|
Title: Sign of the times Post by: RED-DOG on April 06, 2020, 01:37:42 PM During a televised speech, announcement or news programme, I find the presence of someone signing for the deaf very distracting. So much so that I have to switch off or switch over.
This might sound uncharitable but I wonder what percentage of the population actually need and can understand signing? Does it justify the intrusion? Wouldn't subtitles be better? What about a parallel, 'with signing' broadcast? Don't get me wrong, I would walk over hot coals to help anyone less fortunate than myself, but there must be a better way in this instance. Title: Re: Sign of the times Post by: marcro on April 06, 2020, 01:44:50 PM During a televised speech, announcement or news programme, I find the presence of someone signing for the deaf very distracting. So much so that I have to switch off or switch over. This might sound uncharitable but I wonder what percentage of the population actually need and can understand signing? Does it justify the intrusion? Wouldn't subtitles be better? What about a parallel, 'with signing' broadcast? Don't get me wrong, I would walk over hot coals to help anyone less fortunate than myself, but there must be a better way in this instance. I found the same thing watching the Queen's speech last night and said to my wife that I found it very distracting and that subtitles would be far less intrusive and do a good job in serving the objective. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of somebody who is in the unfortunate position of losing their hearing as to their view. |