A current debate in the UK, BSL demand is minimal to near none in media, (Around 2.5 to 4%), even deaf campaign groups don't put their heart into access campiagns for it. Most, near all deaf being literate, are happy with titles/captions and manage well enough without BSL which they say ISN'T a neeed, but a preference, so lower down the access priority. Is signed interpreting on-screeen just a sop to keep them quiet ? And has it ANYreal chance until a choice appears to take it off screen (Like the 888 option in the UK for titles).
The UK mainstream wouldn't put up with captions on everything, and until 888 appeared deaf had nothing really. IF there is technical and CHEAP wizardy to put BSL/ASL, at the end of a button, would the majority use that ? so far the consensus is NO, and sign left to 'specialist' deaf programs instead or occasional news inclusion at obscure times. Even the net access hasn't wholly embraced sign has it ? as an access to the net medium, again most happy preferring text, so sign is just for deaf socializing ? and information better done via text ? This raises educational access issues surely ?
The UK mainstream wouldn't put up with captions on everything, and until 888 appeared deaf had nothing really. IF there is technical and CHEAP wizardy to put BSL/ASL, at the end of a button, would the majority use that ? so far the consensus is NO, and sign left to 'specialist' deaf programs instead or occasional news inclusion at obscure times. Even the net access hasn't wholly embraced sign has it ? as an access to the net medium, again most happy preferring text, so sign is just for deaf socializing ? and information better done via text ? This raises educational access issues surely ?