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

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Mon, Apr 30 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

I accept this definition.

Barbara Lybarger


>

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Mon, Apr 30 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- Action Needed

Members of TEITAC Video Workgroup - please see Background/Explanation below
to understand this request for action.

CAPTIONING
* This will be a new term added to Subpart A Definitions Section:


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.


ACTION:
Please indicate whether you can support this definition or if you
think it should be changed- please include your suggested changes:

___ I can accept this definition.
___ I can accept this definition with changes. I'm recommending that
the group consider the following changes:


COST BENEFITS OF PROPOSED CHANGE
Do you think this change will result in increased costs?
Do you think this proposed change will result in benefits such as
increased access for people with disabilities, increased implementation of
Section 508, improve the likelihood that developers and manufacturers can
and will build products to meet the applicable standards?


BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF THESE EMAILS
Subpart A Workgroup Members- In the next few days you will receive
several emails from the Subpart A co-chairs. We have made significant
progress in our work of late, but need to come to some resolution.
Recognizing that not all of you have been able to join the conference calls
and participate in our discussions, we have decided to take this approach to
determine whether we have reached consensus.

You will receive several emails- the emails will be broken down
between the 2 sections of Subpart A that we have been addressed to date-
Definitions and Exceptions. Within each of these categories you will
received an email on each of the issues or topics. For example, under the
Definitions section we have been reviewing and have made recommendations for
definitions on accessibility, assistive technology, comparable access, etc.
You will receive individual emails on each of the terms we've addressed. You
will be asked to take action on the terms.
* After reviewing the information you will be asked to indicate
whether you agree with the recommendation or disagree.
* If you disagree, specify the changes you think are needed. If you
need to explain your rationale, please do so. If at all possible, please do
not disagree, but then not provide alternative language.
* The group also needs to deal with cost-benefit impact of the
recommendations. Please indicate whether you think the recommended changes
will have an impact on cost of implementation and what the benefits will be
as a result of the proposed change.
* If you want, you can modify the subject in your response to indicate
whether you accept or reject the proposed language. This will enable us to
sort and categorize the responses more quickly and be prepared to see where
our efforts might need to be focused for our meeting on Thursday, May 3,
2007.
* Our plan is to have resolution of these topics and transmit the
information to the Access Board. We will then move to developing
recommendations on Subpart A: Application and hopefully close out our work.

If you need back ground information on some of the discussions- you should
refer to the Subpart A Report


Deborah V. Buck, Executive Director
Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP)
PO Box 32
Delmar, NY 12054
518.439.1263 (voice)
518.439.3451 (fax)
518.441.7204 (cell)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.ataporg.org

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Apr 30 2007 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

I don't fully concur with this language.
I suggest the following to include some of the functional capacities of captioning not mentioned previously. Note, I believe the A/V group should finalize this definition.



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. Captions must have the functionality to be turned on and off. There are several methods for
caption distribution. They may be designed for broadcast on line 21 of a video signal and use a decoder for on/off control. Captions for digital media
such as Web and DVD distribution can be designed to be turned on and off with software applications. In some countries captions are called subtitles.



Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303


>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Apr 30 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

Allen,
It seems like your recommendation is mixing captions and closed
captions. As a definition of captions, it is only important to indicate
what the captions are, not how they get on to the screen or whether they
can be turned on or off. We have a specific standard related to the
ability to turn caption on and off that covers the enable/disable
aspects you mention, and I don't think that the existance of several
methods adds clarity to the definition.

I think that the definition proposed is good.

AWK

From: geoff freed
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: 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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-Action Needed

I concur with Geoff's rewording.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> geoff freed
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:14 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A
> Definitions-Captioning- Action Needed
>
>
>
> >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
>
>
>

From: jagbell
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-Action Needed

I agree with this.

Janice


On May 1, 2007, at 2:14 PM, geoff freed wrote:

>
>
>> 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
>
>
>

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

I support Geoff's changes.

Karen Peltz Strauss

----- Original Message -----
From: "geoff freed" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:14 PM
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
>
>
>

From: Schomburg, Paul
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

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

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

I'll have to disagree with you and state it is a common
misconception that subtitles and captions are the same thing. They
simply are not the same.

Wikipedia's information on closed captioning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captioning and on subtitles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtitles may be of interest to you. There
is much more information freely available to read on the subject. I
would also like to point out that although we can speak to the functions
of captions and subtitles, there is a lack of _technical standards_
begin discussed. The Open & Closed Project: http://openandclosed.org/ is
working on this issue as are others - but lack of a technical standard
to reference adds to our inability to make content accessible in a
variety of formats.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246




-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Schomburg,
Paul
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:56 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: Schomburg, Paul
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
ActionNeeded


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

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

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
>
>
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

I agree that the captions and subtitles should be regarded as different.
We need to define captions and the attributes of captions, and it is
also worthwhile to mention that internationally there is a different
word that is used. Perhaps we need a definition for subtitles also, if
only to refer to in the captions definition (and vice versa) and to
indicate that subtitles is not a sufficient technique to address the
captioning requirement (meaning US subtitles that lack information about
non-spoken information are not sufficient).

AWK

> -----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
> >>
> >>
> >>

From: geoff freed
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: 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
>>
>>
>>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: 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
>>
>>
>>

From: geoff freed
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: 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
>
>
>

From: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: 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
>>
>>
>>

From: geoff freed
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: 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
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

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
>>
>>
>>

From: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

As Andrew pointed out, conflating the terms is relevant because when the
term "subtitle" is used, it often refers to foreign language translations,
or it necessarily means that the end user is NOT getting the content needed
(such as the written explanations of relevant auditory information that are
left out of subtitles). There is a difference in the definitions because
subtitles do not contain the same content as captions - and users that
require captions need the content that is in captions, thus subtitles would
be insufficient and inadequate.

Jessica

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:53 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
ActionNeeded

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
>>
>>
>>

From: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

I like Andrew's definition the best. Here is a proposed "tweak" to try and
minimize the number of sentences:

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.
Captions are sometimes referred to as subtitles in other countries, or may
be designated in packaged media as "subtitles for the deaf and hard of
hearing (SDH).

Jessica Brodey

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:10 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: larry goldberg
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
ActionNeeded

I agree that the captions and subtitles should be regarded as different.
We need to define captions and the attributes of captions, and it is
also worthwhile to mention that internationally there is a different
word that is used. Perhaps we need a definition for subtitles also, if
only to refer to in the captions definition (and vice versa) and to
indicate that subtitles is not a sufficient technique to address the
captioning requirement (meaning US subtitles that lack information about
non-spoken information are not sufficient).

AWK

> -----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
> >>
> >>
> >>

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

Since there is so much discussion regarding the definition for Captioning
the Subpart A workgroup will rely on the final advice and recommendations of
the Audio -Video group as they have the technical expertise needed to guide
this decision.

-----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
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: 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
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: Schomburg, Paul
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

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
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A Definitions-Captioning- ActionNeeded

The Subpart A workgroup also needs the AV workgroup to provide advice and a
final recommendation for the term Video Description in addition to
Captioning. The discussion is of a technical nature and it's critical that
those who have expertise on these topics guide the development of the draft
recommendation.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:45 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions-Captioning-
ActionNeeded

Since there is so much discussion regarding the definition for Captioning
the Subpart A workgroup will rely on the final advice and recommendations of
the Audio -Video group as they have the technical expertise needed to guide
this decision.

-----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
>>>
>>>
>>>