Signers should be a red button service, not just plonked on random shows. There doesn't seem to be any schedule to it, they just pop up randomly.
No they do not have signing in random shows at random times, almost all signed programming is in specifically designated programme blocks in the early hours of the morning.
All I hear on this thread is "Waaaaaaaaaaah deaf people ruin telly for me!"
Get over yourselves.
You seem unable to distinguish between observation and complaint.
I can't watch tv with an on-screen signer - I'd be similarly unable to watch even if it wasn't a signer, but was an ad or another graphic of some kind. That is a personal observation, not a complaint. Well done however for pointing out just how warm hearted, equitable and right on you consider yourself to be
P.S. Not sure what 'get over yourself' means, however if it means what I imagine it does, perhaps it's the 'right on' among us who should be doing a spot of self getting-over
Signers should be a red button service, not just plonked on random shows. There doesn't seem to be any schedule to it, they just pop up randomly.
Agreed. I find it irritating trying to watch programmes with signers in the corner. It is only right however that signers should be provided for a certain number of shows. Would it really be that difficult for TV companies to put either the programme with a signer or even the original unsigned programme on the red button ?
Signers should be a red button service, not just plonked on random shows. There doesn't seem to be any schedule to it, they just pop up randomly.
There's not enough bandwidth to accommodate a red button service for signers otherwise there would be, just think of the amount of channels we have as it is, they would need doubling.
As for random scheduling, the EPG on freeview has SL after the prog details to identify sign language is going to be used so take note of it.
Agreed. I find it irritating trying to watch programmes with signers in the corner. It is only right however that signers should be provided for a certain number of shows. Would it really be that difficult for TV companies to put either the programme with a signer or even the original unsigned programme on the red button ?
Yes and nigh impossible given the bandwidth available.
I kind of knew when I posted the thread that some folks would choose to interpret it as an attack on deaf people.even though it WASNT what was going on at all. Well done youre all so much better and caring than me who is obviously the biggest**** that ever drew breath. Maybe i,ll start deliberately misinterpreting posts just so I can show how jolly well " caring " and better than others I am. One last time I wasnt and never would have a go at deaf people , why would anybody do that.? Like I say , wilful misinterpretation and poor .
Agreed. I find it irritating trying to watch programmes with signers in the corner. It is only right however that signers should be provided for a certain number of shows. Would it really be that difficult for TV companies to put either the programme with a signer or even the original unsigned programme on the red button ?
As I and other have pointed out it is not possible to have SL as a closed service .... so let us say that it is a red button service .
Let us start with the Public corporation PSB - it does not have a red button service so would need to do something with its non PSB channels on the PSB mux - likewise for the larger publicly quoted company which has a PSB license - and the other Publicly quoted PSB has no extra space on PSB mux....
But the BBC has a red button .... which has we all know is NOT a channel....
so let us say that the BBC puts SL from its 10 channels out on this route - that would take over half the airtime on that stream .... squeezing out other things......
and it may mean that the BBC trust would see this as a Channel - which may mean that it would not be allowed as it would not meet a PVT - as it is as effective to use the night hours..... and not incur extra play out/distribution costs .
as far as MIA goes - as outlined above it could be construed that the BBC which has control of its mux was being anti competitive....
Having said that I was party to discussions about starting the SL service on a shared basis between two of the other 3 PSB and the BBC - but the logistics of scheduling got very very fraught to work out a fair and equitable way of doing it - and it all costs money .. and at the time bandwdth was limited..... and some did not like their competitors playing out their programmes!
In the future connected red button may be a means of doing SL ...... but this is not a broadcast means so primary legislation will need to be changed... (and at the moment only the BBC has this technology... but <free-time> or You-view could also be used)
Shoot me now but why ? Im sat watching a documentary and once again im finding that I cant as im hopelessly distracted/irritated beyond belief by the signer on the bottom right of my screen. Its not even as though the signers are there for every programme, It kind of smacks of the worst kind of tokenism really and whats wrong with sub titles anyway ? My favourite was the signer who was plonked right over the final letter on Countdown.....partiicularly brilliant that one. If this is all thats wrong with my day I guess im lucky but is it unreasonable of me to be irritated by this ?
Tokenism? Subtitles? Wow.
1. deaf and sign language users pay full TV licensing fees and they're entitled to a service they could use. They aren't even offered a discount like the ones for blind people and OAPs.
2. if a programme has a BSL interpreter in a corner, it usually means there's one without. Clue: the BSL version tends to be broadcast after midnight and before 8AM. Why? Because people like you don't like seeing BSL-provided programmes.
That's the crappy end of a deal for deaf and sign language users. You get to watch 22 hours' worth of TV programming without BSL per day, and they get to enjoy just 120 minutes' worth of BSL-provided TV programming per day or rather, night.
3. Asking why don't BSL users watch subtitles is like asking why doesn't a French person read English subtitles. Subtitles and sign language are two separate languages. BSL is a language in its own right. Has little to do with the English language, written and spoken.
Can't say I've ever felt that distracted by them. But then I don't have the attention span of a gnat.
Why does this subject attract such negative and sarcastic comments I wonder? I certainly don't have the attention span of a gnat :mad: but still maintain that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to provide a separate output for signed programmes. All the excuses put against this are pretty feeble when all is said and done.
Anyway what was I saying ? ...............
1. deaf and sign language users pay full TV licensing fees and they're entitled to a service they could use. They aren't even offered a discount like the ones for blind people and OAPs.
2. if a programme has a BSL interpreter in a corner, it usually means there's one without. Clue: the BSL version tends to be broadcast after midnight and before 8AM. Why? Because people like you don't like seeing BSL-provided programmes.
That's the crappy end of a deal for deaf and sign language users. You get to watch 22 hours' worth of TV programming without BSL per day, and they get to enjoy just 120 minutes' worth of BSL-provided TV programming per day or rather, night.
3. Asking why don't BSL users watch subtitles is like asking why doesn't a French person read English subtitles. Subtitles and sign language are two separate languages. BSL is a language in its own right. Has little to do with the English language, written and spoken.
4. Please don't be such a selfish dick.
Honest I took all your well reasonable comments on board then I got to point 4. On a point of information the world is full of selfish dicks . Thats a big part of whats wrong with it , im not one of them. Please see the " wilful misinterpretation " post above,
Honest I took all your well reasonable comments on board then I got to point 4. On a point of information the world is full of selfish dicks . Thats a big part of whats wrong with it , im not one of them. Please see the " wilful misinterpretation " post above,
I do apologise for number 4. I was hugely annoyed by those dodgy word choices, e.g. tokenism, which is something a selfish dick would and does usually say. I found the word choice offensive, especially when we know that in spite of this year being 2013, deaf people and BSL users still have a very limited access to BSL on TV. The limit hasn't changed since the 1960s, in fact.
Even so, it was low of me to call you that anyway. Sorry about that.
I do apologise for number 4. I was hugely annoyed by those dodgy word choices, e.g. tokenism, which is something a selfish dick would and does usually say. I found the word choice offensive, especially when we know that in spite of this year being 2013, deaf people and BSL users still have a very limited access to BSL on TV. The limit hasn't changed since the 1960s, in fact.
Even so, it was low of me to call you that anyway. Sorry about that.
Its ok , really it is and you did make some points that I think are well pertinent. Im betting that were actually more in agreement than not .
If I'm up late, I don't mind too much having a signer, but I do wish they would wear darkish clothing.
A while ago I saw a signer wearing a bright red jumper, and I found it hard to concentrate on the program.
What bugs me about the sign language on TV is that they reduce the size of the video image on the screen, presumably in order to make room to accommodate the signer, yet they cover up half the video with the damn signer.
If I'm up late, I don't mind too much having a signer, but I do wish they would wear darkish clothing.
A while ago I saw a signer wearing a bright red jumper, and I found it hard to concentrate on the program.
That's surprising. Sign language interpreters are usually discouraged from wearing clothes in loud colours or distracting textile patterns. It's a strain on eyes for BSL users and watchers, so your annoyance is fully justified in that case.
How many people who have issues with the signing are actually deaf? it seems to me that these programmes with signing aren't aimed at you at all. You're having issues with them because they have been specially tailored to meet a certain demographic, who are usually very under-represented in terms of accessibility.
What bugs me about the sign language on TV is that they reduce the size of the video image on the screen, presumably in order to make room to accommodate the signer, yet they cover up half the video with the damn signer.
Well, it is for BSL users. The video image is, as a whole, a visual reference for a BSL user whilst reading the interpreter's signing, which involves facial expressions, usage of space around the body, hand gestures, finger-spelling and body movements.
Reducing the size of an interpreter is equal to lowering the volume of an audio tape.
Comments
why does it sound odd, there are alot of children in the UK who are deaf, nice to see some children programmes have sign language
No they do not have signing in random shows at random times, almost all signed programming is in specifically designated programme blocks in the early hours of the morning.
You seem unable to distinguish between observation and complaint.
I can't watch tv with an on-screen signer - I'd be similarly unable to watch even if it wasn't a signer, but was an ad or another graphic of some kind. That is a personal observation, not a complaint. Well done however for pointing out just how warm hearted, equitable and right on you consider yourself to be
P.S. Not sure what 'get over yourself' means, however if it means what I imagine it does, perhaps it's the 'right on' among us who should be doing a spot of self getting-over
I agree completely. This should be fairly easy to achieve.
Well, watch the non-signed version of the programme then. Problem solved!
Doh. Why didn't I think of that...:D
Agreed. I find it irritating trying to watch programmes with signers in the corner. It is only right however that signers should be provided for a certain number of shows. Would it really be that difficult for TV companies to put either the programme with a signer or even the original unsigned programme on the red button ?
Yeah, what's that about? It never seems to have any connection to the words they're actually trying to express
There's not enough bandwidth to accommodate a red button service for signers otherwise there would be, just think of the amount of channels we have as it is, they would need doubling.
As for random scheduling, the EPG on freeview has SL after the prog details to identify sign language is going to be used so take note of it.
Yes and nigh impossible given the bandwidth available.
No you don't so stop making things up.
As I and other have pointed out it is not possible to have SL as a closed service .... so let us say that it is a red button service .
Let us start with the Public corporation PSB - it does not have a red button service so would need to do something with its non PSB channels on the PSB mux - likewise for the larger publicly quoted company which has a PSB license - and the other Publicly quoted PSB has no extra space on PSB mux....
But the BBC has a red button .... which has we all know is NOT a channel....
so let us say that the BBC puts SL from its 10 channels out on this route - that would take over half the airtime on that stream .... squeezing out other things......
and it may mean that the BBC trust would see this as a Channel - which may mean that it would not be allowed as it would not meet a PVT - as it is as effective to use the night hours..... and not incur extra play out/distribution costs .
as far as MIA goes - as outlined above it could be construed that the BBC which has control of its mux was being anti competitive....
Having said that I was party to discussions about starting the SL service on a shared basis between two of the other 3 PSB and the BBC - but the logistics of scheduling got very very fraught to work out a fair and equitable way of doing it - and it all costs money .. and at the time bandwdth was limited..... and some did not like their competitors playing out their programmes!
In the future connected red button may be a means of doing SL ...... but this is not a broadcast means so primary legislation will need to be changed... (and at the moment only the BBC has this technology... but <free-time> or You-view could also be used)
Tokenism? Subtitles? Wow.
1. deaf and sign language users pay full TV licensing fees and they're entitled to a service they could use. They aren't even offered a discount like the ones for blind people and OAPs.
2. if a programme has a BSL interpreter in a corner, it usually means there's one without. Clue: the BSL version tends to be broadcast after midnight and before 8AM. Why? Because people like you don't like seeing BSL-provided programmes.
That's the crappy end of a deal for deaf and sign language users. You get to watch 22 hours' worth of TV programming without BSL per day, and they get to enjoy just 120 minutes' worth of BSL-provided TV programming per day or rather, night.
3. Asking why don't BSL users watch subtitles is like asking why doesn't a French person read English subtitles. Subtitles and sign language are two separate languages. BSL is a language in its own right. Has little to do with the English language, written and spoken.
4. Please don't be such a selfish dick.
Why does this subject attract such negative and sarcastic comments I wonder? I certainly don't have the attention span of a gnat :mad: but still maintain that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to provide a separate output for signed programmes. All the excuses put against this are pretty feeble when all is said and done.
Anyway what was I saying ? ...............
Honest I took all your well reasonable comments on board then I got to point 4. On a point of information the world is full of selfish dicks . Thats a big part of whats wrong with it , im not one of them. Please see the " wilful misinterpretation " post above,
I do apologise for number 4. I was hugely annoyed by those dodgy word choices, e.g. tokenism, which is something a selfish dick would and does usually say. I found the word choice offensive, especially when we know that in spite of this year being 2013, deaf people and BSL users still have a very limited access to BSL on TV. The limit hasn't changed since the 1960s, in fact.
Even so, it was low of me to call you that anyway. Sorry about that.
Its ok , really it is and you did make some points that I think are well pertinent. Im betting that were actually more in agreement than not .
A while ago I saw a signer wearing a bright red jumper, and I found it hard to concentrate on the program.
That's surprising. Sign language interpreters are usually discouraged from wearing clothes in loud colours or distracting textile patterns. It's a strain on eyes for BSL users and watchers, so your annoyance is fully justified in that case.
Well, it is for BSL users. The video image is, as a whole, a visual reference for a BSL user whilst reading the interpreter's signing, which involves facial expressions, usage of space around the body, hand gestures, finger-spelling and body movements.
Reducing the size of an interpreter is equal to lowering the volume of an audio tape.