In UK/Europe the older/simpler format would be OP-42/OP-47 Teletext[3] which can be used for captions instead of the full-screen data pages, or DVB Subtitles[4], which get into more uses around “subtitles” in terms of language translation, rather than only the “closed caption” use case where it matches the content language. DVB subtitles can be sent as pre-rendered bitmaps or as data for client-side rendering.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EIA-608 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTA-708 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletext [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtitles
* in terms of 708-only features, not on the pedantic "ATSC uses the 708 system"
The requirements are quite high in Canada[1] and have been expanding in the US as well[2].
The company I work for makes products for broadcast customers, around asset management, linear playout automation, and the playout servers that insert the captions (from files or live data sources) so working out how that all happens is part of every big project.
[1] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/b321.htm [2] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/closed-captioning-telev...
For (foreign-language) subtitles that seems distracting and unnecessary, since even if you don't see the character speaking, you can recognize their voice.
But for closed-captioning (for the hard of hearing), it seems like it could add clarity. Yet in the past I've watched movies with CC without sound (like on a long-distance bus) and don't remember ever having a problem understanding who a line belonged to.
Does anybody have actual experience with color-coded captions and whether they're more of a help or more of a distraction?
As to why: it’s another datapoint to use to reconstruct what fully able people can do quickly. Sometimes captions aren’t well timed. Sometimes a lot of things happen very quickly and it’s hard to keep track. What if the camera isn’t on anyone’s face? You can probably figure it out by context, but why expend the mental energy when it can just be colored?
Just because you never had this issue (and I’m sure you did, it’s not like we remember the most mundane of details like this years later) doesn’t mean it’s not an issue.
You have a single set of guidelines (BBC doesn’t have two sets, nor does any other provider I know of) and a single set of subtitles as a result.
This is accessibility like anything else. High contrast can be used by many people on the ability spectrum for multiple various reasons. Subtitles are the same. Some use them because they’re deaf, some use them because they’re not confident enough in a language to use only one sensory input, some just like subtitles.
But since your claim is they’re separate, please show me exactly how they are separate. Show me the two separate style guides, show me providers differentiating between them and providing both captions and subtitles. Show me even the smallest sliver that backs up your claim. And, more importantly, show me the exact reasoning why color would work in one but not the other.
Similarly, subtitles are necessary for on-screen foreign language text (e.g., signs or documents), but not when the text is in the language that a deaf viewer understands. In other words, you wouldn’t have an English subtitle for an on-screen sign in English, but you would for a sign in Chinese.
As the BBC produces content exclusively (or nearly exclusively) in English, these guidelines are surely directed towards captioning for hearing-impaired audiences.
In that context, “teletext” just works the same as the North American 608 captions and has nothing to do with the older full-screen data stuff. There are no restrictions around authority for “teletext equipment” - for those channels they actually use systems fully based in AWS with the playout engine running on an EC2 instance so all software-only to generate the single MPEG transport stream with video/graphics + audio + captions + subtitles.
It’s also common to send a DVB subtitle multiplex that has a number of languages (up to 20+) embedded in the same signal.
[1] Although DVB can contain a full teletext stream that can be reinserted into the SD analogue VBI by the receiver. Sky boxes supported that so on some channels you could just go to ye olde page 888, although I haven't a clue if any channels still do that (I don't have an old SD Sky setup around to look).
Separate from DVB, the old PAL OP42/47 teletext payload gets inserted into the MPEG-TS using SMPTE 2038[1] then when decoded, it would go into regular ancillary data of the uncompressed stream per ITU-R BT.1120-7[2].
The broadcast industry really loves standards[3].
[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7290549
[2] https://www.freetv.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/OP-42-C...
* Indeed, the first test broadcasts from 1979 included color.
** This is due to the design of the original 1980 "decoder," which only 'worked well' for color when installed inside an NTSC television. For the external adapters, grayscale instead of color was displayed. The only way to view color captions in color back in 1980/1981 was with a TeleCaption TV - and there was only one model ever made.
* Despite their name suggesting that it only monitors broadcasts, they are actually the broadcaster which has the authority to install teletext equipment. The then-ITV companies are only program suppliers to the IBA, not broadcasters in their own right.