This has been an ongoing hypocrisy for quite awhile when it comes to signed videos that do not provide any subtitles or captions but instead provide transcripts for those who do not know sign language. For years culturally deaf people have complained loudly how videos they watched were never captioned such as TV shows and movies over cable and the internet, including YouTube videos. But that has been changing slowly (or quickly depending on your perspective) while captioning and easy to use subtitling technology catches up. But imagine instead of subtitles or captions you have a transcript for each video. Why not just provide a transcript instead?
Well, it's not quite the same thing since it provides an obvious disconnect between the viewers and those in the videos because other visual cues and emotions would be entirely lost. So, it makes good business sense is to provide captions/subtitles along with the signing in a video. This allows non-signing viewers a certain connect with signers seen in a video. It is just not those who do not know sign language but those who may be weak in sign language and having captions helps. It also makes good common sense to include captions in videos since that will help reach a wider audience regardless of who the viewing audience is.
But the hypocrisy continues. Some bray saying that putting captions in a signing video "pollutes" it. If that is their logic for an excuse then putting captions in a speaking video also "pollutes" it. Laughable on both sides.
So, if you are running a deaf/hh business or an organization and have the means and wherewithal to include captions to your videos then please do it. If you believe in communication access and inclusion your business or organization ought to be including captions/subtitles in their videos otherwise you and your organization or business just end up as a bunch of hypocritical people with a stupid excuse not to provide captions/subtitles but tosses out a transcript instead. If you do that, then please do not complain again about the lack of captions or subtitles in movies, TV shows, news shows, internet videos, and on YouTube. In fact, you would have no right to complain because your organization or business refuses to provide captions/subtitles in their own videos. In fact, by refusing to do so you've become just like....them.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I disagree. I believe that the MINIMUM expectation should be a transcript or a short summary. Subtitling is not an easy task. Sure, it is a LOT easier than it used to be...but still time consuming. For a 5 minute vlog, it would take me half an hour to subtitle it...and that is doing it fast.
Also, it really depends on your audience and who you specifically want to reach out. If I were running a deaf owned business that needed hearing customers, I'd subtitle. But for a DVTV vlog...or a response...or a short vlog...a transcript will suffice. Hearing parents of deaf children? I'd definitely subtitle in order to reach out to that audience.
So, to me it comes down to two factors:
1.) The audience I am targeting.
2.) How much time it takes to subtitle vs. the importance of my message.
Yes, it's hypocrisy at best. We complain about lack of access to their information and yet we do not provide them with access to our information. Simple. We ought to practice what we preach. There is a huge advantage to subtitling / captioning our information to the world. It help the world learn about us, our abilities and skills. It is also a form of advertisement. The world won't know much about us and our culture if we don't make our information accessible to them. I saw J.J.s response and disagreed with him. Who are we to decide who should or should not gain access to our information? Is it not up to them to decide if they're interested in reading about us? Or is it a case of us being embarrassed or ashamed at how many deaf people could not seem to read or write? Are we denying their access to our information with intention to hide a huge problem? Good post, Mike, as always.
JJ,
The minimum we should expect nowadays because technology makes it easier to do captioning is to expect captions/subtitles and not a transcript. We're talking about businesses and organizations that use videos to advertise or inform people. Not talking about personal videos, etc. If you have a message for everybody then it's best to include captions.
It doesn't really matter who your audience is when it comes to communicating to them. It makes good business to include captions. Simple as that. You only need to caption it one time and that's goes along with a little investment of time and very little resource to provide captions.
Heck, some Deaf people were screaming blue in their faces on why there were no captions in superbowl commercials. So, the important message is that by including captions tells anyone in the audience that they are important when it comes to a signing or voicing video.
Did you just say ordinary folks making simple vlogs have the same obligations as multibillionaire corporations with audiences of millions? Okay.
Ben, did you at all read what I wrote? The focus was on businesses and organizatons, not about ordinary folks, when it comes to including captions/subtitles to their online videos.
Oh okay, my bad. :)
*sigh*
Post a Comment