Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Time Team... with Sign Language!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-03-2013, 19:36
percyvere
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3
Agree. Just tried to watch this, to find my version (freeview CH4 HD) is also with sign language.

Had to acquire it "via other means" in order to watch unmolested.
would love to know what these other means are, as every channel which showed tt had signing
percyvere is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 11-03-2013, 19:39
meechyemoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 532
Why should primetime TV cater for a minority of people at the inconvenience of everyone else?

People with normal hearing don't want their screen taken up by a person talking to deaf people. If deaf people want to know what's being said then they should read the subtitles.



In this day and age it doesn't matter what time it's on. Most people have some form of recording equipment. Until then, they can read the ****ing subtitles.
I cannot say just how astounded I am by the lack of tolerance by some people in this thread.

1. BSL is a separate language it has its own grammar. It does not always translate word for word into written English. You may as well translate into French.

2. Subtitles are at best rubbish. Half the sentences are missing, they very rarely follow exactly what is said, with the occasional random word thrown in for good measure. Think to when you have watched a foreign film with subtitles and how difficult it is.

3. Much of your understanding is made up of the whole, speech, expressions etc. Subtitles cannot convey this, whereas the Signer can. This is especially true when people aren't looking directly at the camera. Why don't you try watching people at work through a window when they are looking away from you and see how easy it is to understand the full meaning of the conversation being had.

What about actually embracing the subtitles, instead of just thinking of you. Why don't you record stuff to watch so the deaf people can enjoy their programmes at a normal time. I find the logo in the corner of programmes can be distracting but you quickly get used to it - you have to.
meechyemoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 19:41
percyvere
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3
The repeat now on 4seven appears to be free of the annoying woman waving her arms about.
well spotted, wish i had known this on sunday, would have ditched sundays episode and watched this instead!
percyvere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 19:42
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 16,729
From what little I've seen of this programme, "Metal Micky" (the one who dashes between trenches), had a sign language all his own,
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 19:47
percyvere
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3
I cannot say just how astounded I am by the lack of tolerance by some people in this thread.

1. BSL is a separate language it has its own grammar. It does not always translate word for word into written English. You may as well translate into French.

2. Subtitles are at best rubbish. Half the sentences are missing, they very rarely follow exactly what is said, with the occasional random word thrown in for good measure. Think to when you have watched a foreign film with subtitles and how difficult it is.

3. Much of your understanding is made up of the whole, speech, expressions etc. Subtitles cannot convey this, whereas the Signer can. This is especially true when people aren't looking directly at the camera. Why don't you try watching people at work through a window when they are looking away from you and see how easy it is to understand the full meaning of the conversation being had.

What about actually embracing the subtitles, instead of just thinking of you. Why don't you record stuff to watch so the deaf people can enjoy their programmes at a normal time. I find the logo in the corner of programmes can be distracting but you quickly get used to it - you have to.
Nothing wrong with subtitles use them all the time
The Killing
Borgen
Montalbano
Spiral
percyvere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 19:53
davisa
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: England
Posts: 567
I put a sheet of A4 up to cover her up!
Not big enough! 86" TV
davisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 19:55
davisa
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: England
Posts: 567
Maybe some deaf people would find subtitles distracting. Such intolerance and insensitivity, astounding.
Hardly. Plenty of technology around to allow interactive display of signing - of course the television industry is only interested in crappy 3D, not actually helping an audience (ie: the deaf or blind) that should be provided for better.
davisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 20:14
Stansfield
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 5,245
Not big enough! 86" TV
So it felt like she was in the room with you then.
Stansfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 20:17
meechyemoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 532
Nothing wrong with subtitles use them all the time
The Killing
Borgen
Montalbano
Spiral
The difference is - probably they have been provided and paid for as part of the programme. Normal BBC / ITV subtitles on UK programs are never this good and are usually full of mistakes. I wouldn't know on the above programmes if they are wrong, but having grown up reading subtitles they are no substitute for signing.
meechyemoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 21:37
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,908
I cannot say just how astounded I am by the lack of tolerance by some people in this thread.

1. BSL is a separate language it has its own grammar. It does not always translate word for word into written English. You may as well translate into French.

2. Subtitles are at best rubbish. Half the sentences are missing, they very rarely follow exactly what is said, with the occasional random word thrown in for good measure. Think to when you have watched a foreign film with subtitles and how difficult it is.

3. Much of your understanding is made up of the whole, speech, expressions etc. Subtitles cannot convey this, whereas the Signer can. This is especially true when people aren't looking directly at the camera. Why don't you try watching people at work through a window when they are looking away from you and see how easy it is to understand the full meaning of the conversation being had.

What about actually embracing the subtitles, instead of just thinking of you. Why don't you record stuff to watch so the deaf people can enjoy their programmes at a normal time. I find the logo in the corner of programmes can be distracting but you quickly get used to it - you have to.
Gaelic and Welsh are both officially recognised British languages so should the programme also repeat everything in these languages for the benefit of those who can speak the languages as they also might not like subtitles.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 21:52
AdamCleland
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 657
I cannot say just how astounded I am by the lack of tolerance by some people in this thread.
Oh look, here comes the obligatory left wing extremist smashing furiously on a keyboard whilst red faced and probably even crying in sheer anger and frustration. You're probably not even deaf are you?

1. BSL is a separate language it has its own grammar. It does not always translate word for word into written English. You may as well translate into French.
It's not really my problem if an English deaf person cannot understand English. English isn't just a spoken language (Obviously. We're on an internet forum.) and if they're too stubborn to learn it then that's their deal. And the millions of us with hearing shouldn't suffer to accommodate a minority's personal decision.

2. Subtitles are at best rubbish. Half the sentences are missing, they very rarely follow exactly what is said, with the occasional random word thrown in for good measure. Think to when you have watched a foreign film with subtitles and how difficult it is.
Wrong. I watch programmes with subtitles late at night so as to not disturb people sleeping and 99% of the time they're absolutely fine. I can always completely understand what's going on. When there are errors, this doesn't spoil the enjoyment of the whole programme and invariably it only takes a split second of general thought to work out what it was meant to say.

3. Much of your understanding is made up of the whole, speech, expressions etc. Subtitles cannot convey this.
Yes they can. Not ever heard of punctuation?

Why don't you record stuff to watch so the deaf people can enjoy their programmes at a normal time. I find the logo in the corner of programmes can be distracting but you quickly get used to it - you have to.
If you're distracted by a channel logo then that's just hilarious. In an ideal world, we'd be able to turn them on and off just like we can with subtitles, but until then it's completely moronic to think we should just allow primetime TV to be heavily disrupted so as to cater for a very very tiny percentage of the viewing audience.

I think you need to look at yourself and your extremist opinions and consider how they reflect on you as a person.
AdamCleland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 22:13
David-Scotland
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 448
Oh look, here comes the obligatory left wing extremist smashing furiously on a keyboard whilst red faced and probably even crying in sheer anger and frustration. You're probably not even deaf are you?



It's not really my problem if an English deaf person cannot understand English. English isn't just a spoken language (Obviously. We're on an internet forum.) and if they're too stubborn to learn it then that's their deal. And the millions of us with hearing shouldn't suffer to accommodate a minority's personal decision.



Wrong. I watch programmes with subtitles late at night so as to not disturb people sleeping and 99% of the time they're absolutely fine. I can always completely understand what's going on. When there are errors, this doesn't spoil the enjoyment of the whole programme and invariably it only takes a split second of general thought to work out what it was meant to say.



Yes they can. Not ever heard of punctuation?



If you're distracted by a channel logo then that's just hilarious. In an ideal world, we'd be able to turn them on and off just like we can with subtitles, but until then it's completely moronic to think we should just allow primetime TV to be heavily disrupted so as to cater for a very very tiny percentage of the viewing audience.

I think you need to look at yourself and your extremist opinions and consider how they reflect on you as a person.
Superb post! Thank you!
David-Scotland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 22:56
Ex Pat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Just passin' through
Posts: 2,010
I cannot say just how astounded I am by the lack of tolerance by some people in this thread.

1. BSL is a separate language it has its own grammar. It does not always translate word for word into written English. You may as well translate into French.

2. Subtitles are at best rubbish. Half the sentences are missing, they very rarely follow exactly what is said, with the occasional random word thrown in for good measure. Think to when you have watched a foreign film with subtitles and how difficult it is.

3. Much of your understanding is made up of the whole, speech, expressions etc. Subtitles cannot convey this, whereas the Signer can. This is especially true when people aren't looking directly at the camera. Why don't you try watching people at work through a window when they are looking away from you and see how easy it is to understand the full meaning of the conversation being had.

What about actually embracing the subtitles, instead of just thinking of you. Why don't you record stuff to watch so the deaf people can enjoy their programmes at a normal time. I find the logo in the corner of programmes can be distracting but you quickly get used to it - you have to.
First off, the bit in bold is just plain ridiculous. So you think the vast majority of viewers should have to tolerate the annoyance of the signer in order to please a small number of people ?
Personly speaking i don't find it too bad usually, but in many instances, including Sundays Time team, the signer obscured the graphic that identified the person on screen.

The other points you make may be quite valid. It's really up to the broadcaster to facilitate the hard of hearing without inconviencing the majority. Perhaps using the "red button" ?
With digital technology, anything is possible.

But please, don't blame us for being annoyed. I like to view as much of the content as possible on my screen without any irritating graphics or signers. And i include the DOG in the corner.
Ex Pat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 09:02
Sue_Aitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,712
Please read http://www.signedlanguage.co.uk/Subtitles.html which was written before DSO completed.
Sue_Aitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 09:37
Vetinari
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 534
I cannot say just how astounded I am by the lack of tolerance by some people in this thread.
You shouldn't be.

Given the microscopic number of people who can read signing but cannot read subtitles it is absurd that prime-time TV should spoil the viewing pleasure for millions just for the benefit of a few thousand when it is perfectly possible to broadcast a separate version for recording.

I know someone who is unable to hear TV and for them the lack of subtitles on DVD is a far, far, more important issue than having some woman flapping her arms about on screen.

It's really heartbreaking when you tell her of some film or series that she would love to watch and she sadly tells you that she can't as they have not subtitled the DVD's (even if the programmes/films in question were originally transmitted with subtitles).

What about actually embracing the subtitles, instead of just thinking of you.
I do.

For foreign language films it's often essential.

They are so easy to follow that I'm not even aware that I'm using them most of the time. (e.g. no Pedro Almavodar films were made in English or dubbed but I remember them as if I had seen them in English.)
Vetinari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 09:53
Robin McInnes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 78
Hello, OP here.

Just for everyone's information C4 were kind enough to apologise for Sunday's signed TT episode in an email reply to a complaint I submitted to them:-

"Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding TIME TEAM.

We are very sorry that the episode of TIME TEAM that was shown on Sunday 10th March was broadcast with Sign Language and Subtitles, we can only apologise and advise that the same episode is to be shown tonight with no sign language or subtitles on our Channel 4seven at 7pm on 11th March.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.

Regards,

F--- C----n
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries"

So it seems that it was a mistake, but it doesn't explain how the mistake happened. I would have thought VTs would be clearly labelled so as to avoid this.
Robin McInnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 10:12
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,908
You shouldn't be.

Given the microscopic number of people who can read signing but cannot read subtitles it is absurd that prime-time TV should spoil the viewing pleasure for millions just for the benefit of a few thousand when it is perfectly possible to broadcast a separate version for recording. .....
I remember when CEEFAX subtitling was in its early days, the accuracy was quite poor at times especially on live programmes but there were comments that people were just so glad to be able to know what was being said that they could tolerate those inaccuracies. I am sure that most deaf viewers understand that in vision signing is not acceptable to most other viewers so are prepared to time-shift the late night reshowing of the programmes. If there has been a big campaign for all programmes to have in vision signing then I have certainly not been aware of it.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 10:16
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,908
.... So it seems that it was a mistake, but it doesn't explain how the mistake happened. I would have thought VTs would be clearly labelled so as to avoid this.
But it seems to have been billed in advance as 'signed' so it does not seem to have been a case of the wrong tape selected but someone in scheduling having made the mistake then the person in playout just doing what they were told. It's surprising that no one in Channel 4 continuity noticed and queried it so they could have put out an apology before or after the programme.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 12:46
alfster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,591
Hello, OP here.

Just for everyone's information C4 were kind enough to apologise for Sunday's signed TT episode in an email reply to a complaint I submitted to them:-

"Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding TIME TEAM.

We are very sorry that the episode of TIME TEAM that was shown on Sunday 10th March was broadcast with Sign Language and Subtitles, we can only apologise and advise that the same episode is to be shown tonight with no sign language or subtitles on our Channel 4seven at 7pm on 11th March.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.

Regards,

F--- C----n
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries"

So it seems that it was a mistake, but it doesn't explain how the mistake happened. I would have thought VTs would be clearly labelled so as to avoid this.
I bet what they really were thinking was:

"Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding TIME TEAM....but as it's the last one..who cares...we'll still stick some apologist guff below but as we decided to ditch it thpppttttttt...."
alfster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 13:00
Sue_Aitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,712
In the meantime for the tens of thousands of women whose first language is BSL, it might have been a rare treat to have had an opportunity to spend part of Mother's Day watching Time Team with an interpreter in-vision.
Sue_Aitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 13:12
meechyemoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 532
Oh look, here comes the obligatory left wing extremist smashing furiously on a keyboard whilst red faced and probably even crying in sheer anger and frustration. You're probably not even deaf are you?

Please get a grip. No, I am not deaf but my sister is.

It's not really my problem if an English deaf person cannot understand English. English isn't just a spoken language (Obviously. We're on an internet forum.) and if they're too stubborn to learn it then that's their deal. And the millions of us with hearing shouldn't suffer to accommodate a minority's personal decision.

I think you don't appreciate how difficult it is to learn if you cannot hear. It so happens my sister went to a school where they didn't learn to sign. the school and educational policy at the time was that this would lead to better intergration. It doesn't, unfortunatly it does impact on your ability to learn spoken and written English. i do not think it was laziness/stubboness on her part or that of anyone else in her situation. She has since learned to sign and life is much easier. You are hardly suffering by having a signer in the orner of the screen.


Wrong. I watch programmes with subtitles late at night so as to not disturb people sleeping and 99% of the time they're absolutely fine. I can always completely understand what's going on. When there are errors, this doesn't spoil the enjoyment of the whole programme and invariably it only takes a split second of general thought to work out what it was meant to say.
Well, my experience is they are OK but never quite good enough, and it can ruin the enjoyment. Sometimes a whole programme, such as a drama, can be turned on your understanding of a word, phrase, tone of voice. How many discussions are there on here about what was really meant in some scenes?


Yes they can. Not ever heard of punctuation?
That is part of the point, not everyone has the same knowledge and understanding of punctuation as you.


If you're distracted by a channel logo then that's just hilarious. In an ideal world, we'd be able to turn them on and off just like we can with subtitles, but until then it's completely moronic to think we should just allow primetime TV to be heavily disrupted so as to cater for a very very tiny percentage of the viewing audience.
So I can't be distracted by a channel logo that covers part of the picture but you can be annoyed by having something in the corner? In an ideal world all programmes TV would have the ability to have subtitles, signers, logos turned on and off at will. It not going to happen any time soon but why shouldn't deaf people be allowed to enjoy some programmes on primetime TV with signing. It isn't that intrusive.

I think you need to look at yourself and your extremist opinions and consider how they reflect on you as a person.
Really? Words fail me. You were a tiny tiny bit put out by something you didn't want to see, yet i am extremist?
meechyemoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 13:53
Vetinari
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 534
In the meantime for the tens of thousands of women whose first language is BSL, it might have been a rare treat to have had an opportunity to spend part of Mother's Day watching Time Team with an interpreter in-vision.
Why would it not have been a similar treat for men?

Or are men just better at reading subtitles?
Vetinari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 15:23
willowfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Anywhere but here
Posts: 2,317
I too found her very distracting, I only watched the last 45 minutes, but my husband watched from the start and he said she wasn't on for the first 15 minutes! so anyone watching who was deaf would have missed the first half anyway.
Not the version I watched - she was there from the start.
willowfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 16:00
Sue_Aitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,712
Why would it not have been a similar treat for men?

Or are men just better at reading subtitles?
I was simply making the link between not having a Y chromosone and it being Mothering Sunday - didn't wish to appear misandrist. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

94% of programmes or so on C4 and E4 are not signed and 100% of programmes on More4 are not signed, by the way.
Sue_Aitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 16:19
Vetinari
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 534
I was simply making the link between not having a Y chromosone and it being Mothering Sunday
Er, OK.

Although, I would point out that it's actually Tuesday.

94% of programmes or so on C4 and E4 are not signed and 100% of programmes on More4 are not signed, by the way.
To my mind it would be far better if the government mandated universal subtitles rather than set some small target for signing (which will mean that the deaf only ever get the chance to watch a small percentage of programmes).

Apart from those who are actually deaf, there are many people who can converse perfectly normally in everyday life who have trouble following TV programmes due to background noise, poor sound engineering and bad diction by actors.
Vetinari is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58.