Abstract

The extraordinary technological evolution of the last decade has consolidated the production and distribution of tailor-made and easily accessible quality audiovisual materials that users can manage as they wish. As a result of this technological and sociological evolution, streaming, video and TV on demand (VOD and TVOD) are booming. Media accessibility has been promoted by legislative frameworks in many countries and has been trying to meet the needs of these new audiovisual distribution models, but it has struggled to keep pace. The availability of accessible solutions on many of these new platforms is not new, and both the study of alternatives and the quality of the services provided by the various platforms have grown in recent years. However, accessibility is still far from the 100 per cent mark set in recent norms, and, in some cases, figures have shown only modest growth in the last years. This paper presents the results of a study on the accessibility solutions present on streaming, VOD and TVOD platforms in several European countries and their evolution over the last decade.

Keywords: video on-demand VOD, television on-demand TVOD, streaming, accessibility, evolution

1. Introduction

Although audiovisual content has existed for over a hundred years, in the 21st century it has grown dramatically. Technology, aesthetics and user demands, to name but a few factors, have had an impact on the products currently aired, streamed and released. Screens are no longer flat and static scenarios, but an open window to an increasing number of possibilities, from computers to smartphones and other devices. The rapid evolution of technologies ensures the production of hours and hours of easy-to-access audiovisual materials which are no longer short-lived instant experiences that viewers can enjoy at a specific date and time but on-demand experiences that users can manage at will. Technology has radically altered not only the viewing experience of users but also the quality of their experience.

One of the most striking examples of such a changing and increasing evolution in technology and viewing habits is the rise of streaming, video and television on-demand (VOD and TVOD). They have been present now for over two decades in some countries and provide the most representative example of “controlled viewing”: contents, language combinations, layout aspects and viewing times, among other elements, can be customised. However, such a growing selection does not include a particularly wide range of accessibility solutions.

With the help of technology and the impetus provided by legislation and social awareness, accessibility practices have also adapted in order to meet the needs of the new models. Nevertheless, it has not evolved as fast, which has resulted in part of the currently released audiovisual products lacking adequate accessibility solutions, if any.

The availability of accessibility in many of these platforms is not new in the field, and the study of alternatives and the quality of the services provided has grown in recent years (Arias-Badia 2020a and 2020b; Arnáiz-Uzquiza and Igareda 2013; Arrufat-Pérez-de-Zafra et al. 2021; Bruti 2021; Chapdelaine and Gagnon 2009; Ellis 2015; Ellis and Kent 2015; Ellis et al. 2016; Ofcom 2018; Villena et al. 2012; Samčović 2022), but data differ significantly depending on the accessibility solution provided, the country and/or the platform, with quotas not yet close to 100 per cent and figures moving timidly in the last decade in some cases. The number of TVOD platforms has increased considerably, and different accessibility services have been incorporated, at least partially.

Below we present the results of a study on the accessibility solutions provided back in 2013 and in 2023 by the main TV channels in Spain, France, Germany, Portugal and Italy and of three of the most popular TVOD platforms – Netflix, Amazon Prime and HBO, following, in this case, the line of Blanca Arias-Badia’s study (Arias-Badia 2020a). Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to obtain information on, first, the accessibility provided to their contents – audios, videos, texts, photos and any other source of information – and then on the amount and quality of the accessibility services on offer.  

2. (Media) accessibility: then and now

In order to outline the evolution of the accessibility solutions provided in the audiovisual context to date, it is necessary to determine, albeit briefly, what accessibility is and / or what needs have arisen and been addressed. There are many different kinds of barriers that can arise when it comes to getting access to audiovisual contents, from the most visible ones – physical – to less visible ones, such as sensory or cognitive barriers. For this reason, and as stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN 2006), accessibility must (our emphasis): 

enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces;

b) Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services.

In accordance with this framework established by the UN, accessibility to audiovisual content is justified by its link to the right to freedom of expression and access to information on equal opportunities and without discrimination (Storch de Gracia y Asensio 2007). As adopted by the UN Convention, this property/quality must overcome all sorts of barriers and has a significant impact on all areas of life (Greco and Jankowska 2020). Moreover, although it is not restricted to the audiovisual framework, it is on this aspect that we focus our study.

From the point of view of media accessibility, perceived as “a set of theories, practices, services, technologies and instruments providing access to audiovisual media content for people that cannot, or cannot properly, access that content in its original form” (Greco 2016: 11), there are various barriers to be overcome, the most notable being those of a linguistic, cognitive or sensory nature. While the first has traditionally been addressed by translation studies and audiovisual translation, somewhat ignoring its basic function as an accessibility solution, the latter two have only been more thoroughly analysed in recent times. Thus, as in many other fields, the need to guarantee access to information pushed professional practice ahead of the academic, regulatory and legislative contexts, leading to the gradual development of different types of audiovisual translation and media accessibility. In a regulatory framework still to be defined in many cases, the most popular – somehow “traditional” – modalities were originally scarce and limited their presence, in most cases, to subtitling for the deaf and hard-of-hearing (SDH), sign language interpreting and audio description (AD) (Ellis 2015), with an uneven presence, but generally extremely restricted. Subsequently, with the adoption of accessibility guidelines in different countries (ANACOM 2011; BOE 2010, 2022; GU 2016) and the proliferation of academic studies, the focus aimed at shifting from quantity – established in a normative/legislative way – to quality, with diverse initiatives from different fields (Richart-Marset and Calamita 2020; Romero-Fresco 2015).

From a practical point of view, the first technically available accessibility solutions were SDH and sign language. However, the ad hoc production of audio descriptions or audio subtitling solutions to overcome communication barriers in audiovisual media or many other varied settings, from performing acts to museums, or the most traditional cinema screens, is well known and is still common practice. In recent years, we have seen how the scenario has expanded to guarantee full access to the media through the application of these same modalities to other contexts, together with the irruption and / or rise of other lesser-known and/or less widely used modalities, as is the case of Easy-to-Read (E2R), Plain Language (PL) and Easy Language (EL) – adapted to audiovisual texts or not – easy-to-understand accessibility services, accessible filmmaking or typhlological solutions, to name but a few (Greco and Jankowska 2020; Richart-Marset and Calamita 2020; Pena-Díaz 2023).

The progressive incorporation of audio subtitling, respeaking, easy-to-read and plain language, among others, to the bulk of modalities and services that have been emerging to overcome cognitive and sensory barriers has enriched the accessibility toolbox currently available to provide media accessibility solutions, but it does not yet guarantee their implementation in the audiovisual scenario.

The European Accessibility Act (EAA), also known as the Directive (EU) 2019/882, was established to address accessibility requirements for products and services. It stems from the EU and member states' commitment to accessibility after ratifying the UN CRPD (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). According to Recital 23 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) 2018, achieving accessibility in audiovisual media services involves various measures such as sign language, subtitles, spoken subtitles, and audio description. Member states are required to ensure that media service providers report regularly to the national regulatory authority on their progress in making their services accessible to people with disabilities. However, the AVMSD does not specify the percentage of content that should be made accessible. Member states had until 28 June 2022, to transpose the EAA into their national legislation, and the measures will take effect from 28 June 2025. Some countries have gone beyond the literal transposition of the Directive and implemented specific time slots or quotas for accessible content to meet the accessibility requirement of Article 7(1) of the AVMSD.

The countries analysed in this article have specific regulations regarding accessibility for audiovisual media services. In Germany, for example, the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting and Telemedia, along with the Act on the Broadcasting Corporation under Federal Law (DWG 2004), govern accessibility rules. Broadcasters and telemedia providers are required to offer accessible options within their technical and financial capabilities.

In France, the accessibility regulations are outlined in Law No. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on the freedom of communication (Loi Léotard). Agreements between audiovisual media service providers and Arcom determine the accessibility proportions of programs, especially during peak viewing times, for the deaf or hard of hearing. Broadcasters with a significant audience must make their programs accessible, while video-on-demand services have specific requirements.

The regulatory authority in Italy is AGCOM (Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni), responsible for ensuring compliance with accessibility measures.

Portugal has a range of legislative acts governing broadcasting, including the Television and On-demand Services Law and the Electronic Communications Act. The ERC (Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social) is the media regulator, while ICP-ANACOM is responsible for electronic and postal communications. Accessibility measures in Portugal include subtitling, sign language interpretation, audio description, and user-friendly navigation menus,and non-compliance with accessibility obligations can result in fines (Cabrera Blázquez et al. 2023).

Finally, in Spain, accessibility requirements were only applicable to public linear television channels until the 2010 law (Ley 7/2010), and providers of pay channels and video-on-demand were not subject to these obligations, so it was up to the operators whether or not to include accessibility services (CNMC 2022). The General Law on Audiovisual Communication (LGCA - Ley 13/2022), however, regulates the right of people with visual or hearing disabilities to universal accessibility to the audiovisual communication service, and it substantially expands both the accessibility obligations that had been required and the set of audiovisual providers with the obligation to comply with them (CNMC 2022).

3. Media accessibility in practice

While the regulatory and legislative framework for accessibility to audiovisual content has evolved from an incipient need a decade ago to a present reality at an international level, its implementation has witnessed an uneven pace, often conditioned by the technical / technological evolution and by the changing audiovisual consumption habits of the target audience (Arana, Mimemza and Narbaiza 2020; Bolognesi 2023; Navarro and Vázquez 2020; Telefilm Canada 2021).

Boosted by the evolution of technology, the proliferation of media formats has not only exponentially multiplied the number of audiovisual products available, but it has also been the door to a more widespread presence of accessibility, progressively promoting greater visibility of less widespread practices.

First television and then video some years later have traditionally been the main formats providing accessible audiovisual contents to audiences. Their role, as a tool for social inclusion and equal access to information, in the case of the former mainly, has made them a key element in terms of accessibility (García-Prieto and Aguaded 2021). From the first steps in the 1970s until today, the progressive incorporation of accessibility services in the portfolio that television channels have been offering has continuously increased, and numerous studies have addressed the situation in recent years. The proliferation of studies on general media accessibility (García-Prieto 2018; Rovira-Esteva and Tor-Carroggio 2019; Pena-Díaz 2023) and, more specifically, on the presence of subtitling services, audio description, sign language interpreting (Gil Sabroso and Utray 2015; Bosch-Baliarda et al. 2020:38), audio subtitling (Beseghi 2023) and, more recently, the incorporation of easy-to-read (Bernabé and Orero, 2020) and respeaking (Romero-Fresco 2011) have led to a changing scenario over the last decade.

In the case of video, on the other hand, although its birth, and more specifically the irruption of DVD technology, represented an extraordinary milestone in terms of accessibility with the possibility of incorporating additional content, as was the case of SDH and AD services, the last few decades have witnessed the progressive extinction of traditional physical formats. The different digital supports that emerged in the first decade of the 21st century – DVD, Blu-Ray, HD-Blu-Ray – have now massively been replaced by "non-tangible" products due to the gradual technological virtualisation of new management, dissemination and consumption platforms. Because of this radical transition, we will focus primarily on television in the text below. Its evolution, although also subject to important changes over the last decade, continues to preserve its more traditional essence even today. But the audiovisual scenario has seen the rise, in the last decade, of emerging services that now accompany – or even replace – the leading role of television. In the last decade, and especially boosted by the COVID pandemic, over-the-top (OTT) services have progressively gained ground in the world of user preferences, with over 1.8 thousand million subscribers (Forbes 2024), which means more or less 2.3 platforms per user. According to some studies (SigmaDos30’ 2022; Variety 2022), Netflix (72 per cent), Prime Video (67.8 per cent) and HBOmax (31.3 per cent) are the ones with most users, which is one of the main reasons why we chose them to carry out our research.

But although born at the end of the 2000s, only a limited number of studies have been carried out to date on the accessibility of these not-so-new audiovisual content platforms (Arias-Badia 2020a; Ellis 2015; Herrera-Crespo 2020; Scope 2023), focusing, for the most, in the situation of English-speaking countries. Back in 2015, Katie Ellis (2015) identified the lack of accessibility of some platforms at the time when they were already offering their services in many countries. She mainly highlighted the lack of AD and the scarcity of titles with SDH primarily in countries such as Australia and the US.

Years later, in a study conducted by Cecilia Herrero-Crespo (2020) on the accessibility of the most popular video-on-demand platforms in Spain (Netflix, HBO, Movistar+ and Prime Video), the author concluded that none of them fully complied with the international standard and norms in force on accessibility, much in line with the results presented by María Asunción Arrufat-Pérez-de-Zafra, Liliana Herrera-Nieves and María Agustina Olivencia-Carrión (2021). These authors conclude that in order to reduce the digital gap that occurs on platforms such as Netflix, it is essential to increase the existence and quality of resources that facilitate accessibility. There is also a need for consistency between the needs of subscribers and what complies with the regulations of each country, and an increase in SDH content in more languages, titles with AD, sign-language interpreted and easy-to-read content, as well as improved interaction with the interface on different devices.

Despite the limited examples of research initiatives focusing on the accessibility of streaming platforms at an international level, there is a comprehensive study conducted by Arias-Badia (2020a), who carried out a quantitative study showing the scenario of accessibility services in Spanish and Spanish Sign Language (LSE) of seven platforms accessible from Spain out of a total of 20,661 titles. In November 2020, only AppleTV+ and Prime Video offered specific search filters; Netflix offered them for AD and subtitling. In the other cases (Filmin, Movistar+, HBO and Disney+), the results are based on a detailed analysis of a random sample of titles on each platform. Less than three per cent of the content available on the platforms were then audio described in Spanish, and around 80 per cent were subtitled (but only 7.85 per cent is SDH-specific). LSE interpreted content was less than two per cent. According to this study, in 2020 Filmin, HBO and Disney+ had no accessibility services. Prime Video had search filters, but they were not easily accessible. Netflix also provided search filters for AD and subtitling but did not give specific SDH data, although it was known that there were products that did (mostly local productions). In any case, depending on the device used (SmartTV, mobile phone, tablet), the results were different. Movistar+ made a strong commitment to accessibility with its 5S app, but it failed when it mixed AD and SDH in its search filter, although LSE was with an additional subscription. Arias-Badia (2022) herself concludes in a subsequent article that, as a general rule, platforms have failed to integrate services that enable people with hearing or visual loss to access content and that accessibility is a pending task for video-on-demand platforms.

4. Materials and methods

In order to compare the evolution of accessibility services on television and streaming platforms from 2013 to 2023, our study aimed at focusing on five European countries – Spain, France, Germany, Italy and Portugal – and the most relevant streaming platforms, as previously mentioned: Netflix, Amazon Prime and HBO. Data collection involved, on the one hand, a quantitative data collection process to determine the number of channels present in each case, and, on the other, a qualitative study to determine the type of accessibility solutions offered by each one in each case. Once the channels had been identified, a second qualitative analysis was carried out to identify the main characteristics of the solutions available. The process was then replicated in the case of streaming platforms in order to collect a representative sample in all cases.

5. TV accessibility results of our 2013 study

With the aim of outlining the situation of TV broadcasts and on-demand services in terms of accessibility, back in 2013 we carried out a study (Arnáiz-Uzquiza and Igareda 2013) focusing on the level of accessibility of broadcasters’ websites and examined the level and volume of accessibility and services offered in some European countries: Spain, France, Germany, Italy and Portugal. We found that there was a general lack of international icons in subtitles for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing, sign language interpreting, audio description and audio subtitles services on TV and Internet broadcasts in most countries.

At the moment of the first part of our study, two Internet release formats were already available through broadcasters’ websites: live and on-demand television. With regards to the former, despite having a longer tradition based on more traditional analogue and digital terrestrial television (DTT), and so presumably, and in reality, more widespread and easy to access, live content broadcasts were available in all the countries. Nevertheless, viewing was only possible under regional restrictions for most, preventing access from foreign locations. However, and even if regionally-limited, accessibility services – mainly SDH – were guaranteed in live broadcasts in most countries, with some rare examples of SLI, mostly in Portugal, but rarely providing AD services.

With regards to the latter, although the first examples, and later explosion, of on-demand television date back to the turn of the present century (Castro and Cascajosa 2020), and despite the fact that by 2013 this was a relatively widespread form of parallel broadcasting among the different television channels, as we will see, programming was still more restricted and scarcer at the time when compared to the most traditional TV formats. Although on-demand television is, or should be, from a practical point of view, a variant of a similar nature to traditional television in which “only” the form of consumption changes, there were major differences a decade ago, as we will see.

Fig. 1: Accessibility of TV in 2013.

At this stage, in the case of Spain there were nine TV Stations with 28 channels, where only 20 out of the channels (from three stations) were accessible on their ordinary TV broadcasts (See Figure 1). No information on the access services provided by TV stations was announced, and only some TV stations included on their Teletext pages brief information announcing, almost exclusively, the SDH service offered in their programmes, which were mostly restricted to national productions. As was ascertained during the manual analysis, in other countries, such as France, Germany and Italy, slightly more information was provided on the access services of the TV stations. When it came to on-demand TV, most stations, and 17 out of the 28 channels, provided these services through their websites, but none of them included accessibility services – be it sign language interpreting, audio description or subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing – to on-demand contents, although they did for ordinary (live and/or prerecorded) TV. After the manual analysis, a detailed analysis of all the channels was carried out, looking closely at the programming on offer, from films to TV series, shows and news programmes. We then found that not a single channel provided accessibility services and only one example of sign language interpreting was identified for parliamentary sessions and for a pre-recorded specialised programme (30 minutes a week) aimed at hearing-impaired audiences in the State TV channel La2.

In France, the State France TV, with six channels, included open information on accessibility to their website for the hearing-impaired, visually impaired and motor impaired. Nevertheless, only three out of the six TV channels, France 2, 3 and 5, provided subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing – the most common accessibility solution traditionally offered – for their on-demand broadcasts.

Germany, with ten TV stations and 21 channels, only had ten channels which offered on-demand and streaming TV, and in only three of them – Das Erste, MDR and ZDF –were contents accessible, with just Das Erste providing audio description services the only example in the countries studied to do so.

In the case of Italy, the macro-station Rai hosted 15 TV channels a decade ago, with only three of them – Rai 1, Rai 2 and Rai 3 – including accessible on-demand contents, mostly limited, like in most countries, to programmes originally broadcasted by Rai TV in their traditional formats, with accessibility restricted to SDH services.

Portugal, the only country from a subtitling tradition included in our study, showed significantly different results. The state station RTP, with nine channels, only had some limited examples of accessibility solutions in two of its channels. While whit may not seem much, it should nevertheless be noted that RTP Play live provided sign language interpreting in their broadcast, a rare example in our study, in which SLI was seldom included in the accessibility portfolio. However, when it came to on-demand TV, no accessible programmes were found back in 2013.

The study of the state-of-art of accessibility to TV broadcasts back in 2013 showed there was a poor panorama in relation to on-demand TV since just nine channels (three in Italy, three in Germany and three in France) provided some kind of accessibility service. In Spain and Portugal, however, the only examples identified of accessible contents were justified by the nature of the programmes – aimed at hearing-impaired audiences, or live broadcasts with a long tradition including sign language interpreting. Nevertheless, the most surprising fact, in terms of accessibility, may be that most on-demand products offered by the different stations through their websites across the different countries, which had been aired through ordinary release formats and were originally made accessible even on live broadcasts, seemed to be later distributed on-demand without the original access services.

But with the change in technologies and audiovisual consumption habits, to some extent conditioned by the new regulatory frameworks, one would have expected the accessibility scenario to have changed over a decade.

6. TV accessibility now

As outlined in previous sections, over ten years later, and subject to a different regulatory framework in many cases, one would expect a different and more positive TV scenario in terms of accessibility at all levels. On the one hand, the continued moves of the audiovisual market with the increase in groups and TV channels would suggest a significant increase in the presence and offer of television products. On the other hand, the greater portfolio of accessibility solutions on the market, linked to the regulatory and legislative impositions in terms of accessibility, seemed to build the ideal context for the proliferation of accessible products.

An analysis of the results obtained in 2023 reveals how, in the case of Spain, although the number of groups and channels available has not changed significantly over the last decade, of the nine groups that are currently present in the Spanish audiovisual market, five of them, that is 21 channels, offer live television via their websites, both through live and on-demand services. Unlike a decade ago, when channel websites rarely included information on the accessibility solutions available in their schedules, today we find that in most cases channels do announce the accessibility mode available, although this information is not always easy to access for users, who often have to enter the secondary menu of the programmes to get this information. While it is true that the volume of accessible production on television has grown progressively over the last decade (CNMC 2020) – especially in the case of SDH – it should be noted that, also here, the 100 per cent quotas have not yet been reached in their production, mostly focused on films (42 per cent), news and sports (17 per cent) and entertainment programmes (26 per cent – 37 per cent). However, it should also be noted that these figures only apply to live broadcasts delivered via traditional formats, DTT, because today, as was the case in 2013, Internet broadcasting of on-demand programmes that were originally delivered through live emissions is not accompanied by the accessibility solution originally available.

In the case of France, the television offer has also increased significantly over the last decade, and there are now 28 television channels, which belong to eight media groups, responsible for broadcasts. As was the case in 2013, access to the content of foreign television channels continues to be restricted for geographical reasons, making access to live broadcasts very difficult, and limiting – if not impeding – access to on-demand broadcasts. Despite this major obstacle, the study of the audiovisual offer currently available highlights the presence on the state channels of news programmes that were originally part of live broadcasts and are later made available on-demand, and that include SDH solutions, a practice which is not common in other cases, such as Spain for example.

In Germany, the television offer is currently made up of 27 television channels belonging to 12 media groups. Although it is not possible to access the live production of any of their broadcasts, 11 of the 27 channels have on-demand content accessible mainly through subtitling for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and audio description. Also, in addition to the exceptions identified in the 2013 study, where audio subtitles were included, there is now Easy Language in the 2023 offer, which is included by the ProSiebenSat Media group in two of its channels. This is an exception to the standardised offer of the different European channels included in this study.

Finally, of the 22 television channels available in Portugal, owned by four major media groups, only two offer some content accessible via subtitling for the deaf and hard-of-hearing, audio description and/or sign language – in radically different proportions – through their on-demand broadcasts. As in the 2013 study, in those channels where it was possible to access live broadcasts – only six out of the 22 – it was found that none of them incorporated any accessibility service at all, which paints a poor picture in terms of accessibility.

Fig. 2: Accessibility of TV in 2023.

If we compare the 2013 and 2023 data, we can see that the audiovisual offer has changed considerably, with a significant increase in terms of TV channels over the last decade. Accessibility, however, has not improved to the same extent. Although the overall situation has improved over the course of this decade, the presence of accessibility solutions is still limited and uneven in the television market, and so it still needs to be improved.

Fig. 3: 2013-2023 Accessibility of Television.

However, as previously pointed out, the irruption of streaming platforms has made TV broadcasters more open to this new form of consumption and distribution, and they are attempting to narrow the marked technological divide between the two. But what is happening in terms of accessibility in the streaming context?

7. Accessibility in streaming platforms

In contrast to the previous sections, where we were able to make a comparison of the analyses carried out in 2013 and 2023, in the case of streaming platforms a comparison is not possible because, while already present back in 2013, they did not have the leading role they have now, and the minor role they did have was not considered in the first part of the study. Nevertheless, based on the study conducted in 2020 by Arias-Badia, who presented the situation regarding the accessibility of the main streaming platforms in Spain, we sought to identify a change compared to 2023, possibly conditioned by a number of causes, such as the COVID pandemic. 

If the user wants to know the titles provided with some type of accessibility, we found that only Netflix gives us the option to filter that search from its web, but only with audio description. The other two platforms studied have no filters at all, and the user has to play the title and then discover the options of accessibility, but inside the menu of the product, which is not particularly accessible. Only Prime Video, and very recently Netflix, put the options that users have in the description of the product so they do not need to play the content and have the information beforehand (i. e. if there are several audio and subtitle options, audio description or not, spatial audio and quality of image). Netflix has even recently rolled out customisable subtitles for TV.

Our study analysed 42 audiovisual products – 14 in each platform – of different genres (see Figure 5), totaling 2409 minutes, mainly from the last ten years. We replicated the quantitative analysis adopted for televisions, and much in line with Arias-Badia’s study (2020). As a result, we found that Prime Video offered some kind of accessibility in all the samples analysed – mainly AD and SDH – but surprisingly only 30 per cent in Spanish (compared to 15 per cent of Italian and 69 per cent in English). Netflix presented a similar situation with worse results regarding Spanish AD (seven per cent) or SDH, while HBO presented a poor accessibility offer (15 per cent) and everything we found was only in English.

Fig. 4:  Accessibility of Streaming Platforms.

Most audiovisual platforms have a portfolio of international titles whose language and accessibility solutions are common in most cases. As we have identified as a result of our analysis, the presence of AD and SDH in English is common in most titles. It is true that, when platforms offer SDH, they usually do so in the source language of the audiovisual product, i. e. intralingual subtitling. And, in that context of the dominance of audiovisual content produced in English-speaking countries (Arias-Badia 2020b), this is a barrier to access for users who do not have the corresponding linguistic competence.

However, the situation changes in the case of titles produced out of the English-speaking countries. In this case, the main accessibility solutions provided, which are SDH and AD as SLI is only rarely present, are mainly offered in the language of the country concerned (Spain, France, Italy and Portugal, in our study).

While in Netflix it is possible to find these versions in the language of each country and sometimes accompanied by their English versions, this is not the case for Amazon and HBO, where the provision of accessibility solutions for national products is present, but only the national language is provided in the case of Amazon, but is rarely included by HBO, much in line to the situation described by Arias-Badia in her study.

In relation to the accessibility provided per audiovisual genre, we have to say that, in the case of the platforms analysed, there are some products such as variety programmes, news or game shows that are not present as they are in TV.

Fig. 5: Accessibility provided per audiovisual genre and platform.

Although not presented in the current study, we also analysed different practices in subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing because we wanted to compare the way platforms and TV make audiovisual content accessible and to investigate whether these platforms follow the standardised style guides provided. Further research will focus on these aspects.

8. Conclusions

The continuous political, social, cultural and, above all, technological changes in recent years have made accessibility evolve considerably, making a discipline whose practice and study began decades ago be considered by many a young and incipient field of studies due to the radical changes it continuously undergoes.

Throughout these lines we have reviewed how the national and international legal contexts have been expanding and adapting to accommodate and guarantee media accessibility. Beyond its consideration as a tool to guarantee access to information in the different countries, legal frameworks have been adapted not only to enable access to services but also to ensure these are accessible to the majority of the population – considering diverse needs – through a growing portfolio of services, adapting to new platforms and increasingly concerned with quality. However, the pace of these policy changes often lags well behind commercial practices, and the rapid pace of technological changes and new market needs often precedes the regulation of practices.

While the audiovisual market has always been subject to a continuous technological evolution, and the changes have also led to continuous modifications not only in the products and services but also in the habits and tastes of the target audiences, the speed of the technological changes over the last decade has completely transformed the scenario. Traditional physical media have progressively disappeared, being replaced by their digital versions, and traditional broadcast formats, as in the case of television, have diversified their release formats to adapt to the changes, and trying to guarantee, if possible, the continuity of the accessibility services that were traditionally offered in each case.

As we have seen throughout this study, the first steps in the diversification of the TV offer, back in 2013, revealed an uneven panorama in the European context. Traditional broadcasts – DTT – still far from being 100 per cent accessible, focused their efforts on SDH as the main accessibility service, with a limited presence of other modalities that were also widespread, such as AD or SLI. However, television broadcasts through the Internet also revealed a significantly different panorama, with a much more limited – or non-existent – offer of accessible products: of the 41 television channels available in the five countries under study – Spain, France, Germany, Italy and Portugal – only nine, in three countries, offered accessible on-demand contents, at least part of them, back in 2013, barely 20 per cent of the total production on offer. It is particularly significant that, in many cases, part of the productions, coming from live broadcasts of the same TV channels and being originally distributed with accessibility solutions in their live broadcasts, did not incorporate accessibility services into their on-demand offer.

More than a decade after the first part of the study was conducted, in an, in principle, more favorable general context, one could assume a massive presence of media accessibility. However, although the most notable difference lies mainly in a greater offer and variety of audiovisual products and a greater diversification of the forms of distribution of these products, media accessibility is still far from being massively present. Now, as then, DTT still coexists with Internet broadcasts, both for live television and on-demand services. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the latter has gained weight among target audiences, by providing a new way of accessing television products and building a bridge to the new forms of audiovisual consumption enabled by streaming platforms.

In a different television landscape, with a greater number of channels – over 60 ­– and more sensitive regulatory frameworks to ensure not only the presence but also the quality of accessibility services, the role of accessibility solutions available on television in Europe is still uneven. The massive presence – but still not 100 per cent guaranteed – of SDH has not yet been transferred to accessibility modalities, such as AD, SLI or easy-to-read language, for users with other sensory or cognitive profiles. While these are the main and/or most widely used modalities, the presence of others, such as audio subtitling, is exceptionally rare in most countries.

Although the international legislative frameworks have been forcing media accessibility quotas to reach all audiovisual production, we have seen that, even if from a somewhat more privileged situation, the focus still remains on guaranteeing the presence of all accessibility solutions in audiovisual products in all broadcast formats, whether via television or streaming platforms. In this context, and although it has always been an outstanding field of study for academia, at present quality is a secondary objective in most cases. With the progressive rise of accessibility quotas, the focus will hopefully shift to quality.

About the author(s)

Verónica Arnáiz-Uzquiza holds a degree in Translation and Interpreting from the University of Valladolid (UVa), and a PhD in Translation from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. She is a university lecturer in the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting at the UVa, and her research interests include AVT and Accessibility, translator and interpreter training and CAT Tools.

Paula Igareda holds a BA in German Philology (Universidad de Salamanca) and a PhD in Audiovisual Translation (Universitat Pompeu Fabra). She is a lecturer at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and has been a professional translator since 2005. Her research interests are Audiovisual Translation, Media Accessibility and Comic Translation.

Email: [please login or register to view author's email address]

•  Previous article
• Next article