Question on CC best practices

[Kuildeous]

Hello there. I am working on a project where we present an example of a phone call via an audio file. There is also a visual component, where our users have the option of CC. I've been in the process of transcribing this phone call. Since we don't do this on a regular basis, I've asked the question of how exact the transcript needs to be. The conservative answer is to document every little word.

The question I have is: Do you feel that CC should capture every little nuance in a transcribed conversation, or is it acceptable to cut some things down to get the gist of a message? I see a lot of TV shows with some variations in the CC, but it's generally a pretty accurate portrayal. But then, we're talking about a script here (usually). My example involves a free-flowing conversation, and some people aren't that eloquent.

As an example, here is the word-for-word transcription of part of the phone call:

I just…I was calling because…let's see, back in November, I…I had this…you were requesting a letter of creditable coverage.

From a usability standpoint, I'd have to think that reading this would be maddening (at least, it would be for me). I really want to condense this down to something more like:

I was calling because, back in November, you were requesting a letter of creditable coverage.

So, in general, is it better to caption each and every word, even if they represent incomplete thoughts and mutterings, or is it better to trim the fat and present the meat of the speech as closely as possible?

Kevin
PS, I'm sure the answer differs if we're talking about a court of law. I am not, if that makes a difference.

 

[~SG~]

I would say it is better to have everything captioned.

For the example which you used for a word for word transcription of part of the phone call.... because if hearing people hears everything what other person saying on the phone.

Then Deaf people should have equal access to know full words captions of what is happening on the phone conversation... it's better not to cut it in short details.

 

[spaceotter]

I typically try to think of it as a balance between whether the speaker intended to say what they did and whether it denotes a style of speech.

E.g. You wouldn't want to textually emulate someone who stutters as this is an involuntary act of speech. Also if someone has a 'tick' such as saying the word "um" repeatedly unconsciously within a single thought you may want to omit them. But include an "um" if it denotes an pause or indication of contemplation.

In terms of speaking style. How a person speaks can tell you a lot about the person's comfort with, maybe, public speaking or if they are uncomfortable in a situation. These sometimes subtle attributes can have relevance to a video and consideration should be taken in this respect.

In summary, I say...represent the speaker's words and manor of speaking accurately so it reads like their own voice, but don't detract from the conversation by pointing out every single flaw.

 

[Kuildeous]

I appreciate the responses. This conversation has helped steer us in our CC decisions. One thing I had not considered is that showing the whole conversation also shows how nervous and upset the caller was as she struggled to find the right words to convey her concern.

The scripted conversations were so much easier to work with. Whew!

Thank you again.

Kevin

 

[aRachel]

In a perfect world, everyone would speak in complete sentences in correct English. However, we know the world doesn't work that way.

The best thing to do in a telephone conversation is to get everything that is said. You can leave out half words and umm, ah, or other non-word sounds as they are useless to communication. You should not edit what someone is saying for what you think is trying to be communicated. That is easy to do when you have the whole conversation in front of you, but in the middle of the conversation it is a very bad thing to do. It is not your place to decide what someone wanted to say, but to facilitate the communication between two parties.

I will warn you that most (hearing) people are very bad at actually communicating well with others. It is a topic of conversation on many court reporting websites all the time. People may be able to communicate through the written word very well. But verbal communication is horrible, and very few people actually think about what they are trying to say before they say it. This results in false starts to sentences, partial phrases floating in an unrelated sentence, interruptions from the speakers train of thought jumping around, and a general lack of coherence of answers to ill thought out questions.

The English language is a jungle, and most people don't know their way around it.