Thread Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 1:05 PM

My point exactly, its the content that is different not the delivery
mechanism.
As a consumer, unless I'm using a particular extra presentation style in
captioning, as long as the caption text is identifiable, and contains
the information I need, do I care how it got there?



Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M.
Brodey
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:47 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
ActionNeeded

Allen, I think the distinction is that there is a difference in the
content of captions and subtitles. The delivery method is sometimes the
same, but the content and requirements for content can vary greatly.



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:28 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
ActionNeeded

I think we are saying the same thing after all Jeff, but the "name" for
how the content is getting in the way.

if I prepare fully acceptable "caption" text that describes and
translates all the information needed for someone who is deaf to
understand the content, but I store it on the media as "sub-title" with
a menu label of captions, how is this a problem other than for
convention? At the least someone can just state they have met our
requirement via equivalent facilitation in the end. AS a blind person
if someone had a menu option that said "sound track with descriptions"
and it never said "audio described or video description" as long as it
works I don't really care.

Am I missing something or is this mostly attachment to the terms, or is
the delivery method significantly different for captions over sub-title?





Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of geoff
freed
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:00 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: larry goldberg
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
ActionNeeded


Hi, Allen:

I very strongly disagree. Captions and subtitles are definitely not
equivalent in terms of the information they deliver. As I said before,
the only similarity is that they are text on the screen. To use the
terms captions and subtitles would create a good deal of confusion in
both the industry and the audience-- not to mention the current
confusion between what North America calls captions and what much of the
rest of the world calls subtitles (not to be confused with foreign
language subtitles, which is what we're disagreeing about in the first
place!).

> If one were to encode the caption text on a DVD using sub-title
> encoding mechanism, and label the menu item "captions" would the
> content be different?
>

It's actually not a question of delivery, as you describe here, it's a
question of content. Delivering bit-mapped captions instead of
delivering, say, EIA-608 or 708 captions is merely a different way of
showing the same data. I urge this group not to equate captions with
subtitles, and I also urge the group to keep the two distinct.

Geoff/NCAM




On May 2, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:

> Jeff:
>
> I agree with Paul, and am pleased to see this modification to the
> captioning definition to keep the two similar deliveries in the same
> body of definition. Personally I think captioning is equivalent with
> sub-titling and keeping "captioning" as a separate non-mainstream item

> conflicts directly with inclusion of accessibility requirements with
> general information technology.
>
> If one were to encode the caption text on a DVD using sub-title
> encoding mechanism, and label the menu item "captions" would the
> content be different? I'm not so sure it is. If the historical norm
> is to label such content captions, the technical storage method is far

> less important isn't it? I understand that getting captioning even
> prepared for many sets of content has been a great struggle, and all
> those involved in that work are to be repeatedly commended and
> thanked, but attaching the functionality of providing text-based
> alternative for audio content to only one technical storage and
> retrieval method may not be in the best interest of accomplishing the
> goal. I think this is why the functional differences need to be
> identified specifically and a minimum for the 508 standard be set. I
> think we have done basically that so far in the provisions we have
> hammered out.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of geoff
> freed
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:34 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
> ActionNeeded
>
>
> Hi, Paul:
>
>> Folks: I think it is a common misconception that subtitles and
>> captions are different, although historically they have been used
>> differently.
>> In reality, however, both can provide the same kinds of information
>> in
>
>> a functionally equivalent manner.
>
>
> I must disagree. Captions and foreign-language subtitles are alike
> only in that they are text displayed on the screen. Otherwise, they
> are functionally different: captions are aimed at deaf and hard-of-
> hearing people, and subtitles are aimed at hearing people; captions
> contain cues about non-speech information, and subtitles do not;
> captions are often placed in specific targets of the viewing area to
> indicate who is speaking, and subtitles are usually not; captions are
> written in the same language as the audio, and subtitles are
> translations. I think it would be a big mistake to equate the two,
> especially when years of work have gone into differentiating them.
>
> However, you are correct that some packaged media, like DVDs, contain
> a track called subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing (or SDH).
> I'm not fond of this designation, but it exists and probably isn't
> going to go away any time soon. Adding it to the definition of
> captions won't harm anything, so I propose the following revision:
>
> =====
> Captions: Captions are synchronized text equivalents of audio
> information. They are in the same language of the audio and convey
> not only speech content, but also non-speech information such as sound

> effects, music, laughter, and speaker identification and location.
> Captions shall not obscure or obstruct relevant visual information.
> In some
> countries captions are called subtitles. In some packaged media,
> captions may be designated "subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing

> (SDH)."
> ======
>
> Also, please note above that I propose changing the term "captioning"
> to "captions."
>
> Geoff/NCAM
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 2, 2007, at 10:55 AM, Schomburg, Paul wrote:
>
>> Folks: I think it is a common misconception that subtitles and
>> captions are different, although historically they have been used
>> differently.
>> In reality, however, both can provide the same kinds of information
>> in
>
>> a functionally equivalent manner. For this reason I would like to
>> suggest the following changes to the definition proposed by Geoff as
>> follows:
>>
>> Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
>> Captions convey the content of spoken dialogue, but also include text

>> for non-spoken information such as important sound effects, music,
>> laughter, and speaker identification and location. Captions should
>> not obscure or obstruct relevant or key information. In some
>> packaged
>
>> media, captions may be provided as "subtitles for the deaf and hard
>> of
>
>> hearing."
>>
>> Thanks, Paul
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of geoff
>> freed
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:14 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
>> ActionNeeded
>>
>>
>>
>>> RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE:
>>> Captioning: Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio
>>> information. Captions are similar to subtitles in that they convey
>>> the content of spoken dialogue, but also include text for non-spoken

>>> information such as important sound effects, music, laughter, and
>>> speaker identification and location. Captions should not obscure or
>>> obstruct relevant or key information. In some countries captions are

>>> called subtitles.
>>
>>
>> __XX_ I'm recommending that the group consider the following changes:
>>
>>
>> ======
>> Captioning: Captions are synchronized text equivalents of audio
>> information. They are in the same language of the audio and convey
>> not only speech content, but also non-speech information such as
>> sound effects, music, laughter, and speaker identification and
>> location.
>> Captions should not obstruct relevant visual information. In some
>> countries captions are called subtitles.
>> ======
>>
>>
>> Note that I took out the reference to foreign-language subtitles.
>> While
>>
>> it's easy to draw similarities between captions and subtitles, they
>> really are different things.
>>
>> Geoff/NCAM
>>
>>
>>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University