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 2:35 PM

I think we're getting there.
You believe we should disallow use of the technical "sub-title"
mechanism for captions only to eliminate the potential for confusing the
functional differences between captioning and sub-title current normal
usage.

I'm not sure I agree restricting technical implementation per misuse is
the best approach.



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 2:57 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: larry goldberg
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
ActionNeeded


> if I prepare fully acceptable "caption" text that describes and
> translates all the information needed for someone who is deaf to
> understand the content,

... then you've just created a caption track.

> 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?

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

Delivery has nothing to do with the problem we're discussing, though.
Cast it aside completely. The label *is* important, especially if you
don't want to confuse an audience that may already understand the
difference. Captions are one thing, and foreign- language subtitles are
another thing entirely (I think you already agree with me here).
Section 508 must not conflate the two.

Geoff/NCAM



On May 2, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:

> 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