Optimising subtitle reception: subtitles for all Pablo Romero-Fresco (Roehampton University, Transmedia Catalonia) Henrik Gottlieb (University of Copenhagen)

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...........................