IHETAC Inclusive Higher Ed Explainer Video

Goal: Create a brief animated explainer video for InclusiveU and the Inclusive Higher Education Technical Assistance Center of New York to describe the benefits of and promote inclusive higher education.

Roles: Collaborated on concept and script, ideated and created all assets and animation.

Background

This project was created during my time working with InclusiveU, an organization at Syracuse University that provides an inclusive college experience to students with intellectual disabilities. Other work I’ve done for them can be found elsewhere on my site.

Creating an animated explainer video for the organization was actually my idea, and I took it on as a side project while focusing primarily on other work for the organization. However, as the idea progressed, having the video completed became a higher priority for InclusiveU. I had originally envisioned the video as a general explainer about inclusive higher education connected to the Taishoff Center for Inclusive Higher Education, the parent organization of InclusiveU. However, eventually the focus pivoted to promoting a partner organization, the Inclusive Higher Education Technical Assistance Center of New York (IHETAC), which helps colleges and universities in creating and developing inclusive higher education programs.

Process

The first step in creating a video was developing a script. Deciding the intended audience of the video influenced the script’s direction. The original intention had been to target the video to prospective students and their parents. This meant simple language, emphasis on student life, and a call to action that spoke directly to a student. However, as the focus of the video shifted towards promoting IHETAC, the audience became colleges and universities looking to implement or improve inclusive higher education programs. The biggest change this made to the script was changing the call to action from a direct call to students to a less direct one aimed at universities and colleges.

There were several iterations of the script, as precise and clear wording was key to making sure the central point of the video was understood by its intended audience. Adjustments to the script were made throughout the whole process, and there wasn’t a complete version until I’d already begun to work on the animation.

When there was most of a script, I began storyboarding. Whenever I storyboard, my first step is to create a version where the visuals are described through text. Then I sketch based on the text descriptions, and turn the sketches into an animatic. This was more or less my process for this project, and I ended up with the animatic below. Many of the ideas in this animatic were altered heavily or removed for the final video.

The next step was to create the assets needed. I tried to storyboard the video in a way that would enable me to reuse assets whenever I could, specifically the icon of the person. I also wanted a simpler illustration style for the video, since I felt like a simpler style represented the idea of inclusion better than a more complex one.

Choosing a very specific color palette was also important, because I wanted colors that would be high contrast for maximum accessibility. I decided to use the primary colors; blue, yellow, and red; because I thought they would provide the best contrast. I wanted to have a light, dark, and medium version of each color, and ran every combination through a color contrast checker to see which combinations I could use. I then found I had a bigger color palette than I needed, so I decided not to use the darkest red or yellow. I also added black and white to my color palette, although both are used sparingly within the video. I ended up with the color palette below.

With a sense of style and color, I could now develop illustrated assets.

All of the pieces were now in place to start working on the video itself. I had a problem, however. I was working with no scratch track of the audio, and therefore had no sense of how to time the video to the audio. So when I started on the video, I timed it out to what I thought looked the sharpest, and decided I would worry about the audio later. This is not the decision I would have made had I been working on the project now, but I didn’t like the idea of recording my own scratch track because working with my voice makes me uncomfortable.

Many of the ideas from the storyboard were easy to translate into video form.

Other ideas were more difficult to implement or had to be replaced. This was especially true of the end of the video, since chances in the script towards promoting IHETAC meant a new ending was necessary. Footage was also something I hadn’t originally planned to use in the video, but I thought footage would capture the genuine experiences of students better than animation would.

By the time I had a complete draft of the soundless video, I now had a scratch track to set it to. The version without audio ran roughly 27 seconds, which I knew I would have to slow down or add to. However, the scratch track given to me was two minutes and 36 minutes, significantly longer than I wanted the video to run. So, despite my reluctance to do so earlier, I now had to record my own track, which was roughly one minute and twenty seconds, still almost three times longer than my soundless version.

With a deadline looming and a script I felt was now too long to suit the needs of the video, I ended up significantly slowing down many of the animations and adding in a new sequence and an extra piece of footage to fill out the time. I was unhappy with this version, as I felt like the sharp animation quality I’d originally intended for the video was now gone. So, I realized the only solution would be to significantly reduce the amount of words in the script, making it closer to the sharpness I sought in the animations. This required going back to InclusiveU for approval, since the wording of the script I’d been working on was a collaborative effort between me and the organization with deliberate and precise wording I didn’t want to change unilaterally.

Eventually, the script and video were narrowed down to one minute and seven seconds, which was still not ideal but was still a significant improvement. I could speed up some of the animations and the video ran at a smoother pace. Some other small changes were made at this stage, but I was surprised at how little had to be altered to make it look a lot better.

Ultimately, I ended up with a version of this video that I’m happier with. I think that some changes will likely still be made in the future, but nevertheless, I think after spending a long time on this project, I finally have a result I feel okay about.

You can learn more at taishoffcenter.syr.edu/inclusiveu/ or ihetac.org.