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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

LastweekFirstweek· Optimisation PyramidThe optimisation pyramid above shows how through the steady reduction of the numberof options the tests will lead to a manageable number of combinations towards the endof the testing phase.Test PlanThe general plan planned to test 5 different fonts and apply 5 parameter combinationsets to each of the 5 fonts chosen.1 Arial 32 Box longest line, Transparency 02 Arial 40 Box longest line, Transparency 1603 Arial 44 Box, Transparency 1604 Arial 40 Box, Transparency 1205 Arial 40 Text with border/shadow6 rbb Interstate 32 Box within Safe Area, Tr 07 rbb Interstate 40 Box within Safe Area, Tr 1608 rbb Interstate 45 Box within Safe Area, Tr 2249 rbb Interstate 40 Text with border/shadow10 rbb Interstate 42 Band, Transparency 12011 ARD Font 35 Box, Transparency 14012 ARD Font 43 Band, Transparency 12013 ARD Font 48 Band, Transparency 8014 ARD Font 43 1 Box, Transparency 015 ARD Font 43 1 Text with border/shadow16 Tiresias 36 Band, Transparency 017 Tiresias 45 Band, Transparency 12018 Tiresias 50 Band, Transparency 14019 Tiresias 45 120 Tiresias 45 1 Text with border/shadow21 Segoe Print 33 Band, Transparency 022 Segoe Print 41 Band, Transparency 12023 Segoe Print 46 Band, Transparency 14024 Segoe Print 41 125 Segoe Print 41 1 Text with border/shadow26 Preferred Font Preferred Size Position TOPTable 1: Test Plan Layout (state: Test week 6)Page 18
Explanations:Each of the five selected fonts was to be tested:a) In at least three different sizes,• The sizes are different per each font, as the “same size” e.g. 10 pt. mayappear quite different on the screen. Therefore, the sizes were chosen so thatthe actual size on the screen is the same• Much greater than weeks 4-5 per font were left open to wait for feedback andadapt accordingly.b) With up to five different appearances,• “Box within Safe Area” is labelled as a variant of “Band”, so that each fontwould be tested with variations of “box” and “band”Analysis:This approach causes some difficulties when it comes to analysing the test results:1. In the questionnaires the appearance was to be evaluated with only one checkbox, although it actually comprises two different parameters: the backgroundtype (box, band, and border) and the transparency of this background. Ideally,this should have been tested in all possible combinations in order to get separateresults for the individual parameters. This, however, would have deterrednumerous testers who tend to feel bored and under-challenged if they do not seethe differences between test weeks, etc.2. Some options have been omitted relatively early (e.g. “text only”, “band”) as thefeedback in the comment fields soon showed clearly that these options wouldnot be accepted. If these options cannot be replaced by others, but are omitted,the set of combinations will have to be adapted. Otherwise, either there would berepetitions of former combinations or sets would have to be omitted so that thisfont would be tested for less than five weeks.To react to the users’ feedback as soon as possible, ideally almost instantly, complicatesthe analysis of the tests but is absolutely necessary as experience shows that the testusers tend to feel not taken seriously if their comments are not responded to directly.It is already difficult, if not dangerous, to ignore their more general recommendations,even though the introductory letters and talks about the test and its objectives statedclearly that the test will not involve editorial issues such as the number of programmeswith subtitling or the ways the texts are written and presented. The general comments,however, are replied to instantly in personal letters / mails. They are also forwarded tothe RBB subtitling editorial team which is very happy to hear directly what users maywant or not want in terms of subtitle content.According to regular analysis of the quantitative and qualitative feedback from thequestionnaires, those options with the lowest marks and the most convincing contraargumentswill be taken off the list. Consequently, these options will be replaced byother comparable parameters.Page 19
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 and 16: 4 What has been done to date4.1 Bro
Page 17: DVB-Subtitles Test-MethodThe techno
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?