3 ms·

I'm lost. why not just run the content through a modern voice to text API? They are pretty good and youtube has their own voice to text captions, right?

by phozy1 10y ago

rasz_pl 10y ago
YT already does this. The letter UC received whined about low quality.
cbhl 10y ago
I actually think there is room for a "human-assisted collaborative captioning" effort. You'd start with the results of automated speech recognition, and then you'd add in Google Docs-style collaborative editing of the closed captioning / fan subs. Imagine if you could save a video by watching it and correcting the typos in the existing transcript. But there's no way it'd be a viable business. (That's Rev, and it costs $1/minute, and it doesn't even give you a .srt file that you can upload to YouTube.) Plus, you'd have to deal with spam/abuse, and creative uses of captions (e.g. niconico). I tried building a prototype of this in college, but I couldn't figure out how to make it work financially, so I had to take a paid summer internship at YouTube.
- ericras 10y ago
  This has existed for years: http://amara.org/ http://amara.org/
  - cbhl 10y ago
    To put it lightly, the Amara platform needs work. If you try to sign in with both Google and Facebook and the same e-mail address, you end up creating two separate accounts that are impossible to link/merge. Never mind that people have multiple email addresses and phone numbers and YouTube accounts in real life. If it has existed for years, why wasn't it used to save the UC Berkeley library videos? I'm thinking more of a Google Docs style interface, where you can make a lightweight edit (only one or two lines of captions) and someone else can concurrently time and edit other lines.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Rebelgecko 10y ago
The complaint that Cal got said that the autogenerated Youtube captions were inaccurate enough to be considered discriminatory.
wazanator 10y ago
From what I have been able to gather reading on various sites the courts are fairly strict about the accuracy of closed captions. While YouTube's auto captions are good they don't have a high enough accuracy. Google even says you need to provide your own closed captions if you plan to stream a live event that will appear on TV. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3068031?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3068031?hl=en
oculusthrift 10y ago
Captioning alone was projected to cost a million dollars and that wasn't the only problem. "OOC media content was riddled with accessibility issues including low-color contrast, missing and screen reader accessibility issues" So even though it's free, somehow they have to take it down and ruin it for everyone.

I'm lost. why not just run the content through a modern voice to text API? They are pretty good and youtube has their own voice to text captions, right?

by phozy1 10y ago

I'm lost. why not just run the content through a modern voice to text API? They are pretty good and youtube has their own voice to text captions, right?

rasz_pl 10y ago

YT already does this. The letter UC received whined about low quality.

cbhl 10y ago

I actually think there is room for a "human-assisted collaborative captioning" effort. You'd start with the results of automated speech recognition, and then you'd add in Google Docs-style collaborative editing of the closed captioning / fan subs. Imagine if you could save a video by watching it and correcting the typos in the existing transcript. But there's no way it'd be a viable business. (That's Rev, and it costs $1/minute, and it doesn't even give you a .srt file that you can upload to YouTube.) Plus, you'd have to deal with spam/abuse, and creative uses of captions (e.g. niconico). I tried building a prototype of this in college, but I couldn't figure out how to make it work financially, so I had to take a paid summer internship at YouTube.

ericras 10y ago
This has existed for years: http://amara.org/ http://amara.org/
- cbhl 10y ago
  To put it lightly, the Amara platform needs work. If you try to sign in with both Google and Facebook and the same e-mail address, you end up creating two separate accounts that are impossible to link/merge. Never mind that people have multiple email addresses and phone numbers and YouTube accounts in real life. If it has existed for years, why wasn't it used to save the UC Berkeley library videos? I'm thinking more of a Google Docs style interface, where you can make a lightweight edit (only one or two lines of captions) and someone else can concurrently time and edit other lines.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Rebelgecko 10y ago

The complaint that Cal got said that the autogenerated Youtube captions were inaccurate enough to be considered discriminatory.

wazanator 10y ago

From what I have been able to gather reading on various sites the courts are fairly strict about the accuracy of closed captions. While YouTube's auto captions are good they don't have a high enough accuracy. Google even says you need to provide your own closed captions if you plan to stream a live event that will appear on TV. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3068031?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3068031?hl=en

oculusthrift 10y ago

Captioning alone was projected to cost a million dollars and that wasn't the only problem. "OOC media content was riddled with accessibility issues including low-color contrast, missing and screen reader accessibility issues" So even though it's free, somehow they have to take it down and ruin it for everyone.