Prefered communication method?

[jasin]

With most hearing people I use guesstures and/or pointing. When that fails I use my cell phone's notepad.

 

[jasin]

Written English, Speech, some signs and speech reading. Really, when it comes right down to it, a person would never know I'm deaf when they hear me speak.

Do they treat you like you are hearing? They do to me when I have spoken; even the ones who know I am deaf. By the way, I have very good speech too.

 

[Dismal Shadow]

I found out which language I use to speak with English grammer.
SEE, Signing Exact English.

Modern Signs Press, Inc. - Frequently Asked Questions

I consider myself both ASL and SEE.

 

[Smithtr]

That is sound great vote I am think so help support focus on english grammar. I think so good important to write on english and ASL

 

[Passivist]

I am totally bemused by these claims of communication 'preference', surely the only effective communication deaf people use, is the one determined via their greatest need combined with their ability ? Deaf people do NOT choose their communications, it tends to choose them.

Put it this way, if you are e.g. totally fluent in Chinese and French, and live in France, then do you expect and demand to have Chinese access because you know that as well ? Blogs on deaf.read already highlight this issue of 'preference' (A red herring in reality), where a TV channel withdrew sign language access, because captions were provided, despite 'preference' for sign by those equally of ability to read, the writing is on the wall already.

Mainstream and society is not feeling obliged to provide the deaf with multi-alternatives to access. Captions have since been widely accepted as 'preferential' to very expensive sign access, where medias have no people to do the signing, and no money to pay them, even IF that was the main access form. I rather fear, sign language is a 'preference' a lot of people are not now prioritizing any more, and captions have replaced it. IN reality need will replace preferences every time, as preference is a LUXURY !

The other thing about preferences is the cheapest option tends to rule....

 

[SimplyMints]

I do notice that nobody prefers subtitles, even though it's becoming popular because it's the cheapest option. This is because it is ineffective. Imagine if animated movie companies decided to hire only one voice for every character, and that voice showed no emotion, and the movie had no sound effects. If you're lucky, you can tell who's talking by whose mouth is moving. Half the time, you can't even see who's talking. You can't tell if they're whispering or screaming or crying or laughing. All you have are the words. That's the difference between subtitles and captions. So I guess you're right. Even though nobody prefers subtitles to captions, we are having them forced upon us because they're the cheapest option. To me, in many cases, I find it a better option to just not watch the movie because it's meaningless without captions. No matter how skilled I get at reading subtitles, it will never be a viable communications method because it's inherently incapable of communicating sufficient information.

 

[Passivist]

I do notice that nobody prefers subtitles, even though it's becoming popular because it's the cheapest option. This is because it is ineffective. Imagine if animated movie companies decided to hire only one voice for every character, and that voice showed no emotion, and the movie had no sound effects. If you're lucky, you can tell who's talking by whose mouth is moving. Half the time, you can't even see who's talking. You can't tell if they're whispering or screaming or crying or laughing. All you have are the words. That's the difference between subtitles and captions. So I guess you're right. Even though nobody prefers subtitles to captions, we are having them forced upon us because they're the cheapest option. To me, in many cases, I find it a better option to just not watch the movie because it's meaningless without captions. No matter how skilled I get at reading subtitles, it will never be a viable communications method because it's inherently incapable of communicating sufficient information.

It's not viable signed access can reproduce what you ask for, it's just impossible. Signed access also does not differentiate who is actually speaking, it just translates what is said,like titles. Subtitles and Captions I differ, have been FULLY accepted by everyone deaf, I do not believe, certainly in the UK e.g. there is any significant majority or minority to justify signed access to 100% There is little impetus here to go for 10% Having seen a rather pointless attempt by theatre to sign a play and a musical, I can tell you we are better off with captions/titles.

It is ludicrous a few signers think they can replace a theatre cast, or a film cast anywhere near effectively without making what you watch unviewable, talent and ability apart, signing and acting is quite different ! Good signers bad acting, good acting, bad interpretations abound.

Indeed at one show in a London theatre we saw a small group of deaf people (6!), sitting in a corner watching the interpreter, bravely but rather pointlessly trying to reproduce the dialog of 10 different actors, even one singing. It appears captions/titles do not interfere with viewing, whilst signed access is continually in visual conflict. SKY News replaced some signed access here too, because hearing viewers were unable to follow the news with a signer on screen, and, complained, they would stop watching SKY news unless the signer went.

We have to take in to account they have access rights too. Until we can dial up a signer on-screen, and hearing can dial them out, then opposition will continue, this is the success of titles, we can do that. Basically signed access is a non-starter here, because we simply do not have the people to do it, so its a catch 22, and logistics issue, no staff no access, it isn't a question of rights, it's a question of getting trained people, and the cost of training is quite high for sign language.. If you combine that with no rolling program of media trained signers, then a non-starter... Deaf also opposed avatars so...

Watching other deaf people, and asking what are you watching ? they said the signer, so I wonder just how much of the 'action' they are actually able to see with that access. It is not viewed, that a sign user cannot read, so access is there, but deaf are not going to be able to 'prefer' which they get... Personally I will take whatever... access is access, is access...

 

[SimplyMints]

It's not viable signed access can reproduce what you ask for, it's just impossible. Signed access also does not differentiate who is actually speaking, it just translates what is said,like titles. Subtitles and Captions I differ, have been FULLY accepted by everyone deaf, I do not believe, certainly in the UK e.g. there is any significant majority or minority to justify signed access to 100% There is little impetus here to go for 10% Having seen a rather pointless attempt by theatre to sign a play and a musical, I can tell you we are better off with captions/titles.

It is ludicrous a few signers think they can replace a theatre cast, or a film cast anywhere near effectively without making what you watch unviewable, talent and ability apart, signing and acting is quite different ! Good signers bad acting, good acting, bad interpretations abound.

Indeed at one show in a London theatre we saw a small group of deaf people (6!), sitting in a corner watching the interpreter, bravely but rather pointlessly trying to reproduce the dialog of 10 different actors, even one singing. It appears captions/titles do not interfere with viewing, whilst signed access is continually in visual conflict. SKY News replaced some signed access here too, because hearing viewers were unable to follow the news with a signer on screen, and, complained, they would stop watching SKY news unless the signer went.

We have to take in to account they have access rights too. Until we can dial up a signer on-screen, and hearing can dial them out, then opposition will continue, this is the success of titles, we can do that. Basically signed access is a non-starter here, because we simply do not have the people to do it, so its a catch 22, and logistics issue, no staff no access, it isn't a question of rights, it's a question of getting trained people, and the cost of training is quite high for sign language.. If you combine that with no rolling program of media trained signers, then a non-starter... Deaf also opposed avatars so...

Watching other deaf people, and asking what are you watching ? they said the signer, so I wonder just how much of the 'action' they are actually able to see with that access. It is not viewed, that a sign user cannot read, so access is there, but deaf are not going to be able to 'prefer' which they get... Personally I will take whatever... access is access, is access...

I was talking about subtitles as opposed to captions. My opinion is that captions are an effective means of communicating on screen whereas subtitles are ineffective. I agree that signing is an enviable means of interpreting a movie for the same reasons subtitles are, because it takes your eyes away from the action and doesn't effectively describe the sound or indicate who the speaker is. Captions follow the action and describe the sound. That's why I advocate captions as opposed to subtitles. Subtitles are stationary at the bottom of the screen, giving no indication of who is speaking or what sounds are audible.

 

[Hear Again]

Excuse my ignorance, but what's the difference between captioning and subtitles? Mints said that subtitles are stationary at the bottom of the screen, but I don't understand how this differs from captions. I'm totally blind and have never seen subtitles before, so I don't understand what they are. Would someone mind explaining this to me? Thanks.

 

[Hear Again]

I do notice that nobody prefers subtitles, even though it's becoming popular because it's the cheapest option. This is because it is ineffective. Imagine if animated movie companies decided to hire only one voice for every character, and that voice showed no emotion, and the movie had no sound effects. If you're lucky, you can tell who's talking by whose mouth is moving. Half the time, you can't even see who's talking. You can't tell if they're whispering or screaming or crying or laughing. All you have are the words. That's the difference between subtitles and captions. So I guess you're right. Even though nobody prefers subtitles to captions, we are having them forced upon us because they're the cheapest option. To me, in many cases, I find it a better option to just not watch the movie because it's meaningless without captions. No matter how skilled I get at reading subtitles, it will never be a viable communications method because it's inherently incapable of communicating sufficient information.

Now I understand the difference between captions and subtitles. You can ignore my previous post.

 

[SimplyMints]

Now I understand the difference between captions and subtitles. You can ignore my previous post.

But it's nice to see that you're back!

Subtitles tell us only what is being said. Captions indicate who is saying it, and how, and what emotion, and other expressions. Captions also tell us if a door or something else is audibly moving off-screen, or if there are birds chirping or frogs croaking, etcetera Subtitles just sit there at the bottom of the screen and don't show us who is talking.

 

[Passivist]

I still don't see much difference between captioning and subtitles. Maybe the UK differs from the way the USA does things ? Via 'static' subtitles (Which I think you say they are), we also get "Door slams...", or " Footsteps above..." or even "Cheesy music plays..." too. However they don't print that all over the screen, do captions do that in the USA ? That would make captions as unviable as the signing I would have thought.... Also on some titled programs we get different text colour for different speakers too, albeit you can still forget who is using what colour ! Various text colour is however not the norm here....

 

[Hear Again]

But it's nice to see that you're back!

Subtitles tell us only what is being said. Captions indicate who is saying it, and how, and what emotion, and other expressions. Captions also tell us if a door or something else is audibly moving off-screen, or if there are birds chirping or frogs croaking, etcetera Subtitles just sit there at the bottom of the screen and don't show us who is talking.

Thanks, Mints -- and thanks for the explanation! I've never seen captioning before either although I have used Braille realtime captioning many times in my college lectures.

 

[SimplyMints]

I still don't see much difference between captioning and subtitles. Maybe the UK differs from the way the USA does things ? Via 'static' subtitles (Which I think you say they are), we also get "Door slams...", or " Footsteps above..." or even "Cheesy music plays..." too. However they don't print that all over the screen, do captions do that in the USA ? That would make captions as unviable as the signing I would have thought.... Also on some titled programs we get different text colour for different speakers too, albeit you can still forget who is using what colour ! Various text colour is however not the norm here....

Captions I've seen in the United States, Canada, and Australia (granted I've never been to the UK) have a tendency to be very well designed to stay out of the way of the action, but it is positioned on screen so that you can tell who is talking or where the sound is coming from. The character's name is also sometimes used if needed. Example:

(A girl (or other speaking creature) known to the audience as Lenore is on the left side of the screen when a familiar panting sound can be heard from off the right side of the screen. The camera pans right to show a dog (or other creature) the audience knows as Fido running onto the right side of the screen from off screen leaving Lenore off the left side of the screen. Lenore begins to speak off screen when she sees the dog.)

(The captions are displayed as follows)

[FIDO PANTS]​

[LENORE]
Fido, where have you been?

(Subtitles are displayed as follows)

Fido, where have you been?​

Our captions will also sometimes tell us "Suspenseful music plays" or such too, but subtitles don't do that, although captions, if included, are often found under the subtitles menu listed as "English (for hearing impaired)" (but sometimes that's just subtitles, or subtitles with a few extra things added, such as "Phone plays jazzy ring tone" or such).

 

[Passivist]

I would have thought in the above case (Obviously not a typical example), deaf would easily know the person was talking about the dog, and it wasn't necessary to add 'fido pants', we know that is what dogs do, captioning something unusual a dog doesn't usually do, would have relevance, like 'Fido emits a high pitched whine' etc,this then suggests additional information relavent to what is going on more accurately.

Dogs usually do that when something is upsetting them or they are in pain.... So perhaps there is a 'dumbing down' at times ? and stating the pretty obvious ? I think wider captioning needs to highlight relevant points, and not obvious ones (Just a thought). I suppose it depends WHEN and WHERE individual areas are captioned. Of course in some areas there is simply too much going on to caption everything so it can be hit and miss. Then you have to wonder at the point of some of it,because it leaves gaps deaf cannot fill unless it is pretty basic.

What annoys me (!) is the titles or captions stating a pop tune, or a type of Music e.g. Rachmaninoff's concerto in E, and I am none the wiser obviously. "Oh yes we all know that tune...", erm. no I don't, or the writer, artist, or how it fits in with the action .... It suggest we all can hear or have heard it, rather a conundrum if the access is for deaf people. I would assume that type of captioning is for those who may have heard (Acquired deaf), before, so can maybe relate to it.... So titles for them, captions for the others ?

 

[Hear Again]

I don't think there should be any differentiation between having subtitles made available for those who are late deafened as opposed to those who are Deaf. The Deaf do not deserve captioning any more than those who are late deafened. Furthermore, I like the idea of songs being listed as a part of captions. Remember, not everyone is born Deaf and generally speaking, there are more late deafened and hard of hearing people than there are culturally Deaf people. (This doesn't even include those who are technically hard of hearing, but refuse to admit that they have trouble hearing or need hearing aids.) I'm the kind of person who likes to have as much audible information as possible. This is a little off-topic, but when I use relay, I tell the CA to type *everything* -- coughing, sneezing, sniffling, tone of voice, background conversations -- anything they can hear. I figure that since I don't have the ability to hear this myself, it's only fair that the CA communicate this to me since all of these sounds can be accessed by those who can hear.

 

[SimplyMints]

I would have thought in the above case (Obviously not a typical example), deaf would easily know the person was talking about the dog, and it wasn't necessary to add 'fido pants', we know that is what dogs do, captioning something unusual a dog doesn't usually do, would have relevance, like 'Fido emits a high pitched whine' etc,this then suggests additional information relavent to what is going on more accurately.

Dogs usually do that when something is upsetting them or they are in pain.... So perhaps there is a 'dumbing down' at times ? and stating the pretty obvious ? I think wider captioning needs to highlight relevant points, and not obvious ones (Just a thought). I suppose it depends WHEN and WHERE individual areas are captioned. Of course in some areas there is simply too much going on to caption everything so it can be hit and miss. Then you have to wonder at the point of some of it,because it leaves gaps deaf cannot fill unless it is pretty basic.

What annoys me (!) is the titles or captions stating a pop tune, or a type of Music e.g. Rachmaninoff's concerto in E, and I am none the wiser obviously. "Oh yes we all know that tune...", erm. no I don't, or the writer, artist, or how it fits in with the action .... It suggest we all can hear or have heard it, rather a conundrum if the access is for deaf people. I would assume that type of captioning is for those who may have heard (Acquired deaf), before, so can maybe relate to it.... So titles for them, captions for the others ?

I stated in my example that Fido was off screen. This is why the captions stated that Fido was panting. If you could hear Fido panting, you would know that Fido was there. If you can't hear the panting, there would be no way of knowing Fido was there, except that the captions stated that Fido was panting. Now that you see the captions stating that Fido is panting, you know the same thing hearing viewers would know at this point.

 

[Passivist]

Point taken. In regards to 'preferred communication' options, is anyone addressing that really ? Media access is a moot point here, where signing has been downgraded because titles are there. So a preference for sign, is not being recognised to the widespread acceptances of text. Where two options are available for deaf people in that access, then sign seems to be losing out. The only real issue we had in the UK was when there was mooted a return to 'sign only' on a deaf program, which up until then had titles and in-vision access as well, the suggested withdrawl of those text options, near had the program taken off air, as 'unviewable' to most... a survey reversed the decision. To this day they don't dare withdraw titles in favour of sign alone.

Near all 'complaints' that go in, are when sign alone is used. It may well be, because it is reported grass roots are not interested in deaf oriented programs any more, since, directions have been altered to include wider areas of those with hearing loss, which they say is not culture. Another (UK) issue is the sheer variance of BSL area by area, and no norm agreed. Media offers wider access, but not to culture or to sign. So far BSLTV is struggling too, so it is difficult to see exactly what the sign using deaf are wanting... I think it is a unity problem at core, they can't agree amongst themselves, whilst those who prefer captions and tiltles are united in what they want.