Why I Say “Audio Description,” Not “Audio Descriptions”
When We Treat It As Storytelling, Not Compliance, Everyone Gets More From The Work
I Once Listened To A Beautifully Acted Scene Reduced To A Pile Of Facts.
The voice was accurate. Clear. Factual.
But it had no breath. No rhythm.
No tension.
The moment didn’t land because the description didn’t carry it.
It didn’t feel like part of the story. It felt like a technical layer, added after the fact.
And that wasn’t the performer’s fault.
It came down to how the work had been framed.
As “descriptions.”
Plural. Modular. Disconnected.
I’ve Lost Count Of How Many Times I’ve Quietly Shifted A Word Mid-Conversation:
Someone says “audio descriptions.” I try not to bristle. I reply gently, “Yes, audio description can absolutely do that…”
People often say “descriptions” without thinking.
It sounds logical. One show, many visuals, many descriptions.
But that small “s” can carry a big misunderstanding.
It makes the work sound like a pile of information. metadata, captions, technical insertions.
It subtly signals that description is separate from the story, not part of it.
But That’s Not What I’ve Seen When The Work Is Done With Care.
Audio description when it’s treated as storytelling, is immersive.
It’s emotional.
It’s crafted with intention by writers, performers, engineers, and blind consultants who bring their full creative insight to the table.
And when it’s done well, it’s not a series of interchangeable lines.
It’s one narrative. One arc. One performance, flowing with the tone and rhythm of the story itself.
Let Me Show You.
Descriptions:
“She enters. She smiles. She sits.”
Description:
“She enters without a word, but her smile lands first.”
The first lists actions.
The second holds emotional weight. It’s designed for experience, not just comprehension.
That’s what I mean when I say “audio description” not as a file format or requirement, but as a living, breathing part of the story.
I unpack this more fully in this here blog post: https://roysamuelson.com/why-i-dont-say-audio-descriptions/
Think Of It Like A Film Score.
You wouldn’t say, “the musics were well done.”
Or “great editings on that scene.”
Even though there are many parts, many cues, and many cuts, we talk about the experience in the singular.
Because what matters is how those parts work together.
Same here.
Audio description isn’t an accessory.
It’s an act of co-creation.
I’m Not Blind.
I work closely with people who are.
Writers. Reviewers. Cultural consultants. Professionals. Audiences.
I’ve learned to listen deeply to what makes description resonate, and what makes it fall flat.
And over and over, I’ve seen the same thing:
When audio description is treated as a checklist, it feels hollow.
But when it’s treated as narrative, it becomes cinematic. Emotional. Seamless.
It includes the audience fully, not by relaying the visuals, but by inviting them into the story’s emotional truth.
That’s the difference one word can make. And that’s our responsibility.
Update (January 2026)
After I contacted the FCC’s Disability Rights Office about “audio descriptions” versus “audio description,” an attorney replied that the singular “best captures the Commission’s intent,” and that DRO generally uses, and will continue to use, the singular.
Back to the original piece on why the “s” changes how people think about quality…
So Next Time You Talk About It, Pause.
Try saying “audio description.”
Singular.
Because it is.
One craft.
One arc.
One audience, included.
If You Care About Human-Centered Access, Storytelling, And Designing For Dignity,
My newsletter might be for you, if that sounds like something worth building together. roysamuelson.kit.com
I share real tools and lived insights from the field, what works, what doesn’t, and how to craft accessibility that connects, not just complies. Subscribe below, or share to help get rid of the plural.
Thanks for reading. It matters that you’re here.