 
TOLE KHESIN: All right.
We'll get started.
Thanks, everyone,
for joining us.
Thanks to Sloan Consortium for
organizing this event.
This session is titled
"Accessible Video Captioning
for Blended Learning and
Lecture Capture. "
My name is Tole Khesin
with 3Play Media.
We are based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, where for the
last five years we've been
providing captioning and
transcription services to our
customers, who are mostly in
higher ed, but also in
enterprise and government.
I'm also joined by Dusty Smith
here from UW-Madison.
That's the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Dusty is the Digital Media
Manager at the College of
Engineering.
He is responsible for classroom
recording systems
and media servers.
His goal is basically to provide
faculty and staff with
one-stop shopping for teaching
and learning services.
He's been involved with
technological planning,
design, and maintenance of
instructional spaces for the
last 20 years.
So for the agenda,
we have about 50
minutes for this session.
During the first part of the
presentation, we'll go through
some of the captioning basics,
some recent and upcoming
legislation impacting captions,
and how captions
benefit online and
blended learning.
I'll then hand things off to
Dusty, who will discuss UW's
accessibility policy and how it
pertains to video captions.
He'll talk about how they
prioritize captioning, how
budget factors into the
equation, and he'll also talk
about the technologies
and workflows
that they've developed.
We'll leave the remaining time
for Q&A and a general
discussion.
And since we have a pretty small
group, probably if you
have any questions or comments,
just feel free to
interject at any time.
 
So I wanted to start off a
little bit with some recent
accessibility data from the 2010
World Health Organization
report and also the
US Census report.
So there are a couple of
interesting high-level findings.
So one is that there are over a
billion people in the world
who have some sort
of disability.
So that's a very large number.
In the US, about 56 million,
of which 48 million--
that's 1 in 5 adults above the
age of 12-- that have some
hearing impairment.
 
But the other interesting
finding from these reports is
that the number of people who
associate themselves as being
disabled, that number is
really skyrocketing.
And it's increasing
disproportionately with
population growth.
You might ask, why is
that happening?
And there are a number of
reasons, but the main ones
really have to do with medical
and technological
advancements.
So for example, premature babies
are much more likely to
survive these days,
which is great.
But as a result, they might
have some disability.
Also, we're coming out
of a decade of wars.
There are a lot of veterans
returning with injuries.
But also, due to technological
advancements such as body
armor, for example, modern body
armor, soldiers are 10
times more likely to survive
an injury than
in wars of the '70s.
So again, that's great, but
a lot of these people have
disabilities such as hearing
impairments coming out of it.
 
So really, what all of that
points to is that
accessibility is going to be
even more prevalent in the
years ahead.
And obviously, captioning is a
big part of that, which is the
reason why we're talking
about it.
So I wanted to spend just a
few minutes getting on the
same page in terms of what are
captions and some core
terminology.
So captions are text that has
been time-synchronized with
the media so that a viewer
can read the text while
watching the video.
Captions assume that
the viewer can't
hear anything at all.
So the objective with captions
is to not only convey the
spoken text, but it's also
to convey the non-spoken
information, such as sound
effects, speaker
identification, basically any
kind of information that a
viewer might obtain
from hearing.
So captions originated in the
early 1980s as a result of an
FCC mandate for broadcast
television.
And since then, they've expanded
into other areas.
But that was how they got
started originally.
So some basic terminology,
so captioning versus
transcription.
So the difference here is that a
transcript is just the text,
the spoken text, without
any time information.
So you could take a transcript
and print it out
on a piece of paper.
Captions, on the other hand,
have embedded time
information, because the
transcript needs to be
synchronized with the video.
And usually, what happens is you
take a transcript, and you
chunk it up into what we
call caption frames.
And caption frames are displayed
for a certain period
of time while the person
is talking
through that in the video.
From an accessibility point of
view, captions are required
any time you have a video
with moving images.
And for an audio or podcast,
a transcript is really
sufficient, because
synchronization is not really
important in that case.
You could just read
a transcript.
And I should also point out
that when we say a moving
video, it doesn't necessarily
have to be a movie.
It can be a PowerPoint
presentation, for example,
with an audio track.
Any time the viewer needs to
read that content at the same
time as the video's playing,
that's when
captions are required.
 
So captions versus subtitles.
Although these terms
are sometimes used
interchangeably, especially in
other countries, in the US at
least, there's a pretty
significant difference.
Captions assume that the
viewer can't hear the
contents, so that's why captions
have the non-speech
elements such as sound effects
and speaker IDs.
Subtitles, on the other hand,
assume that the viewer can
hear everything but can't
understand the language.
So usually, subtitles are
associated with translation to
non-English.
 
So closed versus
open captions.
So what this is, open captions
are burned into the video, and
they're on all the time.
And closed captions, it's
usually a side car file that
lays over the video, and
it can be toggled on
or off by the user.
 
Especially with the
proliferation of web video,
everybody's really moving
towards closed captioning.
There are a number of reasons.
The workflow is easier.
It doesn't obstruct critical
content on the screen.
It can be turned off.
But there's still quite a bit of
open captioning out there.
It's sort of dying
down, though.
Post-production versus real-time
relates to, really,
when was the captioning
process done?
So post-production means that
the event already happened,
and the process of captioning
is done after the fact,
whereas real-time captioning
involves basically engaging a
live stenographer to type
as the event is
happening in real time.
So two different processes, each
has their own advantages
and disadvantages.
 
So how are captions used?
So as I mentioned before,
captions originated about 30
years ago specifically for
broadcast television.
But now, with the proliferation
of online video
pretty much everywhere,
especially in education, the
need for web captions has
expanded greatly.
And as a result, captions are
being applied across many
different types of devices and
media, especially as people
become more aware of the
benefits and as accessibility
laws become more stringent.
So I'll talk a little bit about
the recent developments
with accessibility laws and just
in general what people
are looking towards.
So Sections 508 and 504
are both part of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Basically, the Rehabilitation
Act requires equal access to
any kind of content that's by a
federal government agency or
any other program that's
subsidized
by the federal agency.
Section 508 is a very broad law
that applies specifically
to electronic communications
and information IT and
requires equal access.
And Section 504 basically has
the same result, but it has a
bit of a different tact to it.
It's sort of an
anti-discrimination law.
It basically says that if you
have a disability, you're
entitled to the same sort of
accesses as someone who isn't.
But again, those two
are really--
those two laws really apply to
any federally funded program,
essentially.
A lot of public and state
universities are subject to
that as well, because, for
example, they have Pell
grants, which are a
federal subsidy.
 
I should also point out that
many states in this country
have enacted similar legislation
that kind of
mirrors Sections 508 and 504.
So the next one is the
ADA, Americans with
Disabilities Act.
It was originally
enacted in 1990.
There was an amendment in 2008,
which actually expanded
the definition of what it
means to be disabled.
And so the ADA is actually
a very broad law.
When it was originally enacted,
it really didn't have
anything to do with electronic
communications.
But since then, it has been
interpreted that way through a
lot of case law.
 
Title II, which is for public
entities, and Title III, which
is for commercial entities,
those are the two sections of
the ADA that are pertinent
specifically to captioning.
And in particular, Title III has
had a lot of activity with
case law recently.
So one case, in particular,
was the NAD--
National Association
of the Deaf--
v Netflix.
So what happened in that case
is that NAD sued Netflix on
the grounds that their
streaming service--
their movies that
we all know--
are inadequately captioned.
In fact, most of the movies
at the time didn't
have captions at all.
And the basis for the
lawsuit was that--
well, actually, I
should back up.
With the ADA Title III, in order
to qualify, in order to
be subject to that law as a
commercial entity, you have to
be deemed a place of public
accommodation.
And so the NAD said that Netflix
was essentially a
place of public accommodation.
And Netflix said, well,
we really aren't.
We're just sort of a commercial
entity, and we're
providing a streaming service
for people that
want to buy into it.
And we're not.
And so the case went on for
a while, and in the
end, Netflix conceded.
And the judge, in fact, ruled
that Netflix did qualify as a
place of public accommodation.
So that has some pretty profound
implications that, if
you extrapolate out really
impact a lot
of different areas.
And I think that if Netflix
is a place of public
accommodation and has to provide
accommodations for
people who are deaf, then I
think it's definitely feasible
that that will extend into other
commercial entities and
certainly education and
government as well.
So that's really interesting.
And then the last law is the
21st Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act.
It's a mouthful.
The abbreviation
for it is CVAA.
That was enacted in
November of 2010.
And what that is is that applies
specifically to video
content or audio content that
once or currently airs on
television and is also on
a website somewhere.
So, for example, this
applies to companies
like Netflix and Hulu.
It doesn't really apply
as much to educational
institutions, because
most of that video
content is not on TV.
It never airs on TV.
 
There have been several
milestones which were put in
place with the CVAA.
A couple of them have
already gone live.
So currently, the law is that
any content that aired on TV
and is now in a website
unedited, it has to have
captions 100%.
It also applies to live and
near-live programming, like
sports and news shows.
But the big one is coming
up at the end of
September this year.
So with the previous phases,
a lot of broadcasters were
getting out of it because they
were saying, yes, this content
aired on TV, and now it's on a
website, but it was edited.
So either it was cut into clips
or commercials were
inserted or taken out.
And so previously, that
was their out.
But come end of September of
this year, it makes no
difference.
Any content that aired on TV,
no matter what you do with
it-- you cut it up, you
put in commercials,
anything you do to it--
you still have to
have captions.
So a lot of companies, a lot
of video publishers and
broadcasters, are scrambling
right now, and they have been
for the last several months in
order to get 100% of their
content captioned.
It's really sort
of a big thing.
So a little bit about-- before
I hand things off to Dusty, a
little bit about the
value propositions
and benefits of captions.
So in higher ed, the biggest
motivation for captioning is
obviously accessibility laws.
Or multimedia departments are
driven by the accessibility
policy that was put in place.
And that's fantastic.
I think that's great.
But the thing that's really
interesting for me is that we
have many, many customers that
caption their content for a
reason other than
accessibility.
Accessibility might be the
second or third reason.
The primary reason is one
of these other things.
And I just want to go through
them quickly, just to show the
breadth of value here.
So one thing that's interesting
that we keep
hearing over and again is that
the people that consume
captions are actually
not deaf at all.
I mean, deaf people
do use captions.
But they are, by far,
the minority.
The majority of people that
actually use captions in
higher ed are students who know
English as a second language.
And they use captions because
it really helps them to
understand what the professor is
saying, so they don't have
to rely on the audio only.
They can read the content as
well, which makes that much
easier, especially if the
content is complicated, and
there's a lot of terminology.
I think those challenges are
really compounded if a
professor has an accent.
So captions are really useful
for students who know English
as a second language, and
they use captions
more than anyone else.
The other benefit is that
students use captions and
transcripts in places where they
can't access the audio.
So, for example, in a library,
you can't turn on your
speakers, or maybe at a
workplace, you can't turn on
the audio, so having captions
enables you to watch the
video, essentially.
Another value that comes out of
captioning and transcribing
of content is search.
This is a really big driver
because educational
institutions and companies are
amassing terabytes and
terabytes of video content.
And the challenge is that that
content is not searchable,
because unless you transcribe
video, it can't be found.
The only thing that gets indexed
is usually just the
title of the video, which is
just insufficient for an
hour-long lecture, for
example, that has
10,000 words in it.
You'll never, ever be able
to find what was
spoken in that lecture.
Whereas, if you transcribe that
video content, all of a
sudden it becomes accessible and
searchable to everybody.
And that's a really big
advantage that sometimes
people overlook.
The other thing is that if that
content is searchable, it
also becomes reusable.
So, for example, a professor
might be looking for a video
clip, and it would just be much
easier to find that clip
that has already been done if
you can search by keyword.
Also, we're finding that faculty
are reusing their
transcripts to create alternate
types of content.
So, for example, you have a
lecture that's an hour long,
and that's about 10,000 words.
And if you take an entire
semester of lectures and you
take all those transcripts,
professors are starting to use
those as a basis for writing
a textbook or
writing papers or journals.
It's a lot of content
which can be
repurposed into other formats.
So those are really
the main things
that apply to education.
Navigation is sort of another
thing that really helps the
ability to navigate through
the video using the text.
 
So at this point, I'll hand
things off to Dusty.
And he'll talk more about what
they're doing with captioning
and accessibility at UW.
DUSTY SMITH: All right.
Thank you.
So I'm from the University
of Wisconsin in Madison.
We're a public land
grant institution.
We were established in 1848.
We have approximately 43,000
students at the moment.
Our faculty and staff is about
21,000 $2.8 billion budget,
and we have a beautiful
lakefront campus.
So you guys are invited
over there any time.
It's just a drive to the west.
So I'm specifically from the
College of Engineering.
And I guess that's where most of
my knowledge comes from is
handling the faculty
and staff there.
We have approximately 4,000
students, 1,500 graduate
students, and 11,000
professional engineering
education students, which is
pretty much where our video
history comes from.
I'm from Media Services, and
since the 1980s, we've been
taping classes for the
professional engineering students.
We did it on VHS and moved
online as that
technology came here.
So as of now, we have at least
5,500 hours worth of video.
That's just what I know about.
And I know there's other videos
out there from other
departments and people who have
put stuff up on YouTube
and departmental servers.
So that's where that's
coming from.
The UW has a web accessibility
policy.
And the policy specifies that
every non-text element on the
web needs to have an equivalent
alternative that
the text is synchronized
with the presentation.
And that implies podcasts,
audio files, videos is
the big thing now.
And then, there's a link right
there if you actually want to
read the whole thing.
It goes into a lot of
depth about what's
going on with that.
The policy does have
an exemption out.
And as of I think last year, I
knew that there were three
departments in the university
that had an exemption policy.
It was athletics, health
sciences, and us.
And those are the big
three on campus that
had a lot of videos.
And you just write asking if you
could get out of it, and
if they find that you
financially cannot caption all
your videos, they just pretty
much give you exemption.
And the caveat to that is if
anybody asks for a video to be
captioned, then you agree
to caption the video.
Does the UW policy have teeth?
That's a good question.
I don't think anybody
really enforces it.
It's more just a policy
that's there.
It's also enforced
for our websites.
Our websites have to
be accessible.
I would say I've never heard
of anybody that's ever been
contacted by the university
saying that they need to come
into compliance.
I suppose if, at some point,
somebody complained, a student
complained, then they would roll
down the chain, and we
would get talked to.
UW pays attention to the laws
that we saw earlier.
It's pretty much all the
national and state laws.
And I don't know a lot about the
rest of the UW system, but
I assume they're pretty much
the same, because we're all
following the same guidelines.
 
One of the things that was
established at UW-Madison, a
group of us got together,
and we put a bid
for captioning contracts.
And we evaluated a group of
captioners, and they submitted
their products, and we tested
them on editability, correct
content, ease of access.
And we came up with
a couple vendors.
3Play Media and Automatic Sync
were the two we chose.
And we set up the contracts to
help the faculty and staff
actually go someplace and
get captioning done.
They didn't have to manually
caption everything.
So they can set up an account
with these guys, and they can
upload the video, and they
can get it back in
a reasonable time.
So I guess prioritizing
what gets captioned.
These are the three things
that get discussed
every time I hear it.
It's who's making
the decision?
Will your budget play a role?
And who makes the
final decision
on what gets captioned?
In the engineering college, we
prioritize it basically on the
design of use and
the permanence.
We have a lot of classes that
the professor will record
something, and then a year
later, he'll re-record the
same class.
So we've decided that really
isn't an effective use of
resources to caption
those every year
because they'll change.
We try to capture all of our
promotional videos and things
that are going to have some
permanence that are one-time
affairs, something that's going
to stick around, and
we're not really going
to be changing it.
But a lot of our classes
aren't captioned unless
there's a student or something
who requests it.
And basically, anybody
can make the request.
On our website, we do have a
little notice at bottom that
says if you have needs for
captioning, just let us know.
There are some problems though,
and I guess price is a
big problem.
Also, knowledge of the laws.
Most people don't realize that
they actually have to caption
the videos.
I'm in charge of one of the big
servers, so I know what
goes up there.
But there's a lot
of people just
putting things on YouTube.
There's departmental websites,
there's course websites, and I
know no idea what's on there.
A lot of people don't
tell you that
there's anything on there.
And I would say probably 90% of
the professors don't even
realize that some of that stuff
needs to be captioned
officially.
And if they do know that it
has to be captioned, they
really don't have any idea
how to get their content
captioned, and that's what
our department's for.
We're here to help them.
And if they go the
do-it-yourself route, where
they try to do the
transcriptions themselves,
that costs a lot less.
But it involves many other
problems as far as somebody
actually has to sit down and
transcribe the content and
then time it out.
So getting back to who pays.
This is probably the biggest
factor in what gets captioned,
at least at the College
of Engineering.
 
We try to caption what we can,
but you're probably looking at
about $100 for an
hour of video.
So if you have 5,500 hours
worth of video, and it's
constantly changing, that's not
probably ever going to be
all captioned.
Accessibility, there's
no central resource
that handles it.
Every department is in charge of
their own budget and their
own accessibility.
So there are people that can
help the faculty and staff,
but there's really no one
pushing them to get this all
captioned or follow the laws.
We do have the McBurney
Disability Resource Center,
which is a campus center, that
is in charge of helping the
disabled students get the
resources that they need.
And the students will contact
the McBurney Institute, and
they'll show them their class
schedule, and then they'll
contact the professors, and the
professors will probably
get in touch with us.
There's also a contingency
funding guarantee, which is
put in place by the
university.
And it basically says that if
it's going to severely impact
your budget, you can get
reimbursed by the university
to get the funding for
the captioning.
So you're not going to decimate
your departmental
budget if you have to
comply with the law.
And that's what that's
there for.
Some tips and tricks.
The DCMP Captioning Key, it's a
pretty interesting website,
especially if you're doing
things on your own, and you're
not getting transcriptions
done.
It's basically just the proper
way to caption, where to put
the words, where to move things
around, how to position
them on the screen.
Especially if you're doing
a do-it-yourself,
that's a good resource.
I haven't used this in a while,
so I'm not sure if it's
still there.
But you used to be able to
upload a video to YouTube, and
then turn on automatic
captioning.
And it's not very good.
It's actually pretty funny if
you listen to some of the
things because it's not close.
But you can get a transcription
back and
download the text.
And at least you have a place
to start where you can go in
and clean it up a little bit.
And one of the things Tole was
talking about is searches.
It's extremely useful
in searches.
And I think in the future,
that's probably going to be
the biggest use of captioning,
is you're going to be able to
specifically pinpoint straight
into a video where you want to
go by doing a search for the
actual words in the video.
And as he mentioned also,
English as a second language
is also a key when you
get to captioning.
A little bit about what
we use in engineering.
We have a classroom recording
system set up that's a mix
between Mediasite recorders
and Ncast recorders.
So we have those out in some of
our rooms, and they record
our classes, and those get
uploaded to a centralized
Mediasite server.
We also do some desktop
recording with professors that
use the Mediasite and
also a software
product called Camtasia.
And there's a lot of stuff
that's put up to YouTube on
individual channels, but the
way that works is everybody
has access to that on their
own, and there's no
centralized system.
We do have a college web page,
but it has to get funneled
through a different
department.
And then, we use the captioning
providers, 3Play and AST.
And the Mediasite is actually
and interesting system because
they have automated the workflow
for captioning.
 
By presentation or through a
whole folder, you can actually
set it up where anything that
goes into a folder, if it's
recorded and uploaded to the
server, will automatically get
sent out to one of the
captioning providers, and they
provide a transcription and
captions and send it back.
And then it's just placed into
the file, and you really don't
have to do any work.
That's made things
a lot easier.
So then it's just a matter of
basically paying for the
transcriptions, because
everything's automated, and
it's just up and back down
in a couple days.
And then, these are some of
the file types that the
Mediasite supports.
There's a whole slew of
different file types for the
captioning, and they're all
pretty much the same.
The code's just a little
bit different on them.
And I just wanted to show you a
picture here of the Mediasite.
And you can't really tell,
but you just go in
there and you click.
And you would say who your
service provider was.
And then you can even specify
different accounts, so
different departments can have
the same accounts and the
funding all goes to a different
department.
So it's fairly easy to
get stuff to run.
So does anybody have
any questions for
either one of us?
 
Yeah.
AUDIENCE: You were just
talking about
some automated workflows.
DUSTY SMITH: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: What if we don't use
[? CVSIs ?] or have an
automated workflow?
Any recommendations?
 
DUSTY SMITH: The automated
workflow there, it's based on
the server software.
I think there are a couple other
video servers that are
starting to implement
the same thing.
You might know a little
bit, too.
So it's all based basically on
your server, where you just
dump video into the server,
and then based upon
requirements that you set up,
it will throw it back out.
TOLE KHESIN: Yeah.
Just to add to that, so we
actually have a number of
workflows that we've built out
with a variety of other video
players and platforms.
So, for example, even if you're
just using YouTube, so
we consider that a
video platform.
So we have the same kind of
automated workflow in place
with YouTube.
But if you're using standalone,
homegrown video
players, like JW Player or
Flowplayer are pretty commonly
used, then we have processes
in place to simplify that
workflow as well.
AUDIENCE: Do you share
that, those
workflows on your website?
Would you be willing to share?
TOLE KHESIN: Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, so there's a bunch of
information on our website.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
 
AUDIENCE: When you talk about
the law, can you explain that
a little more?
Like is it necessary just by
law Madison has a standard
that you must provide captioning
or transcription?
What's the actual legal law?
Is it the same kind of thing as
students have to ask for it
to be done?
DUSTY SMITH: Well, I think the
actual law, it's based on the
508 and the 504.
It's the federal laws that state
that you need to caption
and provide--
Madison has a policy that's in
place that says you should
follow the law.
And I don't know how
well it's enforce--
I think enforcement's
the big thing.
Officially, everybody is
supposed to be doing it.
Even other universities,
but are they?
I don't know.
AUDIENCE: I can think of all the
teachers, professors, who
are flipping now, and
there are no--
I mean, I've never seen anyone
who says his captions get
transcribed somewhere.
It's just kind of
a missing piece.
DUSTY SMITH: Right.
And especially if it's behind
passwords, who's going to even
tell besides the student?
So I think a lot of the
enforcement is going to be on
the students or the people
who actually need it.
Although I think as automatic
transcriptions become more
common, it's going to
maybe be easier.
Instead of having somebody
actually transcribe it, just
having software do it.
I think it will start
appearing because
searches are huge.
If you can get your
transcriptions into a search
engine, people are going to
start wanting to do that just
for that reason alone.
But yeah, for right now, I think
it's just hit or miss.
TOLE KHESIN: Yeah, just to add
to that, we work with a number
of customers in education.
And I think the long and short
of it is that it's just very
much a gray area
at this point.
There are very specific laws,
but there are also a lot of
exemptions, like for having
an economic hardship.
So I think a lot of
accessibility laws that apply
to higher ed right now, they
don't really have a lot of
teeth, as Dusty is
pointing out.
But I think that is actually
changing pretty quickly.
 
AUDIENCE: I'm wondering if you
could give an example of doing
a search where there's
no closed
captioning, and then doing--
I don't know if you
have access to the
web from this room.
But you know what?
I'd like to see if you do a
search, if you get a YouTube
video, and it's not--
the YouTube video comes up,
but nothing specific about
that video comes up because
it's not closed captioned?
DUSTY SMITH: Right.
AUDIENCE: I'd like to see what
happens with a YouTube video
when it is closed captioned.
How is that search information
different?
You know what I mean?
DUSTY SMITH: Yeah.
TOLE KHESIN: Yeah, absolutely.
DUSTY SMITH: I don't know if
YouTube searches captions.
I'm not exactly sure.
AUDIENCE: Or at the College
Of engineering.
I don't care, but I'd like to
see kind of a comparison of
the two to get a better sense of
an abstract description or
definition.
DUSTY SMITH: Maybe afterwards we
can give you a little demo.
AUDIENCE: That would be great.
DUSTY SMITH: I'll just find
something that would actually
work that way.
TOLE KHESIN: Yeah.
And also, if you get a chance to
come to our booth, we have
a bunch of search examples
we can show you.
AUDIENCE: OK.
Thank you.
TOLE KHESIN: Sure.
 
MODERATOR: I have a question
from the virtual attendees.
How much money is in the
contingency fund at
Wisconsin-Madison?
Do individual faculty
often have to pay
for their own videos?
Is it just either the individual
or the department?
How does that--
DUSTY SMITH: I actually don't
have any idea how much money
is put in the contingency fund,
if there is even truly a
fund there.
Maybe it's just they
move money around.
The faculty and staff, they do
have to pay for their videos.
I guess it depends on
what they're doing.
A lot of our videos are done
for our professional
development.
And so we get some funding
from them.
But if somebody actually
needs it captioned for
accessibility, we just find it
in the budget somewhere.
We have extra money for that
kind of thing, and we don't
use it a lot.
But if it's needed, we
can get it done.
AUDIENCE: And so if an
individual faculty member had
a need, do you think it's very
frequently that they would go
and pay for it out of
their own pocket?
Or would they most likely
come to you?
DUSTY SMITH: I think at the
UW-Madison, they're not really
going to have a need unless
they're contacted by the
McBurney Center.
And then the McBurney
Center also
has some grants available.
So I think that that's probably
where their funding's
going to come from.
It usually doesn't come
out of the department,
at least not now.
Maybe in the future, some
things like that would.
But at the present time,
we don't really put
that into the cost.
Unless it's a special one-time
production for a department or
something, we will bill
them for that.
But for classes, we
usually don't make
the departments pay.
At least at this point.
MODERATOR: We have another
question from online.
Are there any automated
transcription apps or software
that you find that work well?
 
TOLE KHESIN: No.
 
Speech recognition, we
actually use speech
recognition as part
of our process.
It's the first step.
So a computer goes through it
and gets it to a point where
it's about 70% accurate.
But then we have professional
transcriptionists who will go
in and take it from
70% to over 99%.
And unfortunately, speech
recognition is often
overstated in terms of
its efficacy with
this type of content.
Speech recognition works really
well in cases where you
can train to a specific speaker,
where you can train
the engine on utterances
of your voice.
But with this kind of content,
it's sort of unpredictable who
the speaker is, and the
environment changes.
And also, speech recognition
works really well in the case
where you can restrict the scope
of the vocabulary to a
specific domain.
For example, if you're asking
the user to speak a number or
a department or something like
that, that works pretty well.
But in the case where the
domain is completely
unrestricted, and there's a lot
of esoteric vocabulary and
terminology, such as the case
with higher ed, speech
recognition is really very
difficult to use by itself.
It creates a great starting
place for our technology, and
it brings the cost down.
But in terms of that on its
own, it's insufficient.
DUSTY SMITH: I'd just like to
point out one of the things we
learned when we were doing our
contracts for the captioning
is, if you don't get into the
high nineties for percentage,
it really becomes
unintelligible.
If it drops down to like 96%,
you think, oh, that's fine.
But it really starts-- words
start to appear that
shouldn't be there.
And it throws whole different
meanings into something that
you don't want.
TOLE KHESIN: Yeah.
It's interesting.
Speech recognition
is kind of--
the thing about it is that when
it's wrong, it's wrong
spectacularly.
It completely throws
you off course.
 
Great.
So I guess we'll
wrap things up.
Thanks very much for
taking the time.
 
