Sign versus captions

P

Passivist

New Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
293
Reaction score
0
A current debate in the UK causing raised eyebrows is the clash of access demands on media (TV). Apart from two dedicated sign-language programs in the UK the rest all use subtiling/captions. Signers demanding more access have been met with WHY ? when they can read subtitles/captions (Which is near 100% on the BBC).

Response have been indiognation calls about discrimination, but again met with you ARE getting access,and a 'preference' for sign language doesn't mean you are excluded it, because you have text. A survey in the UK wanted to know which sign ws used for a set of everyday words, there were at leats 8 variations of each sign, this was quoted as why signed access was not thought a priority, too much variation,and, deaf opposed avatars too.

If you are literate deaf, then the UK provides perhaps the best access in the world for deaf people. Deaf state they are NOT illiterate but want choice, but is choice relevant ? if there is a provem sector of deaf sign users that CANNOT folow the printed word, can they utilise sign on TV ? So far the numerical argument has not met the criteria for signed access in the UK. The figures quoted are always 'global, they include everyone deaf signing or not and sate this figure represents a huge demand for signed programs, non-signers are saying this is not true which has split the access world for deaf/Deaf into two camps again.

If you have captions do you need sign ? (Do NOT include preference unless you are suggesting EVERYONE's personal preferences should be included in media and you are prepared to pay for it) ! The UK has near 500,000 residents for whom English isn't a primary communication, only deaf people have been given day to day access. Acquired deaf people said an in-vision signer (interpreter), offer conflict to them competing with the visual program itself, and they don't want in-vision or they couldn't watch the program. They woul dsupport a 'hidden' option whereby a button is pressed to show the interpreting, but also would remove it too.

Do hearing viewers have a right to a clear screen too ?
 
I rather have captions than signing. It helps me improve my reading skills. ;)
 
One thing to note is that captions are far more accessible than signers. In-vision signing is only open to people who sign, who, for the most part are deaf. Captions on the other hand, can be used by deaf/HOH, English as a Second Language learners, hearing people who have the TV muted, etc. I believe that you can even get braille caption decoders. So from a practicality standpoint, I think captions are superior; they're cheaper to provide (I think) and they are usable by a broader audience.
 
Deaf pple demand that everybody take under consideration problems they have with communicating with the rest of the world. they demand hearing pple should learn ASL.
Wait a minute. How about if you look further than your own nose? they are pple like me who are HoH kind meaning they can't hear and can't sign.
Forget signing- leave CC alone.

Think about somebody else but yourself for a change.

Fuzzy
 
Signing on TV or in a little sphere on the tv is a novelty. In the long run it is a joke. I prefer captions or subtitles, I prefer to know EXACTLY what people are saying. When someone interprets a conversation or dialogue, there is too much to translate or the translation is inaccurate or loosely translated and every interpreter translates/ views it differently. I understand if some strong ASL users have subpar english, but that is their own fault, including their family's and their shcool, for not pushing english more as they grew up. My mom pushed me to read books at a very young age, and I benefit greatly from that with pretty proficent english, and proficent ASL usage. My ASL skills come from where I went to school, CSD Fremont. If I had never gone to CSDF, and went mainstreaming, I would be a SEE or SimCom user today. I have the ability to communicate with different people, using different styles and levels of communication. If you sign ASL, I will sign ASL in a converstation with you. If otherwise, I will adjust, and it is without thought or hesistation that I do this. I believe in communication, not being an ASL elitist.

"How about you look further than your own nose?" lol, good one.
 
With that, I would have preferred the captions over the sign on the television. I do remember seeing some signing on the Television in the early 80's (that was when c.c. was fairly new) I recall that I didn't get every thing of what has been happening on the television, so and on. So yeah, the captions does exceed and improve your reading skills, vocabulary skills, spelling, so and on. Even though the captions does help the hearing people with their reading skills, etc.

With that, if there was BOTH on the screen, I don't think I would be able to enjoy watching a show on the television be cause it would take up some more spaces on the screen and it'd be distracting.

I think in a way it is nice to have signs on the television yes, because it will help those who are illerate but at the same time, that is what caption is for, to help you be literate.
 
In the UK the debate has polarised more or less into sign-language being viewed as a preference, and captions/titles as a proven NEED. E.G if deaf individuals communicate on 3 levels i.e. sign, lip-reading and text, which should have priority, given funds are finite ? Text/captions that near 100% can follow, or sign which is about (In the UK), 3-5% dependant sign users only ? Should those who depend on lip-reading be excluded ? The UK deaf programs don't provide clear lip-speakers stating this is oralism and discriminates against sign users, it is the ambiguity of access that seems to be the issue, and the suggestion that sign-language IS the primary communication medium for all deaf. It is the preferred option, of a minority of deaf, not a primary access one ? It is academic to a large degree, given there are simply insufficent qualified interpreters to do the job. Hence no ASL/BSL channel.
 
Back
Top