Thread Subject: Re: SubpartADefinitions-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 3:20 PM

Ah ha.
Now we're getting somewhere.

I have to chew on this but I'm reading real functional differences now
which is what i was trying to understand from the start. preference is
just that, but technical functionality that we "need" not "want" is
where critical choices end having to be made. Thanks Larry.




Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:33 PM
To: Geoffrey Freed; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; TEITAC AV list
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-subparta] Subpart
ADefinitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

Let's also remember that the caption data used to create what has long
been accepted as "closed captions" in the US have other qualities and
aspects that bit-mapped subtitles do not:

- they can be used for searching

- they can be altered by the user, especially in the CEA-708
implementation; user control includes size, font, color and other
stylistic parameters that aid comprehension and clarity

- they can be readily transformed into other data formats, including
ASCII text for use by deaf-blind individuals and for printable
transcripts.

- bitmapped subtitles are not malleable in these ways.

The confusion of captions with subtitles needs to be avoided. The fact
that the new DVD formats (HD-DVD and BluRay) cannot presently support
CEA-708 caption data is not a reason to confuse captions with subtitles
nor to do away with the 25-year-old marketplace acceptance of closed
captions in this country that includes significant industry and consumer
infrastructure.

- Larry



geoff freed wrote:

>
> 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