3 ms·
The funny thing is that I've been seeing this for decades. E.g.: media with a separate "subtitle (audio only)" and "subtitles (with sounds)" tracks. Not sure w
by WhyNotHugo 1y ago
The funny thing is that I've been seeing this for decades. E.g.: media with a separate "subtitle (audio only)" and "subtitles (with sounds)" tracks.
Not sure why this is being presented a something new here.
- pests 1y agoThis is the difference between just "subtitles" and "closed captioning / subtitles for the Deaf or hard of hearing". Usually one will be labeled as "English" and the other as "English (CC)". Other streaming services have had this distinction and you can also see this classification in places such as open subtitles. Netflix has always been the odd one out to only include "English (CC)".
- netsharc 1y agoThis is Apple introducing the new iPhone, with the world-turning new features "copy", and "paste" all over again. Pro Max buyers get "cut" too.
- watwut 1y agoCC are not meant for deaf. They are exact transcripts of speech. They are better for language learners and foreigners who occasionally need to glance at subtitles to get missing word. They dont have advantages for dead afaik. They real advantage is that you don't need to create priper subtitles that are subject to different standards. So, they are cheaper.
- Tireings 1y agoAre you nitpicking or what do deaf people normally?
- watwut 1y agoDeaf are better off using normal subtitles, because those are literally designed to be read while watching the movie. They have different standards for stuff like how many letters to show on screen at the same time and for how long.
- pests 1y agoWhat do you mean by normal subtitles? I have a few Deaf friends and they all like the CC version as sometimes they miss out on the audio cues. Some scenes make no sense without it.
- 1317 1y agoyes they are