D2.3 Interim Report on Pilot Services - the School of Engineering ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The main conclusions include the following: The evaluation tool being developed by DR is of general interest to broadcastersand universities working on holistic measures of access and interactive servicesfor digital televisionThe EBU is willing to provide space to document the tool and make referencesto its web location in a recognised open source forum provided that there are nocompetition issues (i.e. commercial software doing the same job – this is not thecase)The EBU included a slot in their Television Summit on 8 May 2009 in Lucernefor RRB and DR to present their current work and explain the implications ofthe open source software tool. The results of this gathering will be reported onin detail in the next progress report.It is imperative that the EBU come up with solid statistics on the trends in accessservice provision among its members in Europe. This would seem to be an areawhere DTV4All and the EBU have related interests in improving the data forEurope.Some existing draft recommendations for DVB receivers seem to haveoverlooked details to do with AD and subtitling. At the 12 March 2009 meetingwith the EBU, the drafts were reviewed in detail and corrective action wastaken.4.1.2 RBBDVB-Subtitling – preparations and startAs to DVB-Subtitles the original plan was kept to and realised. The only change wasthat the test operation and the start were delayed by one month, mainly due to delays inreceiving the technology required for broadcasting the subtitles.After a meeting with the disability organisations at RBB in October 2008, recruitmentof the testers together with the disability organisations started. The user group recruitedby the disability organisations was to be representative and to encompass members fromBerlin and the area around the capital. The users repeatedly received detailedinformation from RBB about DTV4All and the testing procedures. All information wascross-checked with the disability organisations for clarity and understanding. Dateswere fixed for installation of the devices at users’ homes and sign language interpretersfor the installation were hired. On 5 February 2009 broadcasting of DVB-T subtitlesstarted. By 15 February 2009 each user had a set-top-box at home and was equippedwith a specific manual written for them and all necessary instructions. Test Week Onestarted on 23 February 2009. By then, a methodology had been developed and thequestionnaire was ready. This questionnaire was slightly adapted after two test weeks asthe first results showed that some of the questions were too ambiguous and not clearenough for what RBB wanted to know.In parallel, from September 2008 onwards, “pre-testing” of technology started at RBB.A decision had to be made about which technology to use for DVB-subtitle productionand about which set-top-box to give to the testers. For results please see chapter 5.1.3.Page 16
DVB-Subtitles Test-MethodThe technology chosen for transcoding offers a number of parameters, such as: Font; choice: basically any font that can be stored on the machine. As the text issent as bitmaps, the font does not have to be available on the DVB-T set-topbox.Font size; the size is only limited by visual parameters. Too small would beillegible, too big could mean that the text doesn’t fit on the screen so that, in theworst case, parts might be lostAppearance/Layout; there are a number of options for the appearance of thesubtitles:o Text onlyo Text with border (outline)/shadowo Text with a box, i.e. text with a dark background. The background isgenerally black, but the transparency can be adjusted before broadcast. The“box” only “highlights” the text; if there is no text, there is no box; if the textis short, the box is short; if the text is shorter in one line, the box will be ofdifferent length in the two possible text lines (“stair effect”)o Text “with longest line box”, i.e. a box where both text lines have thelength of the longer line. If the text of one line is longer than that of the otherthe box will have the same length in both lines.ApproachThe selection of appropriate parameters is essential for the success of the test for variousreasons. The key objective is to find out which parameters best suit the interests andneeds of the users. A mathematical approach to join every parameter with every other toenable maximum comparability might seem useful for statistical analysis of theacceptance of every single option per parameter. However, offering a specific optionagain and again even though a majority of users repeatedly stated that they dislike thisoption, might cause test users to quit the testing community, a risk that might ruin thecomparability of test data.It was therefore decided to plan the tests only for a reduced number of weeks inadvance, then adapt the selection of options according to the feedback received duringthe first test weeks, so that, eventually all “risky” options would be banned.Thus we would come to a reduced number of optimum choices between which theeditors and other decision-makers on the broadcaster side can decide.Week by week, with every new questionnaire, the number of acceptable combinations(e.g. Arial, 40, Box, 0 Transparency) will be reduced by reducing the number ofacceptable options (text only, Box within safe area, etc.).Page 17
Page 1 and 2: COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION FRAM
Page 3 and 4: 1 Executive SummaryThis report cove
Page 5 and 6: Gaps in knowledge of the efficacy o
Page 7 and 8: 3 What was originally planned3.1 Br
Page 9 and 10: 3.1.2 RBBRBB planned to test both D
Page 11 and 12: · Position· Subtitles may appear
Page 13 and 14: · Context information through icon
Page 15: 4 What has been done to date4.1 Bro
Page 19 and 20: Explanations:Each of the five selec
Page 21 and 22: 6) Questionnaires will be sent to u
Page 23 and 24: 4.2 Universities and the mature acc
Page 25 and 26: 5 Preliminary Findings5.1 Broadcast
Page 27 and 28: Problems with subtitle trans-coding
Page 29 and 30: The negative comments mainly covere
Page 31 and 32: 6 Preliminary ConclusionsAt the tim
Page 33 and 34: 8 Appendix 1 Design document for DR
Page 35 and 36: expectancy increases and the elderl
Page 37 and 38: . Self-assessment of capability usi
Page 39 and 40: 9 Appendix 2 Questionnaires1- Sampl
Page 41 and 42: □ Assistive device (wireless / in
Page 43 and 44: □ To have information on what typ
Page 45 and 46: ☐ TV ☐ TV digital ☐ Ordenador
Page 47 and 48: h. Cuando hay sonidos, ¿cómo pref
Page 49 and 50: Catalan sitcoms Plats Bruts —late
Page 51 and 52: WP 2.4 Implementation of Pilot Eval
Page 53 and 54: Dissemination: Results to be presen
Page 55 and 56: Audio description / audio subtitlin

D2.3 Interim Report on Pilot Services - the School of Engineering ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?