1 / 16

Optimising subtitle reception: subtitles for all

Optimising subtitle reception: subtitles for all. Pablo Romero-Fresco (Roehampton University, Transmedia Catalonia) Henrik Gottlieb (University of Copenhagen) Agnieszka Szarkowska ( University of Warsaw ) Veronica Arnaiz (Universidad de Valladolid) Carlo Eugeni (Intersteno).

maxim
Download Presentation

Optimising subtitle reception: subtitles for all

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Optimising subtitle reception: subtitles for all Pablo Romero-Fresco (Roehampton University, Transmedia Catalonia) Henrik Gottlieb (University of Copenhagen) Agnieszka Szarkowska(University of Warsaw) Veronica Arnaiz(Universidad de Valladolid) Carlo Eugeni (Intersteno) Large scale user evaluation of subtitlesin seven European countries

  2. Quality in SDH • Analysing receptionby 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

  3. Quality in SDH Surveys to find out what users think Questionnaires to find out what users understand Eye-tracking to find out what users see

  4. General 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

  5. Common 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

  6. 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 knew Deaf & HoH want names or colors, plus sound sources Deaf want everything subtitled HoH want subtitles in sync with dialog • Intralingual live subtitling: Many still don’t know this service Some dissatisfaction (lack of synchrony)

  7. Poland 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

  8. 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

  9. Spain • 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

  10. Spain

  11. Italy • Deaf go by habits • Hearers go by aesthetics • Hard-of-Hearing go by usefulness • Difficulties noticing presence of ≠ techniques Comprehension: • Hearers understand more thanks to audio • > visual for Deaf • > textual for H and HoH

  12. UK 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

  13. UK Live 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

  14. 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...........................

  15. The Reception of SDH in Europe

  16. Questions................................ Suggestions........................... Thank you!

More Related