Was flicking thru the channels the other day and noticed Emmerdale with signing for the deaf. Rather than the usual picture in a box and the signer standing next to the box, the signer was overlaid on top of the full screen picture.
It was much better than usual. Could NEWS 24 use this from 8-8.30 and 1-1.30 instead of shrinking to a box?
Well then you have the problemo of obscuring the many snazzy graphics and things. For news, it's much better to shrink the picture to a box so that it is self contained and there is less chance of something being hidden.
But then it would look like their drowning and signalling for help! Plus it would take a hell of a lot of effort to engineer it so the graphics are keyed over the signer. It is far easier to take the main output and squash it into a nice box.
But then it would look like their drowning and signalling for help! Plus it would take a hell of a lot of effort to engineer it so the graphics are keyed over the signer. It is far easier to take the main output and squash it into a nice box.
Easier maybe, but it looks rubbish! Especially with that horrible orange/red/black background that NEWS 24 uses - hope that goes soon!
I think it's time an interactive signing service was launched, so those wanting the service could watch a signed version at original broadcast, rather than 3am in the morning.
Also, isn't it time ALL programmes (on terrestrial at least) were subtitled!
I think it's time an interactive signing service was launched, so those wanting the service could watch a signed version at original broadcast, rather than 3am in the morning.
Also, isn't it time ALL programmes (on terrestrial at least) were subtitled!
The most important thing regarding signing is that the interpreter ideally needs a plain background behind him/her AND the interpreter should wear plain dark clothing, so that the sign language can be very clearly seen.
I may sound silly, but what's the point in signing programmes anyway - the few programs that have signing all have subtitles and these are available on DTT and SKY and many programmes I have seen only have the signing on sKY or DTT anyway... can't deaf people read?
I may sound silly, but what's the point in signing programmes anyway - the few programs that have signing all have subtitles and these are available on DTT and SKY and many programmes I have seen only have the signing on sKY or DTT anyway... can't deaf people read?
This has always been my question ... for ages, Closed Captioning in the US has provided text-on-screen subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. There are practically no signed programmes except for a few live religious shows and (of course) instructional programmes that teach sign language.
The deaf have every right to expect sign language provision and no-one here would begrudge them that. However, what's extremely frustrating for hearing viewers is the way the BBC chooses to do it, namely shrinking the picture into a box. It's particularly annoying that, on CBBC, every 7th episode of the Look And Read repeats is shown this way (each series is shown over a whole week, with two programmes daily).
Can I suggest the Beeb adopts ITV's method and keeps the picture full-screen while confining the signer to the corner? Or, as technology exists to provide continuous live feed for shows like Fame Academy, why can't signing be a "press red" option?
I may sound silly, but what's the point in signing programmes anyway - the few programs that have signing all have subtitles and these are available on DTT and SKY and many programmes I have seen only have the signing on sKY or DTT anyway... can't deaf people read?
I dare say they can, but reading isn't necessarily the ideal way to replace audio. Most deaf people can read sign language faster than text, and being able to see the facial expressions of the signer enables emotion to be conveyed in a way which text based subtitles cannot.
I do however think that something needs to be done about signing on TV.
It's a fact that the majority of people find in vision signing intrusive and annoying. Consequently signing is largely confined to night time.
Why, in this day and age, can a small (1 1/16th of a screen?) video stream of a signer not be displayed on top of the picture on digital platforms, switchable on and off at will.
That way, it enables those who need the signing to have it, and those who find it annoying not to have to put up with it. Making it switchable also opens up the possibility of greatly extending signing - it could become as commonplace as subtitling is now.
Why in 5 years of digital TV this has not materialised I do not know. If the broadcasters invested half as much time in this as they do about largely gimmicky 'interactive TV' services, we could allready have proper switchable signing on digital platforms.