Web 2.0 e video 2.0 (Mojiti)
Il 31 gennaio 2007, Michael Wesh ha inserito un video intitolato "Web 2.0... The Machine is Us/ing Us" su You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE:un corso sul Web 2.0 in meno di cinque minuti. E lo ha anche inserito in Mojiti, un'applicazione che consente di "scrivere su un video": scrivere in testo normale, copiabile, dove si può cliccare sui link.
Qui provo a mostrare come funziona Mojiti, utilizzandoil filmato di Michael Wesh.
Formats available: Quicktime (.mov), MPEG4 Video (.mp4)
2 commenti:
Claude:
In a comment on one of my blog posts Seamless Services?: MySpots, you asked "How did you manage to copy your whole series of spots, please?"
To keep it in context, I described how I did it there.
Thank you for your help: I think I posted what follows in the comments to your blog, but it doesn't show, so I'll repost it here:
Thank you for all the explanations. The "showing" way is great. You see, I'm interested in making SMIL accessible captioning, and a whole captured spot set might easily be translated into the .txt file that goes with the .smil file.
Re Jesper's transcript: actually, he invited me to the Google Docs page where he was working on it. But working together at the same time on the same Docs page doesn't work well, so I started the Mojiti transcription spot set and then copy-pasted the spots one by one into the Docs page. I will continue the transcription spot set as you say it makes sense.
It's been a great experience for me. First and foremost because of the intrinsic interest of Michael Wesch's video, of course. But also because it demonstrated what was a hope for me: the possibility to informally yet efficiently collaborate on captioning.
When you caption alone, it takes a while to get into the automatic routines that speed things up. And then after a while - as when you play an instrument - automatisms go awry, and you have to stop, then start again, etc.
Yet captioning - or at least transcribing if you can't caption - is one of the W3C accessibility requirements for multimedia - and a matter of common decency and common sense.
And then there is the issue of cultural diversity. Doing captioning and translated captioning is damned expensive - or entails scandalous exploitation of workers. See http://castingwords.com/: $0.45 per minute of audio if you regularly subscribe to their service. Which means ca $0.9 per minute of actual work (1). Minus, in all likelihood, the margins kept by CastingWords and mturk.com to which CastingWords outsources the transcripts.
So in a way, people voluntarily doing transcriptions using Mojiti would undercut services like CastingWords/mturk. And this might translate into their laying off people who need that money, even if they are shamefully underpaid.
But on the other hand, there are podcasts that no one is likely to volunteer to transcribe on Mojiti, and whose authors still want to get transcribed. Let them pay a proper price or get exposed for exploitation. And conversely, there are language communities big enough to have enough volunteers to do a translated transcript for crucial audio, but not affluent enough to afford commercial transcription, even at the present CastingWords rate.
I don't have the resources or training to do an economic analysis of - let alone a projection from - these data. Let's hope some university, or UNESCO does. UNESCO blathers a lot about the importance of cultural diversity, so let them go to the nitty-gritty involved. And let them do it in a wiki, publicly. Not in an experts' commission that will take so long that by then, progresses in automated voice-to-text and inter-language translations will have made their findings obsolete.
Best
Claude
(1) A 5/1 - 6/1 ratio between the actual time required for a transcription and the length of the audio was mentioned some time ago by several transcribers on the Turkers' CastingWord forum
Posta un commento