4 ms·
Why only captions? Why not require translations into all 300+ languages? I mean there are billions of people who can't understand whatever language the video is
by greggman 12y ago
Why only captions? Why not require translations into all 300+ languages? I mean there are billions of people who can't understand whatever language the video is in and therefore can't access these videos.
It seems to me if it's the responsibility of people who can't understand the video to deal with that themselves (learn the language, hire a translator, etc...). Why is that different if your language is sign language or something else?
- jamesbrownuhh 12y agoJust a single native-language caption track is all that's necessary. Computers can already do a pretty good job of translating that into the hundreds of other possible languages.
- teraflop 12y agoThis is extremely dependent on which languages you're talking about. For instance, my experience with automatic translation between Japanese and English varies from "jumbled, but conveys the gist of the original text" to "entirely incoherent". (Bing seems to do slightly better than Google, incidentally.)
- jamesbrownuhh 12y agoAccepted. Far better than nothing at all (in most cases) though, I'd suggest.
- icebraining 12y agoI think the point people are making is that a video without captions is also far better than no video at all.
- jamesbrownuhh 12y agoI don't disagree with that in the slightest. Even a video that is not captioned today, could be captioned tomorrow.