The article Seeing the Show with Their Ears: Technology Extends Theater’s Thrills to Blind Patrons by Anand Giridharadas opened my eyes to a phenomenon that I had no idea was taking shape. This article detailed the breakthrough technology of D-Scriptive. D-Scriptive caters to those who are either blind or extremely visually impaired by describing what happens on stage during a Broadway play. Giridharadas writes, “ Fostering that pleasure takes technological trickery. Because every live performance is slightly different, playing a single audio track wouldn’t work: before long, the action would outrun or lag the description on the tape. D-Scriptive solved the problem by dicing up its narration — into more than 600 audio files...an individual file, or cluster of them, is assigned to a particular cue given by the theater’s stage manager.” The article describes this breakthrough technology in a positive light in the beginning, explaining just how revolutionary it is for those who are blind. D-Scriptive allows people who wouldn’t otherwise be capable of enjoying a Broadway show to experience live theater. However, the article does details a couple of D-Scriptive’s pitfalls. One down side to this technology is its overwhelming nature for the listener; these audio files are jam packed with descriptions of costumes, set design and facial expressions and the listener must take all this information in while listening to the songs and the dialogue.
This article described a very important breakthrough in science. One of the main goals of science is to make life better for everyone, especially for those at a disadvantage. D-Scriptive is a great example of what our future and current scientists need to be thinking about. Technologies such as these will help those who experience life in different ways and will improve the overall quality of life.
I really enjoyed reading this article; it was easy to read and quite interesting scientifically. It did, however, leave me wanting more information and critique on the D-Scriptive technology from the author. I felt that his perspective was unique and an elaboration on his experience would have made the article more relatable.
Giridharadas, Anand. "Seeing the Show with Their Ears." New York Times. New York Times Company, 6 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.
I read Emma’s summary and explanation of the New York Times article “Show with Their Ears: Technology Extends Theater’s Thrills to Blind Patrons.” She started off with a great summary of the article that was easy to read and understand because it was clear and to the point. This summary was interesting and gave an excellent description of the article’s main ideas. I also liked her analysis of how technology like the new D-Scriptive is important to our society. For example, Emma mentioned that science is meant to be applied to real-world problems so that it can improve the lives of everyone. She connected this well to the article by describing how D-Scriptive technology improves the lives of blind people. A third thing Emma did well was using an objective voice. By presenting both the pros and cons of D-Scriptive, she made us think about how this revolutionary technology is not without flaws.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Emma’s review was great, I think she could have made it even better in a couple of ways. For example, she could have included more specific details about the article. I understood the concept from the review and appreciated that the summary portion was concisely written, but after reading the actual article as well, I think that more detail could have been added to the summary. I also thought she could have included some quotes from the original article because including valuable quotes from an article often adds to our understanding and appreciation of the subject.
One thing that I found really interesting and amazing was how scientists could exactly coordinate the scenes of a play with the audio of the D-Scriptive technology by breaking up the narration into hundreds of smaller audio files that are triggered to play by the stage manager’s cues.
I really enjoyed reading Emma’s review of the article “Show with Their Ears: Technology Extends Theater’s Thrills to Blind Patrons.” I think Emma did a really good job explaining how the D-Scriptive technology worked and how it was different from other audio guides that have been used in the past. She also did a good job explaining why this technology still led to difficulties for the listener because it can be very overwhelming to have that much stimulus at one time. D-Scriptive is like having someone talk in your ear while trying to listen to people talking and singing, which I’m sure can get very confusing and frustrating. At the same time, I think Emma made it very clear that this amazing new technology is still a step forward for blind or severely visually impaired people because for the first time they can really enjoy a Broadway play while getting up to date information on what is happening on stage at that very moment.
ReplyDeleteI think Emma could have improved her review by making it a little bit longer. I feel like she could have said more on the topic of how the technology works, for example, more information on the recording process of all the audio files. I would also like to know how much this technology costs for the producers of the plays, in addition to how much it costs the listeners to go to a show as well as get the D-Scriptive audio technology. A breakthrough technology like this is probably not cheap, but maybe in the coming years it will become more available to the population.
One thing I found really interesting and would like to learn more about is what the D-Scriptive audio guides describe. Emma said that they describe costumes, set designs, and facial expressions, but I would like to learn more about how they describe all the complex things that happen onstage in a short amount of time. I think it would be an interesting learning experience to watch a short segment of a play with your eyes closed listening to the D-Scriptive, and then to watch the same segment with your eyes open and see how the experiences differed and how accurately the technology described the scene.
I read Emma’s article review of Show with Their Ears: Technology Extends Theater’s Thrills to Blind Patrons, by Anand Giridharadas. I thought Emma did a great job in explaining what the technology of D-Scriptive will do. I will admit, when I read the article, I did not understand what the technology really did. I also thought Emma did a great job in taking a quote from the article. I thought that this quote was more impactful than a wordy explanation of how this technology will be helping blind people going to Broadway plays. Finally, I thought Emma wonderfully explained her criticism of the author’s article. I completely agree that it was fairly simple to understand the article, and it left me wanting more. Just what an article should do!
ReplyDeleteI thought Emma’s article could have been improved in two ways. The first thing that I think Emma could have done was properly cite the article. Although the link was at the bottom of her review, I found it less professional looking just because it was not MLA formatted. This is something she could have easily fixed. I also was confused by Emma’s formatting at first glance. When I read the review, I saw she had the correct content, including a summary, real life implication, and criticism of the author, however it looked like the last two paragraphs where one. After looking more carefully I saw this was not the case. For the readers benefit, I think Emma should have indented the paragraphs to avoid confusion.
The most amazing part of this article was the fact that this technology will open so many doors for blind people. This is something I would have never thought to create, and it is amazing that people with this disability will no longer have the barrier of being unable to watch a play. The technology itself was my ah-ha moment. I hope there will be more inventions like this in the future.
I found the article, “Show with their Ears: Technology Extends Theater’s Thrills to Blind Patrons” and Emma’s review to be very interesting, because it discusses a solution to a problem that I never really thought about. In her review of the article, Emma does several things very well. Firstly, Emma includes specific details from the article in the form of a quote to provide direct facts that correspond to what she is describing to paint a more vivid picture of the technology, D-Scriptive, that she is referring to. Secondly, Emma mentions two different opinions regarding this new technology. She elaborates on how this technology is great because it allows blind patrons to view shows, but she also mentions its pitfalls, saying that “one down side to this technology is its overwhelming nature for the listener; these audio files are jam packed with descriptions of costumes, set design and facial expressions and the listener must take all this information in while listening to the songs and the dialogue.” Thirdly, Emma connected the article to the world of science. The D-Scriptive technology is important because “one of the main goals of science is to make life better for everyone, especially for those at a disadvantage,” and this technology allows for blind people to enjoy “watching” things they otherwise could not have.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I really enjoyed Emma’s review, there are two minor things she could have done better. Firstly, Emma didn’t elaborate on how the technology works, and I would not have understood that the blind person would have a listening device in their ear describing the setting had I not read the article. Secondly, she could have connected the article better to the world by providing a specific example of where and when this technology has actually been used.
One interesting thing I learned from both the review and the article is that for each show, the D-Scriptive tape is divided into more than 600 files, and “an individual file, or cluster of them, is assigned to a particular cue given by the theater’s stage manager.” I really enjoyed reading both the article and review, and I am very curious to see which Broadway shows or movies this technology has been used for thus far.
I read Emma’s review on the article “Show with Their Ears: Technology Extends Theater’s Thrills to Blind Patrons”, by Anand Giridharadas. I thought Emma did a great job summarizing the article. She made a difficult descriptive topic easy to understand and it really helped me understand the article. Besides from summarizing the article as a whole she clearly described how the D-Scriptive technology was different from the audio devices that were used in the past. I found it very interesting how so many different audio files are used and how much of a difference it makes for a blind person trying to experience a Broadway show. Lastly, I thought Emma did a great job in relating the topic of D-Scriptive technology to the science world because I normally wouldn’t pay attention to the connection. She specifically explained how it impacts society and what current and future scientists need to be thinking about.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I thought Emma did an amazing job reviewing this article there were two things she could’ve improved on. I thought she could’ve used another quote or referred to the article another time just to give her opinion validity. Lastly, I found there were a few citing mistakes, the title of the article in her first sentence was not in quotation marks, which is just a minor issue for me.
This article really interested me because I never really thought about how different it must be for a blind, or a visually impaired person, to see a broadway play. Like stated earlier I was very interested in learning that D-Scriptive technology gives the listener “more than 600 audio files...an individual file, or cluster of them” and the theater manager has to cue all of them. This whole topic fascinates me and I would love to learn more about it.
I enjoyed reading Emma’s summary of the article “Seeing the Show with Their Ears: Technology Extends Theater’s Thrills to Blind Patrons,” as it was the first time I had heard about the D-Scriptive technology. She did a great job explaining the importance of this technology in improving quality of life for those who cannot see shows. I also liked that Emma described some of the problems with the technology, and in particular, that it can be overwhelming. This is important for the scientists and those who record the narrative to consider when selecting what tracks to add to the D-Scriptive headset. Emma also selected a great quote to explain both the significance of this technology and the problems: lag time of description and action, and overwhelming amount of material to intake.
ReplyDeleteI think the review could have been improved with mention of the stories in the article to give a personal connection--the description of the technology and the understanding of how it was going to help specific people. I also think that it would have been nice if she had talked about how widespread this technology is--I haven’t heard of it before, so am wondering if it is widespread or being tested a few cases at a time.
I was impressed by the fact that this technology exists! I didn’t know about it before reading Emma’s summary, and it seems like it will be great when everything is worked out. As a performer and someone who loves going to see shows, I really appreciate that the joys of theatre are being made available to those who can’t see the beauty with their eyes.
After reading Emma’s review of the article “Show with Their Ears: Technology Theater’s Thrill to Blind Patrons,” I now have a better understanding of the positive and negative aspects of the new technology “D-Scriptive.” For example, I learned that the technology of D-Scriptive helps blind or severely visually impaired audience members of Broadway productions fully enjoy the play they are seeing by describing the information that they cant see. Also, I learned that due to varying performances, since every play is done live on stage, the technology has adapted by creating hundreds of different specific media files to match the audio to the specific performance of that night. Overall, Emma presented the facts of the article in a concise, understandable manner. Also, apart from the actual summary, Emma critiqued the article effectively when she said the author “left her wanting more.” This was a really interesting way of describing that she wanted the author to include more information about the technology. Finally, Emma successfully talked about the positive impact this technology will have on the visually impaired population in the future and, also, she connected this idea to the general idea that the goal of science is to make life better. This caused the reader to connect this one advancement to the overall theme in science, which improved my appreciation for the technology.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to critique something about Emma’s review, I would say that I wish she included a little more information about her personal opinion of the D-Scriptive technology and it’s use. Also, it would have been nice if she included some more information about the author’s personal perspective of this technology. With this information, her review of the article would be even better than it already is.
Finally, while there are many positive features of this new technology, I also discovered that it has its pitfalls. For instance, many have critiqued the listening device for its overwhelming nature for the listener. The audio files are filled with information about description of costumes, set design, facial expressions and the listener must comprehend this while also listening to the dialogue and songs.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading Emma’s review and appreciated that she made it understandable and interesting.
I read Emma’s article summary of “Show with Their Ears: Technology Extends Theater’s Thrills to Blind Patrons.” Emma made sure that the reader understood how the D-Scriptive technology worked and how it differed from other audio guides that have been used in the past. Another thing that Emma did well was that she explained how the technology used can be too much for the listener to handle. D-Scriptive is described as “having someone talk in your ear while trying to listen to people talking and singing”. This can be overwhelming and confusing for the listener. Thirdly, Emma did a good job of highlighting the importance of this new technology, stating that it can help the visually impaired by allowing the viewing of a Broadway play or simply keeping up to date.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to give advice to Emma to improve her article summary I would say to make it a little longer. Although it was concise and to the point I feel like it lacked some details that would have truly helped. For example further details on how the technology used actually works to help blind people. Another interesting detail that could have been added is the expense of this new invention. Is it affordable among those who are in need of this D-Scriptive.
I found this article to be very interesting and informative. The vivid description and language used increased my sympathy for the visually impaired. For example the author said that their experience at a Broadway play is much different than the rest. I also found it very interesting that D-Scriptive technology gives the listener more than 600 audio files whether it be an individual file, or cluster of them and the theater manager has to cue all of them.
I read Emma’s summary of the article Show with Their Ears: Technology Extends Theater’s Thrills to Blind Patrons which talks about a new technology called D-Scriptive. It helps people that are either blind or have very bad sight to experience Broadway plays as if they could see it. It works by using cued audio files to describe the play. I thought that Emma did a really good job summarizing the article, condensing all of the information making it easy to read, and not leaving any important information out. I also thought that Emma did a really good job describing the technology. When reading the article I was a little confused but Emma made the information simple and clear. Lastly, the third thing that I liked was how she mentioned the problems with D-Scriptive, that is some thing that people usually leave out.
ReplyDeleteOverall I thought that Emma’s summary was very good, but there is still some room for improvement. I think that she could have used quotes from the article itself and I think that she could have talked about the technology more, and I don’t mean how it works. For example she could have said when it will be available, where it will be used and if it has been used. Any problems besides that were just minor spelling errors.
I thought that Emma’s article and summary were very interesting. I thought that she chose a very interesting topic. I liked how its main purpose was helping to improve the lives of others. On of the things that she said that I liked a lot was “One of the main goals of science is to make life better for everyone, especially for those at a disadvantage.”
I read Emma Berry’s review of the article entitled “Seeing the Show with Their Ears.” I enjoyed reading her review of this article and there were three things in particular that were very well presented. First, I like how she described why this new technology was so innovative. She described that because each performance is different, a simple audio track wouldn’t work, so by coming up with this system, scientists have become very innovative and creative with their ideas. Second, I like how she used a quote to describe what D-Scriptive actually does. I think this was helpful because it showed us exactly what the creator was saying about his product instead of her trying to describe it. Finally, I like how she described the bad things about D-Scriptive. I think this helped me realize that this is not a ‘fix-all’ creation and it could be, and hopefully will be, improved in the future.
ReplyDeleteThere were also a few things she could have done differently to help her review. First, her grammar was a bit distracting and it prevented the information in the article from flowing as it should have. Secondly, I wish she had included more about how the technology is actually being used today and how its customers are feeling about it. I think that that information would have helped make the idea more real to me and not just something that is happening without my knowledge.
One new, interesting piece of information I learned was that this technology is actually being developed. I had no idea that science was capable of producing this kind of aid for those with visual impairment and I’m very happy that science has come this far and can help so many people experience new things. Overall, I enjoyed reading this article review and it was very interesting and informative.