Is sign language really necessary?

Yes, much easier, but it does require having broadcasting a whole extra channel, its not really feasible on DTT with will be the main broadcasting platform in the long term. One channel for deaf people showing signed programmes for all the other channels would be one answer, but can you imagine all the broadcasters agreeing on the schedule and the like?

Yep - that is because Sky News don't have a Red Button service or extra video streams on Freeview - and still have to provide signing on this platform.

Some work has been done on two solutions that are less wasteful in bandwith terms than a separate stream (and if you've watched the Press Red signing on Sky News it is shockingly poor quality and 4:3 - why should people with hearing impairments get a substandard picture?)

Two options currently being developed AIUI :

1. Virtual signing - where the signer is motion captured or the subtitles are translated into signing motion and the motion broadcast rather than video - allowing an avatar signer to be rendered in the receiver and overlaid. I believe motion capture is preferable to translation as translation is based on SSE (Simple Signed English - effectively the english language signed) whereas motion capture is BSL (British Sign Language - an entirely separate language)

2. Overlay signing - where the signer is captured in a CSO-like manner, but sent with a key signal rather than expecting the receiver to CSO. Now subtitles are sent as graphics rather than text this is not such a great leap for receiver manufacturers - but it does potentially require more bandwith. AIUI MPEG4 is a better carrier for this than MPEG2?

The KEY thing to remember is that BSL is NOT English in sign language form. Subtitles are in English - for many people born deaf, English is a second language (like French or German to many of us) - BSL is an entirely separate language and for many hearing impaired people, it is their first language.

Imagine being forced to watch all of your favourite BBC or ITV shows with no sound and French subtitles and you might get an idea...

not sure the thread title is particularly well thought out.

however, on a personal, selfish level i do find in vision signing distracting. i have always wondered whether it'd be possible to confine the signist outside of the 4:3 safe area.

that way, viewers who are not hard of hearing, who are distracted by the signist can remove them from view (even if you do lose part of the picture).

obviously requires hard of hearing to have their digital tvs set up correctly and perhaps analogue transmissions could be broadcast letterbox for the sign zone or similar.

Not trying to annoy anyone, but I do not think sign language is a neccessity. Subtitles are much easier rather than having the picture reduced to fit a person in on at the side of the screen. If I was deaf, I'd prefer subtitles myself. I would find them much more user-friendly! Anyway, in this current era of dumbing down, you can guess what is happening just by watching the picture with the sound off anyway...and you don't miss much at that!

It is the politically incorrect TV taboo isn't it - and one where we're all too cautious to say what we really think.


Like most things though it's down to how well it's done.

As I said before, I found it more intrusive now they just super-impose the signer over a full screen picture, which undoubtedly obscures the action - which probably pisses off the lip readers too! The more old fashioned BBC method of reducing the picture slightly seems to work much better!

Good heavens. And how exactly do you know that?

What a ridiculous thing to say, maybe deaf people should go round holding up placards of text to each other now? yes?

No - I wasn't meaning that! Of course, sign language is an absolute must communicating with other deaf people on the street and in the shops and just for a friendly chat. But, on TV, you only need either sign language or subtitles - NOT both. All I was saying was I would find subtitles easier to follow on TV if I was in this position. But in other cases, sign-language would be the more useful option.

You can see what I'm saying?

I am good friends with a deaf person and whenever he is around at my house we try our utmost best to find something on Television that we can all watch that isn't on at silly o'clock in the morning. That in itself is difficult.

When we do find something we can all watch, I am delighted that finally we have found something where all of us can engage and enjoy what is being televised, regardless of our ability to hear.

I think that sign language is incredibly important and should be introduced more into primetime. I think it is selfish that people are complaining that they have to watch "some pillock" communicate and engage with people who are engaging and communicating with people who normally wouldn't have the privellege of being to watch Television.

Deaf people pay License Fees as well. They have a right to Television as much as people who have the ability to hear do.

Surely that is not correct. Deaf people can still read, probably more accurately than they can understand signing, as written communication is a hell of a lot more commonplace than signed communication.

As someone qualified in BSL Stage One ( and a hearing person ) I can guess that the difficulty for people who have been deaf from birth / an early age, when it comes to subtitles only, lies in the fact that the syntax / sentence construction for sign language can often be different than that of written or spoken English.

For example the phrase " What's your name? " is acutally signed " Your name what? "

A ( perhaps ) interesting aside is that signs can vary like accents throughout the UK.