Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has all been explained for those who have read this entire sad thread.
Traditional CC is laggy and not entirely inaccurate for live bcasts, and it doesn't always time out properly. In times of national uncertainty, especially, this is unacceptable. Live signing has not become, and probably never will become, a part of entertainment programs. There are volunteer organizations that sometimes provide it on a limited and local basis, but they're somewhat rare.
But this thread was never about that seemingly, it is just a playground for shameful venting. Even among those who supposedly share a degree of the same impairment.
That is a valid point that not eveybody watches on TV.
So what do the deaf do to livestream movies and TV shows if there is no closed captioning available?
I was under the assumption that the deaf would choose to use available technology that has captioning, since they can't use means that require hearing alone? How do the deaf livestream TV?
Movies and most TV shows aren't livestreamed. They're just streamed, so they have captions.
They have animated gestures because that is how you make yourself 'heard' in front of a live audience. If you make tiny gestures people can't see them, and it is like whispering. They are doing their job and that's what it takes to do it well. As others have explained, you can't really count on closed-captioning for a live broadcast, even with a script. You try it - listen to a live speech and type it up live for someone else to read at the exact same time without more than a few second delay. Can you keep up? Given a script, you still have to edit it live because in real life people go off script - but for these briefings there is no script given. People's sense of entitlement that they express annoyance at such a thing is really shameful, imho.
Easier said than done. It's rather hard to ignore someone who is standing right beside the speaker and waving their arms around continuously, making faces, gesturing, and doing everything possible to divert the attention to themselves and away from the speaker. Even if that's not their intent, that's the real effect for a huge majority of the viewers.
I understand that for a very small percent of the population, signing is necessary for them to "hear", but that's no excuse to burden the 98+% of the population with continuous distracting arm waving and face making. Again, what's wrong with having an option for watching the signing or not watching the signing?
For that matter, why do those who need signing even need to see the speaker at all? He/she is just standing there moving their lips. The TV station could just paste a picture of the speaker on the screen and then show the signer. Meanwhile, 98+% of the population who are fortunate to be able to hear reasonably well won't have to bother with the distracting antics if the signer is out of their picture.
It is not hard to ignore. You just choose to be annoyed by it - it does not in any way affect your ability to hear the speaker or see them. It does not do any harm to you at all to see someone signing - it does not affect your ability to get information, it does not affect your safety, it just is a minor distraction. Suck it up.
Yes, it exactly is a good excuse - what burden exactly are you talking about? It does not legitimately burden or harm or oppress you in any way at all to see someone gesticulating speech.
Why do they need to see the speaker? Imagine being in a class where you never get to see the teacher, or go to a play where you never get to see the people on stage, only see a script or sign or hear it. Is the experience the same? Of course not. As for the "little box" - that works well when something is pre-scripted and the signer does not need to be right there hearing the speaker him/herself. It does require some technology set up in advance that many live broadcasts simply do not always have.
How rude that people can't handle "being bothered" by a translator - seriously how entitled and selfish can you get?
Just can't take it any more......every press conference has one of these weirdos, and they're getting worse. The lady at the Minn press conference yesterday was just bizarre with her antics. They seem to all be the oddest looking people, do they teach that in the classes?
Why can't we just use closed caption like we used to?
Who cares if those dang deaf people know what's going on anyway? They should just turn off the TV and read if they want to know what's going on.
/sarcasm.
If this qualifies as a Great Debate, I'm going to start believing my conspiracy nut brother about how fluoridated water is eating brain cells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
Exactly....and off topic...but this is the kind of topic that NEVER would have been allowed in the "old" Great Debates.
Thread closed pending Moderator review.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
