Sign language vs subtitles

I recorded a programme on BBC4 recently and realised that the late-night
repeats come with a sign-language interpreter in front (while the ones
earlier in the evening do not). This meant the actual programme was
reduced to about three quarters of the screen with a somewhat
distracting presence on the right-hand side. Although my hearing is
good enough, I appreciate that those with hearing loss need assistance
so do not object to this if it helps them.

But I noticed that the programme had optional subtitles, and when I
tried them for a time they seemed to me to be entirely adequate. I
suspect there are now very few TVs that can't display these subtitles,
so I wondered why broadcasters feel the need to provide a sign-language
interpreter as well. I would also have thought that anyone with
eyesight good enough to follow the hand movements of the signer would
also be able to read the subtitles, and would get more information that
way and more rapidly (the signs sometimes went on for some time after
the speech had finished). So does anyone know why broadcasters still
persist with sign language when it does not more than duplicate the
subtitles?

--
Clive Page

Yes I find it terrible so I do not watch BBC News 24 in a morning most
annoying.
Of course those who need the signing will appreciate it, but surely with
todays technology the signing could be selectable as with sub titles.
Regards
David

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:58:37 +0100
Martin wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:34:44 +0100, "David" wrote:

Yes I find it terrible so I do not watch BBC News 24 in a morning
most annoying.
Of course those who need the signing will appreciate it, but surely
with todays technology the signing could be selectable as with sub
titles.

Have you read the subtitles on BBC News programmes?

I was going to make that comment in reply to the " and would get more
information that way " statement. I doubt that the signers make the
same mis-interpretations as the subtitlers do!

--
Davey.

On Wed, 27 May 2015 12:26:07 +0100
Martin wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2015 12:20:49 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:58:37 +0100
Martin wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:34:44 +0100, "David"
wrote:

Yes I find it terrible so I do not watch BBC News 24 in a morning
most annoying.
Of course those who need the signing will appreciate it, but
surely with todays technology the signing could be selectable as
with sub titles.

Have you read the subtitles on BBC News programmes?

I was going to make that comment in reply to the " and would get more
information that way " statement. I doubt that the signers make the
same mis-interpretations as the subtitlers do!

I the signers aren't using the subtitles for input :-)

A modern version of Chinese Whispers. Or is that suggestion offensive
to our Chinese friends?

--
Davey.

No Martin because as what was said the sub titles can be turned on and off
and here they are off.

The point is let us choose to have the signers on and off and return to full
picture when off.

I do not want those who need the signing to do without.

Regards
David

On 27/05/2015 11:12, Clive Page wrote:
I recorded a programme on BBC4 recently and realised that the late-night
repeats come with a sign-language interpreter in front (while the ones earlier
in the evening do not). This meant the actual programme was reduced to about
three quarters of the screen with a somewhat distracting presence on the
right-hand side. Although my hearing is good enough, I appreciate that those
with hearing loss need assistance so do not object to this if it helps them.

But I noticed that the programme had optional subtitles, and when I tried them
for a time they seemed to me to be entirely adequate. I suspect there are now
very few TVs that can't display these subtitles, so I wondered why
broadcasters feel the need to provide a sign-language interpreter as well. I
would also have thought that anyone with eyesight good enough to follow the
hand movements of the signer would also be able to read the subtitles, and
would get more information that way and more rapidly (the signs sometimes went
on for some time after the speech had finished). So does anyone know why
broadcasters still persist with sign language when it does not more than
duplicate the subtitles?

It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read.

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On 27/05/2015 14:45, David Kennedy wrote:

It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read.

I hadn't thought of that. But the subset of people who watch BBC4 and
are deaf and can't read must be rather small. I wonder if it's even
above zero.


--
Clive Page

Not really, but maybe its just that they do have to.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Clive Page" wrote in message
...
I recorded a programme on BBC4 recently and realised that the late-night
repeats come with a sign-language interpreter in front (while the ones
earlier in the evening do not). This meant the actual programme was
reduced to about three quarters of the screen with a somewhat distracting
presence on the right-hand side. Although my hearing is good enough, I
appreciate that those with hearing loss need assistance so do not object to
this if it helps them.

But I noticed that the programme had optional subtitles, and when I tried
them for a time they seemed to me to be entirely adequate. I suspect
there are now very few TVs that can't display these subtitles, so I
wondered why broadcasters feel the need to provide a sign-language
interpreter as well. I would also have thought that anyone with eyesight
good enough to follow the hand movements of the signer would also be able
to read the subtitles, and would get more information that way and more
rapidly (the signs sometimes went on for some time after the speech had
finished). So does anyone know why broadcasters still persist with sign
language when it does not more than duplicate the subtitles?

--
Clive Page

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:58:37 +0100
Martin wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:34:44 +0100, "David" wrote:

Yes I find it terrible so I do not watch BBC News 24 in a morning
most annoying.
Of course those who need the signing will appreciate it, but surely
with todays technology the signing could be selectable as with sub
titles.

Have you read the subtitles on BBC News programmes?

I was going to make that comment in reply to the "and would get more
information that way" statement. I doubt that the signers make the
same mis-interpretations as the subtitlers do!

I've always wondered how much information can be conveyed by signing
compared with by subtitling, assuming that a) the viewer can read, and b)
that the subtitles are an accurate transcription of what was said. If
someone were to transcribe the signing back into English (assuming that this
did not have to be done in real time), how much of the original wording
would be preserved and how much of the subtlety is lost?

I wish when signing was broadcast, they would make sure the signer's
body/arms were entirely kept in the black border of the shrunken picture and
never impinged on it.

I actually find the hand-signs less distracting that the facial gurning
which accompanies some of them and which is presumably a crucial add-on to
the hand signals.

On 27/05/2015 16:29, Clive Page wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:45, David Kennedy wrote:

It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read.

I hadn't thought of that. But the subset of people who watch BBC4 and are
deaf and can't read must be rather small. I wonder if it's even above zero.


It's not just BBC4 though [is it?] it pops up from time to time on BBC2 as
well IIRC

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com