we're not all deaf
 

Not that I don't have sympathy for the deaf, but surely in this day and age
the hand signing guys and gals could be switchable from our remote. An
earlier thread complained of obtrusive advertising, how more annoying is
that little bloke standing in front of half the screen making hand signals
and grimacing at me on more and more channels. could it not be on a
separate layer so we hearing people can switch it off. The whole world
seems to revolve around minorities.

we're not all deaf
 

iz0nlee wrote:
Not that I don't have sympathy for the deaf, but surely in this day and age
the hand signing guys and gals could be switchable from our remote. An
earlier thread complained of obtrusive advertising, how more annoying is
that little bloke standing in front of half the screen making hand signals
and grimacing at me on more and more channels. could it not be on a
separate layer so we hearing people can switch it off. The whole world
seems to revolve around minorities.


What a moronic thing to say - surely if the whole world revolved around
minorities then ALL programmes would have signing and subtitling. Idiot.

we're not all deaf
 

iz0nlee wrote:

Not that I don't have sympathy for the deaf, but surely in this day and age
the hand signing guys and gals could be switchable from our remote. An
earlier thread complained of obtrusive advertising, how more annoying is
that little bloke standing in front of half the screen making hand signals
and grimacing at me on more and more channels. could it not be on a
separate layer so we hearing people can switch it off. The whole world
seems to revolve around minorities.

Well, as annoying as it can be tuning in and seeing someone lodged
firmly over part of the screen I have seen Sky's response to this
question in a recent magazine. Their view is that these are always
programs and films shown more than once, so you'll just have to make
sure you find one without the sign language. They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.
There are no plans to make them switchable.
--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

Paul Heslop wrote:
iz0nlee wrote:
Not that I don't have sympathy for the deaf, but surely in this day and age
the hand signing guys and gals could be switchable from our remote. An
earlier thread complained of obtrusive advertising, how more annoying is
that little bloke standing in front of half the screen making hand signals
and grimacing at me on more and more channels. could it not be on a
separate layer so we hearing people can switch it off. The whole world
seems to revolve around minorities.

Well, as annoying as it can be tuning in and seeing someone lodged
firmly over part of the screen I have seen Sky's response to this
question in a recent magazine. Their view is that these are always
programs and films shown more than once, so you'll just have to make
sure you find one without the sign language. They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.
There are no plans to make them switchable.

Sounds like an excuse to repeat a program/film again to me!

Mike

we're not all deaf
 

Mike wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote:
iz0nlee wrote:
Not that I don't have sympathy for the deaf, but surely in this day and age
the hand signing guys and gals could be switchable from our remote. An
earlier thread complained of obtrusive advertising, how more annoying is
that little bloke standing in front of half the screen making hand signals
and grimacing at me on more and more channels. could it not be on a
separate layer so we hearing people can switch it off. The whole world
seems to revolve around minorities.

Well, as annoying as it can be tuning in and seeing someone lodged
firmly over part of the screen I have seen Sky's response to this
question in a recent magazine. Their view is that these are always
programs and films shown more than once, so you'll just have to make
sure you find one without the sign language. They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.
There are no plans to make them switchable.

Sounds like an excuse to repeat a program/film again to me!

Mike

they don't need excuses to do THAT :O)

--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

Edster wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote in message

Their view is that these are always
programs and films shown more than once, so you'll just have to make
sure you find one without the sign language

Its a pity they can't do the same with their adverts for HD equipment
and whatever other ****e they want us to watch.

We're pretty much suckered aren't we? We pay a lot for the service,
then we have to watch adverts, then we have to put up with relentless
sky drivel (the biggest heap of which is the infamous simpsons
episode) and yet here we all are.

--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

iz0nlee wrote:
Not that I don't have sympathy for the deaf, but surely in this day and age
the hand signing guys and gals could be switchable from our remote. An
earlier thread complained of obtrusive advertising, how more annoying is
that little bloke standing in front of half the screen making hand signals
and grimacing at me on more and more channels. could it not be on a
separate layer so we hearing people can switch it off. The whole world
seems to revolve around minorities.


I think it is about time that we have sign on tv channels, and do think
it should be a prerequisite of all recorded tv shows to have them
signed, I do also agree that it should be switchable, the technology is
there it should be used, I would not turn away if there was sign unless
it is the BBC, as they for some strange reason decide to make the
picture smaller shove it over to the left side and stick a blue border
on the right.

Eddy

--
Add me

Xbox live :- DTfan

Wii number :- 7296 3401 5018 5500

we're not all deaf
 

Edster wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote in message

Edster wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote in message

Their view is that these are always
programs and films shown more than once, so you'll just have to make
sure you find one without the sign language

Its a pity they can't do the same with their adverts for HD equipment
and whatever other ****e they want us to watch.

We're pretty much suckered aren't we? We pay a lot for the service,
then we have to watch adverts, then we have to put up with relentless
sky drivel (the biggest heap of which is the infamous simpsons
episode) and yet here we all are.

I heard Telewest were getting screwed over the Sky channels and might
be dropping them. If they replace them with a few channels that don't
have ****e all over the screen while you're trying to watch something
I'll switch to them straight away. Content doesn't matter so much, I
can adapt to most things, I just want to be left in peace to watch TV.
It's coming to something when the only way you can do that is by
downloading copies of American broadcasts. We used to laugh at how
trashy American TV is, but I bet it's them that are laughing at us
now.

I'm not sure how many channels exist which don't have trash all over
the screen. The biggest load of trash appearing to be FAMETV! pure
crap. Attempting to be sumo tv mixed with youtube but just awful.
--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:05:21 +0000, Eddy
wrote:

I think it is about time that we have sign on tv channels, and do think
it should be a prerequisite of all recorded tv shows to have them
signed, I do also agree that it should be switchable, the technology is
there it should be used, I would not turn away if there was sign unless
it is the BBC, as they for some strange reason decide to make the
picture smaller shove it over to the left side and stick a blue border
on the right.

I would have thought that it was technically possible to have a way
for the viewer to remove the signing. That way, far more programming
could then be signed.

My youngest child's disability is such that he uses limited signing
but the TV signing is of no use to him. Of far greater use is
CBeebies's "Something Special" programme, a work of genius by the BBC
and an example of public service broadcasting at its very best.
--

Julian Richards

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

we're not all deaf
 

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.

That's interesting because that's not what deaf viewers say,
according to Ofcom's research.

(Then again, Ofcom require the channels to broadcast sign language
just the same..)
--

we're not all deaf
 

Zero Tolerance wrote:

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.

That's interesting because that's not what deaf viewers say,
according to Ofcom's research.

(Then again, Ofcom require the channels to broadcast sign language
just the same..)
--

When I contacted SKY about the red dot during movies I was given the
same sort of flannel, that they had researched it and found people
actually wanted it. I think what they meant is they showed them
something like a huge banner across the screen saying NEW FILM AT
8.00PM!!! or the red dot and asked which they preferred.

--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

Paul Heslop wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.
That's interesting because that's not what deaf viewers say,
according to Ofcom's research.

(Then again, Ofcom require the channels to broadcast sign language
just the same..)
--

When I contacted SKY about the red dot during movies I was given the
same sort of flannel, that they had researched it and found people
actually wanted it. I think what they meant is they showed them
something like a huge banner across the screen saying NEW FILM AT
8.00PM!!! or the red dot and asked which they preferred.


Seems to be sky answer for all criticism of their service 'people wanted
it' the people are presumably Sky board of directors.

Mike

we're not all deaf
 

Mike wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.
That's interesting because that's not what deaf viewers say,
according to Ofcom's research.

(Then again, Ofcom require the channels to broadcast sign language
just the same..)
--

When I contacted SKY about the red dot during movies I was given the
same sort of flannel, that they had researched it and found people
actually wanted it. I think what they meant is they showed them
something like a huge banner across the screen saying NEW FILM AT
8.00PM!!! or the red dot and asked which they preferred.


Seems to be sky answer for all criticism of their service 'people wanted
it' the people are presumably Sky board of directors.

Mike

If you ask for proof they have the perfect reply, they only answer
once... or at least that's my experience, so i got the stock reply and
when i tried to ask for proof I was simply ignored
--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:13:43 GMT, (Zero
Tolerance) wrote:

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.

But why would anyone believe anything written in the letters page of
the Sky magazine?

some people probably do, but that's kind of my point. They just make
these statements then ignore us.

--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:13:43 GMT, (Zero
Tolerance) wrote:

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.

But why would anyone believe anything written in the letters page of
the Sky magazine?

"Sky is crap, I'm off to freeview or VM"

You would'nt expect that in the letters page either but lots of peope do ;-)

T.W.

we're not all deaf
 

Edster wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote in message

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:13:43 GMT, (Zero
Tolerance) wrote:

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.

But why would anyone believe anything written in the letters page of
the Sky magazine?

some people probably do, but that's kind of my point. They just make
these statements then ignore us.

When I told Bravo that I would no longer be watching because of all
the extra screen junk they have added recently, I told them not to
bother telling me they had proof that people like to be told when they
are watching a comedy, scifi or cowboy programme. They didn't reply at
all.

yep, they really don't seem to care. Was watching BBC3 with my son
late last night (Family Guy) and those little plasticine critters are
now being used during the program to appear at the lower section of
the screen and hold a large sign with whatever is coming next written
on it. Possibly the worst over use of an onscreen object I've seen for
a while.
--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

Paul Heslop wrote:
Mike wrote:
Paul Heslop wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.
That's interesting because that's not what deaf viewers say,
according to Ofcom's research.

(Then again, Ofcom require the channels to broadcast sign language
just the same..)
--
When I contacted SKY about the red dot during movies I was given the
same sort of flannel, that they had researched it and found people
actually wanted it. I think what they meant is they showed them
something like a huge banner across the screen saying NEW FILM AT
8.00PM!!! or the red dot and asked which they preferred.

Seems to be sky answer for all criticism of their service 'people wanted
it' the people are presumably Sky board of directors.

Mike

If you ask for proof they have the perfect reply, they only answer
once... or at least that's my experience, so i got the stock reply and
when i tried to ask for proof I was simply ignored

8/10 cats prefer it!

Mike

we're not all deaf
 

Mike wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote:
Mike wrote:
Paul Heslop wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.
That's interesting because that's not what deaf viewers say,
according to Ofcom's research.

(Then again, Ofcom require the channels to broadcast sign language
just the same..)
--
When I contacted SKY about the red dot during movies I was given the
same sort of flannel, that they had researched it and found people
actually wanted it. I think what they meant is they showed them
something like a huge banner across the screen saying NEW FILM AT
8.00PM!!! or the red dot and asked which they preferred.

Seems to be sky answer for all criticism of their service 'people wanted
it' the people are presumably Sky board of directors.

Mike

If you ask for proof they have the perfect reply, they only answer
once... or at least that's my experience, so i got the stock reply and
when i tried to ask for proof I was simply ignored

8/10 cats prefer it!

Mike

:O) I loved the old ones, now it's something like "8 out of 10 owners
of cats who expressed a preference preferred kit-e-kat"


--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

thank you, exactly my point. They could 'sign' every decent program, every
program for that matter, I don't want to be accused of questioning the
tastes of anybody, and imagine the job creation. Many more hearing people
or lip readers would be needed who could sign. Teachers who could teach
them, make up artists, producers agents, the list goes on.
As far as the technical side is concerned, I don't believe that we can
'press red' to see a playercam, or have a choice of news item, and they
can't make the signers switchable. I'm sure if the lobby was large enough
it would happen.

And by the way, I might not be a genious but neither am I an idiot thank
you. I know the world revolves around money and in the case of non BBC tv,
advertising revenue. the americans have a wonderful saying that covers it
perfectly. 'Money talks bull**** walks'


"Julian Richards" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:05:21 +0000, Eddy
wrote:

I think it is about time that we have sign on tv channels, and do think
it should be a prerequisite of all recorded tv shows to have them
signed, I do also agree that it should be switchable, the technology is
there it should be used, I would not turn away if there was sign unless
it is the BBC, as they for some strange reason decide to make the
picture smaller shove it over to the left side and stick a blue border
on the right.

I would have thought that it was technically possible to have a way
for the viewer to remove the signing. That way, far more programming
could then be signed.

My youngest child's disability is such that he uses limited signing
but the TV signing is of no use to him. Of far greater use is
CBeebies's "Something Special" programme, a work of genius by the BBC
and an example of public service broadcasting at its very best.
--

Julian Richards

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

we're not all deaf
 

Paul Heslop wrote:
Edster wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote in message

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:13:43 GMT, (Zero
Tolerance) wrote:

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.

But why would anyone believe anything written in the letters page
of the Sky magazine?

some people probably do, but that's kind of my point. They just make
these statements then ignore us.

When I told Bravo that I would no longer be watching because of all
the extra screen junk they have added recently, I told them not to
bother telling me they had proof that people like to be told when
they are watching a comedy, scifi or cowboy programme. They didn't
reply at all.

yep, they really don't seem to care. Was watching BBC3 with my son
late last night (Family Guy) and those little plasticine critters are
now being used during the program to appear at the lower section of
the screen and hold a large sign with whatever is coming next written
on it. Possibly the worst over use of an onscreen object I've seen for
a while.

I hate those plasticine creatures, and using them within a programme is
unbelievably crass. One of my favourite BBC3 programmes is 'Pulling' and
they always seem to pop up at the worst possible moment, when something
moving or touching is happening in the story. It completely destroys the
moment.

Does anyone know which is the best email address to complain to? I certainly
want to let them know that this is not acceptable. I'm sure the programme
makers are angry too, it's such an insult to them and their actors.

we're not all deaf
 

Vaughan wrote:


I hate those plasticine creatures, and using them within a programme is
unbelievably crass. One of my favourite BBC3 programmes is 'Pulling' and
they always seem to pop up at the worst possible moment, when something
moving or touching is happening in the story. It completely destroys the
moment.

Does anyone know which is the best email address to complain to? I certainly
want to let them know that this is not acceptable. I'm sure the programme
makers are angry too, it's such an insult to them and their actors.

Sorry Vaughan, I don't, but if you do find one let me know. I know it
was just a cartoon but that thing might aswell have jumped up and
yelled "LOOK at me!!!"

--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

Edster wrote:

"Vaughan" wrote in message

Paul Heslop wrote:
Edster wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote in message

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:13:43 GMT, (Zero
Tolerance) wrote:

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:23:16 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

They also stated that
deaf viewers prefer sign language to subtitles.

But why would anyone believe anything written in the letters page
of the Sky magazine?

some people probably do, but that's kind of my point. They just make
these statements then ignore us.

When I told Bravo that I would no longer be watching because of all
the extra screen junk they have added recently, I told them not to
bother telling me they had proof that people like to be told when
they are watching a comedy, scifi or cowboy programme. They didn't
reply at all.

yep, they really don't seem to care. Was watching BBC3 with my son
late last night (Family Guy) and those little plasticine critters are
now being used during the program to appear at the lower section of
the screen and hold a large sign with whatever is coming next written
on it. Possibly the worst over use of an onscreen object I've seen for
a while.

I hate those plasticine creatures, and using them within a programme is
unbelievably crass. One of my favourite BBC3 programmes is 'Pulling' and
they always seem to pop up at the worst possible moment, when something
moving or touching is happening in the story. It completely destroys the
moment.

Does anyone know which is the best email address to complain to? I certainly
want to let them know that this is not acceptable. I'm sure the programme
makers are angry too, it's such an insult to them and their actors.


There's probably a clause in their contract that says the BBC reserves
the right to render their work unwatchable.

:O) sometimes they do that BEFORE adding stuff on top of it.

--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

we're not all deaf
 

"Michael" wrote in message
k...
iz0nlee wrote:
Not that I don't have sympathy for the deaf, but surely in this day and
age the hand signing guys and gals could be switchable from our remote.
An earlier thread complained of obtrusive advertising, how more annoying
is that little bloke standing in front of half the screen making hand
signals and grimacing at me on more and more channels. could it not be
on a separate layer so we hearing people can switch it off. The whole
world seems to revolve around minorities.


What a moronic thing to say - surely if the whole world revolved around
minorities then ALL programmes would have signing and subtitling. Idiot.

There's nothing idiotic in his comments,

He merely states what we all know, Minority Rules, accept it.

Mel.

we're not all deaf
 

Mel wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
k...
iz0nlee wrote:
Not that I don't have sympathy for the deaf, but surely in this day and
age the hand signing guys and gals could be switchable from our remote.
An earlier thread complained of obtrusive advertising, how more annoying
is that little bloke standing in front of half the screen making hand
signals and grimacing at me on more and more channels. could it not be
on a separate layer so we hearing people can switch it off. The whole
world seems to revolve around minorities.

What a moronic thing to say - surely if the whole world revolved around
minorities then ALL programmes would have signing and subtitling. Idiot.

There's nothing idiotic in his comments,

He merely states what we all know, Minority Rules, accept it.

Mel.


And I will repeat once again, that if minority ruled then all programmes
would be signed, and we would have to record late night versions of the
few audio-produced programmes.
Just because one thing inconveniences the easy life of the average white
middle-class protestant doesn't imply anything about minority rules.

we're not all deaf
 

Its political correctness gone mad......its bloody obtrusive I cant watch a
programme with a signer doing their stuff
It puts me off. Surely it must be possible to switch it on/off ?
But what next?
Meat blanked out in cooking programmes for the vegetarians ?
Cars replaced by bicycles in all BBC productions
Smelly vision for those who cant see?

and as for homosexuality.....well under labour thats going to be compulsory
soon,
after they have bought road charging in!!!


Barry

we're not all deaf
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:13:18 -0000, "Barry"
wrote:

Its political correctness gone mad......its bloody obtrusive I cant watch a
programme with a signer doing their stuff

Perhaps you could tune in to the other 99% of programmes which don't
have signing, then?
--

we're not all deaf
 

In article , Barry
wrote:

Its political correctness gone mad......its bloody obtrusive I cant watch a
programme with a signer doing their stuff
It puts me off. Surely it must be possible to switch it on/off ?
But what next?
Meat blanked out in cooking programmes for the vegetarians ?
Cars replaced by bicycles in all BBC productions
Smelly vision for those who cant see?

and as for homosexuality.....well under labour thats going to be compulsory
soon,
after they have bought road charging in!!!


Barry

I don't think one could reasonably object to selected programmes being
signed: but I would like to see really clear labelling in Radio Times
and EPGs, not the miniscule note (when they bother) so that one doesn't
- as I have, several times - settle down to a recording of a film I
wanted to see only to have to abandon it because of the signing.

we're not all deaf
 

Roger Wilmut wrote:

I don't think one could reasonably object to selected programmes being
signed: but I would like to see really clear labelling in Radio Times
and EPGs, not the miniscule note (when they bother) so that one doesn't
- as I have, several times - settle down to a recording of a film I
wanted to see only to have to abandon it because of the signing.

....just watched Triple X, Sky+'d from Movies last week. It had a wee
man in the bottom right hand corner (actually not, 'cos of widescreen
format) who was signing the dialogue. Initially was a bit annoyed, but
actually was able to ignore him for most of the time - the action was
usually centre-screen.

Having said that, I agree with Roger - signing should be clearly
labelled with signed and unsigned versions going out either
simultaneously, or thereabouts - how about a red button option?

Having had Sky+ for a few weeks now (got it free including instal for
introducing a friend before Christmas) I am pleased to notice that the
red button is not recorded thus reducing a little of the on-screen
garbage that we all love to hate.

George