A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Who decides about what to AD?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 14th 17, 12:16 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Duncanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,219
Default Who decides about what to AD?

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:23:01 -0000, "NY" wrote:

"Martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:27:38 +0000, Mark Carver

wrote:

On 13/01/2017 20:02, Martin wrote:

I don't see any justification for signing TV programmes.
Subtitles are adequate.

What about the significant number of deaf people who can't read ?


Are there a significant number of deaf people who can't read? What
percentage?


I would expect that the proportion of illiterate deaf people would be *less*
that in the general population, because reading and writing is an important
way of being able to communicate with people who don't know BSL, given that
they can't use speech/hearing.

I had to go to a deaf client to sort out her computer. I received a phone
call from an interpreter service which used people to translate between what
she typed on a text phone and spoke those words to me, then typed my replies
to her - that was for setting up the meeting.

When I went to see her, it was weird not being able to do the normal
"getting to know you" chat and small-talk. Whenever I wanted to asked her a
question or tell her something, I had to write it down or else type it in
Notepad on the computer, and wait for her to come to the computer so she
could reply. Shame that BSL isn't normally taught in schools.

Why is it that America and Britain evolved different sign languages, given
that we both speak/write the same language and therefore there is an
expectation that if people from the two countries can speak/write to each
other, deaf people should be able to communicate as well. And yes, I realise
that BSL and ASL are languages in their own right (eg with their own
grammar) and are not just pictorial representations of English.


I am not an expert, even an amateur, in this matter. It seems that a
sign language is not a representation of the words of the spoken
language but a different language. A "signer" is translating from one
language to another.

The primary purpose of sign language is for deaf people to communicate
with one another.

http://www.british-sign.co.uk/what-i...sign-language/

BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE (BSL)

Within Britain the most common form of Sign Language is called
British Sign Language (BSL). BSL has it’s own grammatical structure
and syntax, as a language it is not dependant nor is it strongly
related to spoken English. BSL is the preferred language of around
145,000 people within the UK (2011).

and:

A WORLDWIDE LANGUAGE?

Many hearing people have the false impression that Sign Language is
a worldwide universal language, but this however is far from the
truth. Because of the isolated nature of Sign Language there is even
significant variation from city to city within Britain, this is
known as regional variation and can be thought of as being similar
to regional accents and colloquialisms found in spoken languages.
Other countries have their own sign language.

earlier on that page:

SIGN SUPPORTED ENGLISH (SSE)

Another form of sign language used in Britain is known as Sign
Supported English (SSE). SSE is not a language in itself. SSE uses
the same signs as BSL but they are used in the same order as spoken
English. SSE is used to support spoken English, especially within
schools where children with hearing impairments are learning English
grammar along side their signing, or by people who mix mainly with
hearing people.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
  #22  
Old January 14th 17, 12:18 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Duncanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,219
Default Who decides about what to AD?

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:46:36 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

Apparently functional illeiteracy is noticeably higher among deaf people


And some of us literate people have finger trouble when typing. :-)

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
  #23  
Old January 14th 17, 01:07 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,202
Default Who decides about what to AD?

On 14/01/2017 12:46, Peter Duncanson wrote:

Apparently functional illeiteracy is noticeably higher among deaf people
than among hearing people.

One discussion:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...3232640AAmEuL2

Why do some people think deaf people are illiterate?
I do like to know why some people think deaf people can't read?
I have meet few (hearing) people that can not read also.
But not all of them.
I ask this question because I am deaf.

Best Answer: Because so many of them can't read well and are
functionally illiterate. And many of those who do not read well,
also do not write well. Many people who are Deaf and use primarily
sign language write using the sentence structure of sign language
versus written English. Deaf illiteracy is not only problematic in
English speaking countries - it is a world wide phenomena.


I wonder if it is because verbal communication came first and only later
was it written down. This means that for the average person who is able
to hear, and people who could originally hear but later went deaf, they
associate a sound with a word made up of a group of letters, and it is
the imagined sound that they comprehend rather than the written word.

For those who were born profoundly deaf, it is difficult to associate a
sound they could never hear with a group of letters that they see
written down. This means that they have to recognise whole words as an
item or concept because there is no easy method of allocating a sound to
a letter or small group of letters and thus construct what a longer
group of letters might be. This means that a deaf person doesn't start
with 26 letters and a few rules built up from experience, they start
with a few thousand letter groups to be recognised individually. This
must make written language more difficult to learn and comprehension
much slower.

It will also explain why sign language, which is learned silently, is
easier to follow at nearly speech speed.

Jim

  #24  
Old January 14th 17, 02:04 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Duncanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,219
Default Who decides about what to AD?

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 14:50:19 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:46:36 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:


Subtitles are no use to a person, deaf or otherwise, who cannot read
fast enough to keep up.


The same applies to sign language.


Of course, but sign language is the way deaf people communicate among
themselves. It is their equivalent of speech.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
  #25  
Old January 14th 17, 04:56 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,799
Default Who decides about what to AD?

On 14/01/2017 12:46, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:30:32 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
On 13/01/2017 20:02, Martin wrote:

I don't see any justification for signing TV programmes.
Subtitles are adequate.

What about the significant number of deaf people who can't read ?

Is the proportion of illiterate deaf people significantly greater than the
proportion of illiterate hearing people in the population at large?


you seem to have missed the basis fact that illiterate normal people can
hear the item

illiterate deaf people can't (and therefore need an alternative)


Apparently functional illeiteracy is noticeably higher among deaf people
than among hearing people.

One discussion:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...3232640AAmEuL2

Why do some people think deaf people are illiterate?
I do like to know why some people think deaf people can't read?
I have meet few (hearing) people that can not read also.
But not all of them.
I ask this question because I am deaf.

Best Answer: Because so many of them can't read well and are
functionally illiterate. And many of those who do not read well,
also do not write well. Many people who are Deaf and use primarily
sign language write using the sentence structure of sign language
versus written English. Deaf illiteracy is not only problematic in
English speaking countries - it is a world wide phenomena.

Ninety-five per cent of profoundly deaf school-leavers only reach a
reading-age of nine. This functional illiteracy means that even the
nuances of stories from basic tabloid newspapers are beyond the
reach of many deaf adults.
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/pubs/ste...

They point out that the average 18-year-old deaf high school
graduate reads on a third- or fourth-grade level.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Poor literacy has characterized the deaf and hard of hearing
population for decades, with national data suggesting that median
literacy rates of deaf high school graduates have remained
consistently at around the fourth grade level.
http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/de...

According to CAPMAS, 70 percent of deaf women and 60 percent of deaf
men are illiterate. In contrast, a recent UNICEF report puts the
illiteracy rate among the Egypt’s hearing population at 41 percent
for women and 17 percent for men.
http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=7783

In the United States, television captions [subtitles] are generally
in written English, yet the English-literacy rates among people who
are deaf are low compared to hearing peers.
http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...bstract/6/1/43

This paper reveals that the literacy rate of the Deaf is far below
that of the average population – an issue that needs to be
addressed.
http://www.pili.org/dadel/Education_..._Deaf_Children


Subtitles are no use to a person, deaf or otherwise, who cannot read
fast enough to keep up.


That's rather unfortunate and means that the born deaf are doomed to be
disconnected from the rest of society, as their only access to world
literature and knowledge will be via audiobook I would have thought.

--
Max Demian
  #26  
Old January 14th 17, 05:04 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,799
Default Who decides about what to AD?

On 14/01/2017 14:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 14/01/2017 12:46, Peter Duncanson wrote:

Apparently functional illeiteracy is noticeably higher among deaf people
than among hearing people.

One discussion:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...3232640AAmEuL2

Why do some people think deaf people are illiterate?
I do like to know why some people think deaf people can't read?
I have meet few (hearing) people that can not read also.
But not all of them.
I ask this question because I am deaf.

Best Answer: Because so many of them can't read well and are
functionally illiterate. And many of those who do not read well,
also do not write well. Many people who are Deaf and use primarily
sign language write using the sentence structure of sign language
versus written English. Deaf illiteracy is not only problematic in
English speaking countries - it is a world wide phenomena.


I wonder if it is because verbal communication came first and only later
was it written down. This means that for the average person who is able
to hear, and people who could originally hear but later went deaf, they
associate a sound with a word made up of a group of letters, and it is
the imagined sound that they comprehend rather than the written word.

For those who were born profoundly deaf, it is difficult to associate a
sound they could never hear with a group of letters that they see
written down. This means that they have to recognise whole words as an
item or concept because there is no easy method of allocating a sound to
a letter or small group of letters and thus construct what a longer
group of letters might be. This means that a deaf person doesn't start
with 26 letters and a few rules built up from experience, they start
with a few thousand letter groups to be recognised individually. This
must make written language more difficult to learn and comprehension
much slower.


This may also be why non-alphabetic writing systems (such as Chinese)
are so difficult to learn; a certain Mr Zhou Youguang invented the
Pinyin system (which uses the Latin alphabet) to help this. He died,
aged 111, today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38621697

It will also explain why sign language, which is learned silently, is
easier to follow at nearly speech speed.


I have no difficulty understanding subtitled foreign films "at nearly
speech speed", and may forget I'm reading subtitles at all if the film
is absorbing.

--
Max Demian
  #27  
Old January 14th 17, 05:23 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Duncanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,219
Default Who decides about what to AD?

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:56:23 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 14/01/2017 12:46, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:30:32 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
On 13/01/2017 20:02, Martin wrote:

I don't see any justification for signing TV programmes.
Subtitles are adequate.

What about the significant number of deaf people who can't read ?

Is the proportion of illiterate deaf people significantly greater than the
proportion of illiterate hearing people in the population at large?

you seem to have missed the basis fact that illiterate normal people can
hear the item

illiterate deaf people can't (and therefore need an alternative)


Apparently functional illeiteracy is noticeably higher among deaf people
than among hearing people.

One discussion:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...3232640AAmEuL2

Why do some people think deaf people are illiterate?
I do like to know why some people think deaf people can't read?
I have meet few (hearing) people that can not read also.
But not all of them.
I ask this question because I am deaf.

Best Answer: Because so many of them can't read well and are
functionally illiterate. And many of those who do not read well,
also do not write well. Many people who are Deaf and use primarily
sign language write using the sentence structure of sign language
versus written English. Deaf illiteracy is not only problematic in
English speaking countries - it is a world wide phenomena.

Ninety-five per cent of profoundly deaf school-leavers only reach a
reading-age of nine. This functional illiteracy means that even the
nuances of stories from basic tabloid newspapers are beyond the
reach of many deaf adults.
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/pubs/ste...

They point out that the average 18-year-old deaf high school
graduate reads on a third- or fourth-grade level.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Poor literacy has characterized the deaf and hard of hearing
population for decades, with national data suggesting that median
literacy rates of deaf high school graduates have remained
consistently at around the fourth grade level.
http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/de...

According to CAPMAS, 70 percent of deaf women and 60 percent of deaf
men are illiterate. In contrast, a recent UNICEF report puts the
illiteracy rate among the Egypt’s hearing population at 41 percent
for women and 17 percent for men.
http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=7783

In the United States, television captions [subtitles] are generally
in written English, yet the English-literacy rates among people who
are deaf are low compared to hearing peers.
http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...bstract/6/1/43

This paper reveals that the literacy rate of the Deaf is far below
that of the average population – an issue that needs to be
addressed.
http://www.pili.org/dadel/Education_..._Deaf_Children


Subtitles are no use to a person, deaf or otherwise, who cannot read
fast enough to keep up.


That's rather unfortunate and means that the born deaf are doomed to be
disconnected from the rest of society, as their only access to world
literature and knowledge will be via audiobook I would have thought.


???

Have you confused the deaf and the blind? Audiobooks are for the blind.

A deaf person who has learnt to read can access world literature and
knowlege by reading books, etc. at their own speed - just like rest of
us who are not deaf and have adequate eyesight.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
  #28  
Old January 14th 17, 07:09 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
tim...[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default Who decides about what to AD?



"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 14:50:19 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:46:36 +0000, Peter Duncanson

wrote:


Subtitles are no use to a person, deaf or otherwise, who cannot read
fast enough to keep up.


The same applies to sign language.


Of course, but sign language is the way deaf people communicate among
themselves. It is their equivalent of speech.


and one of the reason why the sub disappear too quickly is that as they are
an overlay to the picture and arrive out of time due to transmissions error

Sign language is part of the broadcast picture and wont suffer from
transmission errors, unless they also affect the picture

tim



  #29  
Old January 14th 17, 07:56 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,187
Default Who decides about what to AD?

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 14:50:19 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:46:36 +0000, Peter Duncanson

wrote:


Subtitles are no use to a person, deaf or otherwise, who cannot read
fast enough to keep up.

The same applies to sign language.


Of course, but sign language is the way deaf people communicate among
themselves. It is their equivalent of speech.


and one of the reason why the sub disappear too quickly is that as they
are an overlay to the picture and arrive out of time due to transmissions
error

Sign language is part of the broadcast picture and wont suffer from
transmission errors, unless they also affect the picture


It's a shame that they couldn't make the sign language an overlay like the
subtitles are, so they could sign all programmes (if they had the money to
pay the signers!) without affecting non-deaf people. It's a shame that when
they *do* sign programmes, they don't shrink the TV picture slightly more so
the signer's hands never encroach onto the TV picture - then you could
record a signed programme and crop off the signer and end up with a
reasonable (if slightly lower resolution) programme.

Is the lag between subtitles and pictures just down to transmission delays?
Surely all the packets that carry the data, whether they are picture or
subtitle, arrive in sequence and there should be no lag between pictures,
sound and subtitles. OK, you may get stuttering if there are reflections or
varying signal strength, but those will affect everything the same.

Are UK subtitles transmitted as ASCII codes for the letters or as bitmaps of
the letters' shapes? If they use bitmaps, they could use more complex
bitmaps to denote the pattern of the hands for signing, or would too much
subtlety be lost if they used stylised "computerised hands" instead of the
signer's real hands.

  #30  
Old January 14th 17, 08:28 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Duncanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,219
Default Who decides about what to AD?

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:04:14 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:23:18 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:56:23 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 14/01/2017 12:46, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:30:32 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
On 13/01/2017 20:02, Martin wrote:

I don't see any justification for signing TV programmes.
Subtitles are adequate.

What about the significant number of deaf people who can't read ?

Is the proportion of illiterate deaf people significantly greater than the
proportion of illiterate hearing people in the population at large?

you seem to have missed the basis fact that illiterate normal people can
hear the item

illiterate deaf people can't (and therefore need an alternative)

Apparently functional illeiteracy is noticeably higher among deaf people
than among hearing people.

One discussion:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...3232640AAmEuL2

Why do some people think deaf people are illiterate?
I do like to know why some people think deaf people can't read?
I have meet few (hearing) people that can not read also.
But not all of them.
I ask this question because I am deaf.

Best Answer: Because so many of them can't read well and are
functionally illiterate. And many of those who do not read well,
also do not write well. Many people who are Deaf and use primarily
sign language write using the sentence structure of sign language
versus written English. Deaf illiteracy is not only problematic in
English speaking countries - it is a world wide phenomena.

Ninety-five per cent of profoundly deaf school-leavers only reach a
reading-age of nine. This functional illiteracy means that even the
nuances of stories from basic tabloid newspapers are beyond the
reach of many deaf adults.
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/pubs/ste...

They point out that the average 18-year-old deaf high school
graduate reads on a third- or fourth-grade level.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Poor literacy has characterized the deaf and hard of hearing
population for decades, with national data suggesting that median
literacy rates of deaf high school graduates have remained
consistently at around the fourth grade level.
http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/de...

According to CAPMAS, 70 percent of deaf women and 60 percent of deaf
men are illiterate. In contrast, a recent UNICEF report puts the
illiteracy rate among the Egypt’s hearing population at 41 percent
for women and 17 percent for men.
http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=7783

In the United States, television captions [subtitles] are generally
in written English, yet the English-literacy rates among people who
are deaf are low compared to hearing peers.
http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...bstract/6/1/43

This paper reveals that the literacy rate of the Deaf is far below
that of the average population – an issue that needs to be
addressed.
http://www.pili.org/dadel/Education_..._Deaf_Children


Subtitles are no use to a person, deaf or otherwise, who cannot read
fast enough to keep up.

That's rather unfortunate and means that the born deaf are doomed to be
disconnected from the rest of society, as their only access to world
literature and knowledge will be via audiobook I would have thought.


???

Have you confused the deaf and the blind? Audiobooks are for the blind.

A deaf person who has learnt to read can access world literature and
knowlege by reading books, etc. at their own speed - just like rest of
us who are not deaf and have adequate eyesight.


http://limpingchicken.com/2014/09/26...eople-helpful/
"When it comes to age, 6.3 of the 10 million are past the age of retirement but
hearing loss really takes off in the over 70’s.
Only 135,000 people of working age are severely or profoundly deaf. That’s the
same number as the population of Gloucester, merely 0.2% of the UK population."

So how many profoundly deaf watch BBC 4 repeats after midnight?


I don't know, but they might record them to watch at a better time.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.