Cadmore media player playing video All are invited to research nexus
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
All are invited to research nexus
Description:
All are invited to research nexus
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/d8f1f3c9-6f8f-4200-897e-c826089eba19/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H20M44S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/d8f1f3c9-6f8f-4200-897e-c826089eba19
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/d8f1f3c9-6f8f-4200-897e-c826089eba19/All are invited to research nexus.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=HTF%2BQa%2BYXRVH3FmgefikaBbwDUXI48BX1GX%2BEaQ1OCw%3D&st=2024-11-21T08%3A44%3A30Z&se=2024-11-21T10%3A49%3A30Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
We'll start. So thank Susan, mike, Oscar, Lina and Dominic for being here and for these interesting presentations, addressing the challenge of metadata, completeness and strategies that their organizations are adopting to help expand contributions into the overall global record of Scholarship. So for the discussion session we have Lena's colleague from dulwich, Dominic Mitchell, who has over 20 years experience working with publishers and library communities and presenting him.
Because we had Lina for the presentation. And we have Dominic for the discussion. So Dominic also represents in the think tech submit initiative and is responsible for the Jasper initiative to preserve open access journals. He sits on the US Board of directors and is the secretary. So the idea of this discussion is to build up and develop on what was just shared by our speakers and come out with a couple of concrete ideas for us all to follow up on.
So we encourage you to share your thoughts and ideas and questions in the chat. So maybe to start, I would like to follow a little bit the path that Mike planted a little provocative. So I would like to maybe start since we don't have questions yet. And in the chat, maybe I would like to throw a provocative question here and I would like to hear from you, from you all.
Do you think the concept of scholarly record completeness is really an universal one? can we objectively dream and work together towards a global universal record when there are so many specific needs differences amongst the countries and the regions as we could just see different notions of content type cultural habits and different languages involved. What do you think we still need to work on collectively?
Who would like to start. Maybe since I was the provocateur, I can. I can. To me, what I wish would happen is that people could publish in the language they speak, in the language they know, and then that work could be accessed in a way that didn't require people to write everything in English.
That sort of hegemony of northern global North publishing standards is a major barrier. You know, in my field, the criticisms of a quasi villain, Jeffrey Beale, largely had to do with these journals don't look good. People publishing in languages that aren't the languages they speak sucks. Like, I can't imagine how a lot of English first language speakers would feel if they were asked to write a journal in French instead of in their native language.
So I think to me, if, if we can understand that global knowledge is multicultural, it is not English and we ask everybody else to jump through hoops, then the other problems can be solved, you know, in indexing and other things can be solved without hoisting all of that labor back onto the researchers. So that's kind of at least to me, to me that would be a good starting point.
An unlikely starting point. Thanks, Mike. Dominic yeah, I just like to follow up on what Mike said. First of all, when I was watching Mike's presentation, I thought, thank goodness for people like Mike. I mean, there's so much work. Yeah I mean, really so much work that goes into metadata. And then my second thought was, this is so much work for the people who are generating this, this content.
And I wondered if you're a researcher running a journal for love and not for money and you're on your own, how are you going to manage all of this? And it is, in fact, this whole concept of metadata, something that's come out of this northern kind of publishing process that we've created. I don't have the answer to that. But what Mike says about.
Wishing that journals could publish in their own language. That would be incredible. A dog. We because of a technical limitation, we can only display one language. But publishers, particularly oj's publishers who can provide their abstracts in Spanish, Portuguese and english, they try and upload everything to us and they get confused when only one language is displayed.
But then on the other side of the spectrum, we have a lot of publishers, particularly from Eastern Europe, who absolutely only want their content to be displayed in English because they think it's going to promote their journal better. They think it's going to get the research out there. And so we're sort of we're seeing two sides of this argument happening in front of us. I think, to answer your question, Ana, is the concept of the scholarly record of scholarly completeness really a universal one?
I think it would be great if it could be. But I just I just don't think that we're there yet. So would you like to comment on that? Yeah, I mean, I agree completely with. But both Mike and Dom have said, you know, I see it from working with. With organizations that.
You know, they struggle. Not even just publishing, but just to get support or to get help with their stuff in languages other than English. So we're still operating on that. And like I said, my presentation, it's, it's difficult for us to be able to. Provide guidance and support for everyone. But you know, I don't know if that's reinforcing the fact that we want everything done in english, but we're not trying to say it should be done in english, but it kind of it goes along with that as well.
Yeah if I can add if I can add to this, I mean, in Latin America, it's interesting because all the speakers we had today, excluding Oscar that is the editor of a specific journal has and works as well for crossref. But I mean those crossref and PCP PR organizations that are very present here in Latin America, they are doing, doing together and separately.
Great job on trying to overcome this issue, which is I mean, English is the lingua Franca. OK, that's fine. But how much are we missing of the global landscape when we only see this part of the output? Right and what quality of information also are we missing when we have to write in another language? So I think there is a lot to be done.
But for example, I mean, Seattle here in Latin America also is having a growing number of articles or even journals that are publishing exclusively in English for the same reason that was just mentioned that is supposed to give an end in effectively. It gives more visibility. But this is being made at the expense of the language of the original language, because it's very expensive for a journal to provide the translation.
So there are costs involved that journals in some regions cannot afford because they are because of the nature of the journals. There are University journals and or, as we were saying, journals that are being run by run by researchers that are doing this not for money. So, yeah, there is a lot to be done. There are a lot of challenges there.
I don't know if there are other comments or I have another question. Someone would like to make a comment on that. OK so. My other question is also provocative. Oh, sorry. There is a comment here from ranty and translating from one language to another might miss some crucial context because not everything can be translated properly.
Exactly so yeah, a language is not just a tool. Right it is a vehicle of a lot of cultural information that comes together with all of this, right? Yeah and there's that too. There's this translations are a particularly interesting problem because it's increasingly common that folks will do translations of an individual work related to an individual record. But in many cases, the translation is also in original work.
So sometimes you end up with situations where you've got translations of whole articles or translations of mediated or translations of half of the thing, but not translations of an entire thing. Or you've got transliteration from one language to another in a situation, or people publishing in character sets that they don't have clear translations or translations to accommodate. So the landscape for multilingual, this is the place where multilingual publishing is really multilingual.
It is really struggling. There aren't clear guidelines for all of the ways in which you should manage these things. And then sometimes people jump through a hoop like Google Scholar says, you know, your metadata should really just be whatever it should be in the language that the work is written in. But if you're providing translations for each of the works and each of those works are at their own individual publication, are you are you presenting three publications or one publication or what do you what are you providing?
And it's just not clear to the people who are doing this labor really are jumping through these hoops to make their work scene. You know, it's just like the idea of translating an article into three languages is just like what are incredible amount of labor that is like that's a huge amount of work. And also I think when you're using platforms that are based predominantly in english, then the assumption is that everything has to be in English.
I mean, drag was built in English and the search engine indexes English terms, we index terms from all sorts of languages. But you know, the whole interface is, is in English and that's something that we need to work on. But it gives the wrong impression, you know, even though you can use Google Chrome and it works very well in Google Chrome and you can translate people we've had user feedback where a user came to Asia and they had Indonesian setters, their Chrome language, and so Dodge showed up in Indonesian and it was, it was OK.
And then they tried to do Indonesian search terms and it returned absolutely no search results because the database is Elasticsearch and it's built in English and it's based on English terms. And I think there's AI think there is so much work that we can still do, like the platforms and the infrastructures to build on the work that we're already doing. Susan was talking about the different initiatives that crossref has with all of the different sponsors around the world.
I mean, I think that on its own has made such a huge difference. I know from talking to Susan and to Jenny that, you know, that. So many more people are now applying to get doulas. And having a Doi is such a great thing because that research is suddenly it's much more findable. But I just there's so much more that we can do to really understand how that metadata being generated.
You know, what was that process in the beginning? How how was this article born? Who's been working at the journal? How have they done it? In what hours have they been keeping? Well, I think the list is endless. And and did the metadata do the thing they were expecting it to do? Right like where I'm in this project, we got some funding on this metadata for everyone project.
That's me and Marco told me and Juan Pablo alperin and crossref help fund this project. And we're investigating a bunch of ways in which like metadata that was flagged as maybe not, not compliant or full or complete from crossref, they said, well, here are some problematic records that are missing some fields. And we went looking and a really interesting example was one from a Pakistani researcher where in this particular journal half of the names were in all caps and half of the names were in regular case.
And what we learned is that the names that were in all caps were faculty members, and the regular case names were students. And so they're trying to take existing metadata and apply meaning to a thing in a field that does not have that meaning. And sometimes people do like if there's a really great tweet about Vietnamese names and what family name and given name mean to Vietnamese communities and how people have to try to shoehorn cultural meaning into English language metadata field.
And that's also like that's part of the where's metadata born here are all of these problems in which we're asking other cultures to go first name, last name, which some cultures just have the one like it's not, it's not. OK so yeah, there's, there's a lot of this stuff I think. I to just echo what Mike said. I mean, we see that our forms are input set up for. Non-western names like Latin or Latin American names can have hyphenated names in some people.
Is it? Is it the family name? Is that the given name? What's the last name? And that can cause some confusion or like mix it. If in cultures that is just using one name. Well, does that go in the first name or the given name, the family name part of sort of when you're putting in metadata and I don't know not you know, I don't know all of the different platforms per say, but are they set up to capture the naming convention?
That isn't a Western naming convention. Oops I'm sorry. I was on you. Thank you, Susan. There is a comment here from Joe. Sorry if I missed this from the presentation, but I'm curious which disciplines. We are talking about.
Work the humanities science with very structured formats. Have the panel seen different differentiation across different disciplines? Someone who would like to answer this one. Sure we at doj, we certainly see we have more social science and humanities journals than we do science journals.
That's that's changed over the last five or six years. I think the metadata issues are the same. I don't think it really depends on the high level of discipline or which subject that you're publishing in. I do know that many, many of the science of the science, scientific, technical and medical articles that we get are in English. We haven't done any comparison against those two separate sort of groups to see if you know what the level of English is at.
So I don't know if Mike or Susan got any information on that. In my experience, yeah, I would say that it is mostly universal. I would think, at least from the metadata perspective. And each discipline has its own kind of unique baggage they bring to metadata in the first place. Like I've got a couple of journals that do geology who like to write their titles in all caps, for example.
So sometimes the disciplinary baggage causes metadata problems that aren't even related to translation, it's related to other things. I do think the issue of translation in meaning is probably more pronounced in the humanities, where the changing of a phrasing of a sentence can really make a pretty significant difference. But yeah, I would say I would say from a quality of metadata perspective and in the problems related to translation and multilingual metadata, I think those are pretty much universal.
Also hi, Joe. Hey Thanks. There is another. Comments from Daisy can consider looking into how government registries work. Hyphenated names are normally concatenated without the hyphens.
So for Garcia Herrera, it would be whoops. Sierra or it's just a comment. OK yes. I would add that governments aren't always necessarily capable of treating their own people with humility and humanity. So I don't know that I rely on that. Yeah we have ways to deal with name with these.
It is one of the ways but not everybody goes there and, and really uses the different capabilities that the tool offers. On the name with your beard or different names that you appear at in publications or. So there is, there is a lot of work to Yeah. 2 2 do on that. It is because of how computers are limited.
There is a comment here. It is because of how computers are limited by certain characters historically. Not necessarily because they were not nice. It can be. It can be both. Yeah, it's not excluded.
So I'm not sure at what time we have to finish. don't know if Mary Beth can help me with that. I was caught in the conversation and sure. Yeah so the goal was to finish by 145 so that we can all have a little break before 2 PM. But I don't want to shut you down. If you have if anyone has additional comments or questions, please. I'm happy to stay on.
Is there anything else you would like to add? Mike, Susan or someone from the way I didn't kill the conversation on it? No, no, no. So, OK, I think we can leave you to don't know about being a barcode. I almost have the same thing. And it is a little bit like being barcoded, but it turns out it's pretty convenient.
Me? exactly. So thank you very much for your humor, for your comments. And thank you, Dominic, Mike and Susan. Thank you, Mary Beth and everyone else for being with us today. Thank you, Anna. Thank you. Bye bye.
I
Segment:0 .
We'll start. So thank Susan, mike, Oscar, Lina and Dominic for being here and for these interesting presentations, addressing the challenge of metadata, completeness and strategies that their organizations are adopting to help expand contributions into the overall global record of Scholarship. So for the discussion session we have Lena's colleague from dulwich, Dominic Mitchell, who has over 20 years experience working with publishers and library communities and presenting him.
Because we had Lina for the presentation. And we have Dominic for the discussion. So Dominic also represents in the think tech submit initiative and is responsible for the Jasper initiative to preserve open access journals. He sits on the US Board of directors and is the secretary. So the idea of this discussion is to build up and develop on what was just shared by our speakers and come out with a couple of concrete ideas for us all to follow up on.
So we encourage you to share your thoughts and ideas and questions in the chat. So maybe to start, I would like to follow a little bit the path that Mike planted a little provocative. So I would like to maybe start since we don't have questions yet. And in the chat, maybe I would like to throw a provocative question here and I would like to hear from you, from you all.
Do you think the concept of scholarly record completeness is really an universal one? can we objectively dream and work together towards a global universal record when there are so many specific needs differences amongst the countries and the regions as we could just see different notions of content type cultural habits and different languages involved. What do you think we still need to work on collectively?
Who would like to start. Maybe since I was the provocateur, I can. I can. To me, what I wish would happen is that people could publish in the language they speak, in the language they know, and then that work could be accessed in a way that didn't require people to write everything in English.
That sort of hegemony of northern global North publishing standards is a major barrier. You know, in my field, the criticisms of a quasi villain, Jeffrey Beale, largely had to do with these journals don't look good. People publishing in languages that aren't the languages they speak sucks. Like, I can't imagine how a lot of English first language speakers would feel if they were asked to write a journal in French instead of in their native language.
So I think to me, if, if we can understand that global knowledge is multicultural, it is not English and we ask everybody else to jump through hoops, then the other problems can be solved, you know, in indexing and other things can be solved without hoisting all of that labor back onto the researchers. So that's kind of at least to me, to me that would be a good starting point.
An unlikely starting point. Thanks, Mike. Dominic yeah, I just like to follow up on what Mike said. First of all, when I was watching Mike's presentation, I thought, thank goodness for people like Mike. I mean, there's so much work. Yeah I mean, really so much work that goes into metadata. And then my second thought was, this is so much work for the people who are generating this, this content.
And I wondered if you're a researcher running a journal for love and not for money and you're on your own, how are you going to manage all of this? And it is, in fact, this whole concept of metadata, something that's come out of this northern kind of publishing process that we've created. I don't have the answer to that. But what Mike says about.
Wishing that journals could publish in their own language. That would be incredible. A dog. We because of a technical limitation, we can only display one language. But publishers, particularly oj's publishers who can provide their abstracts in Spanish, Portuguese and english, they try and upload everything to us and they get confused when only one language is displayed.
But then on the other side of the spectrum, we have a lot of publishers, particularly from Eastern Europe, who absolutely only want their content to be displayed in English because they think it's going to promote their journal better. They think it's going to get the research out there. And so we're sort of we're seeing two sides of this argument happening in front of us. I think, to answer your question, Ana, is the concept of the scholarly record of scholarly completeness really a universal one?
I think it would be great if it could be. But I just I just don't think that we're there yet. So would you like to comment on that? Yeah, I mean, I agree completely with. But both Mike and Dom have said, you know, I see it from working with. With organizations that.
You know, they struggle. Not even just publishing, but just to get support or to get help with their stuff in languages other than English. So we're still operating on that. And like I said, my presentation, it's, it's difficult for us to be able to. Provide guidance and support for everyone. But you know, I don't know if that's reinforcing the fact that we want everything done in english, but we're not trying to say it should be done in english, but it kind of it goes along with that as well.
Yeah if I can add if I can add to this, I mean, in Latin America, it's interesting because all the speakers we had today, excluding Oscar that is the editor of a specific journal has and works as well for crossref. But I mean those crossref and PCP PR organizations that are very present here in Latin America, they are doing, doing together and separately.
Great job on trying to overcome this issue, which is I mean, English is the lingua Franca. OK, that's fine. But how much are we missing of the global landscape when we only see this part of the output? Right and what quality of information also are we missing when we have to write in another language? So I think there is a lot to be done.
But for example, I mean, Seattle here in Latin America also is having a growing number of articles or even journals that are publishing exclusively in English for the same reason that was just mentioned that is supposed to give an end in effectively. It gives more visibility. But this is being made at the expense of the language of the original language, because it's very expensive for a journal to provide the translation.
So there are costs involved that journals in some regions cannot afford because they are because of the nature of the journals. There are University journals and or, as we were saying, journals that are being run by run by researchers that are doing this not for money. So, yeah, there is a lot to be done. There are a lot of challenges there.
I don't know if there are other comments or I have another question. Someone would like to make a comment on that. OK so. My other question is also provocative. Oh, sorry. There is a comment here from ranty and translating from one language to another might miss some crucial context because not everything can be translated properly.
Exactly so yeah, a language is not just a tool. Right it is a vehicle of a lot of cultural information that comes together with all of this, right? Yeah and there's that too. There's this translations are a particularly interesting problem because it's increasingly common that folks will do translations of an individual work related to an individual record. But in many cases, the translation is also in original work.
So sometimes you end up with situations where you've got translations of whole articles or translations of mediated or translations of half of the thing, but not translations of an entire thing. Or you've got transliteration from one language to another in a situation, or people publishing in character sets that they don't have clear translations or translations to accommodate. So the landscape for multilingual, this is the place where multilingual publishing is really multilingual.
It is really struggling. There aren't clear guidelines for all of the ways in which you should manage these things. And then sometimes people jump through a hoop like Google Scholar says, you know, your metadata should really just be whatever it should be in the language that the work is written in. But if you're providing translations for each of the works and each of those works are at their own individual publication, are you are you presenting three publications or one publication or what do you what are you providing?
And it's just not clear to the people who are doing this labor really are jumping through these hoops to make their work scene. You know, it's just like the idea of translating an article into three languages is just like what are incredible amount of labor that is like that's a huge amount of work. And also I think when you're using platforms that are based predominantly in english, then the assumption is that everything has to be in English.
I mean, drag was built in English and the search engine indexes English terms, we index terms from all sorts of languages. But you know, the whole interface is, is in English and that's something that we need to work on. But it gives the wrong impression, you know, even though you can use Google Chrome and it works very well in Google Chrome and you can translate people we've had user feedback where a user came to Asia and they had Indonesian setters, their Chrome language, and so Dodge showed up in Indonesian and it was, it was OK.
And then they tried to do Indonesian search terms and it returned absolutely no search results because the database is Elasticsearch and it's built in English and it's based on English terms. And I think there's AI think there is so much work that we can still do, like the platforms and the infrastructures to build on the work that we're already doing. Susan was talking about the different initiatives that crossref has with all of the different sponsors around the world.
I mean, I think that on its own has made such a huge difference. I know from talking to Susan and to Jenny that, you know, that. So many more people are now applying to get doulas. And having a Doi is such a great thing because that research is suddenly it's much more findable. But I just there's so much more that we can do to really understand how that metadata being generated.
You know, what was that process in the beginning? How how was this article born? Who's been working at the journal? How have they done it? In what hours have they been keeping? Well, I think the list is endless. And and did the metadata do the thing they were expecting it to do? Right like where I'm in this project, we got some funding on this metadata for everyone project.
That's me and Marco told me and Juan Pablo alperin and crossref help fund this project. And we're investigating a bunch of ways in which like metadata that was flagged as maybe not, not compliant or full or complete from crossref, they said, well, here are some problematic records that are missing some fields. And we went looking and a really interesting example was one from a Pakistani researcher where in this particular journal half of the names were in all caps and half of the names were in regular case.
And what we learned is that the names that were in all caps were faculty members, and the regular case names were students. And so they're trying to take existing metadata and apply meaning to a thing in a field that does not have that meaning. And sometimes people do like if there's a really great tweet about Vietnamese names and what family name and given name mean to Vietnamese communities and how people have to try to shoehorn cultural meaning into English language metadata field.
And that's also like that's part of the where's metadata born here are all of these problems in which we're asking other cultures to go first name, last name, which some cultures just have the one like it's not, it's not. OK so yeah, there's, there's a lot of this stuff I think. I to just echo what Mike said. I mean, we see that our forms are input set up for. Non-western names like Latin or Latin American names can have hyphenated names in some people.
Is it? Is it the family name? Is that the given name? What's the last name? And that can cause some confusion or like mix it. If in cultures that is just using one name. Well, does that go in the first name or the given name, the family name part of sort of when you're putting in metadata and I don't know not you know, I don't know all of the different platforms per say, but are they set up to capture the naming convention?
That isn't a Western naming convention. Oops I'm sorry. I was on you. Thank you, Susan. There is a comment here from Joe. Sorry if I missed this from the presentation, but I'm curious which disciplines. We are talking about.
Work the humanities science with very structured formats. Have the panel seen different differentiation across different disciplines? Someone who would like to answer this one. Sure we at doj, we certainly see we have more social science and humanities journals than we do science journals.
That's that's changed over the last five or six years. I think the metadata issues are the same. I don't think it really depends on the high level of discipline or which subject that you're publishing in. I do know that many, many of the science of the science, scientific, technical and medical articles that we get are in English. We haven't done any comparison against those two separate sort of groups to see if you know what the level of English is at.
So I don't know if Mike or Susan got any information on that. In my experience, yeah, I would say that it is mostly universal. I would think, at least from the metadata perspective. And each discipline has its own kind of unique baggage they bring to metadata in the first place. Like I've got a couple of journals that do geology who like to write their titles in all caps, for example.
So sometimes the disciplinary baggage causes metadata problems that aren't even related to translation, it's related to other things. I do think the issue of translation in meaning is probably more pronounced in the humanities, where the changing of a phrasing of a sentence can really make a pretty significant difference. But yeah, I would say I would say from a quality of metadata perspective and in the problems related to translation and multilingual metadata, I think those are pretty much universal.
Also hi, Joe. Hey Thanks. There is another. Comments from Daisy can consider looking into how government registries work. Hyphenated names are normally concatenated without the hyphens.
So for Garcia Herrera, it would be whoops. Sierra or it's just a comment. OK yes. I would add that governments aren't always necessarily capable of treating their own people with humility and humanity. So I don't know that I rely on that. Yeah we have ways to deal with name with these.
It is one of the ways but not everybody goes there and, and really uses the different capabilities that the tool offers. On the name with your beard or different names that you appear at in publications or. So there is, there is a lot of work to Yeah. 2 2 do on that. It is because of how computers are limited.
There is a comment here. It is because of how computers are limited by certain characters historically. Not necessarily because they were not nice. It can be. It can be both. Yeah, it's not excluded.
So I'm not sure at what time we have to finish. don't know if Mary Beth can help me with that. I was caught in the conversation and sure. Yeah so the goal was to finish by 145 so that we can all have a little break before 2 PM. But I don't want to shut you down. If you have if anyone has additional comments or questions, please. I'm happy to stay on.
Is there anything else you would like to add? Mike, Susan or someone from the way I didn't kill the conversation on it? No, no, no. So, OK, I think we can leave you to don't know about being a barcode. I almost have the same thing. And it is a little bit like being barcoded, but it turns out it's pretty convenient.
Me? exactly. So thank you very much for your humor, for your comments. And thank you, Dominic, Mike and Susan. Thank you, Mary Beth and everyone else for being with us today. Thank you, Anna. Thank you. Bye bye.
I
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode