View Single Post
Old May 27th 15, 01:45 PM posted to
David Kennedy[_2_]
external usenet poster
Posts: 425
Default Sign language vs subtitles

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