them.
But “cheap and fast” is not the same as “lands well.”
The best conversations are the ones where nobody is trying to win.
We get curious.
What is the story asking for?
What does the audience need here?
What are we willing to trade, and what are we not?
That’s where decisions start to hold up under pressure.
Why Audio Description Is the Fastest Truth Test I Know
Audio description forces the real question:
What matters right now, and how do we make that land?
You cannot hide from that question. You cannot solve it with buzzwords.
If a team is unclear on what matters, the audio description will expose it immediately. Pacing gets weird. Tone gets inconsistent. Review becomes subjective. Notes become endless.
If a team is clear on what matters, audio description becomes an accelerator. It pulls the whole workflow into focus.
And that’s why I built a Sprint.
Not because teams need more “best practices.”
Because teams need a way to turn scattered opinions into shared rules, with real deadlines, real stakeholders, and real video.
I’ve always enjoyed these conversations. I’m generous by nature. I like solving the puzzle with people.
Now it’s cleaner.
It’s a defined process. Clear steps. Clear outputs. Clear next actions.
Not more meetings. Less scrambling.
A simple way to stop bolting things on at the end.
A way to move from “we have to” to “we get to.”
If This Is Familiar
If you’re in a workflow where voice and accessibility decisions keep getting made late, under pressure, and then quietly questioned later, I’ll leave you with one question:
Where are you relying on heroics instead of shared rules?
Check out roysamuelson.com/sprint for some details on how I support this for your organization. And if you want more behind-the-scenes tools like this, subscribe below, or check out my main newsletter roysamuelson.kit.com. I send weekly practical notes from the performance side, instantly applicable to any time you speak. And if you know someone who’s living in that Friday-night scramble, share this with them.