optimising subtitle reception: subtitles for all pablo romero-fresco (roehampton university,...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
219 views
TRANSCRIPT
Optimising subtitle reception: subtitles for all
Pablo Romero-Fresco Pablo Romero-Fresco (Roehampton University, Transmedia (Roehampton University, Transmedia Catalonia)Catalonia) Henrik Gottlieb Henrik Gottlieb (University of Copenhagen)(University of Copenhagen) Agnieszka SzarkowskaAgnieszka Szarkowska ((University of WarsawUniversity of Warsaw))Veronica ArnaizVeronica Arnaiz (Universidad de Valladolid)(Universidad de Valladolid)Carlo Eugeni Carlo Eugeni (Intersteno)(Intersteno)
Large scale user evaluation of subtitlesin seven European countries
Quality in SDHQuality in SDH
Analysing reception by deaf, HoH and hearing viewers
Countries involved:UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Germany, Greece
Looking at Opinion through surveys
Comprehension through questionnaires
Perception through eye-tracking
Quality in SDHQuality in SDH
Surveys to find out what users think Questionnaires to find out what users understand Eye-tracking to find out what users see
General figuresGeneral figures Opinion (surveys)
- 1,400 participants
- 85,000 questions (12,000 per country)
Comprehension (questionnaires)- 70 questions per participant
- 12,600 questions
Perception (eye-tracking)
- 83,000 subtitles
- 4,140 minutes
Common conclusionsCommon conclusions
Quantity: still an issue Quality: country per country basis Live subtitling is an issue across the board. - video delay as a solution? Time to revise current guidelines More reception and eye-tracking research needed for
– SDH– Live subtitling – Interlingual subtitling
Denmark Interlingual bona fide subtitling:
General satisfaction, but Deaf & HoH need nonverbal info
Hearing want ’better’ translations, yet enough time to read
Intralingual bona fide subtitling: More viewers would benefit if they knewDeaf & HoH want names or colors, plus sound sourcesDeaf want everything subtitledHoH want subtitles in sync with dialog
Intralingual live subtitling: Many still don’t know this serviceSome dissatisfaction (lack of synchrony)
PolandPoland
SDH shown in Public television (TVP) on its two
channels TVP1 and TVP2– 2009: ca. 8% broadcast time– 2010: ca. 4% broadcast time
Films, soaps, TV series, current affairs programmes, documentaries + one news programme per day
Intra- and interlingual
Poland Poland First priority: increase in SDH provision
– Currently: 8% of two major public TV channels [TVP1 and TVP2], including repeats
– No road map for accessibility
– Viewers in favour of paying license fee if SDH provision is guaranteed
Most viewers strongly against editing in SDH
SpainSpain Spain – 45m people
– deaf – 1,000,000– (deaf & hard of hearing – 4,000,000)
Spanish AVT landscape– Dubbing on TV– Analogue switch-over (2009-2010)– Ley General del Audiovisual
Spain Spain
Ident. Place. Justi. Boxes Border Shad. Emot. Icons Speed
Hearers Colour Top Centre No Box
Border Shad. Descr. Descr.
Stand.
Deaf Colour Bottom Centre No Box
No Border
No Shad.
Descr./ (Emot.)
Descr.
Stand.
Hard of Hearing
Colour Mixed Left No Box
Border Shad. (Emot.) Descr.
Stand.
ItalyItaly• Deaf go by habits• Hearers go by aesthetics • Hard-of-Hearing go by usefulness• Difficulties noticing presence of ≠
techniquesComprehension: • Hearers understand more thanks to
audio• > visual for Deaf• > textual for H and HoH
UKUK
Deaf viewers seem to be more -resourceful-knowledgeable -open to changes
than hard of hearing viewers when it comes to SDH
- DVD subtitles seen as more reliable
- TV subtitles preferred when no technical problems are involved
- Edited vs verbatim: slight preference for verbatim SDH
UKUKLive subtitles:
- Unawareness/Unrealistic expectations regarding speech recognition
- Concern about delay / errors DTV4ALL + BBC: Documentary on live subtitling Recommendations applied by Swiss TxT in Switzerland Delayed signal? Perhaps at the viewers’end?
Pre-recorded subtitles:
- Lack of availability in digital channels (US, +1, etc.)
- HoH: complaints about editing and lack of synchrony
- Viewers can cope with different conventions
The Reception of SDH in Europe
Contents
1.Introduction………… 2. Spain………………3. Poland................................4. Italy ....................................5. Greece...............................6. Germany............................7. UK......................................8. Denmark............................9. Conclusions...........................
The Reception of SDH in Europe
Thank you!Thank you!
Questions................................
Suggestions...........................