4 ms·

NetFlix has been trying to implement captions[1], it's actually a lot more challenging then you'd think (with a library as large as NetFlix's). They've been ro

NetFlix has been trying to implement captions[1], it's actually a lot more challenging then you'd think (with a library as large as NetFlix's). They've been rolling it out slowly the past few months, but I'll at least give them credit for trying. I had never noticed the lack of closed captioning on online video until I dated a deaf girl a few years ago, and then you sort of notice how much content exists that is suboptimal when you can't hear. [1] http://blog.netflix.com/2011/02/30-of-netflix-streaming-content-has.html http://blog.netflix.com/2011/02/30-of-netflix-streaming-cont...

underwater 15y ago
Hopefully this will change over the next few years as voice recognition improves.
- woodson 15y ago
  Closed captioning often requires more than that, e.g. for transcribing important non-speech events. Nevertheless, progress in large vocabulary continuous speech recognition might help a lot, with subsequent editing. Actually, I think I'd like to work on that :). Ah, so little time..
pavel_lishin 15y ago
I notice it every time I'm linked to a news story that's only in a video format. I'm literate, thanks, I don't need an announcer slowly explaining things to me.
- masterzora 15y ago
  This. A million times this. I don't understand the push that's been made on the web wherein content that would be perfectly usable as normal plaintext & images becomes videos. It is really easy for me to move freely spatially and really difficult for me to move freely temporally and this is no different on the web. Moreover, it is really easy for me to randomly access a single sentence of text and actually pretty damn difficult for me to do the same with a sentence of spoken word (and this is before you account for my minor hearing difficulties).
  - haberman 15y ago
    > I don't understand the push that's been made on the web wherein content that would be perfectly usable as normal plaintext & images becomes videos. My guess is that it's better for advertising because they can show you ads that cannot be skipped before getting to the content.
    - masterzora 15y ago
      That certainly explains some cases, but it definitely doesn't account for all cases. I still distinctly remember a video someone made that was just reading a joke list that is widely spread across the internet. The delivery didn't add anything to the list. There was no reason to be a video whatsoever. A number of howto-type videos are the same way (while some really do benefit from a video, many more don't). I've even seen a few videos with no audio and the only content was text on a black background. My various problems with online video mean there's a lot of content from which I'm essentially cut off unless I want to put forth a special effort, and such effort is usually (though not always) not worth it.
danudey 15y ago
I had a blind (legally, but not completely) roommate in college, and he found my dogmatic adherence to widescreen movies annoying, because it made everything smaller (on a 4:3 screen). I did, however, get in the hang of navigating apartments in the dark, and relying more on spatial memory and less on my vision for finding things (e.g. picking up your toothbrush and toothpaste).
gkjam 15y ago
The vast majority of Netflix's DVD contains subtitles, so they are available. There is very little excuse that Netflix has for not having this content available. While "the best" solution from a technical perspective is to figure out a way to add captions to content, the alternative, serving up a "burned in" caption feed for those who need it, is technically possible and easily done. Of course that costs Netflix money, they have to maintain two copies of each movie. But the law says you have to make the same accommodations available to disabled individuals as others have. Disabled persons shouldn't have to wait until Netflix can find "the efficient" answer, or the best technological solution. It is Netflix's responsibility to make this content accessible, and if today that means two copies of the content, so be it. Such laws are there to protect disabled individuals when it's not the best answer for a company's "bottom line" to accommodate them. Netflix has been dragging their feet on this, and this is why they will likely lose this case.

underwater 15y ago

Hopefully this will change over the next few years as voice recognition improves.

woodson 15y ago
Closed captioning often requires more than that, e.g. for transcribing important non-speech events. Nevertheless, progress in large vocabulary continuous speech recognition might help a lot, with subsequent editing. Actually, I think I'd like to work on that :). Ah, so little time..

pavel_lishin 15y ago

I notice it every time I'm linked to a news story that's only in a video format. I'm literate, thanks, I don't need an announcer slowly explaining things to me.

masterzora 15y ago
This. A million times this. I don't understand the push that's been made on the web wherein content that would be perfectly usable as normal plaintext & images becomes videos. It is really easy for me to move freely spatially and really difficult for me to move freely temporally and this is no different on the web. Moreover, it is really easy for me to randomly access a single sentence of text and actually pretty damn difficult for me to do the same with a sentence of spoken word (and this is before you account for my minor hearing difficulties).
- haberman 15y ago
  > I don't understand the push that's been made on the web wherein content that would be perfectly usable as normal plaintext & images becomes videos. My guess is that it's better for advertising because they can show you ads that cannot be skipped before getting to the content.
  - masterzora 15y ago
    That certainly explains some cases, but it definitely doesn't account for all cases. I still distinctly remember a video someone made that was just reading a joke list that is widely spread across the internet. The delivery didn't add anything to the list. There was no reason to be a video whatsoever. A number of howto-type videos are the same way (while some really do benefit from a video, many more don't). I've even seen a few videos with no audio and the only content was text on a black background. My various problems with online video mean there's a lot of content from which I'm essentially cut off unless I want to put forth a special effort, and such effort is usually (though not always) not worth it.

danudey 15y ago

I had a blind (legally, but not completely) roommate in college, and he found my dogmatic adherence to widescreen movies annoying, because it made everything smaller (on a 4:3 screen). I did, however, get in the hang of navigating apartments in the dark, and relying more on spatial memory and less on my vision for finding things (e.g. picking up your toothbrush and toothpaste).

gkjam 15y ago

The vast majority of Netflix's DVD contains subtitles, so they are available. There is very little excuse that Netflix has for not having this content available. While "the best" solution from a technical perspective is to figure out a way to add captions to content, the alternative, serving up a "burned in" caption feed for those who need it, is technically possible and easily done. Of course that costs Netflix money, they have to maintain two copies of each movie. But the law says you have to make the same accommodations available to disabled individuals as others have. Disabled persons shouldn't have to wait until Netflix can find "the efficient" answer, or the best technological solution. It is Netflix's responsibility to make this content accessible, and if today that means two copies of the content, so be it. Such laws are there to protect disabled individuals when it's not the best answer for a company's "bottom line" to accommodate them. Netflix has been dragging their feet on this, and this is why they will likely lose this case.