Friday, 11 September 2020

ZOOD

 


The Way I see it......

 

Neatly avoiding the very real conflict and the differing facts of comprehension when captions are in use, both by learners and monoglot signers.

A recent study has shown that readers' eye gaze behaviors are strong indicators of words that are unexpected, new, or difficult to understand. The study by Rain Bosworth, an assistant professor and researcher in the Center for Sensory, Perceptual, and Cognitive Ecology (SPaCE Center) at Rochester Institute of Technology's National Technical Institute for the Deaf, explores the unknown qualities of gaze behavior for "sign watching" and how these are affected by a user's language expertise and intelligibility of the sign input. 

According to Bosworth's study, published in the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, with NTID graduate Adam Stone, gaze behaviors can provide an index of cognitive effort and knowledge in signers. This study provides the first evidence that novice and fluent signers have different eye gaze behaviors. Bosworth and her team recorded gaze behaviors in 52 deaf and hearing adults while they watched signed narratives. Highly fluent signers primarily kept a steady gaze on the face and used peripheral vision to perceive the signers' moving hands. The researchers then showed the participants videos of signed stories played backwards. 

Bosworth said that people who learned American Sign Language earlier in life are better equipped to understand difficult video-reversed narratives. Fluent signers tended to focus strongly on the face when sign watching, even for low intelligibility conditions. "These low intelligibility conditions simulate what happens in real-world settings when trying to watch live signers on phones with small displays or with weak internet signals," explained Bosworth. Novice signers, who scored lower on measures of story comprehension, showed a very different gaze pattern.

Thursday, 10 September 2020

Taking Coal to Newcastle.

A video a few months old and looks like some sop to the European Union or they sponsored it.  Sadly it follows a lot of similar output nobody is going to look at.  The thing about deaf culture is that it produces nil awareness, it's taking 'Coals to Newcastle'  I.E. "Do or bring something superfluous or unnecessary, as in Running the sprinkler while it's raining, that's carrying coals to Newcastle. This metaphor was already well known in the mid-1500s, when Newcastle-upon-Tyne had been a major coal-mining center for 400 years."

You are 'preaching to the converted'  again I.E. "To speak for or against something to people who already agree with one's opinions.  Without adequate access for the mainstream to follow deaf people or their sign language, few are going to take any interest except a few deaf.  Having included two metaphors already, perhaps deaf culture is a third?


Transcriptions on Pod casts


Yes or No?

Wednesday, 9 September 2020

Oops!

Free BSL help to access the NHS.


Watford has spoken' - readers react to Dean Russell and Tories victory |  Watford Observer
But still no request for text or lip-speaking support? Formats the majority with hearing loss use. It would help if it was illegal for deaf sign users to use family and untrained friend support, this then supplies demand everyone can see, and prevents the NHS abuses of access via demanding deaf provide their own, aided and abetted by the British Deaf Association endorsing blatant amateurism in sign language support for the deaf as a 'Deaf right'.

For his information, there are NOT 150,000 BSL-using deaf, either in England, Scotland, Wales or N.Ireland, not even as a grand total, even the BDA (font of all BS regarding BSL statistics), never got to those numbers!    BSL access to the NHS has been a NORM for years also, as has video access, part of the issue is a deaf preference for people, and using Mum and Dad, not video.  Of course in the middle of a pandemic that is not going to happen on a realistic basis for a while.  The proof of access is in the take-up, and BSL take up has been quite low by default, and not by a reluctance to provide.

It is of concern politicians are backing campaigns that actually are non-inclusive and selective.  Even worse, using claims that are unable to substantiate, or force through, because the actual support area of interpreters cannot meet this fictitious demand for BSL, or even see it.  If they did they would have the work and learners the impetus to qualify.

[Requests for information as to what source he used and from whom got no reply].

Tuesday, 8 September 2020

De-constructing the DeaF

Deconstruction - Assignment PointThus proving there are more than Deaf or deaf in existence.

#1 Deaf person including very strong Deaf Culture and hundreds of Deaf Friends from old Deaf Schools, Deaf Clubs, Holidays or any Sports or pleasures in anywhere in Great Britain as all Deaf always love each other like family!! It’s between Deaf person including mixing with Hearing and few Deaf Friends?? Some Deaf who came out from Hearing School (Mainstream School) to make life very hard or very different experience as like you wrote with your stories or explained about your Deaf life but you wrote with brilliant high English Words as it means “most of Deaf who wrote as natural as 1st Language but all Deaf Community are ALWAYS very happy life because of Deaf Commufeeling safe.

#2 You also asked did I go to deaf school? is that a requirement of being deaf? I thought not hearing was? I didn't. I started deaf aged 11 and they told me here on this site that makes me 'hearing'. My ENT dept said I had zero hearing in either ear, not even a CI could be of use. It made no difference, so I suppose I am one of your 'deaf' who don't know the right people, or as you state, appeared not to have attended some deaf school which is the real test or validation as to who you are. I prefer the term 'Hybrid deaf', which means neither one area or the other. I've been in deaf clubs and more deaf than most there but I felt it too constrictive to be of use really. 

#3 Can I sign? yes, do I? not much. I've had more years of experience being deaf than most deaf community people here have been alive and I still got a 'non-deaf' tag. I stopped caring years ago about it. Mostly my voice did it, that was a negative as well in the 'Deaf' world, really I have no time for the constant deaf obsessions with tags, labels, and identification issues, It is all politics and no need these days. I don't see deaf education empowering deaf either, much most leave unable to cope in a hearing world still. There is a fatalistic assumption by some this cannot change simply because you cannot hear, or others cannot sign, which is not what activists are saying, they are saying 'We can do anything but hear.' someone has their wires crossed.

#4  Putting deafness into proper perspective is more my thing these days. There are those who think 'another bitter deafie' they would be wrong, I'm a survivor. I've survived the Deaf and the Hearing worlds. Neither function in regards to inclusion, I don't believe they even want it or they would be doing more to address that.  Their mantras are you have to do this, or that, and whatever, because we are a culture or they communicate differently, bilingualism fell by the wayside in their debates too.   They are their own conundrum but aren't even aware of their own history mostly because 9 out of 10 have no deaf history.  It used to be a novelty now it is just 'What on earth are you talking about?'

#4 My teacher would be shocked if still alive today lol I have a school report here still that stated "ATR has no concept of the written word, and we seriously doubt he can write his own name half the time..' I left school at 15 with no English passes at all, I taught myself and attended night school, again with no support. I am simply using what works for me, since using sign would only get negativity, I was among the very first of a group of deaf people who captioned own youtube output and with sign I had learnt at the time. Hardly any deaf were doing it.   I also fought for and got provision for the deaf to have minicoms when they became available all opposed by the deaf themselves and the systems that supported them. Because 'Deaf sign', time has proven me ahead of the game.  Which deaf would not use a telephone now?

#5 I got a lot of deaf criticism the youtube signing wasn't perfect, so I didn't do it again. The fact I was struggling in school to hear anything said, and nobody believed I had hearing loss, I heard 'when I wanted to' was the usual response. it seems a fair amount of self-taught lip-reading I had already acquired by default to some degree. I did read somewhere of a medical condition whereby a man was blind and didn't know it! who knows! I would agree 'safety in numbers and with like' years ago was pretty essential, but, as I said I had no 'like' to retire to, a lot didn't. 

There were no HoH schools no HoH support in classes no HoH social support workers, no lip-reading classes and no sign language classes either e.g. and the deaf were dispensed to schools in the middle of nowhere away from their own families came back strangers to own families. Boys doing manual or woodwork and Girls sewing or something and I wanted into technology. 

#6 Others can look to the safety of a 'community' as an opt/cop-out or an 'excuse' to stay apart to avoid stress, and avoid the challenges of co-existing in a hearing world etc, also using sign as another opt-out to avoid integrating because you sign and they don't, end of... again it did not appear to me that was going to include deaf much, it provided no impetus for change. It can be a concern if their deaf schools all fail and most have closed already, also, the deaf clubs have been decimated too, both areas that made that 'safety' and community a way of living. It's a logical reaction but it won't address deaf access or deaf inclusion regardless if you capitalise a 'd' it or not.  There are not 100s of deaf schools less than 20 now.  I just think 'smoke and mirrors' and a sector of these deaf have no ability to manage outside it in reality and need to justify it via blaming someone else, or using what they get to bolster what they have already, it's all a bit inward thinking. 

#7 I suppose the fact I use a lot of words and English also puts me in some category deaf-wise, I just don't know why these deaf need to do that. It's my primary means of communication now lip-reading is failing and sign never worked anyway.  Paddy Ladd the deafie icon has considerable written English prowess, if a pretty obscure slant on the deaf and using words and terminologies nobody understands but him, whilst forgetting that deaf opposed the mode he used, yet he would be 'Deaf' and I wouldn't. In reality, his own upbringing was oral. A communication system hated by purists but hugely benefitted Mr Ladd and his collection of 'followers'.  

Yet we can still read he and others opposing it all vehemently, crazy mixed up people!  I spent years being aware of the deaf community and it seems more aware than some who claim a status I could never attain. (Nor want, labels are for jars as we all know).

Monday, 7 September 2020

Deaf Awareness month. Really?



The reality is 10m with hearing LOSS are not really interested in a 'Deaf' week or month. They see it as some deaf fest of culture and language that does not raise any awareness of their or our access issues. 


E.G. Capitalising the 'D' segregated deaf people because the 'D' area 'relegated' other non-signing deaf to a minor status and definition, either because they didn't use sign much or at all, or were not members of their 'community'.  They had own charities etc albeit these have mostly folded and were negative in campaigns.  The 'D' campaign is a major success and, a major failure to include as well.  But all depends on maintaining the community and schools.  There, they have lost ground.

This instantly created more barriers not only between deaf people who felt slighted by the terms created,  but the disabled did too as 'Deaf' challenged that term, and the ID's imposed by 'Deaf' on others with hearing loss caused anger, it also created support issues as the system started to accept those definitions and assumed them universal to all but still failed to provide equal access to 'non-Deaf'. This meant non-signers being offered sign support they couldn't use, or failing to get lip-speakers and text support they did need. 'All deaf sign prevailed' even all HoH did too.

The reality is that mainstream and the medical professions only have one image of deafness, and that is an inability to hear, and the support systems and those with hearing loss quote another explanation entirely, even that 'support' is an offensive term and it should be called 'empowerment'. Unfortunately, nobody defined what empowerment was meant to be like, so it became secular to a point. 

The hearing loss majority is a conundrum in that they are an actual minority in campaign terms, so again been sidelined by vociferous cultural campaigners dedicated 24/7 to promote their view of deafness, loss, and life as well as how that 'empowerment' should be applied or defined.

We suspect 10m in the UK with hearing loss are more than content to let them campaign how they wish but are not happy with the random usage of statistics and need definitions, coming out from this sector which is including them as well, either abetted by assumptions from the system, or deliberate vagueness from the cultural activism utilising some 'numbers' game to enhance their message even tagging themselves as HoH to increase coverage etc.  

The reality, as usual, is no figure exists regarding BSL users or usage other than one statistic from one singular BSL charity that has never provided a proof base for it.  The prime reality is cash as usual BSL/culture is a saleable commodity, hearing loss isn't, but it has led to widespread abuse and manipulation of loss and the needs it presents.  During 'Deaf' month we will see that in all its debatable promotion.  The irony in that as much reality exists that there are less deaf people that are cultural or signing than those who insist they are.

AOHL drive to widen access.

Closed captioning - WikipediaUsing sign language and captions.  The only problem as I can see is signed access is almost impossible to lip-read.  Without criticising individual interpreters, a lot do not lip-speak at ALL most of the time there is exaggerated face-pulling etc which is more suitable for a child than an adult who would not use an Interpreter that did that.  The image is negative and in most part reflecting adversely ON deaf people. 

Deaf need support, not theatrics.  A lot simply fail to speak as well as some 'sop' to deaf culture, but that is sidelining the dedicated lip-reader, which is curious given recent heavy campaigns demanding masks FOR lip-readers, and the claim all deaf now lip-read not sign, perhaps lip-speaking should be a norm with sign language?

Of course, nobody is going to watch the mouth patterns or the sign language, with captioning, but the few, which suggests both mediums are heading for obscurity and rarity media-wise.  I didn't watch any of the sign on the AOHL updates or the BDA's because captions are there.  The more we read the less we lip-read or sign.  888 is the number one prime access to media above all other modes deaf use.

It's a well-known issue in BSL circles, who tend to refuse to caption personal output because they know what happens.  A lot is done quite deliberately to promote deaf culture and sign language and if viewers follow captions they aren't going to follow culture or sign.  I feel they are fighting a losing battle as most deaf are insisting on captions, and even some stating they can not follow sign without it.

90%+ BSL interpreters are unqualified and unregistered to lip-speak at all.  There are issues with some BSL interpreters claiming to be lip-speakers too, but are not registered in that capacity.  So where did all these sudden demands for lip-reading come from?  It could not have been the deaf.  I rely on captions but the reality of daily life means I need people to speak properly.  No charity concerned with the awareness of deaf or hard of hearing actually provides a lip-speaker.

The consensus of opinion is both lip-reading and BSL are always going to be minority means to follow and only then viable via continued external 3rd party support.  Yet, 10m in the UK with hearing loss have rejected BSL as a means of communication themselves, and the ongoing frustrations at the lack of lip-reading tuitional success is hampering that approach also.

Captions/text have already succeeded in relegating BSL and lip-reading to the sidelines.  Technology appears to have provided the solutions most with hearing loss prefer and medical advances limiting the number of deaf people requiring either mode.