vandjar develops queeniah

[Ben Hollinbeck]

When Netflix first rebooted Queer Eye, I binged the first season in record time, reveling in the joy of the Fab 5. Their easy kindness, even in the face of surprisingly difficult conversations, was a welcome respite from the toxic masculinity that plagued headlines across 2018. Fortunately for me and other fans, the second season (which was filmed at the same time as the first) dropped on June 15.

One of the first things I noticed about the second season was that the Netflix original newly introduced a bleeping sound to censor profanity spoken on the show. The next thing I noticed was that the censoring carried over to the closed captions, but not in the normal way.

In fact, many other people use captions, including those who speak English as a second language and those who have sensory processing disorders. A 2006 study by the Office of Communications, the regulatory body for U.K. television broadcasting, suggests that 80 percent of television viewers using closed captions were using them for reasons other than hearing loss.

The internet offers a unique challenge: how do we ensure that all of our digital products, services, and communications are accessible to people with disabilities? What are companies required to do to accommodate such users?

Federal disability laws still await comprehensive updates to keep pace with the digital world. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was set to receive input from the DOJ in 2018. However, such plans were dismissed in 2017 by the Trump administration and the DOJ indicated it would not give official guidance regarding website accessibility under the ADA.

Aside from direct amendments to the laws, or lack thereof (in the case of the ADA), disability case law has played a major role in setting precedent for how the ADA applies to the internet. One landmark case comes the mind:
NAD v. Netflix.

In 2015, more than half of all Americans watched Netflix. In 2020, there were 203.67 million Netflix subscribers worldwide. Because of its widespread use and popularity, the video streaming service must be made accessible to deaf and hard of hearing viewers.

The outcome of the lawsuit sent a strong message to video creators and distributors that the ADA may apply to your online content. This has far-reaching implications for other entertainment companies that stream video online, like Hulu or HBO Max. It can also affect how the ADA is interpreted in cases of educational videos, such as the closed captioning lawsuit against Harvard and MIT.

In the years since this case, Congress passed the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), which applies FCC closed captioning rules to any online video content that previously aired on American television with captions. This erased any doubt that TV shows streamed online require captions.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is written for educational and general information purposes only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. This blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

It turns out I was not the only deaf person to say this. Netflix was sued several times by various deaf individuals who recognized Netflix was violating the civil rights of disabled people. But Netflix won each lawsuit.

Word of this reached the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), a non-profit organization that seeks to promote and protect the civil, human, and linguistic rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in the United States. The NAD made several public statements and open letters to Netflix over the subject of closed captions. Now, at the time Netflix was working on closed captions, but progress was extraordinarily slow. In 2010, nearly 7,000 movies and TV shows were available to stream. Only 300 of these had closed captions. Clearly, captions were not a priority.

Netflix had already won several lawsuits over this topic. Their defense was that the ADA was drafted to increase access to physical spaces. Since they were an online service, they had no obligation to make their business accessible. Unfortunately, it was a strong case. As I mentioned before, the ADA had nothing about accessibility for web services or virtual products simply because it was written before these things were invented.

One year later, on June 19, 2012, the judge ruled in favor of the NAD. Netflix was required to pay nearly $800,000 in legal fees. Their entire library was required to be closed captioned within two years and new content could not be uploaded unless it contained closed captions.

The lawsuit made waves through the internet. Netflix was a multi-million-dollar business and the powerhouse of streaming entertainment. They were one of the biggest businesses at the time. When they lost the lawsuit, it sent a message to all the other digital giants who thought they were exempt from the ADA.

In the following years, these giants took steps to became more accessible. YouTube continues to work on improving its closed captions and encourages creators to add closed captions to their videos. Hulu, HBO Max, and Amazon Prime worked to add closed captions to all their content. Even Facebook took strides to be more inclusive. When Disney+ came out, everything they had to offer already had closed captions. Accessibility is being recognized as a fundamental need rather than an optional suggestion.

However, there are still a good number of companies that have yet to make themselves accessible. Today, while the ADA has website guidelines, there are no enforceable legal standards for web accessibility. In 2017, regulations were drafted to include digital accessibility in the ADA. Unfortunately, when it came to approving these regulations in 2020, Donald Trump chose to ignore them. As of today, these regulations have yet to be approved and enforced. Until they are, the civil rights of disabled people will always be questionable for web-based services and products.

We often watch shows with Japanese subtitles. A few days ago, Japanese subtitles disappeared from the list of choices. I still see (typically) a dozen or so other choices, often including Asian languages such as Korean and Chinese - but no Japanese any more. One specific example: The "Wednesday" series on Netflix - previously watched the entire series with English audio and Japanese subtitles, but today Japanese is simply not in the list of languages choices. I see the same thing on Disney+ with the "Mandalorian" series. How is that possible??? Thanks!

For more information about that channel's features and functionality including subtitles, you'll want to contact the channel provider support directly to inquire further. Many channels on Roku are developed and maintained by the channel provider themselves.

Thanks for your reply. I tried those things, but no change. NOTE that captions are *working*, the problem is that Japanese is no longer in the list. There are at least a dozen other choices, including English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, etc. -- but no Japanese.

Channels on Roku are developed and maintained by the channel developer themselves. We suggest reaching out to Disney and Netflix support teams to see if they have any additional settings or options within their device that may allow the functionality you are looking for.


Regards,
Karla

I too watch shows with Japanese subtitles and I find it odd that I can't find the option for Japanese subtitles when I use Disney plus on Roku, especially considering when I was using the Disney plus app on other platforms where Japanese subtitles was an option and I put the subtitles in that language. I'm using Disney plus on Roku and for some reason there's all these other languages available and somehow Japanese isn't listed?

Disney+: Upon checking here on my resources, it seems like our subtitles do rely on our viewers location and the availability, I do have a suggestion if you would prefer using the Japanese language you can try to edit your profile and change your preferred language to Japanese.

Disney+: Oh I see! Thank you for clarifying that out for me, regarding on the Roku device, we don't really know as to why the Japanese subtitles are not compatible with Disney+, it may be also possible that it's because Disney+ only offers limited subtitle option for US.

Netflix has increasingly high standards when it comes to subtitles (language translations) and closed captions (timed text). Localization has become imperative to ensure that viewers are not only able to understand the content but are able to read the text naturally in their own language. A considerable amount of research has also gone into the timing of the text to ensure readability.

Netflix serves more than 190 countries. How does it manage to serve all these countries, yet they do not speak the same language? You guessed it right! Captioning! No wonder closed captioning jobs Netflix are in high demand.

The statistics make captioning appear like magic for Netflix. Interestingly, it is such magic because a video meant for one language can now reach millions across the world. To understand the magic of captioning, look at the following statistics.

Netflix is poised to be the largest captioning client among streaming services to hit its target of half a billion subscribers and more than 400 million viewers by 2025. Luckily, these captioning experts will be working from home, relieving the company of the responsibility of hiring and facilitating. As such, everyone has an opportunity to work for one of the most lucrative and recognizable brands around the world.

Captioning involves the addition of subtitles to enhance viewership. It serves both translations as well as accommodating persons with hearing challenges. It means that a caption writer could be writing from English or translating first, then adding the captions in another language.

90f70e40cf