Marlee Matlin's Remarks at FCC Hearing on Broadband Access
- Thread starter yizuman
- Start date
Juli-terp-to-be
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,407
- Reaction score
- 1
The cost is minimal. It just shows the deaf community that major companies DO NOT care about them.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,078
- Reaction score
- 335
Never have and probably never will.
Yes, Marlee is so beautiful and talented. As a deaf entertainer myself she's been a huge inspiration to me. It's so great that she's so involved in this issue. I've created this blog and this forum on the issue of internet captioning. Knowing Marlee is in our corner is great to know.
I also think it's great that this issue is being address more. Maybe not as much as we'd like but I do see slow progress. Our biggest weapon right now is the work that google/youtube is doing. No, it's not perfect yet and it's got a way to go. But it's great that they are even doing "Something" about it.
I'm confident that with in the next few years we'll be seeing a lot more of the "Automatic captioning" (Machine generated captioning). It won't be perfect but it will be there and the technology will improve in time. I only hope there won't be to many who "complain" about it's flaws to much. If all they receive are complaints then they'll likely halt it's progress until the technology is up to par. I for one would rather deal with an occasional wrong word then to have nothing at all on internet videos. On the other hand if they see a lot of positive feedback it'll only encourage them to keep moving forward on it.
In the next 5 years or so I'm seeing this technology being very useful for us. I see no reason why it can't be used for live broadcasts such as webcam chats. There will likely be some time delay but again, it's a step in the right direction. Relay operators won't be needed in the next ten years or so. All the major networks that stream TV shows and movies will also be able to get a hold of this technology.
So please everyone. When this technology is more available. Don't spend to much time complaining about it not being perfect yet. Let them know you're glad the issue is even being addressed and encourage them to continue to improve on it. Don't expect perfection as this baby learns to walk. encourage it in that direction but understand it's still in baby land and it's great that it will soon be available to us.
Yes, I have high hopes but I also understand it'll take some time and work to get there.
Ron Jaxon
I also think it's great that this issue is being address more. Maybe not as much as we'd like but I do see slow progress. Our biggest weapon right now is the work that google/youtube is doing. No, it's not perfect yet and it's got a way to go. But it's great that they are even doing "Something" about it.
I'm confident that with in the next few years we'll be seeing a lot more of the "Automatic captioning" (Machine generated captioning). It won't be perfect but it will be there and the technology will improve in time. I only hope there won't be to many who "complain" about it's flaws to much. If all they receive are complaints then they'll likely halt it's progress until the technology is up to par. I for one would rather deal with an occasional wrong word then to have nothing at all on internet videos. On the other hand if they see a lot of positive feedback it'll only encourage them to keep moving forward on it.
In the next 5 years or so I'm seeing this technology being very useful for us. I see no reason why it can't be used for live broadcasts such as webcam chats. There will likely be some time delay but again, it's a step in the right direction. Relay operators won't be needed in the next ten years or so. All the major networks that stream TV shows and movies will also be able to get a hold of this technology.
So please everyone. When this technology is more available. Don't spend to much time complaining about it not being perfect yet. Let them know you're glad the issue is even being addressed and encourage them to continue to improve on it. Don't expect perfection as this baby learns to walk. encourage it in that direction but understand it's still in baby land and it's great that it will soon be available to us.
Yes, I have high hopes but I also understand it'll take some time and work to get there.
Ron Jaxon
Yea. To me they look like two hearies that aren't use to being around someone signing. Especially the lady on the right.
I find that insulting, no matter who the speaker or what the message.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,078
- Reaction score
- 335
I think they were listening...remember hearing people arent as expressive as deaf people are and they dont look directly at the speaker like deaf people do. That's where the cultural differences sometimes clash.
Actually they probably were looking at the "Speaker". Not Marlee but the one who was speaking for her. Her translator. By the way. I'm pretty sure the one speaking for her is a male too. That would make it even harder for hearies to feel that "she" is the one talking. Especially if they are not use to speaking with someone who speaks ASL.
Yes, I find it rude too but you also have to think about culture differences here. Hearies are brought up being told to "Look at me when I'm talking to you" or that it's just plain good manners to look at someone while they are talking to you. So, if they are looking at the "translator" then in their way they are being polite by doing so. We know that it's better to look at the one that is speaking "Marlee in this case". But don't get to upset when people and their "Cultural ways" have not been exposed them to this situation before.
I'm reminded of some "Rules" I've been given when doing magic shows for various groups. For example one group said "Never point your feet at anyone when you talk to them". I know that's not completely relevant to this issue with Marlee but it reminds me of it. If no one had told me about this "Feet pointing" I might have done it and looked rude without knowing I was.
Ron Jaxon
Yes, I find it rude too but you also have to think about culture differences here. Hearies are brought up being told to "Look at me when I'm talking to you" or that it's just plain good manners to look at someone while they are talking to you. So, if they are looking at the "translator" then in their way they are being polite by doing so. We know that it's better to look at the one that is speaking "Marlee in this case". But don't get to upset when people and their "Cultural ways" have not been exposed them to this situation before.
I'm reminded of some "Rules" I've been given when doing magic shows for various groups. For example one group said "Never point your feet at anyone when you talk to them". I know that's not completely relevant to this issue with Marlee but it reminds me of it. If no one had told me about this "Feet pointing" I might have done it and looked rude without knowing I was.
Ron Jaxon
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,078
- Reaction score
- 335
I dont think so but it is common for hearing people not to look at speakers who are speaking anyway. Maybe they look and then look away. That's why I have a hard time with hearing people sometimes when I am talking to them...I dont feel comfortable talking when they arent looking at me but they always tell me that they are still listening. It can be challenging sometimes.
DGirl101
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 694
- Reaction score
- 0
This has nothing to do with cost. Sure they will complain that its costly. The fact of the matter is that they are not captioning these videos due to ignorance and laziness.
They dont want to deal with the complaints from some of the hearing, and face it Deaf or hard of hearing or what have you, is a minority compared to the majority that is Hearing.
FxAvatar
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 0
agree, I do not think it is cost. Hell, the thing that bugs me is that every show/movie that is made professionally is CC’d before it is made.. it is called a script. Yes, some things like active sounds need to be inserted, but for the most part, the work is already done. It cannot be that hard to take the script, mod it a bit, and submit it with the film to become the CC..
Lighthouse77
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,166
- Reaction score
- 1
captioning is really time consuming. Some people play the show over and over again to get what the person said. And how to write it down.
Now, if they can take closed captioning for tv and get it to work on the internet video as well, then there's their solution since the captioning have already been taken care of for TV
Now, if they can take closed captioning for tv and get it to work on the internet video as well, then there's their solution since the captioning have already been taken care of for TV
Subtitles and the "Closed Captioning" that you see on TV are not made in the same way. While subtitles can be opened in a word processor such as notebook and you can see the words that will display in the subtitles. You cannot view them like that with the format the closed captioning on your TV works.
Here's an example of a Subtitles file:
I cannot show you what closed captions looks like because it isn't "text" based. Closed captioning is also known as "Line 21" captioning because it's a "Line in the signal that's broadcasting the TV show. It's not a seperate file to that comes with the video. It's coded and cannot be opened on a normal word processor. So there is nothing for me to copy and paste to show you.
This is where the problem is as far as taking the closed captioned that are made for TV and putting them on the internet videos. The captioning cannot be turned into the format that with work on our computer with streamed video. That's what takes sites like Hulu so long. Many complain that "You got the text already because it was closed captioned when it was on TV". But unfortunately it doesn't work that way. They have to be made from scratch in order to work on the computer.
Making subtitles are getting easier now though. For those that don't know how they are made let me explain the basics.
Taking the above example in the quote. The first line of the subtitles is:
[Plane Flying Overhead]
You have to watch the video and find out exactly when that sound is heard (Or words are spoken). In this case this sound is heard at:
00:00:58,120
Then you have to figure out how long you want that text to display on the screen. Basically, how long is that sound heard on the video. Then you want that text to stop displaying. In this case you want it to last about 3 seconds. So you set the time so it looks like this.
1
00:00:58,120 --> 00:01:01,40
[Plane Flying Overhead]
Then the next line that you want to appear will work the same way and so forth.
So yea, this is a time consuming process to do it by hand. But there are programs that help speed up the process.
Googles new "Automatic timing" will make this much easier. It's still new and in Beta but what does is it uses voice recognition to find the words from a transcript and places them at the right timing for you. So you won't have to worry about placing the time in there manually. Just give it the text and let it put it where it belongs for you. When you find mistakes you can download the subtitles file that looks like the above example in the quote. Fix the error then re-upload the subtitles.
Soon this will be more available and I'm sure we'll find more subtitles and CC on the internet. So like I said before. It's very exciting that this is even being worked on now. They are realizing the benefits other then us deaf. It also helps with search engines and categorizing internet videos.
Ron
Here's an example of a Subtitles file:
I cannot show you what closed captions looks like because it isn't "text" based. Closed captioning is also known as "Line 21" captioning because it's a "Line in the signal that's broadcasting the TV show. It's not a seperate file to that comes with the video. It's coded and cannot be opened on a normal word processor. So there is nothing for me to copy and paste to show you.
This is where the problem is as far as taking the closed captioned that are made for TV and putting them on the internet videos. The captioning cannot be turned into the format that with work on our computer with streamed video. That's what takes sites like Hulu so long. Many complain that "You got the text already because it was closed captioned when it was on TV". But unfortunately it doesn't work that way. They have to be made from scratch in order to work on the computer.
Making subtitles are getting easier now though. For those that don't know how they are made let me explain the basics.
Taking the above example in the quote. The first line of the subtitles is:
[Plane Flying Overhead]
You have to watch the video and find out exactly when that sound is heard (Or words are spoken). In this case this sound is heard at:
00:00:58,120
Then you have to figure out how long you want that text to display on the screen. Basically, how long is that sound heard on the video. Then you want that text to stop displaying. In this case you want it to last about 3 seconds. So you set the time so it looks like this.
1
00:00:58,120 --> 00:01:01,40
[Plane Flying Overhead]
Then the next line that you want to appear will work the same way and so forth.
So yea, this is a time consuming process to do it by hand. But there are programs that help speed up the process.
Googles new "Automatic timing" will make this much easier. It's still new and in Beta but what does is it uses voice recognition to find the words from a transcript and places them at the right timing for you. So you won't have to worry about placing the time in there manually. Just give it the text and let it put it where it belongs for you. When you find mistakes you can download the subtitles file that looks like the above example in the quote. Fix the error then re-upload the subtitles.
Soon this will be more available and I'm sure we'll find more subtitles and CC on the internet. So like I said before. It's very exciting that this is even being worked on now. They are realizing the benefits other then us deaf. It also helps with search engines and categorizing internet videos.
Ron
evil_queen_lisa
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
I love the idea of captions on internet videos that are already captioned, however, i agree that if it becomes law then part of the law should be to include all accessibility features that the video already has (forget what its called, but the descriptive video for the blind).
Thanks,
*EQL*
Secondary Auditory Program (SAP). I believe there's only a very small number of movies that provide SAP, and that SAP usually has to be turned on by navigating visual menus.
But hey, it would be great if they had that kind of thing on YouTube or Hulu! :P
One thing to keep in mind is that if the bill is passed it will not include sites like youtube where the videos area user submitted. But sites like Hulu and major networks will have to include captioning.
Mobile devices that play videos will have to have the "Ability" to display captions. But that won't mean every video will necessarily have them.
I know it's frustrating but I really do see the issue being faced to some degree. The sad thing is it wasn't the deaf and HOH that caused them to realize the importance. It took them to realize the importance to themselves before most did anything about it (Such as language translation allowing them to reach wider audiences).
IT also helps that we have a deaf guy working with google and one of the founders of google is HOH on our side. I always said it's gonna take a "Tech head" to loose their hearing before they do anything about internet captioning.
Mobile devices that play videos will have to have the "Ability" to display captions. But that won't mean every video will necessarily have them.
I know it's frustrating but I really do see the issue being faced to some degree. The sad thing is it wasn't the deaf and HOH that caused them to realize the importance. It took them to realize the importance to themselves before most did anything about it (Such as language translation allowing them to reach wider audiences).
IT also helps that we have a deaf guy working with google and one of the founders of google is HOH on our side. I always said it's gonna take a "Tech head" to loose their hearing before they do anything about internet captioning.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 8
Another thing with captioning on TV. I watch alot of cable news. Fox and CNN and the prime time shows often repeat later that night. Now I understand sometimes it difficult to caption a live interview perfectly. But why can't they get the captioning correct by the second showing.
somedeafdudefromPNW
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 9,499
- Reaction score
- 1
Takes literally a few days to properly caption a video or subtitle it from scratch.
YouTube? Most of the captioned stuff on there are less than 3 minutes long.