UNT Digital Libraries and the Portal to Texas History are starting to test the waters here too with a ton of content to catch up on. Early days.
Vendors: We've tested 3Play and then rev.com. At the latest Accessing Higher Ground (AHG) conference, the latter was getting talked up a lot by ODA office folks as their current preferred vendor given speedy turnaround and cost ratio.
Automation: I've played with https://github.com/agermanidis/autosub with decent~ish output given a few test cases. I know there are a few amazon-related demos out there too. No formal workflows on my end yet, but I think your outlined approach is generally what my preferred option would look like too. Hope to hear more from you/others on what they are trying.
digression: I note a handful of folks I talked to at AHG didn't think OCRing text in image content was good enough for real compliance when they saw the gibberish it often spits out, which would lead me to believe automated efforts for A/V would leave us open to the same sorts of complaints, but we do what we can, right?). Also captions/transcriptions are only going to get us 1/2 way to WCAG AA given the need for audio-descriptions. Maybe text-to-speech here? 3play has a plugin along those lines.
Other issues on my plate: looking at cleanup and audio-desc. Script authoring (probably will use WGBH Cadet); other outliers like doing webvtt chapters; what webvtts should look like for music where you want to give substantial info (i.e movements in symphonies, describing affect in a French Aria, or audio-describing a performance with something better than "[jazz music playing]"; and tangentially to your original question: what does it look like to hire/contract and ASL signer to make derivative files to meet that need if/when it comes up.
As to storage, our webvtts are going into a local gitlab repo, and then we have a few local scripts to push them onto public DL filesystem. I haphazardly dream of a future scenario where the DL public interface provided links from automated transcripts to the git repo for some sort of crowdsource cleanup effort. Side note: ODA office folks looked at me with a lot of puzzlement when I asked how they were archiving/storing captioned media!
For now at least, non captioned A/V have links in their descriptive records to make requests, which we'll typically honor ASAP with a vendor supplied file. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc700196/ (see sidebar for request link). For now this just populates a simple webform with some boilerplate.
Interested if you can share more of what you are up to.
Digital Libraries: User Interfaces
University of North Texas
1155 Union Circle #305190
Denton, TX 76203-5017
email: [log in to unmask] | phone: 940.891.6703 | web: http://www.library.unt.edu
Willis Library, Room 321
On 2/11/19, 4:02 PM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Goben, Abigail H" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
I can't speak to captioning but I use temi.com for my transcription for the class that I teach. It's .10 a minute, it's machine-transcription. Overall it does a really decent job and I can't argue with the price. The transcription takes about half the time of the video, I do light editing, and post.
Abigail H. Goben, MLS
Information Services and Liaison Librarian
Library of the Health Sciences
University of Illinois at Chicago
1750 W. Polk (MC 763)
Chicago, IL 60612
[log in to unmask]
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kate Deibel
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 1:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] A/V and accessibility
I'd love to hear what auto-captioning options you've found to be tolerable?
What I can say is that this is the informal policy I've been promoting for accessibility in our special collections. In general, any accommodation requests in special collections will likely be part of a very nuanced, focused research agenda. Thus, any remediation will likely not only have to be specific to the individual's disability but also the nature of their research. In the case of A/V, a rough transcription may be enough if they are focusing more on the visual side of it. For others, though, a more thorough transcription may be required.
All in all, your approach sounds wise.
Katherine Deibel | PhD
Inclusion & Accessibility Librarian
Syracuse University Libraries
[log in to unmask]
222 Waverly Ave., Syracuse, NY 13244
From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Carol Kassel
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 11:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [CODE4LIB] A/V and accessibility
We're working on a roadmap for making A/V content from Special Collections accessible. For those of you who have been through this process, you know that one of the big-ticket items is captions and transcripts. In our exploration of options, we've found a couple of pretty good auto-captioning solutions. Their accuracy is about as good as what you'd get from performing OCR on scanned book pages, which libraries do all the time. One possibility is to perform auto-captioning on all items and then provide hand-captioning upon request for the specific items where a patron needs better captions.
This idea will be better supported if we know what our peer institutions are doing... so what are you doing? Thanks to those to whom I've reached out personally; your information has helped tremendously. Now I'd like to find out from others how they've handled this issue.
Senior Manager, Digital Library Infrastructure NYU Digital Library Technology Services [log in to unmask]