The Production of Text Alternatives for Video Recordings in European Parliaments

Introduction

Since 2020, the European Union’s Web Accessibility Directive (2016/2102) has required that audio and video content on public websites must be accompanied by text alternatives in order to make them accessible for all, including people with disabilities. So far, there has not been much information on how this regulation has affected parliaments. In this article, we investigate how national parliaments in Europe make their text alternatives.

We conducted a survey in December 2023 with the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD). Of the 28 respondents, 21 gave permission to use their answers for this study. For the analysis, we generalised and anonymised the results, so that individual participants cannot be connected to the reported answers. Methodologically, we combined quantitative and qualitative approaches.

The following parliaments gave permission to use their results for this research: Austria, Nationalrat; Belgium, Senaat; Bulgaria, Народно събрание; Cyprus, Βουλή των Αντιπροσώπων Voulī́ tōn Antiprosṓpōn; Czech Republic, Poslanecká sněmovna Parlamentu České republiky; Denmark, Folketinget; Estonia, Riigikogu; Finland, Eduskunta; France, Sénat; Germany, Bundestag; Ireland, Houses of the Oireachtas; Latvia, Saeima; Lithuania, Seimas; The Netherlands, Tweede Kamer; Poland, Senat; Portugal, Assembleia da República; Romania, Camera Deputaților; Slovakia, Národná rada Slovenskej republiky; Slovenia, Državni zbor Republike Slovenije; Spain, Congreso de los Diputados; Sweden, Riksdag.

All participants were EU countries. From the bicameral parliaments, there was a response from only one of the chambers. Of the 27 EU member nations, six were absent from the study: Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxemburg and Malta.

Required or not?

The survey began by asking participants whether web page accessibility was a requirement for them. Despite the Web Accessibility Directive, only just over half (12 out of 21) answered that text alternatives were required. Of those, nine parliaments answered that their practice resulted from their own rules of procedure or was a voluntary decision. This raised the further question of whether the other parliaments exclude themselves from the definition of “public sector body” as given in the directive, or whether there are other reasons why web page accessibility was not a requirement for them. It is possible that, in some countries, the parliament is seen as independent from any outside control or supervision and therefore cannot be restricted by the directive.

Videos and their text alternatives

European parliaments publish a variety of videos on their websites, ranging from plenary sessions to public committee meetings and hearings, seminars, press conferences, educational and administrative videos, and social media clips. Most parliaments publish these videos permanently, although temporary publication was mentioned in connection with some news and conference videos or media clips. Many of the parliaments publish the videos on their own websites or on a separate video platform, while some use external services such as YouTube, Facebook and Instagram.

As figure 1 shows, all of the 21 parliaments that answered the survey provide a text alternative for the plenary session, such as an official transcript.  The second most common video category was public meetings or hearings by committees, which were provided with a text alternative in 62% (13) of the parliaments.  Five participants responded that they also provide a text alternative for other parliamentary events such as seminars, press conferences and special events. Six answered that they make text alternatives for information videos or social media clips.

The parliamentary text alternatives fall into several conventional types (see figure 2).

All the parliaments provide an official transcript for some videos, such as for plenary sessions or committee meetings. Nine parliaments (43%) answered that they make manual captions for selected videos after the event, while four reported using live subtitling in some cases. Three parliaments provide AI-generated automatic captions which are not edited afterwards. There were also single remarks about summaries and press notes used as text alternatives.

Technologies and techniques from stenography to automatic captioning

A variety of technologies and techniques are used in the making of text alternatives, including stenography, typing with a regular keyboard and the use of automatic speech recognition (ASR), either straight from the audio or with the method of respeaking. According to our survey, ASR was used in reporting, captioning and when synchronising the transcript to video. The respeaking method is used in reporting and live subtitling.

Three parliaments mentioned making automatic captions with artificial intelligence for selected videos without editing or manual synchronisation. Several parliaments stated that they are testing this method, or are at least following the development of the field, indicating that automatic captioning is a rising trend in parliaments. One respondent answered that they use automatic captions as the first version of the text alternative and then replace it later with an official one made and revised manually.

Although automatic captions are an attractive option, several parliaments reported that they were not satisfied with the quality of the output after testing automatic captioning. One parliament uses the YouTube captioning tool with a disclaimer that recommends that the viewer consults the official transcript for the correct formulation.

Organisation of work

According to the survey, text alternatives are primarily made by a parliament’s own staff. Four participants answered that they use freelancers or a purchased service for text alternatives other than the official transcript. Text alternatives are most often made by the stenographic or reporting offices, although captions are sometimes produced by, for example, the communications or media unit. The number of staff involved in making the text alternatives ranged from 10 to 45. The difference in number may be the result of various factors, including the size of the parliament and the workload assigned to staff. It is also important to note that not all participants considered the official transcript as a text alternative and answered only in relation to other text alternatives, such as captions.

The schedule of text alternatives also varies across parliaments. Of the 11 parliaments that answered the relevant question, five said that they publish the text alternative within one day; four said that they publish it within a week; two between one and two weeks; and one after two weeks. It is evident, however, that some participants answered in relation to text alternatives other than the official transcript. Since different videos and text alternatives are prioritised differently, there may be big differences in scheduling as well. For example, we counted one response twice as regards scheduling, because the parliament in question stated that official reports are published within one day, but captions are within three weeks.

Criteria, supervision and feedback

Most parliaments answered that, when making text alternatives, they follow only internal criteria decided by themselves. Five parliaments use their own criteria for their official report but follow national guidelines when making captions. Two said that they had received external criteria from a national accessibility authority. In total, eight parliaments answered that their text alternatives are supervised by an external authority.

According to the survey responses, there was only limited feedback about text alternatives from supervisors or the public. Feedback from supervisors included criticism for not meeting the requirements, with one participant stating that their supervisor had complained that the official verbatim report did not meet the accessibility requirements outlined in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Feedback from the public included focus-group discussions, tests, customer panels and messages from citizens. There was general satisfaction that accessibility was being addressed, but also recurring criticism about the lack of captions or live subtitles. In addition, one parliament mentioned that a focus group had preferred automatic captions to live subtitles because, in their view, professional subtitlers summarised the speech too much.

Conclusions

Parliaments across Europe use several types of text alternatives for videos, from verbatim reports to live subtitles. To produce them, parliaments use various technologies and techniques, including stenography and ASR. Automatic captions made by artificial intelligence are a growing trend. There is great variety in how parliaments organise and schedule their work and what kind of criteria they follow. There has not been much feedback from the public or from any external supervising institution. Also, interestingly, there are different definitions of the main concept, since not all survey participants considered the verbatim report as a text alternative in their responses.

Eero Voutilainen is Tiro’s editor-in-chief. He also leads the cross-administrative linguistic accessibility team in the Finnish Parliament.

Riikka Kuronen is a parliamentary reporter in the Finnish Parliament specialising in text alternatives and automatic speech recognition.