Lately I have, surprisingly often, watched programs with a chubby gent doing sign language, at the side.

Great for the deaf customers, but we dont need it, just yet.

Is it possible to turn it off like subtitles or audio description?

David

Unfortunately not, signing is carried as part of the video stream and is impossible to turn off on any platform with current technology.

Ofcom requires certain channels to provide signed output as detailed in this document:

http://www2.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/guid...services09.pdf

I can never understand why there is sign language? Perhaps it’s for deaf people who can not read subtitles.

Possibly because for those fluent in it it becomes as natural as listening is to us.

IOW they'd have to look down and concentrate on subtitles and it would disturb their enjoyment. By contrast someone fluent in sign language may have developed the ability to read it 'out of the corner of their eye'. That would allow them to concentrate on the main image.

It might also allow for a greater range of expression. Subtitles rarely include even emoticons. A professional signer can probably include expressions and feelings in their gestures to help convey nuances that we would pick up from voices.

OK I'll live with it. Thanks for the replies.

Not absolutely sure but think that signing is not attached to any language.
So it could be understood by trained signers in any country.
Clever trick !

David

I'm not so sure about that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sign_languages

"Although the United Kingdom and the United States share English as the predominant spoken language, British Sign Language is quite distinct from American Sign Language (ASL)."

But don't let me fool you. I'm not deaf and I don't know any sign language. I just read up on it a bit when I was younger. At the time I thought it might be cool to learn it. I never did though.

Basically sign language is just a non-audible form of language. It is just as variable and evolutionary and region specific.

I learned letter based sign, as a challenge, slower than writing but hospitable if you share a table tennis league with a deaf team !
Followed your wiki & low down found:-

Auxiliary sign systems
International Sign (previously known as Gestuno) - an auxiliary language used by deaf people in international settings.

But as you said the signs vary from country to country, a pity.
I rather liked the idea of an interpreter service base on

The deaf leading the dumb !

David
Last edited by SWIZZ? : 24-04-2009 at 08:59

All three of them.
I really can't understand why we have this. I suspect it is just because reading ability is so poor these days.
Personally I think subtitles should be more than adequate, especially if done properly. To give an example, I'm not deaf but I don't understand Chinese, when watching 'House of Flying Daggers' and other foreign language films I have no problem subliminally reading the subtitles to the extent that my brain combines the emotional content from the actors with the text and I almost forget I'm actually reading what they are saying rather than hearing it. But then I would describe my reading ability as 'good' and most likely quite a bit better than average these days.

I don't think reading ability has much to do with it. I'm an exceptionally good reader but I find subtitles distracting. In fact, by definition, they are a distraction. If you don't allow yourself to be distracted then you won't be able to read them. The human eye is not physically capable of reading subtitles at the same time as watching the action. Not unless it's a very small screen, anyway. There must be at least a fraction of a second when your eyes are unable to focus on the action.

Sign language is an extension of body language. The movements might be large enough not to require full focus. Better yet everyday life will help people practice and hone the skill. Very few things in life help you practice the art of reading without focusing on the text.

But I don't know. As long as signing isn't forced on us I fail to understand why some people find it so objectionable. If you ever have the misfortune to lose your hearing perhaps your attitude will change.

It's not like it's common. I've hardly ever encountered it and usually only when watching a repeat of something at a weird hour.

It seems to me that the real problem here is a lack of empathy for people who are different. Just because you don't understand the need doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I think the main problem may be that people don't realise how much easier it is to take in signing than to read subtitles.

I hadn't until I read your piece above, so thanks for clearing that up.

I must say, though, that if they are done well (i.e. on a contrasting bachground) and Eddie Murphy is not involved, I find subtitles very easy to follow. So much so that I have actually remembered a film as having been in English when it's been in Spanish.

I've just finished watching Spirals on BBC4 and didn't find the subtitles in the least distracting. Of course that may be because I don't tend to watch 'all action' films.

At least you can turn off subtitles if you find them distracting. I'd also like to point out that you don't see with your eyes. Yes I know that sounds daft, but what you see is only your brains interpretation of the input provided by the eye. Have you ever noticed someone else's eyes while they are looking out of a moving train or car window? They flick all over the place, but have you ever actually noticed it happening to yourself?

Except of course watching foreign language films.

That's exactly the problem, it IS forced on us, we don't have the capability to turn it off.

If I ever were to lose my hearing I'd be more than happy with subtitles.

Unfortunately I see it often enough that I find it annoying.

No I think the main problem is imposing restrictions or impeding the enjoyment of one group of people to pander to those few who have problems and believe the whole world owes them something in compensation rather than just getting on with their life as it is.

The couple down the road from me are both deaf from birth. They both say that although there may be the medical means to allow them to hear now, I think it's implants, neither of them want their hearing.

They have 3 lovely kids and enjoy the peace and quiet when they are fighting, lol (as all siblings do). They always get a good nights sleep, noisy neighbours and those annoying folks who mow the lawn at 7am are not a problem. They both sign for the deaf for a living and make an absolute fortune!! They live in a massive house, have just had a beautiful big extension built on it, and overall have a great quality of life.

Just shows you that a disability may not be all bad

I'm shocked at the amount of ignorance in this thread.

BSL is British Sign Language. While you may be moaning on about the amount of programmes that have sign language, think about the many years people like my family have had to live with subtitling on programmes.

Subtitles are in English. Signed programming is in BSL. Two completely different languages in written form. Deaf people have had to live without proper access to TV programming while still having to pay a full TV licence (unlike the blind). It's about time deaf people have signed programmes. Although the quality of the interpreters could be far better. They like to leave out long sections of dialogue essential to what's going on. It's a long way off from being perfect, but it's a start.

If you don’t tell us then you’re right, we live in ignorance.

The fact is if a programme has distracting things on screen be it over bright DOG’s or Signers then I switch to another channel.

With Digital TV having hundreds of channel filled with tripe you would think they could actually find room for a permanent signed channel.


I don’t agree with you there. I have recently become disabled after a stroke which has left me unable to use my left arm/hand and greatly reduced use of the left leg but I don’t expect anybody to feel they have to make exception for me.

In this day and age of supposed political correctness, deaf people are left way down the list of importance in many, many fields. Deaf awareness is something that needs to be hugely increased in this country. Deaf people have been shunned for far too long in this country.

It has long been the wish of deaf people to have dedicated channels for deaf people. We have it for various other cultures, but not deaf people (who have their own culture).

Even if a red button service could be introduced to place an interpreter on the screen rather than having to stay up very late, or record programmes would be better than having a quarter of the screen cut off needlessly for someone to poorly translate a program.

Programmes that are signed almost always tend to be repeats, shunted to the early hours, so that deaf people have to record and watch them later. I don't think that is pandering to them, or forcing it on the rest of the population, frankly - especially given the limited number of programmes broadcast in this way.

It's not a question of not being able to read subtitles - as has been mentioned by others, signing is much more natural than reading for many deaf people. And it's also worth bearing in mind that, effectively, BSL is the first language for many, not English. It's their natural means of communication, so why shouldn't they get a few hours of programmes?

Welsh and gaelic speakers, after all, get far more provision, to the extent of separate channels. Signing is obviously not cheap to do, of course, so we're a long way off being able to provide a whole channel with everything signed, which I'm sure many would appreciate. In the meantime, it seems a little mean-spirited to begrudge people the few signed programmes that there are.

As far as technological options go, I don't think the current interactive standards presently allow for one video to overlay another; you'd need a whole extra stream with multiple videos, like the news multiscreen, and MHEG 5 1.06 to do the zooming, but you still couldn't overlay, you'd be taking up a stream (and I bet there are plenty who'd moan about deaf people getting that....), and it would be a bit of a kludge, available only to people with appropriate equipment.

Broadcasting as it is ensures that nothing extra is needed for people to access signed programmes.

There has been work done on avatar-based signing, where it can all be done automatically, with the signer being generated by a set top box, but that's a long way off as far as I gather - and of course requires quite a lot of power in the receiver if it's to generate a convincing animation that can convey the information a real person would.

I've spent a couple of minutes Googling and could find no definitive answer to this - How many people are we really talking about here? Estimates on the number who use BSL as their first language seem to be between 50k and 70k. And if we further exclude those who can read English well enough to use subtitles I think it likely we are really only talking about a few thousand who may have a 'need' for this service (if TV could be considered a 'need').

Why should we exclude them? Just because they can use subtitles doesn't mean that they don't want sign language.

Really, this is what I don't understand about some of you. If Horizon did a documentary on sign language would you object to that as well? Do you have some kind of warped hatred of minorities?

It's like any other programme material that the BBC shows - there just needs to be enough people wanting it. Isn't it part of the BBC's mandate to to cater for minorities who otherwise would be ignored?

I can't remember the last time I saw a signed programme. I don't therefore believe that it intereferes with anyone else' viewing. As long as we don't get it plastered all over primetime viewing then what the hell is the matter?

Have to agree with this post, I can't see the problem with someone signing on TV. No one can say that if they were to lose their hearing that they would be happy with subtitles as believe me, you don't know how you would cope with any disability until it happens to you. A friend was telling me that sign may be taught in schools in the near future, which I think is a great idea so deaf kids will feel less excluded and hopefully attend mainstream schools

I think 'hatred' is an overly strong word to use in this context. I certainly have no feelings either of love or hate toward those who suffer and/or live with disabilities.
I do however resent the undue prominence given to small groups of people in an attempt to overcompensate for their real or perceived disabilities. I also resent the fact that it is socially unacceptable to do or say anything negative about certain groups no matter what their actions.

This is already happening, and is perceived by many to be another attempt at extinguishing deaf culture. Integrated schools do nothing for the many deaf children I know. It further isolates them and only results in the deaf children banding off into their own little groups.

I have no idea how many deaf people there are in the UK. I do know that far smaller minorities are more than adequately catered for in various ways on digital tv platforms.

I don't understand user? How would hearing kids being able to talk to deaf kids further isolate them?

Undue prominence? WTF? Where does that come from? When was the last time you saw a signed programme - what was it?

Someone makes an off-hand comment in a thread on a forum and someone else replies with a possible explanation. We were having an informative exchange of ideas until..


..where does that come from? Who is it that has told you that you can't complain?

This started as a polite and friendly discussion and attempt to answer someone's question. It was all going swimingly well until you started making veiled comments about people's reading ability and complaining about signing being forced on you. Can't you see that? You had some kind of weird reaction to the whole topic and went off on one.

Again, it is hard for a hearing person to understand deaf culture and deaf ways. Sign language is being taught to hearing children, who, rather than use it for beneficial purposes, tend to use it for mocking purposes.

Deaf people are not just people with a disability, they are a culture, a race, a whole separate society to hearing people. Which in some ways has been brought about by a failure to adequately supply them with good quality deaf programming.

Deaf people have ONE programme made specifically for them called See Hear which is shameful in my opinion. There are very many talented deaf people out there (My dad being one of them) who can offer so much in ways of entertainment for deaf children. But all they have is a mickey mouse programme in Makaton which is completely different to BSL and hated by a majority of the deaf community.

And don't get me started on Sky's signed quota, which is an utter disgrace! They had a boxing programme that said it had sign language on screen. The programme was two hours long and the interpreter came on screen to say round one at the beginning of the programme. And was never seen again for the whole duration of the whole programme despite a very long after fight in-depth analysis, which would have been beneficial to the deaf viewer.

And try reading live subtitles with the sound on and see how much information is lost too. I'm sorry to moan on so much, but I am a hearing person with a large deaf family. It's something I feel very passionately about. It's unfair that they have to miss out on so much that hearing people take for granted, and moan about when a tiny proportion of very late night programmes have an interpreter on.

User1111 seems to have shared some insights that are not available to most of us.

As OP I wanted to know if signing could be turned off by those not needing it.
The answer seems to be no but I prefer to think it is not yet.

The problem of signing being used, by children, taught it in school, to mock rather than communicating positively with deaf schoolfellows is sad but it is part of growing up to learn about social responsibility. They need guidance from those who are more mature. Especially since it seems to be a vicious form of bullying.
I do not think that it justifies stopping teaching signing. Apart from opening communication channels we need to remember that deafness can arise at birth, by disease, accident or old age.

If, as was suggested, signing is preferred to subtitles I wonder if it might be used with foreign films to enjoy or even to help to learn languages.

As a society we have paid for ramps into public buildings, for physically disabled people surely some funds could be used to devise switchable signing on more programs, for the deaf.

To those who wish to make no allowances to the deaf minority, I suggest that ponder what life would be like without hearing birdsong, music or the voice of a loved one.

David
Last edited by SWIZZ? : 28-04-2009 at 06:15