Audio description (AD) adds spoken descriptions of important visual information to television, films and other video. The statistics below cover provider availability, audience awareness, listening interest, quality, preferences and measured outcomes, with the geography, population and dates stated for each result.
Key Audio Description Statistics
The most useful headline figures span supply, awareness, likely use cases and tested outcomes:
- In 2024, 38.6% of responding UK on-demand providers offered audio description, compared with 32.1% in 2023.
- In 2024, 11.4% of programme hours on UK on-demand services offering AD carried it, compared with 25.8% in 2023.
- In 2024, 20.7% of relevant UK on-demand programme hours carried AD when Hotstar was excluded.
- In 2024, 95.5% of responding UK on-demand providers offered subtitles.
- In March 2026, 23% of UK adults aged 18–65 had never heard of audio description.
- In March 2026, 34% of UK adults aged 18–65 had heard and experienced AD on TV or movies.
- In March 2026, 42% of UK adults aged 18–65 were interested in using audio-described dramas.
- In March 2026, 54% of weekly narrative or episodic-audio listeners were interested in described dramas.
- In March 2026, 53% of UK parents of children under 16 were interested in described dramas.
- In March 2026, 50% of UK adults aged 18–65 cited listening without a screen as a reason to listen to described dramas.
- In March 2026, 71% of UK adults hearing tested AD clips agreed the description was clear.
- In March 2026, 68% of the tested UK sample correctly recalled at least two of four moments from an audio clip.
- In March 2026, 79% of UK adults aged 18–65 wanted AD to match programme pace.
- In March 2026, 47% of adults hearing tested clips found it hard to focus without seeing the screen.
- In March 2026, 68% of adults hearing tested clips found dialogue and AD easy to distinguish.
- In a peer-reviewed experiment with 111 legally blind adults, AD improved information gain and retention compared with viewing without AD.
Contents
- Key Audio Description Statistics
- UK audio description availability and on-demand trends
- Audio description awareness and audience interest
- Likely adopters and audio-described drama use cases
- Audio description quality, comprehension and recall
- Audio description format preferences and barriers
- Accessibility outcomes and historical context
UK Audio Description Availability and On-Demand Trends
Ofcom’s Television and on-demand programme services: Access services report – January to December 2024 measures responding UK providers. Because participation was voluntary and the provider mix changed between years, these figures describe respondents rather than every UK catalogue.
| Measure | 2023 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| Providers offering AD | 32.1% | 38.6% |
| Programme hours with AD among services offering it | 25.8% | 11.4% |
| Providers offering subtitles | 89.1% | 95.5% |
| Providers offering signing | 22.6% | 22.7% |
| Signing-covered programme hours | 1.9% | 3.2% |
The provider-level AD measure rose from 32.1% in 2023 to 38.6% in 2024, while the share of programme hours among services offering AD fell from 25.8% to 11.4%. Ofcom notes that Hotstar’s large catalogue materially affected the 2024 content-hours comparison; excluding Hotstar, AD covered 20.7% of relevant programme hours in 2024.
The comparison services show why availability should not be reduced to a single access metric. Subtitles were offered by 95.5% of responding providers in 2024, while signing was offered by 22.7%; these are comparator services, not AD measures.
On connected TVs, 93.1% of responding on-demand providers carried subtitles in 2024.
At channel level, DMAX provided AD on 21% of its UK programming in 2024. Ofcom said this exceeded the channel’s 15% commitment, a difference of 6 percentage points, but it is a channel-specific result rather than a market-wide estimate.
Audio Description Awareness and Audience Interest Statistics
The RNIB/Ipsos study Audio is King: Secondary audiences for Audio Description surveyed 1,202 UK adults aged 18–65 online from 2–9 March 2026, weighted to national demographics. Awareness and experience were self-reported, so they should not be treated as platform usage telemetry.
- 23% had never heard of AD.
- 43% had heard of AD but had never experienced it on TV or movies.
- 34% had both heard of and experienced AD on TV or movies.
- 42% were interested in using audio-described dramas.
Source: RNIB/Ipsos, Audio is King: Secondary audiences for Audio Description.
The study’s television context helps identify where described drama may fit. Among surveyed TV watchers, drama was selected by 78%, documentaries by 74%, entertainment by 72%, comedy by 69% and sport by 56%.
These are genre-viewing measures, not estimates of AD consumption.
Audio-first attitudes were also common: 65% agreed they enjoy entertainment that focuses on audio, and 73% agreed audio-focused entertainment is a good way to entertain themselves when they cannot look at a screen. Those responses indicate potential receptiveness, but they do not establish adoption.
Likely Adopters and Audio-Described Drama Use Cases
Interest was higher in several groups identified by the RNIB/Ipsos research. These subgroup definitions overlap, so their percentages must not be added together.
| UK subgroup, March 2026 | Interested in described dramas |
|---|---|
| Weekly narrative or episodic-audio listeners | 54% |
| Parents of children under 16 | 53% |
| Passive commuters | 53% |
| Audio-listening commuters | 51% |
| Monthly gamers | 51% |
Source: RNIB/Ipsos, Audio is King: Secondary audiences for Audio Description.
Among passive commuters, 78% also listened to audio on their journeys. This overlap supports the study’s use-case framing, but it does not mean that all passive commuters or audio listeners use AD.
The reasons given for likely listening were practical and imaginative. In the UK adults aged 18–65 sample, 50% cited listening without a screen, 49% cited catching up on dramas while doing other tasks, 46% cited using their imagination to visualise scenes and characters, and 45% cited reducing screen time.
Audio Description Quality, Comprehension and Recall Data
For its clip test, the RNIB/Ipsos study randomly assigned respondents two of six drama clips lasting 60–90 seconds. The findings therefore describe reactions to short stimuli, not whole-programme viewing.
- 71% agreed the AD in the tested clips was clear.
- 60% agreed the AD reflected everything happening in the scene.
- 58% agreed it helped them understand what was happening beyond dialogue and sound effects.
- 68% correctly recalled at least two of four tested moments.
- 56% agreed it was easy to follow the programme without seeing it.
- 41% agreed they enjoyed listening to the tested programme.
- 41% agreed they felt immersed in the tested scene.
Source: RNIB/Ipsos, Audio is King: Secondary audiences for Audio Description.
Recall varied by subgroup under the same two-of-four criterion: 71% of weekly narrative or episodic-audio listeners and 71% of monthly gamers met it, compared with 70% of parents of children under 16 and 66% of passive commuters. These are subgroup results from the short-stimulus test, not general comprehension scores.
The clearest measured outcomes are therefore narrower than a claim that AD works equally well for every programme. The tested clips produced positive clarity and recall responses, while enjoyment and immersion were each reported by 41%.
Audio Description Format Preferences and Barriers
Respondents expressed preferences about how AD should fit the programme. The strongest preference concerned timing: 79% wanted AD to match the programme’s pace, while 70% wanted it to match the programme’s intensity and mood.
Other format preferences included 68% wanting AD to match the programme’s vocabulary, 52% wanting it to describe only details central to the plot, and 58% saying the gender of the AD voice did not matter to them. These are stated preferences rather than technical performance measures.
The same clip test identified barriers and potential design problems:
- 47% found it hard to focus on the programme without seeing it on screen.
- 40% found the mix of dialogue, scene descriptions, music and sound effects overwhelming.
- 33% agreed the AD felt out of place with the programme.
- 25% agreed the programme did not have enough natural pauses for AD.
- 68% found it easy to tell dialogue and AD apart.
Source: RNIB/Ipsos, Audio is King: Secondary audiences for Audio Description.
Together, these measures show that accessibility quality depends on integration. Clear narration and distinguishable voices can coexist with difficulty focusing, an overwhelming sound mix or insufficient pauses.
Accessibility Outcomes and Historical Context
A peer-reviewed study, Adding Audio Description: Does it Make a Difference?, reported a television viewing experiment with 111 legally blind adults. Its abstract states that participants gained and retained more information when watching science programmes with AD than without it, but it does not provide a percentage or effect size; the result should therefore remain directional.
Source: Adding Audio Description: Does it Make a Difference?.
Australian figures provide context for access without serving as current AD adoption estimates. The Australian Government’s Audio Description Working Group—final report cited an estimate that 70% of people who were blind or vision impaired were aged 65 or older, attributed to Vision Australia and expected to increase; this is not a current census result.
| Historical Australian context | Reported figure | Period |
|---|---|---|
| People aged 65+ among people blind or vision impaired | 70% | 2017 report citing an estimate |
| Australians aged 65+ who were internet users | 51% | 2014–15 |
| Australians aged 65+ blind or with low vision using the internet | 18% | 2014 research |
| Screens per Australian household | 6.6 | Q2 2017 |
| Video watched per Australian | More than 100 hours per month | Q2 2017 |
Source: Australian Government, Audio Description Working Group—final report.
The report’s figures are historical context: the 51% internet-use rate is a 2014–15 comparator, the 18% subgroup rate comes from research cited in 2017, and the screen and video figures describe media access rather than AD viewing. They should not be presented as current Australian population statistics.