On 3rd May 2016, the European Commission announced that they have officially approved new rules for web accessibility for EU government websites and apps.
This rule stated that all government videos must be ‘closed captioned’ and live video must be subtitled within the first 14 days after the first broadcast. It is the start of a journey to create an EU directive on web accessibility.
It seems that many organisations and companies have caught the wind of it and started to include subtitles on videos hosted on their websites. It seems easier now, to persuade people to include more subtitles for their on line content. There are some particular examples such as videos from Channel 4 news, which are particularly good.
I must say that one of the effects of leaving the European Union is that we will lose out on these developments and I hope we will stay in long enough for this new behaviour to become the norm. At least, to an extent that we can create our own national legislation on subtitling of web resources, government sites, news sites, and so on.
Just recently, I have started to follow more of the news sites that have included subtitles and are setting the trend.
But there was one example from Vox.com where someone was reflecting on the Trump vs. Hilary debate and how Trump’s threats to ‘imprison Hilary’ were setting himself above the law. Trump wants to compel a judge to incarcerate his opposition; or in other words, a dictator.
The video was subtitled for the first 20 seconds of a nearly 5 minute video. While I managed to understand the gist of the video, I have no idea what was said for the other 4 minutes and 40 seconds! The subtitles just disappeared. What happened?
Did the subtitler think, “that was enough.” Or did they think that the rest of the video was not very interesting, or perhaps too difficult for deaf people to understand?
After discussing this with various hearing friends, there is a possible reason as to why videos were only part-subtitled. People typically keep the volume down when browsing on their smartphone and only raise the volume when they find something interesting to watch. So, the first part is subtitled, the main point or headline grabber, which gives time for the viewer to up the volume and follow the rest. I can imagine that subtitling is a useful tool to bring viewers to their sites, especially when viewing (advertising) equals profits.
This is not the first time I have seen this approach to subtitling, it is a growing trend on various news sites – in fact, this is the third example I have seen this year.
Another growing trend is the use of google auto-subtitling. Speech recognition is improving all the time and google auto-subtitling is leading the way. It evens highlights which words were understood and greyed words that are approximations. It would take an office worker just 5 minutes to check the auto-subtitles and correct them for mistakes – it is not a big job.
The new web access directive from the EU is a great move, but it would be a disaster if part-subtitling becomes the norm and provision is watered down to providing subtitles for the main point, but not the details of the story. It would be a disaster if we create a situation where hearing people have access to the full story (no matter how good or bad it might be) and deaf people only receive the sweetener, the soundbite.
But here comes the sticking point. There is knowledge everywhere, from a library to a newsfeed, and our access to this resource is essential for our wellbeing, our education and our economic worth. But when one stands at the door of a library of information, or at a newsfeed stream, unable to use or access that information in its entirety, it becomes insanely infuriating.
To a point, I find myself searching the web for a complete subtitled version, or an article, or a transcript with the full story. If ‘knowledge is power’, then I am greatly disempowered by missing the unknown.
If this infuriates us, we need to start letting them know.
John Walker is a Teaching Fellow at University of Sussex and PhD student in Social Geography. Deaf, and sign language user by informed choice. He writes a blog on topics related to the Bourdieusian principle, by the title “Deaf Capital” . It is concerned with the ‘value’ that people place on the Deaf community or the cultural elements of deaf lives that can be askew or misconstrued. Follow him on twitter as @chereme
Enjoying our eggs? Support The Limping Chicken:
The Limping Chicken is the world's most popular Deaf blog, and is edited by Deaf journalist, screenwriter and director Charlie Swinbourne.
Our posts represent the opinions of blog authors, they do not represent the site's views or those of the site's editor. Posting a blog does not imply agreement with a blog's content. Read our disclaimer here and read our privacy policy here.
Find out how to write for us by clicking here, and how to follow us by clicking here.
The site exists thanks to our supporters. Check them out below:
- BSL Zone: TV programmes in BSL for the Deaf community
- Deaf Umbrella: what support is available for deaf students?
- Bellman & Symfon: home alerting solutions, including the mobile phone transceiver!
- SignVideo: Instant BSL video interpreting online
- SignHealth: check out the BSL health library
- 999 BSL: call 999 in an emergency, in BSL
- Appa: Looking for RSLIs, TSLIs and CSWs, apply here!
- Signly: Adding BSL to websites
- Signworld: Learn BSL online!
- DCAL: world-class research into deafness, cognition and language
- Action Deafness: “A Deaf-Led Charity” – interpreting & community support services
- Sign Solutions: Instant access to Interpreters, training and BSL translation nationwide
- InterpretersLive: On demand BSL video interpretation
- Lipspeaker UK: specialist lipspeaking support
- BID: Deaf services, including advice and support, interpreting, employment and letters
- Performance Interpreting: BSL interpreting at concerts
- National Deaf Children's Society: The leading charity for deaf children
sybil
October 12, 2016
I’m from the US, and used to work for a local government. Frequently, they would have us train or get information from videos. Sometimes these were produced in-house, sometimes YouTube provided (from other law enforcement agencies) with the notorious YouTube captioning.
When I complained about a mandatory (in house) video not being captioned, I was told it was ADA compliant because it was basically a power point presentation, and there were all those words on the screen, when I explained (good grief, I had to EXPLAIN!) that because the videos, the moving pictures, were not captioned, it was not acceptable. But if they wanted to give me a signed document form the lawyers that it was compliant, I would accept that. Guess what? That training program was suddenly not required. They didn’t fix it or replace it, they just made it not mandatory. Because that is better?
Another program we were required to ‘watch and understand’ then sign something stating we had done so was a YouTube video of a lecture given by a scientist to a group of police about the dangers and procedures during that big Ebola scare.
When the captioning began ‘Ways in German…’ I knew something was off. Even though I knew from the title that Ebola was being discussed, the captioning suggested the subject was a bowl, bowlers, and once, hilariously, butter! When I complained, my supervisor actually said ‘what’s the problem? That’s what he is saying’
She never did understand that hearing and reading the captions is very different (oh, that’s funny- the accent makes it sound like he’s saying butter) from relying solely on the captioning (why is he talking about butter? did I click a cooking show by mistake?)
Their solution was to have someone type out a transcript (it only took a week) and my boss wanted me to read it while I watched the video again. (roll eyes here, then maybe cry from frustration)
BTW, the excellent captioning ‘Ways in German’? He was actually saying ‘Ladies and Gentlemen.’ Made a LOT more sense.
Hartmut
October 12, 2016
You Brits need to write to the producers and broadcasters, demanding complete and accurate captioning on shows that are not live. When it is on live, demand a correction after the first broadcast and then re-broadcast the same.
You may want to organize this campaign and divide the up the task among the volunteers to develop a list of videos that are not or poorly captioned, obtain addresses of the producers, funding sources, and perhaps the responsible person.