video captioning: lessons learned while implementing a do-it-yourself approach craig spooner...

Video Captioning:Lessons Learned while Implementing

a Do-It-Yourself Approach

Craig SpoonerUDL/Professional Development CoordinatorInstructional Designer

Marla RollDirector, Assistive Technology Resource CenterAssistant Professor, Occupational Therapy DepartmentColorado State University

Accessing Higher Ground 2012

Session Agenda:

• Two approaches: UDL vs. Legal Mandate• Higher Ed Captioning models• Occupational Therapy’s “DIY” approach• Demo of DIY captioning process• Lessons learned

What are captions?

Captions:• Are a text representation of the audio in the video.• Captions are synchronized to the video.• Describe what is being said, background sounds, emotions,

and other contextual information. • Can also used for indexing and retrieval.• Provide equivalent access for viewers who are hearing

impaired• . . . and anyone who needs to watch video with audio turned

off or who learns best by reading and listening simultaneously.

Legal Mandates

• Americans with Disabilities Act• Section 504 & 508 of the Rehabilitation Act• 21st Century Communications and Video

Accessibility Act• Higher Education Opportunity Act– AIM Commission recommendations

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/aim-commission-releases-report-disparities-postsecondary-learning-material-stude

• Chafee Amendment (related to US Copyright Law) http://www.bookshare.org/_/aboutUs/legal/chafeeAmendment

Universal Design for Learning

• Anticipating student diversity and diverse learning needs:– Disabilities (hard of hearing, deaf, deaf with visual

impairment, learning disabilities) – Students watching video in noisy environments– English as a second language– Diverse learning styles

• Supplying information in multiple ways, providing options

• Removing barriers from the learning environment

Mandates vs. UDL

• Legal Mandates – Speak to hearing impairments

• UDL approach– Speaks to diverse types of learners– Benefits many students beyond those with hearing

impairments– Proactive vs. Reactive– More timely access, equivalence– We see it as part of our land-grant mission

Captioning Models

• Disability Services Office• Centralized service, fee-based• Complete outsourcing• Mixed model (some of the work outsourced)• DIY (the “yourself” may be individual faculty or

their departments)• Other?

Why did we opt for DIY?

• History of OT depart having two students with hearing impairments in our program. This was an opportunity to walk our talk about UDL.

• Our DS office felt that they could not provide enough assistance in this area.

• OT could serve as a pilot for larger campus.

The problem . . . and our solution

• Lots of existing uncaptioned videos, made in-house, mostly in DVD format

• Use readily-available, easy-to-use, campus standard captioning tool, (Camtasia Studio)

• Convert all videos to MP4• Use guidelines developed by Captioning Key• Save captioned video in MP4 format

The DIY Captioning Process

DVD, digital video file

1. Identify the source of the video– Copyright ownership– Format: DVD, digital file

2. Convert the video to common format– Software tool: Handbrake– Output format: MP4

3. Transcribe the video– Using Microsoft Word or Camtasia

Studio

4. Create captions in Camtasia Studio– Synchronize transcript with video

5. Save the captioned video

YouTube

1. Seek permission2. Supply transcript

(optional)

DEMONSTRATION

Storage and Distribution of Captioned Media

• Lecture capture system– Echo 360, MediaSite, Panopto, others

• Post URLs in RamCT, not large media files• YouTube• Local file storage (flash drive, hard drives)• Network drives• Media archive

DIY Approach: Rationale

• DIY has become more feasible in recent years– Captioning tools built into common software like

Camtasia Studio and Adobe Captivate• Moral obligation to walk our talk:– Anticipating diverse learning needs, benefits to broad

range of learners• OT department gave higher priority to this

initiative because of needs of incoming students• Test the feasibility of this approach

The OT Department*

• 12 full time faculty• 90 graduate students• Curriculum relies on lots of video for instruction• UDL (including captioning) fits with OT’s

philosophy of equal access and participation; inclusive environments

*The OT Department:• Ranked by U.S. News & World Report among the Top 10 occupational therapy programs in the nation• Program of Research and Scholarly Excellence for 12 consecutive years• The Colorado Commission of Higher Education has designated us a Program of Excellence

DIY Approach: Workflow/procedure

• Hired dedicated TA (10 hrs/week)• Set up dedicated workstation w/ relevant tools• Staff person – point person responsible for

receiving content from faculty and tracking completion

• Tech support go-to for TA• 2-week turnaround, 1 week for urgent requests

Lessons Learned:Departmental Perspective, Post 1 semester

• Use of TA deemed essential• Amount of old, analog video (VHS tapes) that need

to be digitized was surprising!• Variety of video sources (commercially produced

DVD, home-made DVD, VHS tapes)• Issue with YouTube: delay in obtaining copyright

permission.• Process may stifle spontaneous use of media.• Requires planning ahead - hard with new courses.

Lessons Learned:Departmental Perspective, Post 1 year

• Faculty perspectives (Survey Monkey)– How satisfied are you with the turnaround time?

• 66% Neutral• 33% Somewhat displeased

– How satisfied are you with the quality?• 100% Pleased

– Rate the hassle factor of getting content captioned• 33% Neutral• 66% Somewhat of a hassle

• Department Head perspective• Not financially sustainable

TA Perspective: Post 1 semester

• Camtasia Studio for Mac was less capable than PC version.• Favored creating transcript in Camtasia vs. Word• Handbrake was unable to read chapters on department-made DVDs. • Favorite part of process: creating captions in Camtasia• Biggest frustration: unfamiliar terminology and poor audio quality • Process can become monotonous, tedious• Steep learning curve, BUT getting more efficient and enjoyable• Caption Key is limited – guidelines do not address all scenarios• One TA could train another• Would have liked more formal training in the beginning• Felt the work was important

TA perspective: Post 1 year

• Captioning process is going much quicker• There have been fewer captioning requests overall• Some instructors are opting to show video without

the sound• Video clips have been shorter• Poor audio quality is the biggest frustration• Use of Creative Commons in YouTube has not

really worked – owners of video do not respond

Overall lessons

• Captioning requirement may be dampening spontaneous use of video (e.g., YouTube)

• DIY does not solve issue of student presentations• DIY does not solve issue of electives outside of the

department• Videos with poor audio quality cannot be captioned

– speaks to the need for a “filtering” process• Does make faculty examine whether video is

necessary or adds value.

How do these results influence our approach to captioning?

• Will faculty/departments like and accept a DIY model?

• If not DIY model, then what?

• Other campus solutions?

The ACCESS Project

• Our captioning process was made possible under this DOE grant – final year of a 4 year project.

• Tutorials covering captioning, universally-designed Word, PowerPoint, PDF, HTML and E-Text:– http://accessproject.colostate.edu/udl/

Thanks!

Craig SpoonerCraig.spooner@colostate.edu491-0784

Marla RollMarla.Roll@colostate.edu491-2016