http://blog.fawny.org/2006/03/15/caption-errors/ blog.fawny.org Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:25:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9-rare hourly 1 http://blog.fawny.org/2006/03/15/caption-errors/comment-page-1/#comment-496 Qualitative vs. quantitative – Le «blog personnel» de Joe Clark Sun, 09 Jul 2006 18:50:23 +0000 http://blog.fawny.org/2006/03/15/caption-errors/#comment-496 [...] In two previous posts on the freakonomics of captioning and audio description, I concluded that the measurement of errors in those fields isn’t going to help you much. You can count up how many mistakes were in the captions and you can survey blind and low-vision viewers to figure out how much information they obtained from the description narrator. But let’s say you had very few or no captioning mistakes and a lot of information obtained by description. Does that mean the captioners and describers did a good job? Did people not only fully understand but enjoy the production? If those kinds of questions cannot be answered by counting things up, how can they be answered? [...] [...] In two previous posts on the freakonomics of captioning and audio description, I concluded that the measurement of errors in those fields isn’t going to help you much. You can count up how many mistakes were in the captions and you can survey blind and low-vision viewers to figure out how much information they obtained from the description narrator. But let’s say you had very few or no captioning mistakes and a lot of information obtained by description. Does that mean the captioners and describers did a good job? Did people not only fully understand but enjoy the production? If those kinds of questions cannot be answered by counting things up, how can they be answered? [...]

]]> http://blog.fawny.org/2006/03/15/caption-errors/comment-page-1/#comment-485 The freakonomics of audio description – Le «blog personnel» de Joe Clark Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:49:52 +0000 http://blog.fawny.org/2006/03/15/caption-errors/#comment-485 [...] Previously, I wrote (and, on many occasions, rewrote) a long post on the freakonomics of captioning errors. My conclusion, which I believe is the only supportable one, is that applying a simple number to captioning errors (like “99% accurate”) is meaningless and beside the point, because even in that case, the 1% you’re allowing to be in error could be important (dropping the word “not” in “not guilty”) or unimportant (dropping one “very” in “very, very angry”). [...] [...] Previously, I wrote (and, on many occasions, rewrote) a long post on the freakonomics of captioning errors. My conclusion, which I believe is the only supportable one, is that applying a simple number to captioning errors (like “99% accurate”) is meaningless and beside the point, because even in that case, the 1% you’re allowing to be in error could be important (dropping the word “not” in “not guilty”) or unimportant (dropping one “very” in “very, very angry”). [...]

]]>