Bound to cause contention but has this deafened poster a valid point? Access for access sake? We know rights overrule practicality as it is. To caption or to sign? No room for both? A response to discussions about captioning in televised media, access? or just an unwelcome distraction?
"As points of interest I DON'T want sport captioned because the display of text means I lose 30% of the picture. There is an issue attached to weather forecasts too in that if weather map displays your area in the lower half of the picture you have to switch captions off or you won't see the numbers. Trying to avoid contention I don't want sign language on the screen, it detracts far too much from what is going on in the item, there seems no size norm and some translators are extremely distracting.
I have no idea if the user of that medium watches the TV or the signer frankly, it doesn't appear possible to watch both. Including both tends to make me switch off altogether. Media in the UK puts that access to the graveyard shift, so I doubt deaf watch it anyway. There should be a '889' option for them or something, although I am told demand for BSL access in TV is almost non-extant from the deaf themselves except as some tokenised inclusion and plug for their culture which seems to result in them arguing the pros, cons, and ability of the user and medium.
It's more a 'we have a right to it..' than 'we cannot follow without it'. By far the worst in the UK is SKY rolling news, a complete mishmash of text all over the place it often makes programs viable only if you turn captions off. SKY removed sign too because hearing complained of the same problems we do. Is BSL really necessary? They must expect miracles from a solo translator to follow any storylines with more than 1 actor in it and, it is not even in their professed language or grammar?