Lana Do

Lana Do, Shasta Ihorn, Charity M. Pitcher-Cooper et al.

Audio description (AD) narrates visual elements in video for blind and low-vision audiences. Recent work has shown that giving novice describers an AI-generated draft to start from helps produce higher-quality AD and lowers the barrier to entry. What remains an open question is how draft quality shapes the editing process. We investigate this through GenAD, an AD generation pipeline that incorporates accessibility guidelines and contextual video information, and RefineAD, an editing interface for human revisions. Human-AI contributions are measured across text, timing, and delivery. In a within-subjects study, we compared authoring from scratch against editing AI drafts of varying quality. GenAD drafts cut completion time by more than half and significantly reduced cognitive load. In contrast, baseline drafts generated from simple, unguided prompts offered only modest benefits, pointing to a minimum quality threshold for effectiveness. Qualitative findings suggest this threshold is content-dependent; as visual complexity increases, so does the quality needed from AI drafts. We propose this as a design principle: effective AI assistance should clear a quality threshold suited to the target content, rather than simply be present.

Lana Do, Gio Jung, Juvenal Francisco Barajas et al.

Digital video is central to communication, education, and entertainment, but without audio description (AD), blind and low-vision audiences are excluded. While crowdsourced platforms and vision-language-models (VLMs) expand AD production, quality is rarely checked systematically. Existing evaluations rely on NLP metrics and short-clip guidelines, leaving questions about what constitutes quality for full-length content and how to assess it at scale. To address these questions, we first developed a multi-dimensional assessment framework for uninterrupted, full-length video, grounded in professional guidelines and refined by accessibility specialists. Second, we integrated this framework into a comprehensive methodological workflow, utilizing Item Response Theory, to assess the proficiency of VLM and human raters against expert-established ground truth. Findings suggest that while VLMs can approximate ground-truth ratings with high alignment, their reasoning was found to be less reliable and actionable than that of human respondents. These insights show the potential of hybrid evaluation systems that leverage VLMs alongside human oversight, offering a path towards scalable AD quality control.