Preserve the WCAG distinction between “captions” and “subtitles”

I'm not clear exactly where you see the problem.

WCAG draws a distinction between "dialogue-only subtitles" and captions. The EN 301 549 definition is not defining "dialogue-only subtitles" because it adds "as well as other elements of the soundtrack". So the definition itself does not draw any equivalence between the two terms.

Is it note 1 that makes the statement "When subtitles are used as an accommodation for deaf or hard of hearing users, they are also known as captions or as subtitles for the hearing impaired" that you object to? This is not part of the definition, it is just refers to common usage of the terms.

I think part of the problem may be that the US television closed-caption solutions are not as flexible as European television subtitles. I'm not aware that they have any of the "bitmap" capability, where the broadcaster can encode their own special symbols (for example musical notes) into the subtitles, and use different colours to highlight multiple voices. As such, I suspect the W3C has an incomplete understanding of European subtitles and this is reflected in the WCAG, also since they are focussed on web and not on television broadcast technologies so it's a different group of experts opining.

@montalvod could you please document that: "WCAG is explicitly making a difference between the two terms"?

WCAG is using captions as the main term. However, it does not define at all SUBTITLES. The only description of what the term "subtitles" can mean is in the NOTES associated with the definition of captions:

Note 1 Captions are similar to dialogue-only subtitles except captions convey not only the content of spoken dialogue, but also equivalents for non-dialogue audio information needed to understand the program content, including sound effects, music, laughter, speaker identification and location.

and

Note 5 In some countries, captions are called subtitles.

These notes provide an ambigous "defintion" of subtitles:

According to Note 1, subtitles are limited to the text experssing only the dialogue part of the audio
According to Note 5, subtitles are a synonym of captions, i.e. "convey not only the content of spoken dialogue, but also equivalents for non-dialogue audio information needed to understand the program content, including sound effects, music, laughter, speaker identification and location."

This apparent ambiguity in understanding the difference between captions and subtitles has been carried through to the EN, where we today have two terms:

captions - defined in accordance with WCAG

subtitles - defined in accordance with WCAG Note 5

leaving the EN with two terms with effectively the same meaning.

The recent EN review round has concluded that having two terms meaning the same is not acceptable.

As subtitles is the term that is used in the EAA. It is also a predominant term used in Europe to indicate the text that conveys both dialogue+all audio. Consequently, it has been decided to use this term rather than captions.

Please note, that this is absolutely consistent with WCAG's Note 5 cited above.

W3C call for

preserving the distinction made in WCAG between “captions” and “subtitles”.

seems ungrounded, because WCAG does not make any definite distinction between the two terms.

The postulated update of the EN 301 549 to remove the ambiguity of having two terms refering to the same concept, would not alter in any way the original meaning of “subtitles” in WCAG. The term "subtitles" remains undefined and fuzzy in the WCAG 2.2.

As additional argument for adopting subtitles as the main EN term, it has also been noted that the term captions/captioning may be confusing because of its use in the context of image captioning. The rapidly emerging image captioning technologies concern generation of description of images/visual data. In that context, using subtitles may be a more robust solution.

Dear @pluke @jeffreym @agata

Thanks all for coming back to this so quickly.

Even if WCAG does not have its own definition of "subtitles", it is making the difference between the two terms in the definition of captions, as expressed in my previous comment.

The differences revolve around two main axes:

Dialog-only or dialog plus non-dialog information
Same language than the audio or translation of the audio content to a different language

For clarity and ease of review, here's the current definition of "subtitles" included in EN 301 549 v0.12

subtitles: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which aims to account for the spoken words of the content, as well as other elements of the soundtrack

NOTE 1: When subtitles are used as an accommodation for deaf or hard of hearing users, they are also known as captions or as subtitles for the hearing impaired. NOTE 2: Outside North America, the term Subtitles is often used synonymously with Closed Captions. The term "Hardsubs" is sometimes used in place of Open Captions. NOTE 3: Subtitles can appear anywhere on the display, and positioned to avoid overlapping content that needs to be visible (such as a "news ticker"), or where the background content would make the subtitles difficult to read.

The concern here is that if the EN effectively defines "subtitles" as "[...] spoken words of the content, as well as other elements of the soundtrack", this would be contradicting WCAG provisions around subtitles (expressed earlier), which explicitly qualifies them as either dialog-only or translations of spoken audio content to a different language.

As a workaround, we could:

Qualify the definition of subtitles to explicitly state that it doesn't apply in the WCAG context, because "subtitles" has other meanings according to the existing provisions in definition of captions.
make it explicit that, in the context of WCAG, "captions" and "subtitles" do indeed need to be distinguished, but also acknowledge in languages different than English there is not a commonly accepted word to communicate this distinction.

@montalvod thanks for the quick follow-up and the proposal.

Could you please calrify what you mean with:

"Qualify the definition of subtitles to explicitly state that it doesn't apply in the WCAG context, because "subtitles" has other meanings according to the existing provisions in definition of captions."

I guess the EN could have a note that the EN defintion of subtitles does not apply in WCAG. Is this what you had in mind? (Obviously, the entire purpose of the update is to eradicate the situation where the EN has two synonymous terms - captions and subtitles. So the agreed term subtitels would be adopted for the WCAG-related EN clauses, but the titles of the original WCAG succcess criteria would remain intact. And appropriate explanatory notes could/should be added. Here is an example of how adoption of subtitles in the EN could work in practice with the WCAG-based requirments:

9.1.2.2 Subtitles (pre-recorded)

Where ICT is, or includes, a web page, the web page shall satisfy WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded).

NOTE: In WCAG 2.2 the term "captions" is used to refer to the concept of "subtitles" as defined in the present document.

Would that work?

Also, could you please clarify how the EN should address the other point.

I have difficulties in recognizing how the EN could:

make it explict that in the context of WCAG, "captions" and "subtitles" do indeed need to be distinguished,

It seems to me that the such explicit distinction should be done first is in the WCAG itself. At the moment, WCAG is fuzzy about it:

Note 1 says that subtitles are limited to text version of dialogue and therefore qualitatively different from the WCAG defined captions
Note 5 says that subtitles are used as synonym for the WCAG defined captions

Given that, I do not know how the EN could clarify the situation. Please do help us with providing specific proposals to address this particular concern in the EN.

I neither can think of a way for how the EN could:

acknowledge in languages different than English there is not a commonly accepted word to communicate this distinction.

It is beyond the scope of the EN to comment on the multilingual terminologies and how the concepts are being translated to different languages.

However, indeed, it seems rather that there is an intralingual problem in English with respect to the concept. It seems that in English there is no one commonly accepted word to refer to text alternative for entire soundtrack (dialogue and sounds):

an English language WCAG uses captions
an English language DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/882 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (EAA) uses subtitles

It has been agreed that the EN shall use the word subtitles to mean what is denoted as captions in WCAG, consistent with:

Note 5 in the WCAG definition of captions
the EAA It has also been agreed that the fact that subtitles as defined in the EN are synonym with captions as defined in the WCAG, will be explicilty accounted for in the revised definition notes.

One possible solution would be to have the current EN defintion with the following note:

subtitles: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which aims to account for the spoken words of the content, as well as other elements of the soundtrack

NOTE 1: WCAG 2.2 uses the term "captions" to refer to "subtitles" as defined in the present document.

@agata

Your proposed solution above would work. Except that we wouldn't be comfortable changing the clause 9 titles. This could create disparities if someone just reads through the EN clause 9 titles where it'd say "subtitles" and claims they've met this SC with what WCAG says about subtitles.

So where you say

9.1.2.2 Subtitles (pre-recorded)

We would still keep

9.1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded)

And then

NOTE: In WCAG 2.2 the term "captions" is used to refer to the concept of "subtitles" as defined in the present document.

would reinforce that WCAG calls these "captions".

Thanks @montalvod - I understand that at the kernel of the W3C wish is to keep intact the titles of the EN clauses that are directly based on WCAG.

Your proposal, of keeping captions only for the WCAG related clauses, unfortunately would not help us to address the original problem:

In the EN there are two terms (captions and subtitles) with the same meaning.

To ensure that the EN uses one term only AND preserves the WCAG terminology, the EN should adopt captions.

This, however, is not consistent with the overall requirement for development of the harmonized standards which should not modify any definitions or relevant terminologies used in the directives that the standards are to support. The current revision of the EN 301 549 is carried out so that the standard is updated to support the essential accesibility requirments of the EAA. Subtitles is the term used in the EAA.

Additional arguments for the use of subtitles were:

predominance of this term in Europe
possibility to confuse captions/captioning with image caption/captioning

Adopting subtitles as the only term for the EN would result in the following formulation of the WCAG related clauses on captions:

Following the descion of using the one term "subtitles", 9.1.2.2 clause would rather read:

9.1.2.2 Subtitles (pre-recorded)

Where ICT is, or includes, a web page, the web page shall satisfy WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded).

NOTE: In WCAG 2.2 the term "captions" is used to refer to the concept of "subtitles" as defined in the present document.

If such formulation is be not acceptable for W3C, I really do not have any idea how to meet the two contradictory requirements.

@pluke

I think that our current language, with definitions and cross-references between them covers this issue.

Can we call for closing this? or do we need a comment.

If so I think the following should serve that purpose:

thank you for your comment. We have modified the definitions of both captions and subtitles in the new draft to reflect the difference between them and the difference in usage of the terms between different countries. We think it should now be clear to everyone what is required and when the terms are equivalent and not.

@gregg there was a very clear request to use one term in the EN. At the recent JTB eAcc it has been recorded as a decision that the EN should be updated to use only "subtitles" - to be consisent with the EAA, avoid two terms meaning same concept and also to try to avoid confussion with image captioning.

@montalvod objects to the update. @pluke, @jeffreym and myself are trying to understand on what grounds.

Completely agree with Agata.

The primary and most visible use of subtitles is on broadcast television, a topic that W3C and WCAG do not address with their focus on the web. But it is central and essential to our EN.

As such, we have more expertise on this topic than the W3C does, and should not be adopting their (in my opinion) terminological errors in a false attempt at alignment. If anything, they should be looking at what we are doing in this area, especially in the correct use of television terminology.

We are producing a European standard for ICT being sold in the EU and the wider European marketplace. We are not beholden to the USA nor to American terminology, especially where it diverges from established European usage and existing standards.

But we do use subtitles. And we use it accurately. We say that subtitles are what is text on screen. but there are different types of subtitles and we have no remit to talk about subtitles that are not related to accessibility.

But if we must use "subtitles" then we need to not define it one way and then use the word in sentences where we do not mean it to be defined that way - which we currently do. e.g., if "subtitles" is for people with disabilities -- then we cannot define "interlingual subtitles" to mean something other than "text in another langauge for people with disabilities" since the term includes subtitles

Hmmmmmm\ How about we resolve all this by definiting the following terms and using them. (I am using bold-italics to represent hyperlinks since I can't seem to figur out how to do 'underlining'

ALSO we may need a better word/term than "modality subtitles" for subtitles in the same language.

subtitles
text that is provided with audio or audiovisual content to provide visual representation of audio information. There are two types, interlingual subtitles and modality subtitles.

NOTE: Subtitles can appear anywhere on the display, and positioned to avoid overlapping content that needs to be visible (such as a "news ticker"), or where the background content would make the subtitles difficult to read.

interlingual subtitles\
subtitles that translate the original audio information into a different language

modality subititles
subtitles where the language in the subtitles is the same as the language of the audio track

NOTE 1:: Modality subtitles are provided for those that cannot hear the audio track well or at all and include text describing other important audio information as well as speech.

NOTE 2: When subtitles are used as an accommodation for deaf or hard of hearing users, they are also known as captions (e.g., North America) or as "subtitles for the hearing impaired". They are also sometimes referred to as simply "subtitles" when the context of the discussion is about disabilities or accessibility.

Captions
another term for modality subititles

NOTE See also Closed subtitles (Captions) and Open Subtitles (Captions)

Closed subtitles - (Closed Captions)
Subtitles that can be turned on and off via the presenting software

Open subtitles - (Open Captions)
Subtitles that have been made part of the video image and cannot be turned off or hidden. NOTE: The term "Hardsubs" is sometimes used in place of Open Captions.

I intended to propose changes to the proposed notes from the European perspective, but I gave up in reformulating them. They do not make sense when we just use the term "subtitles" for everything.

I want instead to come with another complexity. What do we call the automatic text transcription of speech that has become common in video conference services. I made a check and found the following alternatives. I do not remember if we mention them currently in the EN. If we do not define it, the "subtitle" definition will cover that form of text also, which does not feel right.

Alternatives:

Speech-to-text
Automatic speech recognition
Live captioning
Live transcription
Real-time transcription.

I suggest "live transcription"

But can we differentiate that from real-time subtitling in live streaming, or webinars. Shall we try to get used to use subtitling also for live transcription in video conferencing?

Speech-to-text -- is a technology/capability it is just one mechanism for generating captions/subtitles but it is independent of it
Automatic speech recognition (ASR) - is just another name for speech-to-text
Live captioning - is just that - captioning of live audio. the captions can be generated in any of a dozen different ways including typing, shorthand, ASR, ASR with human correction
Live transcription - is the same as live captioning but is displayed separately rather than over the top of or just below the video
Real-time transcription - this is just another name for live transcription

None of these are captions or subtitles (except "live captioning"). They are all means of generating the text that could be used in "live captioning/subtitles" or attached to media for later release as captions/subtitles.

I do not see the need for any of these terms other than as I defined them above. I don't think we need to talk about how teh text is generated at all.. The requiremets would just be about what is provided - not how it is created.

Make sense?

I see a clue in your comments. It seems that you regard live transcription to include presentation when it is possible to present it outside of the video area.

Are subtitles always presented within or just below the video area?

If so, the term for the text presented in video conferences where you can move them around is "live transcription".

Are there good reasons for keeping these terms separate?

Back to the comments on the NOTES. I propose to change the last sentence in Note 2 to: They are also commonly referred to as simply "subtitles" when the context of the discussion is not specifically about disabilities or accessibility.

@hellstromgu

yes. if it is presented on or under the media - we call it a "subtitle" or "caption"

There are live transcript however that are provided separately - often at a different URL even. They are called live transcripts but also other names (captions, CART,)

yes "the term for the text presented in video conferences where you can move them around is" is OFTEN called "live transcript". it is also called captioning and CART.

I see no reason to distinguish between them in EN 301 549. Agata was the one who brought them up asking how they all related

As far as I am concerned, we only need to be talking about two things

modality-subtitles
1. also called captions or subtitles for the deaf etc
2. these are in the same language as the audio content
3. the include other important sounds
4. these can be live or not
interlingual-subtitles
1. these are in the DIFFERENT language than the audio content
2. these can be live or not

I only introduce modality-subtitles because subtitles includes both and we can't have ambiguity in the standard.

I wish I could think of a better name than modality-subtitles. (that is just a placeholder)

RE Your proposal to change the last sentence in Note 2 to: They are also commonly referred to as simply "subtitles" when the context of the discussion is not specifically about disabilities or accessibility.

only if you are talking about interlingual-subtitles

if you are talkin about -- modality-subtitles then they are "are"commonly referred to as simply "subtitles" when the context of the discussion is about disabilities or accessibility.

so it depends on which definition you are attaching your note (which you don't specify)

Anna @matamalaa is experiencing problems accessing Gitlab and asked me over the weekend to post the following contribution to the discussion:

I would like to make the following contribution, after reading the previous posts. Subtitles can be classified according to different parameters.

• According to languages: a) Intralingual (or same language subtitles); b) Interlingual (or translation) subtitles.

• According to the audiences: a) subtitles addressed to persons who can hear the audio: they normally include only speech (not non-speech information); b) subtitles addressed to persons who cannot hear the audio: these include speech and non-speech information.

The general situation is that we have:

• Intralingual subtitles addressed to those who cannot hear including both speech and non-speech information

This is what in the EAA is referred to as “subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing” (Art 2, section IV; section IV, (ii)), shortened as “subtitles” (section I, iii; 2 (iv)) in some sections.

This is what in WCAG is referred to as “caption” , with a note drawing an equivalence with the term “subtitle”.

• Interlingual subtitles addressed to those who can hear but cannot understand which only include speech information.

I understand this is what WCAG calls “dialogue-only subtitles” in a note. I don’t see them being called “subtitles” but “dialogue-only subtitles”, as one type of possible subtitle.

I support Agata in that I cannot see where the term “subtitle” is used in WCAG with a different meaning.

ANEC has strongly asked for having one term for the EN.

In the ISO standard on caption/subtitling, it was impossible to reach a consensus so the only solution was to use “caption/subtitles”. If we take this approach, then we would need to use “caption/subtitle” all through the document, making it more difficult to read.

Therefore, I would like to support the proposal to update the EN as agreed in the JTB eAcc and use subtitles as the only term in the EN, though having an explicit note about its consistency with the WCAG definition and acknowleding that we are referring to “subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing”, as per the EAA.

Subtitles: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content which aims to account for speech and non-speech information of the content.

NOTE 1. WCAG 2.2. uses the term “captions” to refer to “subtitles” as defined in the present document.

NOTE 2. This document uses the term “subtitles” to refer to “subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing”, as used in the Directive (EU) 2019/882. It does not refer to interlingual subtitles which include only speech information.

On the proposal from @gregg to introduce 6 distinct terms in the EN:

How does this proposal address the two concerns that motivated the agreed update of the EN, that is now disputed?

The agreed update to use one term "subtitles" in the EN, has been motivated by the need to:

eliminate from the EN definitions set terms that have the same meaning, like for example:

captions: another term for modality subititles

allign the EN with the EAA, which EAA talks only about "subtiltes", meaning "subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing".

What are the particular issues that would require now an introduction of 6 terms address in this area?

Lets see -- what are the rationales for the 6 terms (by the way - we already have

Mostly I was proposing those to straighten out the knot we get ourselves into when trying to switch from captions to subtitles in our guidelines - and not have contradictions or confusion

but lets start with "how many do we already have"?

what we have now is

captions
interlingual subtitles
spoken captions/subtitles audio captions/subtitles {this is really a different topic so ignore}
subtitles

Which ones we need now and why

subtitles - must because they will look for this - and it is the parent for all types of subtitles
interlingual-subtitles - because we need to distinguish this from same language subtiles or captions since we require audio version of these but not "modality subtitles".
modality subititles - because we need a name for these since this is what we are requiring these be provided but do not require interlingual. can't just use Subtitle for this because interlingual-subtitles are also subtitles and we do not require them. (Don't like Modal subtitles but we can't use intralingual subtitles becuase it is so close to interlingual subtitles that no one will know the difference and there will no end to confusion. Any better suggestions for these? hmmm caption-subtitles might work because it is both different and almost self defining?
Captions - Not really needed -- could just be in a note under caption-subtitles (modality-subtitles). Only listed separately so peopel can find it if looking but a note under caption-subtiles would work
Closed subtitles - because most people don't know what they are and what the difference betweee closed and open -- and we need to refer to both since one can be programmatically determinable and the other cannot.
Open subtitles - see closed subtitles

SO maybe just reduce to 4

Subtitles-- (visual (usually text) version of audio info on or below AV content)
interlingual-subtitles (subtitles in a different language than audio content)
caption-subtitles (subtitles in the same language as audio and including speed and other important audio/sounds)
open captions (captions that are embedded in the video such that they cannot be turned off or hidden) - NOTE: this is in contrast to closed captions that can be turned on and off so they show or do not show.

@gregg what is the difference that would be important from the accessibility point of view of the EN between:

Subtitles-- (visual (usually text) version of audio info on or below AV content)

AND

caption-subtitles (subtitles in the same language as audio and including speed and other important audio/sounds)

Also, how in parctice would you see the two terms being used in the EN? In which clauses?

@agata

Subtitles includes both "interlingual subtitles" and subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired. This is a natural result of the english language where a modified noun is a subset of the noun itself.

Since we want different requirements for "interlingual subtitles" and "subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired" we cannot call "subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired" simply subtitles in a technical standard.

what we do in "common usage" is another thing. But even there whenever we just say subtitles we get confusion. so calling "subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired" simply "caption-subtitles" BOTH

ensures we do not confuse them with "interlingual subtitles" AND
solves the problem of somepeople calling them captions and some people calling the subtitles (and the arguments that subtitles are not all captions yada yada yada.

so - subtiles are ANYTHING under/on AV

and there are two types "interlingual subtitles" and "caption-subtitles"

end of confusion

Subtitles includes both "interlingual subtitles" and subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired.

Yes - and this is why subtitles works as one term for the EN.

If we assume two distinct types as you suggest:

two types "interlingual subtitles" and "caption-subtitles"

how would you propose to change the language of for example clauses 7.1.1-7.1.4? These should apply to ANYTHING under/on AV and should not be restricted to "caption-subtitles" type only...

@gregg

Thanks for your suggestion.

I think this is more robust and hopefully prevents the confusion I was referring to in my previous comments.

W3C would be comfortable with a change like "Captions" to "Caption-Subtitles" in 9.1.2.2 title.

@gregg the initial request/comment from ANEC was to remove from the EN terms that have same difintions. In particular, remove captions and adopt subtitles defined as:

Subtitles: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content which aims to account for speech and non-speech information of the content.

So where you say:

Since we want different requirements for "interlingual subtitles" and "subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired" we cannot call "subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired" simply subtitles in a technical standard.

please note this is not the way subtibles is proposed to be defined. The term subtitles refers to both "interlingual subtitles" and "subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired".

The accessibilty requirments for all the different types of text versions of the audio would remain unchanged regardless whether the text is of any specific type (modality subtitles, interlingual, live transcript, whatever...). There is only one exception, i.e. clause 7.15 that is applicable only when we have "interlingual subtitles".

Given that for the EN we need two terms:

refering to all types of text vesions of audio (including interlingual subtitles)
"interlingual subtitles"

@gregg - would you agree?

The request was to adopt subtitles as term 1.

@matamalaa indicated earlier that it was not possible to reach a consensus on terminology in ISO either:

In the ISO standard on caption/subtitling, it was impossible to reach a consensus so the only solution was to use “caption/subtitles”. If we take this approach, then we would need to use “caption/subtitle” all through the document, making it more difficult to read.

As @matamalaa , I am not in favour of that double term as it just prolongs the confussion and I cannot see any good arguments for that.

W3C has adopted "captions" as a term indicating in a NOTE that another term is "subtitles".

For clarity of the EN (double terms are more difficult to understand) and to maintain concistency with the European Directive (EAA) the harmonised standard EN 301 549 is supposed to address, we will do precisely the same!

PLUS we will maintain the W3C terminology when citing WCAG document:

9.1.2.2 Subtitles (pre-recorded)

Where ICT is, or includes, a web page, the web page shall satisfy WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded).

NOTE: In WCAG 2.2 the term "captions" is used to refer to the concept of "subtitles" as defined in the present document.

What is a problem with this approach? It is consitent with the W3C approach and makes the connection explicit and clear.

"closed subtitles" cannot always be programmatically determinable, for example if they are delivered as DVB bitmap subtitles. They can however be turned off (unlike open).

@jeffreym <"closed subtitles" cannot always be programmatically determinable, for example if they are delivered as DVB bitmap subtitles. They can however be turned off (unlike open).

Correct.

Should we add a note to that effect under the definition of "closed subtitles/captions" ?

NOTE: "closed subtitles/captions" cannot always be programmatically determined, for example if they are delivered as DVB bitmap subtitles. They can however be turned off (unlike open)

The note is a good idea. Only we need to conclude on the main term to be adopted in the EN:

subtitles OR subtitles/captions OR captions/subtitles OR captions-subtitles - see the discussion above...

I think we should use (and I thought we agreed on using)

subtitles - (for any text, that appears on or off screen, that presents audio information)
interlingual-subtitles - (when the language of the subtitle differs from the language of the audio speech)
caption-subtitles - (when the subtitles is in the same language and includes other important non-speech audio information.)

(I did not include the definitions here - just the terms - in case there were edits to the definitions. I did not want to conflict.

@gregg we need to adopt a definition of the term subtitles that is consistent with the EAA. Yours is not.

Defining subtitles only as text, that appears on or off screen, that presents audio information is wrong:

not consistent with the way the term is used in the EAA
not consistent with the way the term is understood and used in Europe, see comments from ANEC or @jeffreym

It is simply wrong to insist that the term "subtitles" is limited to any text that presents audio information, but that does not include important non-speech audio information.

Even WCAG recognizes that, see NOTE 5 following WCAG definition of captions:

(It is indeed useful to note that that one could argue that it would be even more natural to use the term captions to indicate "any text, that appears on or off screen, that presents audio information" and not necessarily a text that includes other important non-speech audio. For example, we all are accustomed to using CC button to activate captions for video calls - they are typically limited to a transcript of a spoken audio.)

Regardless, for the EN the primary source of terminology is the EAA and the EN should not redefine the terms that are used in the Directive. Here is our point of departure (the EAA):

(6) ‘services providing access to audiovisual media services’ means services transmitted by electronic communications networks which are used to identify, select, receive information on, and view audiovisual media services and any provided features, such as subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing, audio description, spoken subtitles and sign language interpretation, which result from the implementation of measures to make services accessible as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 2010/13/EU; and includes electronic programme guides (EPGs);

—

(b) Services providing access to audiovisual media services:

(i) providing electronic programme guides (EPGs) which are perceivable, operable, understandable and robust and provide information about the availability of accessibility;

(ii) ensuring that the accessibility components (access services) of the audiovisual media services such as subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing, audio description, spoken subtitles and sign language interpretation are fully transmitted with adequate quality for accurate display, and synchronised with sound and video, while allowing for user control of their display and use.

—

Providing subtitles when video instructions are provided.

—

Ensuring that subtitles are transmitted through the set top box for their use by deaf persons.

—

Including subtitles when a video with instructions is provided.

—

Supporting the possibility to select, personalise and display ‘access services’ such as subtitles for deaf persons or persons who are hard of hearing, audio description, spoken subtitles and sign language interpretation, by providing means for effective wireless coupling to hearing technologies or by providing user controls to activate ‘access services’ for audiovisual media services at the same level of prominence as the primary media controls.

Based on these extracts, I can see only the need for two terms:

X: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content which aims to account for speech and non-speech information of the content.

Y: X that translate the original audio information into a different language

Before we conclude on what we call X and Y, I think it would be useful to clarify whether we need 3 terms as suggested by @gregg, above:

Leaving aside Y (now aka interlingual subtitles) could you please explain how you intend to you "subtitles" and "caption-subtitles" in clauses 7.1.1-7.1.4? These are the requirements that are needed for accessibilty of both "caption-subtitles" and "subtitles" - do you propose we use both terms there?

I want to also add that introducing a concept to refer to:

"any text, that appears on or off screen, that presents audio information"

seems to widen the scope of the EN 301 549.

v3.2.1 provided accessibility requirments only for:

synchronized visual and/or text alternative for both speech and non-speech audio information needed to understand the media content

This has been referred to as "captions" in v3.2.1 and is now proposed to be called "subtitles" to mantain the consistency with the EAA.

Introducing accessibiility requirments for "any text, that appears on or off screen, that presents audio information" maybe valid, but seems to be outside the scope of the current EN 301 549 revision mandate.

The EAA does't use subtitles as a standalone term, only in references to "subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing" and "spoken subtitles". So there is no EAA definition of what is meant by subtitles.

In the latest editor's draft we have a definition

subtitles: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which aims to account for the spoken words of the content, as well as other elements of the soundtrack

NOTE 1: When subtitles are used as an accommodation for deaf or hard of hearing users, they are also known as captions or as subtitles for the hearing impaired.

NOTE 2: Outside North America, the term Subtitles is often used synonymously with Closed Captions. The term "Hardsubs" is sometimes used in place of Open Captions.

NOTE 3: Subtitles can appear anywhere on the display, and positioned to avoid overlapping content that needs to be visible (such as a "news ticker"), or where the background content would make the subtitles difficult to read.

I see no need to change this definition, although we could change "captions or subtitles for the hearing impaired" to the term "subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing" to align 100% with the EAA language.

Perhaps we could replace "soundtrack", which has very cinematic vibes, with "audio content" to better align with the Anna @matamalaa ANEC proposal given in the comment above.

Yes, I thought it was well decided and agreed to use just "subtitles" in general. So, when three terms was again proposed in the STF 614 meeting I was so surprised that I did not speak up as I should have done.

We did agree to use subtitles as our preferred term, but we cannot have a single one-word term to refer to several entirely different things - that was never a realistic option!

If we look at the latest comment on EN 301 549 from ANEC, who were championing the use of the term "subtitles" we can see that we were actually mistaken in equating "spoken subtitles" with "interlingual subtitles", the concept is broader:

Although audio subtitles are generally used for interlingual subtitles, as they allow to understand the source audio, they are also needed sometimes in intralingual subtitles: for example, when the audio quality is very bad and intralingual subtitles are offered. Or when strong dialect is subtitled.

So we were wrong to narrow the scope to only referring to interlingual subtitles.

What ANEC says is also consistent with the definitions in ISO_IEC 20071-25;2017 for "spoken captions/subtitles" or "audio captions/subtitles" (ISO_IEC 20071 uses the "captions/subtitles" form throughout the different parts of the standard - they obviously gave up in trying to solve the impossible puzzle!). ANEC wanted us to use "audio subtitles", but we could revert to what we have in the published EN of "spoken subtitles". We can stress very strongly in the notes the typical usage for interlingual subtitling, but that cannot be the defined term!

What has caused us a lot of confusion has been the perceived need to represent two orthogonal concepts about subtitles:

their purpose and the appropriate content for that purpose.
the way the content is delivered.
- Typically, systems that take subtitles and present them on the screen do not have any knowledge of the intended purpose of that content, and will treat all subtitles in a consistent and neutral manner. The two most important distinctions anout the way that the content is delivered is whether it is delivered in a way that allows the viewer to choose to display or not display subtitles - closed subtitles, in contrast to open subtitles that are displayed without user control. At present we use these terms but do not define them.

It was the attempt to clearly distinguish between subtitles intended for deaf and hard of hearing users, and subtitles to help people who do not speak the language spoken by those in the audiovisual material that lead to the proposal to have two terms:

caption-subtitles and interlingual subtitles.

But the following extract from ISO_IEC 20071-25;2017 provides a very comprehensive and well-explained summary of several examples of purposes associated with the appropriate content. It shows how complex the topic of purpose and content is:

4.2 Types of text in videos

4.2.1 Captions/subtitles

Video content can include:

a) text which provides a translation of the original language of the video, addressing users who do not understand the spoken words;

b) text which provides a translation of the original language of the video plus additional features (character identification, sound effects indications, etc.), addressing users who do not understand the language and cannot access the audio;

c) text which provides a transcription of the original language, addressing users who do not have access to the audio; the transcription can be a verbatim or an edited version of the spoken words, including additional features (character identification, sound effects indications, etc.);

d) text which provides a transcription of the original language, addressing users who for various reasons have difficulties understanding the spoken words (e.g. strong dialect, bad quality audio).

Depending on function, users, country, language, and region, this text can be referred to as captions, subtitles, subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing (SDH), intralingual or same-language subtitles, and interlingual subtitles.

An audio presentation of captions/subtitles should be provided only when the original dialogue cannot be understood by the user.

Each of these options could have their own unique multi-part name, which certainly illustrates the complexity and ultimate hopelessness of attempting to define each of these subtitle purposes. They could be:

a) interlingual subtitle;

b) interlingual caption-subtitle;

c) caption-subtitle;

d) none of the above!

The perceived need to subdivide types of subtitle largely arose when we tried to deal with "spoken subtitles", but we didn't get it entirely right. I have located the original late 2018 comment from the EDF that explained very well what the purpose and need for spoken subtitles was. I think that when the original requirement was drafted we lost track of the usage and purpose of spoken subtitles. The EDF comment was:

There are many countries in Europe which do not dub audiovisual content into the national language(s). They caption the original version, which excludes people with visual disabilities and some with intellectual disabilities, as well as many more people who simply do not have a sufficient reading speed or find reading very tiring.

Spoken subtitles can be provided either in the video as an additional audio track (like audio description), or by the consumer’s device. In the latter case, the captions must be closed captions for the device to be able to read them aloud with a voice synthesizer.

Although this description just looks like "interlingual subtitles", the examples above include the category e) which is "text which provides a transcription of the original language, addressing users who for various reasons have difficulties understanding the spoken words (e.g. strong dialect, bad quality audio)." There is a need for spoken subtitles to also include this other type of subtitled content that needs to be spoken that ANEC has just reminded us about. The ISO_IEC 20071-25;2017 definition of spoken subtitle is extremely simple and to the point:

3.2.1
spoken captions/subtitles
audio captions/subtitles
captions/subtitles that are voiced over the audiovisual content

Note 1 to entry: In this document, the term “spoken captions/subtitles” will be used

Although I was supportive of the two-element approach to naming things, I think that we can proceed with a much simpler approach.

Firstly, we need a watertight definition for subtitles, I propose that we use what is in the current editorial draft with the minor modifications suggested above to better align with the exact wording of the EAA, and adding /captions to the title and removing the existing definition for "captions":

subtitles/captions: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which aims to account for the spoken words of the content, as well as other elements of the audio content

NOTE 1: When subtitles are used as an accommodation for deaf or hard of hearing users, they are also known as captions or as subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing.

NOTE 2: Outside North America, the term Subtitles is often used synonymously with Closed Captions. The term "Hardsubs" is sometimes used in place of Open Captions.

NOTE 3: Subtitles can appear anywhere on the display, and positioned to avoid overlapping content that needs to be visible (such as a "news ticker"), or where the background content would make the subtitles difficult to read.

The aim is to always use the term "subtitles", with the /captions indicating that when "captions" is used (in the context of WCAG-related requirements) it means the same. I think that it is safe to do this as there is no difference in scope between what is defined in EN 301 549 and what is defined in WCAG.

We already have the ISO_IEC 20071-25;2017 definition for "spoken subtitles", but it currently includes all of the possible combinations of spoken/audio and caption/subtitle. As we do not need to refer to the alternatives we can keep the same definition of a simple term "spoken subtitle" and remove all the alternatives in the definition itself:

spoken subtitles: subtitles that are voiced over the audiovisual content (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-25 [i.31])

We do not currently have definitions for the terms "open subtitles" and "closed subtitles" but we should as we use both terms in the test of clause 7.1.1 (currently in a "caption" variant). These definitions, after ISO_IEC 20071-23;2018, should be:

open subtitle: subtitle visually presented regardless of user preference (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-23 [i.xx])

NOTE: Open subtitles do not include visual elements that are a part of the original video contents.

closed subtitle: subtitle visually presented only in response to user preference (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-23 [i.xx])

NOTE: Closed subtitles are usually presented by a specialised device or decoder

With these defintiions I think that we can simply swap all instances where we refer to captions in clause 7 to use subtitles instead. This aligns with the commitment that we have been struggling to implement in a robust way.

I hope that this comment could be a fix for all our relevant terms and all of the clause 7 requirements apart from 7.1.5 Spoken subtitles. This needs to be re-examined and needs a significant correction to its wording, but it will not need to refer in any normative way to "interlingual subtitles", so this is not a term that needs to be defined. There can be a note to 7.1.5 that indicates that interlingual subtitles is one major area where spoken subtitles are beneficial, but that is not the only area. Unclear soundtracks in own language may also benefit from spoken subtitles.

That can be treated as a separate redrafting issue that is hopefully easy to fix.

@pluke

glad you support one main category term for the entire EN, and this main term would be:

"subtitles"

or "subtitles/captions"

I agree that a separate track/revision for 7.1.5 is needed: Not sure if we need any specific additional term, and certainly the category of "interlingual subtitles" is too narrow to capture all the cases were spoken subtitles are needed.

@pluke

Great summary.

just one change needed. captions/subtitles should be caption-subtitles

Captions/subtitles inplies you can use either term. But if you use Subtitles for "subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing" then any use of interlingual subtitles (according to the english language rules) would mean "interlingual subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing"

If we use caption-subtitles we do not have this problem

and we can use subtitles to cover (as it does anyway in english) both caption subtitles and interlingual subtitles -- if we need to for say being programmatically determinable or visible or anything else that would apply to both

Please let us not introduce another term.

If we absolutely need a compound term, we should adopt the one already used in ISO with "/"

This is also more correct because it captures the reality better:

Nobody talks about "captions-subtitles"
Some use "captions", some use "subtitles"

If the compountd term is adopted, the EN should use it consistently, always as "captions/subtitles", and restrain from using one or the other interchangably.

ICT may receive audiovisual content with one or more feeds of subtitles and the (renamed) 7.1.5 "Subtitle playback" just says that there shall be a mode of operation that allows them to be displayed and, for closed captions, not displayed as an option. The ICT cannot know which of ISO_IEC 20071-25;2017 described "purposes" these subtitles fulfill - interlingual only, subtitles for deaf and hard of hearing users, a combination of those, or subtitles that describe unclear speech (quoted in the comment above).

So there will be no requirements that only apply to a sub-category of types of subtitle, so there will be no need to have separate terms described. The one term "subtitle" is all that is needed. The term used internally within EN 301 549 will be "subtitles", but the addition of "/captions" added to the defined term is there to avoid having to separately define caption, with an effectively identical definition. En 301 549 needs to clarify the meaning of the word "captions" when it is used in the context of WCAG and WCAG-derived requirements.

Hi Mike

actually you already have sub categories of subtitle. and you use subtitle to mean both interlingual- and caption- subtitles.

sometime requirements are only for one type.

some are for all types.

So I think we need to keep the term subtitles to mean all types -- and then only use more specific names when we only mean specific subtypes - like "caption-subtitles" which need to include non-speech" but interlingual do not need to include non-speech.

if you don't have a subcategory of caption-subtitles - then you will inadvertently (Because they are also subtitles) require that all interlingual subtiles to have non-speech audio included -- which they do not need and very few do

@agata

"the on or off screen" was not meant to broaden the term or coverage - but just to acknowledge that closed captions are sometime shown on the image, sometimes below the image, and sometimes on a completely different device (when in a multi-viewer environment). It does not in any way change the requirements on including captions with video. It just acknoweledges that players have different options for displaying them and they do not need to display them over the top of the video if they don't want to.

You seem to address the response to me, but I cannot trace back any arguments I was making regarding this. I agree with your description.

mentioned in issue #549 (closed)

marked this issue as related to #549 (closed)

I like your test mike but "which aims to account for" is kind a vague

Suggest changing it to "which provides a visual presentation of"

so that it reads

written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which provides a visual presentation of the spoken words of the content, as well as other elements of the audio content

In the @pluke proposal I see:

open subtitle: subtitle visually presented regardless of user preference (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-23 [i.xx])

NOTE: Open subtitles do not include visual elements that are a part of the original video contents.

what does the note mean?? I can't figure it out. was this from ISO? or ???

can we change it to

NOTE: Open subtitles cannot be turned off or moved because they are embedded in the video content.

To see if we can get agreement -- I am copying @pluke 's suggestion down here with any suggestions since then. This is also in keeping with the decision we reached for JTB on ANEC/03

==================================================================

subtitles: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which provides a visual presentation of the spoken words of the content'

NOTE: See Caption-subtitles, Interlinagual-subtitles, Open Subtitles, and Closed Subtitles definitions to learn about different types of subtitles.

==================================================================

caption-subtitle: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which provides a visual presentation of the spoken words of the content, as well as other elements of the audio content

NOTE 1: When subtitles are used as an accommodation for deaf or hard of hearing users, they are also known as captions or as subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing.

NOTE 2: Outside North America, the term Subtitles is often used synonymously with Closed Captions. The term "Hardsubs" is sometimes used in place of Open Captions.

NOTE 3: Subtitles can appear anywhere on the display, and positioned to avoid overlapping content that needs to be visible (such as a "news ticker"), or where the background content would make the subtitles difficult to read.

==================================================================

Interlingual-subtitles: subtitles that translate the original audio information into a different language

NOTE: Interlingual subtitles provide a translation of the audio content into a different language, which is visually displayed to enable the understanding of the audo content by persons who do not understand, or have difficulties understanding, the language of the original audio content.

==================================================================

spoken subtitles: subtitles that are voiced over the audiovisual content (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-25 [i.31])

NOTE: Spoken subtitles are often interlingual-subtitles to allow blind viewers to hear the interlingual captions when they do not understand the spoken language in the video.

==================================================================

open subtitle: subtitle visually presented regardless of user preference (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-23 [i.xx])

NOTE: Open subtitles do not include visual elements that are a part of the original video contents. NOTE 2: The term "Hardsubs" is sometimes used in place of Open Subtitles.

==================================================================

closed subtitle: subtitle visually presented only in response to user preference (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-23 [i.xx])

NOTE 1: Closed subtitles are usually presented by a specialised device or decoder

Picking up on some of the improvements to wording in the above proposal, this proposal indicates the reduced, minimum set of definition that are required to enable the correct use of terms in requirements that refer to subtitles.

The above proposed definition of "subtitles" is actually a definition of "dialogue-only subtitles" that are mentioned in in the WCAG 2.2 Glossary definition of "captions". Such subtitles are not a unique category of subtitle that can be identified and treated differently to any other subtitle, and they do not need to have their own definition.

The proposed definition for the a single term "subtitle" includes subtitles that include extensive descriptions of non-dialogue audio all the way through to dialogue only subtitles:

subtitles/captions: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which provides a visual presentation of the spoken words of the content, or translations of those words, as well as other elements of the audio content

NOTE 1: When subtitles are used as an accommodation for deaf or hard of hearing users, they are also sometimes referred to as captions or as subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing.

NOTE 2: Outside North America, the term Subtitles is often used synonymously with closed captions. The term "Hardsubs" is sometimes used in place of Open Captions.

NOTE 3: Subtitles can appear anywhere on the display, and positioned to avoid overlapping content that needs to be visible (such as a "news ticker"), or where the background content would make the subtitles difficult to read.

The aim is to always use the term "subtitles", with the /captions indicating that when "captions" is used (in the context of WCAG-related requirements) it means the same. I think that it is safe to do this as there is no difference in scope between what is defined in EN 301 549 and what is defined in WCAG.

We do not currently have definitions for the terms "open subtitles" and "closed subtitles" but we should as we use both terms in the test of clause 7.1.1 (currently in a "caption" variant). These definitions, after ISO_IEC 20071-23;2018, should be:

open subtitle: subtitle visually presented regardless of user preference (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-23 [i.xx])

NOTE: Open subtitles cannot be turned off or moved because they are embedded in the video content.

closed subtitle: subtitle visually presented only in response to user preference (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-23 [i.xx])

NOTE: Closed subtitles are usually presented by a specialised device or decoder

With these defintiions I think that we can simply swap all instances where we refer to captions in clause 7 to use subtitles instead. This aligns with the commitment that we have been struggling to implement in a robust way.

Although we should not need to refer to interlingual subtitles in any normative way, it is still helpful to retain such a definition as the term will appear in notes to some requirements. The existing definition still works well.

The definition of spoken subtitles and the associated requirement are now addressed in Issue #549 (closed).

@pluke -- that simply doesn't work on several levels

================================================================== FIRST - you are trying to use subtitles to both mean the parent category of all types of subtitles and also the subcategory of "subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing" at the same time.

You suggested :

subtitles/captions: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which aims to account for the spoken words of the content, as well as other elements of the audio content

NOTE 1: When subtitles are used as an accommodation for deaf or hard of hearing users, they are also sometimes referred to as captions or as subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing.

If you set this definition for subtitles. You can no longer have a term **interlingual subtitles ** because interlingual subtitles do not always include "as well as "other elements of the audio content" and you made that a part of the definition - and therefore a requirement for something to be called a subtitle (according to your definition)

In fact many things we used to call XXXX subtitles can no longer be referred to as subtitles — since this definitions says that it has to include " other elements of the audio content" in order to meet the definition

To solve this you might modify the a definition like this

subtitles/captions: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which aims to account for the spoken words of the content, and may or many not include text representing other elements of the audio content as well

NOTE 1: When subtitles are used as an accommodation for deaf or hard of hearing users, they would need to include text that represents other non-speech elements of the audio content, and are sometimes referred to as captions or as subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing

but that doesn't work either because you are not creating a definition in a note that says that "subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing" needs to be called that - and not subtitles.

As you can see that is very awkward and convoluted — but it that is what happens when you try to use one term to represent both a parent and a child functionality.

It just doesn’t work.

================================================================== SECOND I don't think your note 2 is not correct.

NOTE 2: Outside North America, the term Subtitles is often used synonymously with closed captions. The term "Hardsubs" is sometimes used in place of Open Captions.

I think subtitles is used to represent "closed captions", "Open captions" (also not not exclusively called hardsubs) and also interlingual subtitles. At least I have hear Europeans using that term for all of those uses.

================================================================== THIRD your NOTE 3 is not fully accurate

NOTE 3: Subtitles can appear anywhere on the display, and positioned to avoid overlapping content that needs to be visible (such as a "news ticker"), or where the background content would make the subtitles difficult to read.

Subtitles can also appear off the display on a different display altogether. So they can appear anywhere on the display or on some secondary display or displays.

==================================================================

this last point is easy to fix but just adding the additional text about off screen.

but you cannot have a cogent set of definitions that do not contradict themselves or say "this term has several definitions and we will use the term to mean different things in different places in this document -- unless we don't try to use the same term for both a parent concept and a subconcept at the same time.

Oh one one other comment

@pluke said

The above definition of "subtitles" is actually a definition of "dialogue-only subtitles" that are mentioned in in the WCAG 2.2 Glossary definition of "captions". Such subtitles are not a unique category of subtitle that can be identified and treated differently to any other subtitle, and they do not need to have their own definition.

The above definition of subtitles is not a definition of "dialogue only subtitles". It it the generic definition of subtitles since it has all of the essential components of subtitles (the text that is always true of all subtitles.

But - yes I agree it would be slightly better to add the text saying it may include more.

so I would suggest using my set of definitions and changing Subtitles definition include this. that would make the definitions

==================================================================

subtitles: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which provides a visual presentation of the spoken words of the content and may include text describing other important audio information not obvious from the video.

NOTE: See Caption-subtitles, Interlinagual-subtitles, Open Subtitles, and Closed Subtitles definitions to learn about different types of subtitles.

==================================================================

caption-subtitle: written text that is offered in the audiovisual content, which provides a visual presentation of the spoken words of the content, as well as other elements of the audio content

NOTE 1: When subtitles are used as an accommodation for deaf or hard of hearing users, they are also known as captions or as subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing.

NOTE 2: Outside North America, the term Subtitles is often used synonymously with Captions. The term "Hardsubs" is sometimes used in place of Open Captions.

NOTE 3: Subtitles can appear anywhere on the display, positioned to avoid overlapping content that needs to be visible (such as a "news ticker"), or where the background content would make the subtitles difficult to read. They may also appear on a separate display.

==================================================================

Interlingual-subtitles: subtitles that translate the original audio information into a different language

NOTE: Interlingual subtitles provide a translation of the audio content into a different language, which is visually displayed to enable the understanding of the audo content by persons who do not understand, or have difficulties understanding, the language of the original audio content.

==================================================================

spoken subtitles: subtitles that are voiced over the audiovisual content (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-25 [i.31])

NOTE: Spoken subtitles are often interlingual-subtitles to allow blind viewers to hear the interlingual captions when they do not understand the spoken language in the video.

==================================================================

open subtitle: subtitle visually presented regardless of user preference (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-23 [i.xx])

NOTE: Open subtitles do not include visual elements that are a part of the original video contents. NOTE 2: The term "Hardsubs" is sometimes used in place of Open Subtitles.

==================================================================

closed subtitle: subtitle visually presented only in response to user preference (after ISO/IEC TS 20071-23 [i.xx])

NOTE 1: Closed subtitles are usually presented by a specialised device or decoder

PS I note that some of the comments I made about @pluke 's definitions also applied to my old ones - and I fixed them in this version

Let’s always remember that DVB subtitles are not limited to alphanumeric characters. One of the major uses of the bitmap version is to allow the content provider to send icons such as musical notes (to indicate the words are being sung) and other icons, and in the use of colour to indicate different voices or speech from someone who is currently off-screen.

Examples of non-alphanumeric icons in subtitles attached. Note that these are taken from the Disney+ streaming version of the show, though something similar was in the subtitles of the original television broadcast.

Preserve the WCAG distinction between “captions” and “subtitles”

Designs

Child items ...

Activity

Preserve the WCAG distinction between “captions” and “subtitles”

Relates to

Activity