http://captioningsucks.com/images/favicon.ico http://captioningsucks.com/images/cs-200x100.png 2009-10-26T14:00:00-05:00 What’s new at the Open & Closed Project site that tells it like it is about captioning quality tag:captioningsucks.com,2009:T2009.10-counteroffered Captioning Sucks! 2009-10-21T14:00:00-05:00 2009-10-26T14:00:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2009:T2009-bluffcalling <p> Most of the “Real Science” campaign ends today with our submission to the CRTC and <acronym title="Canadian Association of Broadcasters">CAB</acronym>. <a href="http://openandclosed.org/docs/counteroffer/" title="A counterproposal for consumer-supported, independent captioning research">We’ve made them an offer they can’t refuse.</a> </p> <p> Thanks to all our <a href="http://captioningsucks.com/realscience/supporters/" title="Supporters">supporters</a>. We still have a few tasks to complete. In particular, shortly we’ll explain how to contact the CRTC and <acronym title="Canadian Association of Broadcasters">CAB</acronym> and ask them to support independent captioning research. </p> Captioning Sucks! 2009-10-13T14:00:00-05:00 2009-10-13T14:00:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2009:T2009-scaleback <p> All we’re going to be able to manage for the deadline of October 21 is to submit a counterproposal for research. Literature reviews and other larger projects are going to have to wait. Why? With donations at one-quarter the goal, there isn’t enough money to do more. Sometimes you get what you pay for. </p> <p> At another time, we’ll discuss how this development is another example of <a href="http://captioningSUCKS.com/crumbs/" title="Issue: Deaf people settle for crumbs!">deaf people’s complacency in tolerating lousy captioning</a>. Here we’ve got the same broadcasters that have delivered lousy captioning for decades openly planning to engineer a “report” favourable to that captioning and still the response is a big <small class="caps">MEH</small>. We are tired of being the only ones who care. </p> Captioning Sucks! 2009-10-06T14:00:00-05:00 2009-10-06T14:00:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2009:T2009-realscience1 <strong class="caps">CAPTIONING SUCKS!</strong> launches its <a href="http://captioningSUCKS.com/realscience/" title="The Captioning Sucks! ‘Real Science’ campaign">“Real Science” Campaign</a>, with the primary goal of submitting a counterproposal to industry. We want to carry out <em>legitimate scientific research into captioning</em>. We could use your help. Captioning Sucks! 2009-03-31T13:35:00-05:00 2009-07-15T13:35:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2009:T2009-illegalcc1 <p> The Illegal Captions project of <span class="caps">CAPTIONING <strong>SUCKS!</strong></span> lodges thoroughly researched and well-founded complaints against missing or inadequate captioning. Every TV broadcaster in Canada has been targetted. <a href="http://captioningSUCKS.com/illegal/rogers1/" title="Complaint against Rogers Broadcasting">Rogers Broadcasting is first.</a> <em>You’re next!</em> </p> <p> In a nutshell, just what is Rogers doing wrong? They’re busy: </p> <ol> <li>Providing no captioning at all.</li> <li>Destroying existing pop-on captioning for prerecorded fictional programming.</li> <li>Using real-time captioning for prerecorded (sometimes years-old) nonfiction programming.</li> <li>Using real-time captioning for prerecorded fictional programming.</li> <li>Airing programs with some other program’s captioning. (Really.)</li> </ol> <p> Heck, we’ve even got pictures (from <cite><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/joeclark/sets/72157621383768761/" title="Flickr set 1">30 Rock</a></cite> and <cite><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/joeclark/sets/72157621383971711/" title="Flickr set 2">The Amazing Race</a></cite>). </p> Captioning Sucks! 2009-03-16T13:35:00-05:00 2009-03-16T13:35:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2009:T2009-abc2.1 We’ve had it up to <em>here</em> with the misuse of scrollup captioning on programming where it doesn’t work (like dramas and comedies, music programming, and subtitled shows). Assault on Bad Captioning Month (<a href="http://captioningSUCKS.com/abc/" title="Assault on Bad Captioning Month ">ABC</a>) at <small>CAPTIONING SUCKS!</small> begins a (possibly lengthy) campaign to stamp it out – and we’re kicking it off in a way you’d expect for 2009, with a <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=74440621760" title="Stop the Spread of Scrollup Captioning">Facebook group</a>. Captioning Sucks! 2009-03-02T15:35:00-05:00 2008-09-02T15:35:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2009:T2009-abc2 <p>Shouldn’t <em>every</em> month involve assaults on bad captioning? <em>We</em> certainly think so. But, somewhat like canned orange juice, we’ve decided to concentrate the acid. </p> <p> Stay tuned all this month for one surprising escapade after another as <span class="caps">CAPTIONING SUCKS!</span> puts the boot into scrollup captioning used on dramas and comedies and real-time captioning used on prerecorded programs. Watch us as we impede the quickening race to the bottom among captioners. And look out for a wildly controversial deregulation plan that will set broadcasters a-tizzy. </p> Captioning Sucks 2008-09-02T15:35:01-05:00 2008-09-02T15:35:01-05:00 tag:sucks,2008:T2008.09.02carnet1 <p> As of next week, there will be something resembling a blog here. Your existing CSS will continue to work fine. </p> Captioning Sucks 2008-05-27T14:35:00-05:00 2008-05-27T14:35:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2008:T2008.05.27p <p> Beware corporate self-congratulation. A couple of weeks ago, the BBC issued a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/05_may/07/subtitling.shtml" title="BBC Vision celebrates 100% subtitling">press release</a>, dutifully retyped by <a href="http://www.grumpyoldeafies.com/2008/05/bbc_vision_celebrates_100_subt.html" title="Viz Grumpy Old Deafies">bloggers</a> and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/07/bbc.television/print" title="BBC hits ‘all shows subtitled’ target">hacks</a>, heralding the attainment of its goal of “100% subtitling.” </p> <p> They’re talking about captioning, not subtitling, and there is no way at all that any BBC channel really is captioning “100%” of its programming. True 100% captioning involves: </p> <ul> <li>Every program on the network that has a soundtrack, including children’s and preschoolers’ shows, musicals (including orchestral performances and operas), and, crucially, subtitled programming. (Here’s another consequence of the inaccurate British terminology: It becomes impossible to “subtitle” a subtitled program.)</li> <li>Every live program. (Once that program is repeated, it isn’t live anymore and you can’t use real-time captioning for it.)</li> <li>Every foreign-language program that isn’t subtitled, like a language-learning show.</li> <li>Every program dubbed into the main language (for BBC television networks in the U.K., that means English; for S4C in Wales, it means Welsh).</li> <li>Every unexpected or urgent program that interrupts scheduled programming.</li> <li>Every commercial.</li> <li>Every promo, bumper, intro, extro, and public-service announcement.</li> <li>Signon and signoff broadcasts (if any – a stirring rendition of “God Save the Queen” at the close of the broadcast day still needs captioning).</li> </ul> <p> A case could be made that a silent movie doesn’t need captioning, except to indicate that the movie is silent. A program presented entirely in sign language, if and only if it does not have a soundtrack, would also not need to be captioned. </p> <p> Now: Do any networks – including BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, CBeebies, CBBC and BBC News, and CBC Television and Newsworld in Canada – legitimately caption 100% of their programming? </p> <p> Of course not! </p> <p> In practical terms, 100% captioning is unattainable even if your station or network really does intend to caption everything on the list above. At some point, your systems are going to crash and you will lose captions – probably for a brief moment, but perhaps for up to a day. Five-nines reliability, that is, 99.999% captioning, is the best that can be expected. It gives you about five minutes’ downtime per year. </p> <p> If that seems unreasonable, note that HBO claims to comply with that standard (though they count only “programming,” not all the other items on our list). </p> <p> A claim of 100% captioning is essentially a form of product labelling. It is akin to a claim that a box of cereal provides 100% of the recommended daily allowance of fibre. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t; what we need are independently developed, ironclad definitions of what each of those terms means. In other words, you need the Open & Closed Project to work on a definition of what “100% captioning” really means. Because we definitely aren’t there yet. </p> Captioning Sucks 2008-05-09T09:16:00-05:00 2008-05-09T09:16:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2008:T2008.05.09 <p> For-profit captioner Vitac launched a new site yesterday, <a href="http://captionson.com" title="Captions On">Caption Son</a>, to develop awareness about “quality captioning” – an undefined concept, but presumably any captioning not done by Vitac doesn’t make the cut. </p> <p> We didn’t know we’d spawn an imitator so quickly, nor could we have predicted such a poor imitation. At least our site is <em>intentionally</em> ugly. </p> <p> We also find it ironic that a site concerning accessibility should be quite so inaccessible to people with disabilities. Just as an example, what does Caption Son look like with no images loaded – in text-only mode, that is? </p> <blockquote> <pre> " [1][LINK] [INLINE] [INLINE] [INLINE] [2][LINK] [INLINE] [3][LINK] [INLINE] [4][LINK] [INLINE] [5][LINK] [INLINE] [6][LINK] [INLINE] [EMBED] [INLINE] [INLINE] [INLINE] [INLINE] [INLINE] o National effort to build awareness of captions launched. [7]More o VITAC offers pro-bono captioning to nonprofit organizations. [8]More o Take the CaptionsON Challenge. [9]More </pre> </blockquote> <p> The site does at least contain new information. Who can benefit from captioning? Not just deaf and hard-of-hearing people, it turns out, but people who became deaf fighting in Iraq. </p> <div id="eye-rack"> <img src="http://captioningsucks.com/images/captionson-iraq.jpg" alt="Still from captioned video reads RETURNING FROM WAR Hearing damage is the #1 disability in the war on terror"> </div> <p> <small>CORRECTION</small>: We realize now we misread the domain name of the new site. It is in fact Captions On, not Caption Son. We apologize for the confusion. </p> Captioning Sucks 2008-04-25T15:14:00-05:00 2008-04-28T13:16:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2008:T2008.04.25a Captioning <small>SUCKS</small> founder Joe Clark appeared on the <a href="http://www.tv-eh.com/2008/04/24/this-sunday-on-tv-eh-blogtalkradio/" title="Show entry">TV, Eh? podcast</a> with Diane Wild on 2008.04.27. You can <a href="http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=25306821&id=260477664" title="(MP3) Podcast from 2008.04.27">download the MP3 of the podcast from iTunes</a>, or you can <a href="http://captioningsucks.com/about/docs/tv-eh/" title="Transcript of interview on the TV, Eh? podcast">read our transcript</a>. Captioning Sucks 2008-04-07T15:14:00-05:00 2008-04-07T15:14:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2008:T2008.04.07a Good code, print stylesheets, RSS, graphics, and a presence on all the cool sites, however those are defined. Captioning Sucks 2008-04-01T09:15:00-05:00 2008-04-01T09:15:00-05:00 tag:sucks,2008:T2008.04.04 <p> Three days after launch, <span class="caps">CAPTIONING SUCKS!</span> has been received with some acclaim (see the numerous <a href="http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=%22Captioning+Sucks%22&scoring=d" title="Search on Google">blog mentions</a>). Quite a few writers commented on our graphic design, probably because we brought it up first. Our designer, Noel Jackson of <a href="http://eight6.com/" title="Eight6">Eight6</a>, seems to have achieved something that might have been an oxymoron before – intentional garishness. </p> <p> Now, then. There is the small matter of the <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Captioning/" title="Captioning@YahooGroups.com">Captioning mailing list</a>, where numerous subscribers pretend to be offended by our use of the word <cite>sucks</cite>. </p> <p> We don’t think they’re <em>really</em> offended; they’re making it up. We’re also quite sure they don’t have a clue how the net works. The use of the word <cite>sucks</cite> as part of a domain name is widespread – it is a standard of sorts – and <a href="http://www.wired.com/print/politics/law/news/2000/08/38056" title="Legal tips for your ‘sucks’ site">has been supported by court rulings in the U.S.</a> (Be that as it may, we aren’t in the U.S. and we aren’t even mentioning a trademark.) If you’re starting up a protest Web site, it pretty much <em>has to</em> use the pattern <code><var>TopicBeingProtested</var><span class="caps">SUCKS</span>.com</code>. A Web site entitled <code>Prithee-Sir-Improve-Thine-Captioning.com</code> would go nowhere. So would a site named <code>Excuse-Me-Could-I-Make-a-Suggestion-About-Your-Captioning.com</code>. </p> <p> <cite>Sucks</cite> has no sexual connotations whatsoever in common usage. (Is a T-shirt that says <span class="caps">MEAN PEOPLE SUCK</span> also offensive in some way? What exact thing do these mean people suck?) No matter what a few uptight Republicans with skeletons in their own closets might want us to believe, <em>everybody uses the term</em>. It’s informal, but it isn’t vulgar or obscene. </p> <p> The kind of person who would be offended by the phrase “captioning sucks” simply isn’t our audience. If we aren’t being clear enough here, let us try harder: <em>We don’t care if you’re offended by the word “sucks.”</em> </p> <p> But can we take a step back for a moment? Captioning <em>does</em> suck. The complainers have not been able to prove it doesn’t. Every effort put forth thus far to fix captioning has <em>failed</em>. People who object to the word “sucks” might have other ideas about how to get captioning <em>not to suck</em>, but those ideas have gotten us nowhere. </p> <p>Everything that’s been tried before hasn’t worked. As far as we’re concerned, there’s nowhere to go but up. We thought that a concise, clever new site, bracingly titled, amusingly designed, and backed up by hard facts, would be a good place to start. By most accounts, we were right.</p> <p> We’re pushing for 100% captioning that is carried out according to independently-developed and tested standards. What are <em>you</em> pushing for? </p> Captioning Sucks 2008-04-01T09:15:01-05:00 2008-04-01T09:15:01-05:00 tag:sucks,2008:T2008.04.01 <p> We launch. This site, while small, has been in the making for several months, and represents a great deal of effort on the part of the Open & Closed Project and the site’s designer, Noel Jackson of <a href="http://Eight6.com" title="Eight6">Eight6</a>. </p> <p> We also have a presence on <a href="http://twitter.com/captioningsucks" title="Captioning Sucks on Twitter">Twitter</a>, <a href="http://projects.metafilter.com/1415/" title="MeFi Projects announcement">on MetaFilter</a>, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10875933580" title="Captioning SUCKS! group on the Facebook">on the Facebook</a>, <a href="http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/467053/" title="Listing on Upcoming">on Upcoming</a>, and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/joeclark/sets/72157604339922473/" title="Photo set on Flickr">on Flickr</a> (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/joeclark/sets/72057594097988635/" title="CCfoto on Flickr">other captioning photos</a>). There’s an <a href="/feeds/" title="RSS newsfeed">RSS newsfeed</a> you can subscribe to for updates, or you can just check back here from time to time. </p>