Blatt, Rosch, Osterer: The Promise of Teletext for Hearing—Impaired Audiences
`
`THE PROMISE OF TELETEXT FOR HEARING-IMPAIHED AUDIENCES
`
`Joseph Blaii
`WGBH / Boston
`
`Gary Rosch
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`Carole Osierer
`WGBH/Boston
`
`0098-3068/80/0717-0722$00.75©1980 IEEE
`
`programming is available here than in all other
`countries combined.
`In 1958, Public Law 85-905 established Cap-
`tioned Films for the Deaf, administered by the
`Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
`Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. Captioned
`Films provides a loan service of
`thousands of
`entertainment and educational films and videocas-
`settes. It distributes these materials free of charge to
`about 6,000 registered accounts.
`The FCC has been concerned with the needs of
`the deaf and television for a number of years. In a
`policy statement released in December 1970, “The
`Use of Telecasts to Inform and Alert Viewers with
`Impaired Hearing,” the FCC enunciated a desire that
`licensees consider the needs of those with aural
`impairments.
`In 1972, HEW mandated the first television
`program ever captioned: The French Chef.
`Iulia
`Child’s program, aired over PBS, was popular among
`deaf audiences and led to the development at WGBH
`of same-day news captioning in 1973.
`In February of 1976, in response to a petition
`rule making filed by PBS requesting an
`for
`amendment of Subpart E of Part 73 of the FCC’s Rules
`and Regulations, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed
`Rule Making providing that line 21, field 1, and the
`available half of line 21, field 2, of the television
`vertical blanking interval be reserved for the trans-
`mission of captioned information for the deaf.
`Numerous petitioners questioned whether a
`portion of the vertical blanking interval should be
`reserved for only one service.
`In the end the
`Commission ruled in December of 1976 that line 21
`could be used for a captioning service on an optional
`basis. In addition the FCC authorized the use of line
`21 for the display of non-program related material of a
`broadcast nature during the times when program-
`related captioning was not displayed. The Com-
`mission noted that while the data format for the use
`of this line were specified, it would consider the
`authorization of other signal formats on an indi-
`vidual basis.
`
`the current closed captioning project has
`As
`demonstrated,
`teletext-type technology is well
`suited for
`the delivery of
`information to deaf
`audiences. Newer developing systems will be able to
`providea flexible system for captioning and a range of
`services which u will
`expand the
`information
`accessible to deaf people. In its simplest form the
`interactive capability of the system to retrieve timely
`data promises the deaf user things many of us take
`completely for granted: knowledge of
`today’s
`weather forecast, traffic conditions, news headlines,
`community bulletin boards, school closings, sports
`results and more. Captioning will undoubtedly
`continue,
`though, as a main attraction for deaf
`viewers to teletext technologies.
`
`Captioning outside the United States
`
`systems are more
`teletext
`Outside the .U.S.,
`advanced, and virtually every country that has or is
`«developing a system is planning to provide a
`captioning service. For the moment, however, very
`little , captioned programming is
`available.
`In
`Where two teletext systems are operational,
`one hour aweek is broadcast over the BBC. In France,
`no captioned programming is currently available.
`.Sweden,'l;which has an operating teletext system,
`“makes? three hours of. captioned programming
`available each week. In Germany, where teletext
`transmissions have
`just begun, no captioned
`programs are broadcast.
`the British
`adopted
`Australia
`recently
`stande for teletext transmission, but is currently
`broadcasting no captioned material. Iapan,
`too, is
`providing no special captioned programming for deaf
`audiences.
`
`Captioning in the United States
`
`The American television industry seems uniquely
`prepared to provide an atmosphere in which large—
`scale captioning can exist. In contrast to foreign
`experience, the United States has a history of active
`support for captioned television. More captioned
`1980 mileage Spring Conference
`
`Accordingly, the National Captioning Insti-
`tute began providing captioned programming for PBS,
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 1
`
`

`

`"HS
`
`IEEF. Transacllons on Consumer Electronics. Vol. (TE—26. November I930
`
`ABC, and NBC in March 1980. NCI is currently
`captioning about 20 hours of prime-time program-
`ming a week, broadcast in closed format over line 21
`of the vertical blanking interval.
`An Open captioning service continues on PBS
`as well. This
`service includes The Captioned
`ABC News, now in its seventh year as the only
`national news program available to deal audiences.
`The United States is now on the verge of some
`fundamental decisions in regard to a teletext stan~
`dard. Although the FCC has yet to take a position on
`the issue, American concern for captioning Suggests
`that there will be active interest in incorporating
`captioning into the teletext system. The remainder of
`this paper suggests the particular advantages teletext
`will provide for captioning, and proceeds to give some
`suggestions for teletext design which reflect caption-
`ing requirements.
`
`The teletext advantage: Display systems
`
`WGBH’s captioning experience spans seven years
`and several system generations. Our current opera-
`tions are founded On a hard-disc computer system
`tied directly to a broadcast-quality character
`generator. All our approaches, including the current
`one have been of the open caption variety, i.e., the
`entire audience, not just the target consumers, see
`the captions. We have good evidence, both empirical
`and informal, that the general public does not like
`open captions, and that hearing viewers tend to shy
`away from programs which look “special” in this
`way.
`
`Our colleagues at the National Captioning
`Institute are working with the line 21 closed cap-
`tioning system. They therefore avoid the open cap-
`tioning general audience problem we have faced, and
`brisk decoder sales indicate that hearing-impaired
`people are responding to the line 21 approach.
`All of us involved in creating captioning would
`therefore agree that one of the major advantages of
`teletext is that it is "hidden." You only see the
`captions if you choose to.
`WGBH’s research and experimentation sug-
`gest that there are a number of other advantages
`unique to the teletext approach to captioning. We
`have had the opportunity to work directly with the
`ANTIOPE System, producing captioned versions of
`several public and commercial television programs.
`We have carefully studied British approaches at the
`BBC and the IBA, and had a look at Telidon in
`February at the Toronto SMPT'E conference. It ap-
`pears to us that all these teletext schemes offer the
`following technical advantages for captioned broad-
`casting:
`
`The structure of teletext, its magazine format,
`l.
`allows a large number of simultaneous captioning
`
`substantial variations between Puerto Rican and
`
`and subtitling “tracks.” The Multi-level Captioning
`Project at the WGBH Caption Center has demon-
`strated already the value, and the appeal, of different
`captioning styles for different
`target audiences.
`Specifically, children, pre-lingually deaf people, and
`older people who have lost some or all of their hearing
`later in life, constitute highly dissimilar populations
`with widely divergent vocabulary and reading skills.
`Multiple teletext magazines will make it possible to
`broadcast more specialized captioned versions for
`each of these groups.
`
`Teletext allows captioning at several
`levels, including verbatim...
`
`language
`
`...and Simplified versions, edited for vocabulary and
`syntax.
`
`The same story applies, with increasing sig-
`nificance,
`to verbatim subtitling accompanying
`television programs. Spanish-speaking people, who
`will form the largest U.S. minority group within a
`few years, have become a more insistent pro-
`gramming concern due to the recent dramatic influx
`of Cubans. At a first cut, teletext will provide the
`capacity for a Spanish~language version of both
`national and regional programming. More imagina-
`tively, however, it will also be possible to create
`different Spanish magazines, accommodating the
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Bluu. Roach. Osierer: The Promise orTeletexi for Hearing—Impaired Audiences
`
`the same time, other
`south-western dialects. At
`regional language groups, such as French-speaking
`people in New Hampshire and Portuguese peopie in
`Boston, could lobby with their local broadcasters for
`subtitled versions in their own native languages.
`
`captioning, draw false analogies from subtitling. One
`of the most common such false assumptions is that
`captions always occur in the center of the lower third
`of the screen. In subtitling applications, the viewer
`can hear which character, even off screen, is speak-
`ing, and needs to know only the content. But hearing—
`impaired audiences must be given more explicit cues
`about who is uttering which captions, and variable
`placement is probably the most important tool we
`have to meet this need.
`
`Some of these same considerations apply to
`3.
`other teletext characteristics. Systematic variations
`in both foreground and background color,
`for
`example, can help to clarify the attribution of
`
`Teletext page capacity permits foreign language
`subtitling, including Spanish...
`
`Color and font size options also contribute to
`orienting the viewer.
`
`captions to speakers. A range of font sizes is also
`useful: Small characters can be used for identifiers,
`and for significant non-dialogue cues, such as
`laughter or applause. The double height option
`available on most teletext systems aids reading of the
`main captions, particularly for older viewers, who
`may suffer some visual impairment in addition to
`hearing impairment.
`
`...and French translations.
`
`teietext systems afford the captioner
`Most
`2.
`complete freedom in the screen placement of text.
`Many people, unfamiliar with the requirements of
`
`multi-level linguistic scheme.
`
`It has been widely noted that many teletext
`4.
`features, such as textual news, weather, bulletins,
`and announcements, will be of special service to
`hearing-impaired users. There is also, however, a
`nontrivial interaction between captioning specifi—
`cally and the depth of other teletext information
`features. One of the greatest challenges in captioning
`programs is to give viewers adequate background
`information while keeping pace with the dialogue
`and action. Separate teletext pages will allow cap-
`tioners to create program-related introductory texts
`which hearing-impaired people can sample at their
`leisure prior to the start of a broadcast. These pages
`might feature such information as definitions of
`unfamiliar terms, summaries of previous episodes,
`explanation of the color~coding scheme to be used in
`the program captioning, and descriptions of
`the
`
`Placement variation provides cues for attributing
`dialogue to the correct speaker,
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 3
`
`

`

`IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics. Vol. CE-26, November I980
`
`While it is easy to make too much of this
`5.
`feature, it should be noted that a teletext graphics
`capability can directly serve captioning needs. At
`WGBH, we have frequently used the power of our
`computer-based character generator to create un-
`usual effects for special programming purposes. We
`have, for example, made the words of songs move in
`rhythm with the music, “painted on” captions a
`character at a time, and added image-effects by
`keying slides into the program video. Many of these
`techniques may prove too taxing for a time-shared
`teletext broadcast source, but graphics effects can
`provide another route to the same end.
`
`The teletext advantage: Socioeconomic factors
`
`In addition to its technological merits, teletext has
`other attractions as a delivery system for program
`captioning. Making television fully accessible to
`hearing-impaired people is a social goal, one founded
`on concepts of equity and of “mainstreaming.” The
`latter term refers to the policy of integrating disabled
`people as closely as possible into the general patterns
`of American social life. From the perspectives of both
`social justice and social policy, implementing cap-
`tioning via a teletext system offers these advantages:
`
`miss out on a great deal of useful information from
`newspapers and magazines, with obvious conse-
`quences for socialization, employment, and citizen-
`ship. We believe that the general information capa-
`city of teletext will be as important as captioning
`per
`se in bringing deaf Americans
`into the
`mainstream of society. Because information will be
`so available—on television—and so accessible—in
`simple vocabulary and syntax written for
`the
`screen—teletext will help to penetrate the isolation
`hearing-impaired people are often forced to endure.
`
`there are many information needs
`Finally,
`9.
`which are indeed peculiar to the hearing-impaired
`community. There is a substantial but clearly
`minority interest in such events as signed perfor-
`mances, TDD services, and deaf club meetings. In the
`past, hearing-impaired people have frustrated both
`themselves and local broadcasters with their desire
`for television announcements and reports of special
`interests. Broadcasters quite reasonably contend that
`air time and production facilities are simply too
`expensive to respond to these needs. Without radio
`and without general telephone service, however,
`hearing-impaired people have nowhere else to turn.
`Teletext, with its numerous, inexpensive, ephemeral
`pages,
`is perfectly suited to meet
`these special
`communications needs of hearing-impaired citizens.
`
`those areas used for text. The same principle applies
`
`Teletext decoders will be marketed to and pur-
`6.
`chased by the general television public. Hearing-
`impaired people will benefit directly from partici-
`pating in such a mass market. All the constraints
`attached to the current closed caption decoder—fixed
`high price, single source of availability, inconvenient
`purchase and service provisions—will disappear
`when captioning can be received by means of a
`general purpose teletext decoder. Competition
`among television component manufacturers will
`assure a diversity of models, sources, and support
`services. Market studies indicate that the teletext
`decoder may cost as much as the line 21 decoder
`(currently $250), but mass production and competi-
`tion will deliver increasing performance curves for
`the same outlay.
`7.
`We are all familiar with a friend or relative
`who won’t admit that he or she needs glasses, or a
`cane, or a hearing aid. There is still a stigma attached
`to devices which aid us in overcoming our handicaps.
`A line 21 decoder is just such a device, and there are
`undoubtedly cases, particularly among older people
`who are losing their hearing, in which the benefits of
`captioning are not perceived to outweigh the stigma
`of a specialized appliance. A teletext decoder, on the
`other hand, will serve the general public,- owning one
`will connote normal, even positive status, and not a
`handicap.
`
`Design considerations
`
`these reasons—technical, social, and eco-
`For all
`nomic—we are persuaded that teletext promises the
`brightest future for captioning and other services
`targeted to hearing—impaired people. With this com-
`mitment, and on the basis of our captioning experi-
`ence, we have identified certain features that we
`consider essential in an optimal teletext system. We
`have submitted these to the Electronic Industries
`Association (BIA) Broadcast Television Systems
`Subcommittee on Teletext, for consideration in the
`formulation of an American teletext standard. They
`are offered here in the hope that circuit designers,
`receiver engineers and manufacturers, and other
`interested professionals will ’find‘them useful
`in
`planning teletext encoding and decoding equipment.
`
`For both the writer and the viewer, complete
`1.
`flexibility in the composition and layout of every
`frame is the key to successful captioning. Nothing
`must be allowed to impinge upon the creative free-
`dom of an editor or designer’in rr-laying outa text
`display. Specifically, teletext encoding schemes in
`which the control characters require printing spaces
`would severely detract from the service.
`7
`
`Attractive page designs, with adequate blank
`2.
`spaces, create a need for higher character density in
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 4
`
`Because speech is so important to language
`8.
`learning, deaf people tend to have moderate or severe
`deficiencies in reading skills. They therefore tend to
`
`

`

`Blali. Roach. ()sterer: The Promise nfTelelexl for Hearing-impaired Audiences
`
`to captioning, where the goal is to obscure as little of
`the primary video as possible. At the same time, we
`have determined in the course of our own research
`
`to legibility. We
`is crucial
`that character height
`therefore advocate a system featuring variable font
`Sizes, with options for increased character height.
`
`The chief special requirement engendered by
`3.
`captioning is the need for transmissions in precise
`time relationship with the accompanying televisiOn
`program. From an operational point of view, the ideal
`teletext system would offer these timing character-
`istics:
`
`a. automatic updating;
`
`[3, completely flexible time code assignments,
`approaching as nearly as possible the limit of frame-
`by-frame changes 5
`
`c. simple editorial procedures for entering both
`time in and time out codes; and
`
`d. provision for "on the fly" marking of time in
`and time out caption change points.
`
`routines, a cap-
`Beyond time code
`4.
`tioning editorial console for teletext must retain the
`flexibility of the most advanced character generators.
`Among the most important of these features are:
`
`a. automatic row and page centering;
`
`for
`{and defaults]
`b. programmable settings
`foreground and background colors, and for font sizes,
`
`c. block text movements, both left/right and up}
`dewn; and
`
`d. automatic frame number incrementing.
`
`Captioning must of course be legible against
`5.
`the program video, but most viewers prefer displays
`which block as little as possible of the original scene.
`To avoid the inflexibility and unattractiveness of
`black-box “label” style captions, a “misted,” semi-
`transparent background scheme should be available.
`The IBA’s Oracle teletext system has already demon-
`strated this technique.
`
`Teletext specifications should include tech-
`6.
`niques for introducing special symbols as requied for
`particular captioning purposes. We have relied regu—
`larly, for example, on a musical clef sign to denote the
`words of a soug. Effects already achieved with a
`"down-loaded” graphic alphabet suggest that sym-
`bols can be readily accommodated within a teletext
`format.
`
`Because public broadcasting is primarily a
`7.
`local system, we have a special receptivity to cap-
`tioning initiatives on the part of individual stations.
`The cost of teletext origination and transmission
`equipment must be kept low enough to encourage
`
`national captioning for network programs and re-
`gional or station captioning for local programs.
`8.
`Like most public broadcasters, WGBH pro-
`grams for considerably less than 24 hours every day.
`During non-programming periods, enormous quanti-
`ties of specialized information could be transmitted
`to minority audiences,
`including hearing-impaired
`people. An ideal teletext system will
`incorporate
`provisions for a full-frame transmission mode, capa-
`ble of such high density service, and a decoder with
`programmable frame-grabbing and local storage func-
`tions, so that minority audiences can seek and re-
`trieve specially targeted pages.
`
`books.
`
`Summary
`
`Hidden captioning promises to make television, the
`central information medium in American life,
`in—
`creasingly available to hearing-impaired people.
`Teletext appears
`to offer a superior
`technical
`approach to hidden captioning,
`together with a
`number of other services which are responsive to the
`unique
`information needs of hearing-impaired
`people. A properly conceived teletext system will
`expand the range and facilitate the use of these
`services for both programmers and viewers.
`
`Joseph Blatt is producer of The Captioned ABC
`News, a nationally televised production of WGBH/
`Boston, where he is also senior researcher for teletext.
`A graduate of Harvard College, Mr. Blatt also holds a
`Master’s degree from Harvard Graduate School of
`Education, where from 1971 to 1976 he was director
`of the Media Division. In 197778 Mr. Blatt produced
`Feeling Free,
`a PBS series dealing with chil-
`dren’s awareness of disabilities. Mr. Blatt
`is the
`author
`of
`several
`articles on television and
`
`disabilities, and the co-author of
`
`two children’s
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Gary Roseh is with the Common Carrier Bureau of
`the Federal Conununications Commission. He has
`served as the Chairman of the CCITT Videotex
`
`Working Party of Study Group I. Mr. Rosch holds the
`MBA and ID degrees. Since the writing of this paper!
`Mr. Rosch has left the FCC to join Antiope Videotex
`Systems as staff counsel. The views expressed are not
`necessarily those of the FCC.
`
`captioning since 1973, when she worked as 3 lan-
`guage specialist/captioner on Captioned ZOOM.
`Since then Ms. Osterer has been associate producer of
`The Captioned ABC News and special proiects
`manager. She holds a Master’s degree from Boston
`University in deaf education.
`«v
`2
`g3
`
`L»
`
`JEEE Trans-anions an ('onsumcr Eleclmnics. Vol. (‘E—Zfi. Navember I930
`
`Ca role_0ste rer is the director of the Caption Center
`at WGBH/Boston. Ms. Osterer has been involved in
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 6
`
`