Captions vs transcriptions
Yesterday I made a fairly standard approach to a potential client, asking whether they’d be interested in subtitles or captions for their video content. We’re talking about an organisation set up by the UK government, with many dozens of videos on their site, so I figured maybe they’d be interested. At worst I’d get one of the usual reasons for not wanting to talk to me – worldwide recession, not a priority, yada yada yada. But no, this time I heard a new one.
They weren’t interested because they already had transcriptions of their videos up on the site.
Obviously I’d noticed the transcriptions previously, but I went ahead and made an approach regardless. I don’t really regard transcriptions as a potential substitute for captions, or at least I didn’t before now. Surely transcriptions are for SEO reasons, or to make it possible to use content from videos in other contexts. They’re not intended as a serious way to enable deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers to access the video content, in anything other than the most bargain-bucket of organisations… are they?
Well, here’s a high-level body telling me that yes, they are.
I tried not to jump to any conclusions about the idea of transcriptions as a substitute for captions, I really did. I’m not deaf or hard-of-hearing, so I worried that my initial reaction was out of line. I still am worried. I asked a number of friends and colleagues and even the Twitterverse to pitch in with their ideas, in case I was missing something. But deep down I’m convinced that what I was being told by the potential client was utter bull.
Before I go any further, let’s get one thing straight. I have a huge amount of time for transcription – it’s a complex and honourable art with a vast array of nuances and craftsmanship. You can do a degree in transcription, that’s how complex it is. A really good transcription is a truly marvellous thing. And even on websites, let’s be honest, a transcription of a video is infinitely better than nothing at all.
But transcription as a true substitute for captioning? To the extent that a government-sponsored service can use it as an excuse, as a valid way in which they are fulfilling their accessibility remit?
Goddammit, that’s just plain freaking wrong.
A transcription is akin to the handout at the end of a lecture. You’re not supposed to read along with the lecture in real time. You’d never learn anything. What you’re supposed to do is use it as an aide-memoire after you get home, or photocopy it for your mate who missed the lecture. It’s a way to access the content when you’re not actually having the experience.
If you’re watching the video, there is no earthly way you can read a transcription, half a page away, at the same time. Human eyes are not equipped to do that. The transcription allows a deaf or hard-of-hearing viewer to read about what went on in the video, but it does not make it possible for that viewer to watch and understand that video. It is not making the video accessible.
The analogy that keeps popping into my head is this. Offering only a transcription and claiming your video is therefore accessible is like telling a deaf person you’re taking them to a rock concert, then leaving them on the kerb outside the venue and telling them to read the sheet music. Sure, it might be a better way to experience the music than sitting at home, and in a world that so often does nothing for accessibility maybe we should be praising transcriptions from the rooftops. But sheet music outside a rock concert seems to me to be a pretty insulting way to treat someone.
Maybe I’m out of line. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
YouTube 
Copyright © internetsubtitling.com. All Rights Reserved.