Every so often the debate on subtitle reading speed resurfaces.

Usually this is because someone does a study and finds that Deaf and hard of hearing people have difficulty understanding everything in subtitles. Yet, over the last 30 years, subtitle reading speeds have consistently become faster and faster. Why? Is it some conspiracy to keep Deaf people in the dark? Is it big businesses cutting corners?

Actually, no.

The reason reading speeds have become consistently faster the world over is because those who draw up quality standards or produce subtitles talk to the organisations that represent Deaf and hard of hearing people and ask them what they want. And the reality is that user representatives are tending to prioritise having subtitles as close to verbatim as possible, even though they are aware that some of the time, the subtitles are too fast to read.

Why is that, you may ask?

Well, the reason is simple and fundamentally human. People who are Deaf or hard of hearing don’t want subtitlers or academics deciding what grammatical structure they’ll find easiest to understand, or replacing vocabulary with simpler synonyms they think will be easier to process conceptually. They want the subtitles to be as near verbatim as is reasonable because what they want is equal access. Hearing viewers may not hear every word that’s spoken when watching TV (for all sorts of reasons) and yet dialogue/scripts aren’t adapted in order to adhere to a maximum spoken word-rate. In the same vein, many Deaf and hard of hearing viewers don’t want text adapted on screens simply to comply with a maximum reading speed.

Now of course subtitling involves translating oral to written language and it’s impossible and undesirable to have absolutely literal subtitles, but many users would rather risk subtitles being too fast than risk opening a door which could lead to the sort of adaptation we used to see, which simplified language. This is why the maximum reading speeds in the revised Spanish quality standard Norma UNE 153010:2012 are recommendations, not rules, and the importance of verbatim text is emphasised.

Now, everyone knows that in order to be legible, subtitlers and respeakers have to adapt sometimes; but my understanding is that viewers want that adaptation kept to an absolute minimum. Although Ofcom guidelines in the UK recommend reading speeds of 160-180 wpm for pre-recorded programmes, and state that live subtitles faster than 200 wpm would be difficult for many viewers to follow, a recent white paper published by Media Access Australia notes that there is no global consensus. The paper looks at provisions on reading speed in published subtitling quality standards around the world and points out that in many countries “much of the caption-viewing audience prefers to have a verbatim or near-verbatim rendering of the audio”.

What about subtitles for kids? Well, the desire is the same for adults as it is for children – for subtitles to be as close to verbatim as possible. However, as the white paper points out, many quality standards state that subtitles for children should be delivered more slowly. The Spanish standard is an exception in this case as it does not specify a slower reading speed for children’s programmes on the basis that vocabulary and grammar used is likely to be age-appropriate. That said, subtitlers in Spain tend to allow longer reading times when subtitling for children. What most do not do, though, is adapt and simplify grammatical structures, because this was the consensus reached in the revision of the Norma UNE.

At the end of the day, although studies of reading speed can give us recommendations and improve subtitle quality, subtitling is not scientific. It depends upon trained, experienced professionals being able to juggle a lot of different priorities and make a call. Sometimes, this may mean choosing to have subtitles with a slightly higher reading speed rather than lose valuable information. At other times, it may mean opting to edit down because the rhythm of the last few minutes of subtitled dialogue has been frenetic, or to sacrifice audio synchronicity for the sake of maintaining word order and verbatim text.

I also think it’s really important to remember that the primary function of subtitles is to deliver an important service to Deaf and hard of hearing people. Yes, it is an interesting research topic but primarily, this is a service that helps to make content accessible to as wide an audience as possible. And when drawing up standards that define what those subtitles should be like, it is crucial to listen to the people chosen to represent the audience – even if it means that some subtitles might be a struggle to keep up with sometimes.

Diana Sanchez, General Manager, Red Bee Media Spain.