Blatt, Rosch, Osterer: The Promise of Teletext for Hearing-Impaired Audiences
`
`77
`
`THE PROMISE OF TELETEXT FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED AUDIENCES
`
`Joseph Blatt
`WGBH /Boston
`
`Gary Rosch
`Federal Gommunications Commission
`
`Carole Osterer
`WGBH/ Boston
`
`the current closed captioning project has
`As
`programming is available here than in al! other
`countries combined.
`demonstrated,
`teletext-type technology is well
`suited for
`the delivery of
`information to deaf
`In 1958, Public Law 85-905 established Cap-
`audiences. Newer developing systemswill be able to
`tioned Films for the Deaf, administered by the
`provide.a flexible system for captioning and a range of
`Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
`services which will
`expand the
`information
`Bureauof Education for the Handicapped. Captioned
`accessible to deaf people. In its simplest form the
`Films provides a loan service of
`thousands of
`entertainment and educational films and videocas-
`interactive capability of the system to retrieve timely
`data promises the deaf user things many of us take
`settes. It distributes these materials free of charge to
`completely for granted: knowledge of-today’s
`about6,000 registered accounts.
`The FCChas been concerned with the needsof
`weatherforecast, traffic conditions, news headlines,
`community bulletin boards, school closings, sports
`the deaf and television for a numberof years. In a
`results and more. Captioning will undoubtedly
`policy statement released in December 1970, “The
`Use of Telecasts to Inform and Alert Viewers with
`continue,
`though, as a main attraction for deaf
`viewersto teletext technologies.
`Impaired Hearing,” the FCC enunciated a desire that
`licensees consider the needs of those with aural
`impairments.
`In 1972, HEW mandatedthefirst television
`program ever captioned: The French Chef. Julia
`Child’s program, aired over PBS, was popular among
`deaf audiencesand led to the development at WGBH
`of same-day newscaptioning in 1973.
`In February of 1976, in responseto a petition
`rule making filed by PBS requesting an
`for
`amendmentof 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 Decemberof 1976 that line.21
`could be used for a captioning service on an optional
`basis. In addition the FCC authorizedthe useof line
`2.1 for the display of non-program related material of a
`broadcast nature during the times when program-
`related captioning was not displayed. The Com-
`Captioning in the United States
`mission noted that while the data formatfor the use
`The American television industry seems uniquely
`of this line were specified, it would consider the
`prepared to provide an atmosphere in whichlarge-
`authorization of other signal formats on an indi-
`vidual basis.
`scale captioning can exist. In contrast to foreign
`experience, the United States has a history of active
`Accordingly, the National Captioning Insti-
`tute began providing captioned programmingfor PBS,
`support for captioned television. More captioned
`0098-3068 /80/0717-0722$00. 751980 IEEE
`1980 Chicago Spring Conference
`
`Captioning outside the United States
`Outside the US.,
`teletext
`systems are more
`advanced, and virtually every country that hasoris
`‘developing a system is planning to provide a
`Captioning service. For the moment, however, very
`‘little. captioned programming is
`available.
`In
`England, where two teletext systems are operational,
`one hour.a week is broadcast over the BBC.In France,
`no captioned programming is currently available.
`Sweden,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
`programsare broadcast.
`the British
`adopted
`Australia
`recently
`standard for teletext transmission, but is currently
`broadcasting no captioned material. Japan,
`too, is
`providing no special captioned programming for deaf
`audiences.
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 1
`Page 1
`
`

`

`718
`
`IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. CE-26, November 1980
`
`ABC, and NBC in March 1980. NCI is currently
`captioning about 20 hours of prime-time program-
`ming a week, broadcast in closed formatover line 21
`of the vertical blankinginterval.
`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 newsprogram available to deaf audiences.
`The United States is now on the verge of some
`fundamental decisions in regard to a teletext stan-
`dard. Although the FCC hasyetto 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 remainderof
`this paper suggests the particular advantagesteletext
`will provide for captioning, and proceedsto give some
`suggestions for teletext design which reflect caption-
`ing requirements.
`
`Theteletext 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 wehave faced, and
`brisk decoder sales indicate that hearing-impaired
`people are respondingto the line 21 approach.
`All of us involvedin creating captioning would
`therefore agree that one of the major advantages of
`teletext is that it is “hidden.” You only see the
`captionsif you chooseto.
`WGBH’s research and experimentation sug-
`gest that there are a numberof other advantages
`unique to the teletext approach to captioning. We
`have had the opportunity to work directly with the
`ANTIOPEsystem, producing captioned versions of
`several public and commercial television programs.
`Wehave carefully studied British approaches at the
`BBC and the IBA, and had a look at Telidon in
`February at the Toronto SMPTE conference.It ap-
`pears to usthatall these teletext schemesoffer the
`following technical advantages for captioned broad-
`casting:
`
`Thestructureofteletext, its magazine format,
`Le
`allows a large number of simultaneous captioning
`
`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 havelost someorallof their hearing
`later in life, constitute highly dissimilar populations
`with widely divergent vocabulary and reading skills.
`Multiple teletext magazines will makeit possible to
`broadcast more specialized captioned versions for
`
`each of these groups.
`levels, including verbatim...
`
`Teletext allows captioning at several
`
`language
`
`..and simplified versions, edited for vocabulary and
`syntax,
`
`The samestory 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 dueto the recent dramatic influx
`of Cubans. Ata 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
`substantial variations between Puerto Rican and
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 2
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Blatt, Rosch, Osterer: The Promise of Teletext for Hearing-Impaired Audiences
`
`719
`
`the same time, other
`south-western dialects. At
`regional language groups, such as French-speaking
`people in New Hampshire and Portuguese people in
`Boston, could lobby with their local broadcasters for
`
`Teletext page capacity permits foreign language
`
`subtitled versions in their own native languages.
`subtitling, including Spanish...
`Many people, unfamiliar with the requirements of
`
`...and French translations.
`
`teletext systems afford the captioner
`Most
`2.
`complete freedom in the screen placementoftext.
`
`Placement variation provides cues for attributing
`dialogue to the correct speaker.
`
`captioning, draw false analogies from subtitling. One
`of the most commonsuch false assumptionsis that
`captions alwaysoccur in the centerof 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 mustbe given more explicit cues
`about whois 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
`a
`other teletext characteristics. Systematic variations
`in both foreground and background color,
`for
`
`example, can help to clarify the attribution of
`
`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 mostteletext systemsaids readingof the
`main captions, particularly for older viewers, who
`may suffer some visual impairmentin addition to
`hearing impairment.
`
`It has been widely noted that manyteletext
`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. Oneofthe 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,
`explanationofthe color-coding schemeto be used in
`the program captioning, and descriptions of
`the
`multi-level linguistic scheme.
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 3
`Page 3
`
`

`

`720
`
`IEEE Transactions on ConsumerElectronics, Vol. CE-26, November 1980
`
`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,wehave 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. Manyof these
`techniques may prove too taxing for a time-shared
`teletext broadcast source, but graphics effects can
`provide anotherroute to the sameend.
`
`
`Theteletext 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 asclosely 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:
`
`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 sourceof 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 sameoutlay.
`7.
`Weare all familiar with a friend or relative
`who won't admit that he or she needs glasses, or a
`cane, or a hearing aid. Thereisstill a stigma attached
`to devices whichaid us in overcoming our handicaps.
`A line 21 decoderis just such a device, and there are
`undoubtedly cases, particularly among older people
`whoare 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
`otherhand,will serve the general public; owning one
`will connote normal, even positive status, and not a
`handicap.
`8.
`Because speech is so important to language
`learning, deaf people tend to have moderate or severe
`deficiencies in reading skills. They therefore tend to
`
`miss out on a great deal of useful information from
`newspapers and magazines, with obvious conse-
`quencesfor 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, TDDservices, 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. Withoutradio
`and without general telephone service, however,
`hearing-impaired people have nowhereelse to turn.
`Teletext, with its numerous, inexpensive, ephemeral
`pages,
`is perfectly suited to meet
`these special
`communications needs of hearing-impaired citizens.
`
`Design considerations
`For all
`these reasons—technical, social, and eco-
`nomic—weare persuadedthat 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 optimalteletext system. We
`have submitted these to the Electronic Industries
`Association (EIA) 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 thecreative free-
`dom of an editor or designer ‘in laying out a text
`display. Specifically, teletext encoding schemes in
`which the control characters require printing spaces
`would severely detract from theservice.
`,
`
`Attractive page designs, with adequate blank
`2.
`spaces, create a need for higher character density in
`those areas used for text. The sameprinciple applies
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 4
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Blatt, Rosch, Osterer: The Promise of Teletext for Hearing-Impaired Audiences
`
`721
`
`to captioning, wherethe goal is to obscureaslittle of
`the primary video as possible. At the same time, we
`have determined in the course of our own research
`that character height
`is crucial
`to legibility. We
`therefore advocate a system featuring variable font
`sizes, with options for increased character height.
`3,
`The chief special requirement engendered by
`captioning is the need for transmissions in precise
`time relationship with the accompanyingtelevision
`program. From an operational pointof view,the ideal
`teletext system would offer these timing character-
`istics:
`
`a. automatic updating;
`b. completely flexible time code assignments,
`approaching as nearly as possible the limit of frame-
`by-frame changes;
`
`c. simple editorial procedures for entering both
`time in and timeoutcodes; and
`
`d. provision for “on the fly” marking of time in
`and time out caption change points.
`
`Beyond time code handling routines, a cap-
`4,
`tioning editorial console for teletext must retain the
`flexibility of the most advanced character generators.
`Among the most importantof these features are:
`
`a. automatic row and page centering;
`for
`b. programmable settings
`(and defaults)
`foreground and backgroundcolors, and for fontsizes;
`c. block text movements, both left/right and up/
`down; and
`
`d, automatic frame numberincrementing.
`
`Captioning mustof course be legible against
`5.
`the program video, but most viewersprefer displays
`whichblockas 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 beavailable.
`The IBA’s Oracle teletext system has already demon-
`strated this technique.
`6.
`Teletext specifications should include tech-
`niques for introducing special symbols as requied for
`particular captioning purposes. We haverelied regu-
`larly, for example, on a musical clef sign to denote the
`words of a song. 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-
`gionalor station captioning for local programs.
`8.
`Like most public broadcasters, WGBH pro-
`gramsfor considerably less than 24 hours every day.
`During non-programmingperiods, enormous quanti-
`ties of specialized information could be transmitted
`to minority audiences,
`including hearing-impaired
`people. An ideal teletext system will
`incorporate
`provisionsfor 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 andre-
`trieve specially targeted pages.
`
`Summary
`
`Hidden captioning promises to maketelevision, the
`central information medium in Americanlife, in-
`creasingly available to hearing-impaired people.
`Teletext appears
`to offer a superior
`technical
`approach to hidden captioning,
`together with a
`numberof 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 heis also senior researcherforteletext.
`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 wasdirector
`of the Media Division.In 1977-78 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
`
`books.
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 5
`Page 5
`
`

`

`722
`
`IEEE Transactions on ConsumerElectronics, Vol, CE-26, November 1980
`
`Carole Ostereris the director of the Caption Center
`at WGBH/Boston.Ms. Osterer has been involved in
`captioning since 1973, when she worked asa lan-
`guage specialist/captioner on Captioned ZOOM.
`Since then Ms.Osterer has been associate producerof
`The Captioned ABC News and special projects
`manager. She holds a Master’s degree from Boston
`University in deaf education.
`ez
`
`.se P
`
`PMC Exhibit 2054
`MC Exhibit 2054
`Apple v. PMC
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00753
`IPR2016-00753
`Page 6
`Page 6
`
`Gary Rosch is with the Common Carrier Bureau of
`the Federal Communications Commission. He has
`served as the Chairman of the CCITT Videotex
`Working Party of Study GroupI. Mr. Rosch holds the
`MBAandJD degrees. Since the writing of this paper,
`Mr. Roschhasleft the FCC to join Antiope Videotex
`Systemsas staff counsel. The views expressed are not
`
`necessarily those of the FCC.
`
`