Why do some TV broadcasts show a person translating it to sign language instead of using subtitles? - eviltoast

I assume there must be a reason why sign language is superior but I genuinely don’t know why.

  • mdwhite999@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    8 months ago

    A lot of these comments are American so I thought I would provide a different point of view. In the UK it is a legal requirement for some broadcasters to have a certain percentage of signed programmes.

    • kux@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      To add to this, repeats with added sign language were (are?) often broadcast late at night because you were meant to set your video to record them to use as teaching materials. wasn’t just sign language, a lot of the videos shown in school was stuff that had been taped from 3am

      • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        To add another part of it, for people using BSL, it’s akin to their mother tongue.
        Being able to watch content with signing is akin to having a TV show dubbed into your native language, rather than relying on subtitles.

        Edit: I just had a check, and it’s actually mentioned in the ofcom guidelines:
        Subtitle users reflect the full range of proficiency in English; some profoundly deaf people regard BSL as their first language, and are less fluent in English.

      • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The UK’s always been pretty inclusive and this law’s been around for decades, since way before subtitles were practical, or even visible on crappy old b&w CRT screens