Will deaf say no to signed TV in the UK ?

Since the 2003 Act came in to force making it a legal requirement to provide albeit a limited amount of sign language access to TV programs, there have been increasing comments, it is not working, and increasingly not wanted any more by deaf people who prefer, and are happy with subtitling.

Particular gripes are in-vision captions, and obstruction of the program visuals by over emphasis on the signed access. SEE HEAR the Brits premier deaf program, took the ridiculous step of putting the interpreter visual to directly compete with the program, by taking up to 50% of the screen coverage. Most assumptions are that the deaf can, as they do with subtitles, watch a signed TV program with little concerns about conflict between two visual communication mediums on the screen. This has not proven to be the reality, and now it is the deaf complaining the sign is in the way. It only works if sign is part of the screen action and content. Even then deaf demand subtitling access as well.

Another problem is because the UK still is determined to go its own way with regional signing, huge areas of deaf UK then cannot follow the allocated 'standard' signed access they are getting, because they steadfastly reject any norm. Age groups over 30 are definitely not happy with 'modern' BSL, either by way of what they get as access today, or as it is being taught, so Brit deaf are also in transition regarding what 'type' of BSL is being portrayed. There is I believe, a groundswell of signing deaf who no longer want the signed access being provided, especially at the BBC 'Sign Zone'.

This 'sign zone' is nothing more than the same programs they watched earlier in the day with subtitles, being shown after midnight (12pm), when most have gone to bed but the with signed acces alone or, with sign AND subtitles attached, making the screen barely viewable. Dual access gets worse according to the screen content, you just don't throw everything in as access to fulfil a law, you determine if it is viable. You do also, pay attention to the fact no two deaf take in that access the same way. We've even seen signed access to deaf output with signers on screen..

Anyone who has watched SKY TV News with subtitles will know what I mean ! It got too much with SKY who also had signed access, titles, moving banners, and on-screen text all over the screen, which promted massive protests by hearing AND deaf viewers the news was no longer watchable at all. It was information overkill. SKY removed signed access to much main news... to placate an incensed hearing majority.

Obviously the other assumption is that the deaf can still record that and watch it at their leisure at a more acceptable viewing hour, that is, one not inhabited by insomniacs. They could do this with iplayer too, but don't, and don't even subtitle a lot of that output either, which is where many deaf are urging the access to come forward, few if any asking at all for signed access. We have a situation where signed access on iplayer far exceeded titled access on it. Despite very low viewing figures for signed TV. This week the sole 'Deaf' program SEE HEAR goes on holiday for a few months, so no deaf program apart from BSL TV which still struggles to get regular viewers in, and probably would not get them without subitling either. Few if any cultural areas would dare to totally remove subtitling from output and expect deaf to put up with it. The backlash would see sign opposed openly. It is happening anyway.

Is the signed access campaign no longer supported in medias ? Are they just going through the motions of supporting BSL access because they dare not be seen rejecting it ? It doesn't work as deaf awareness because of the sidelining of sign access to the net or to ungodly viewing hours or the recent wheeze of dumping sign to 'community TV' viewing which is taking it out of mainstream altogether really. BSL TV was opposed at one point because deaf saw that doing this while providing a deaf-centric area to watch, took deaf awareness and deaf people OUT of the mainstream viewing area, an own goal.. Now they complain there are no deaf people being seen as included, they all went to deaf TV ? Don't buy it..

'READ HEAR' a long standing text feedback page for the deaf via the CSV access group, has been ongoing for many years and highly respected where it counts, many of its editors are/were leading lights in the Brit community, including Chas Donaldson/J Dodds and others. Contributors were the leading campaigners for change over the years. They came from every leading group of deaf and HI there is. It's influence shaped much of what happened in recent years.

The last few weeks we saw again anger at signed TV output and calls for subtitling instead there. "We cannot understand the sign on it", " why have sign language when deaf prefer captions instead ?", "Why show two mediums at the same time that just obscure and confuse ?", "Why repeat programs already seen, and with titles anyway ?", "Who is going to stay awake after midnight to watch inaccessble TV ?". Just a cross section of a few views put forward. Another comment was "I have many deaf signing friends, and from the deaf schools, and they don't watch the BSL sign zone, they prefer subtitles too.."

Looks like the BSL-only minority is getting even more of a minority, and certainly lost the access war at day one, defeated by their own sector personal preferences, that whilst still cultural, did not see sign as the viable medium in medias.... A cursory glance at deaf TV output would show that Brits no longer cover cultural things much at all, but simply provide access to the usual hearing-mainstream programs. Deaf culture is in transitional state to HD (Hearing-Deaf) mode... and the pen has indeed proven mightier than the hand.....