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: Schomburg, Paul
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 4:05 PM

Folks: This has been good discussion but I agree with Diane that the AV
Subcommittee should review and provide its recommendation.

I think that some of the concerns about subtitles is due to the current
limitations of subtitles in standard definition DVDs. The next
generation of high definition recorded media, such as Blu-ray disc, will
provide much more capability to authors. For example, Blu-ray disc's
website
(http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13470/Section-13627/Index.html)
notes: "In DVD-Video, subtitles were stored in the audio/video stream,
and therefore they had limitations on the number of languages and
display styles. Again, it is due to Blu-ray Disc's ability to read data
from the disc without interrupting the current audio/video stream, that
subtitles can be stored independently on the disc. A user may select
different font styles, sizes and colors for the subtitles, or location
on screen, depending on the disc's offerings. Subtitles can be animated,
scrolled or faded in and out."

With these capabilities, government content authors should be able to
encode subtitles in a manner at least equivalent to DTV closed captions
(CEA-708) used in broadcast television. The use of subtitles in
packaged media does not have to be limited just to foreign language
translation, but can also include all the audible cues that someone with
a hearing disability would appreciate knowing about. Both government
and the public would benefit from the use of commercial off-the-shelf
media formats that functionally support what people with disabilities
require for equivalent access. TEITAC should define only the kind of
information that needs to be encoded in the media to provide
accessibility and avoid favoring specific technical formats. As the
commercial marketplace evolves at an ever-increasing pace, TEITAC should
avoid requiring the use of specific formats that could later become
obsolete.

All that said, I think the definition proposed by Geoff is a good
starting point. I would only suggest that the sentence "Captions shall
not obscure or obstruct relevant visual information" does not really
help with the definition of "captions". Rather, this is more of a
qualitative requirement for the authoring or rendering of captions. As
an implementation issue this is important -- and should be addressed by
the AV Subcommittee -- but I don't think it is relevant to the
definition in Subpart A.

For all these reasons, the definition I would prefer is as follows:
=====
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. In
some countries captions are called subtitles. In some packaged media,
captions may be designated "subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
(SDH)."
======

Best regards, Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 4:33 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
ActionNeeded

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