do we have to be subjected to gurning gesticulating gargoyles in the
corner of the screen, who cannot be eradicated by mere button push?

Its as bad as the 'NARative audio track, designed for people who
presumably cant watch the telly they just tuned into...

And what is your problem? You can turn off AD certainly, I always find it
daft that people think blind people do not want to watch the telly. Of
course we do but its an up hill struggle still to get Audio description, and
more to the point talking menus for the TV. Don't get me started.

Now as far as I know signing and other devices for other disabilities can
often be turned off, but occasionally you find a program that was recorded
with it actually in vision, not an inserted extra.
In those cases you need to have some tolerance or maybe you need to just
stick a bit of tape over it.
Blimey.
Subtitles do not help as all people you know.
Some people cannot read fast enough to keep up either.
Many Deaf people don't think much of modern subtitles compared to the old
teletext kind, which were bigger and easier to read.


Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Tjoepstil" wrote in message
news
do we have to be subjected to gurning gesticulating gargoyles in the
corner of the screen, who cannot be eradicated by mere button push?

Its as bad as the 'NARative audio track, designed for people who
presumably cant watch the telly they just tuned into...

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 06:23:24 +0000, Tjoepstil
coalesced the vapors of human
experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension...

do we have to be subjected to gurning gesticulating gargoyles in the
corner of the screen, who cannot be eradicated by mere button push?

Its as bad as the 'NARative audio track, designed for people who
presumably cant watch the telly they just tuned into...

It's not a GGG, it's called a DOG, Digital On-screen Graphic, and
it's there so you always know what channel you are watching, but have
you noticed it does disappear when the adverts are on, the advertisers
insist on that!


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 06:23:24 +0000, Tjoepstil wrote:

do we have to be subjected to gurning gesticulating gargoyles in the
corner of the screen, who cannot be eradicated by mere button push?

Its as bad as the 'NARative audio track, designed for people who
presumably cant watch the telly they just tuned into...

That gesticulating makes it almost impossible to watch the programme. I've a
bit of trouble since my early teens with processing fast-moving random
objects in complex situations.
Funnily eneough, road conditions aren't a problem, but e.g. running through
woodland with the other lads, I'd have to stop and reset. Same in a busy
shopping centre, especially with mirrors on pillars, I can get
disorientated.
All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it should be
optional, so as to consider those who can't tolerate it.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 27/12/2017 07:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
And what is your problem? You can turn off AD certainly,

I believe a certain broadcaster screwed up recently and had only the AD
audio track.

In those cases you need to have some tolerance or maybe you need to just
stick a bit of tape over it.

I suspect that the original poster is writing about Digital Onscreen
Graphics which cannot be turned off. On some channels they can be quite
subtle and just show the channel identity. On other channels they can be
much more annoying being animated and/or include pop-up advertising for
the next or future programs. Children's channels are often the worst
offenders, after all we must educate them that unnecessary crap graphics
all over the screen is acceptable and normal. Once accepted it will
become normal to have on-screen banner advertisements during the
programs rather than have advertising breaks.


Some people cannot read fast enough to keep up either.

The broadcasters will have to tell the actors to mumble slower
Surely the sub-titles only reflect what is being said on screen? Missing
out some dialogue is likely to cause confusion.

Many Deaf people don't think much of modern subtitles compared to the old
teletext kind, which were bigger and easier to read.

On boxes I've owned the display of sub-titles have had user readability
options. Perhaps those complaining should consider their choice of box
more carefully.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it should be
optional,

It is optional. It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can exclude it
by using your program filters.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 27/12/17 07:59, Graham. wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 06:23:24 +0000, Tjoepstil
coalesced the vapors of human
experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension...

do we have to be subjected to gurning gesticulating gargoyles in the
corner of the screen, who cannot be eradicated by mere button push?

Its as bad as the 'NARative audio track, designed for people who
presumably cant watch the telly they just tuned into...

It's not a GGG, it's called a DOG, Digital On-screen Graphic, and
it's there so you always know what channel you are watching, but have
you noticed it does disappear when the adverts are on, the advertisers
insist on that!


We no. I am talking about deaf signing ****heads.



--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 27/12/17 08:21, alan_m wrote:
On 27/12/2017 07:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
And what is your problem? You can turn off AD certainly,

I believe a certain broadcaster screwed up recently and had only the AD
audio track.

Â* In those cases you need to have some tolerance or maybe you need to
just
stick a bit of tape over it.

I suspect that the original poster is writing about Digital Onscreen
Graphics

No, About gesticulatng gurning gargoyles which are signing for deaf
people who are too stupid to use subtitles

If that was the case I never saw it, it would be a rather obvious thing as
long periods of nothing would result as its a separate overlayed track
unless you use the bbc etc web site where two different streams are there
one with both and one with none. I think subtitles being simple to do, can
be overlayed or more to the point made visible. As for signing and facial
effects, that is a bit more difficult as the bandwidth on ordinary
terrestrial may dictate its there or its not as the bandwidth for Freeview
is severely limited by the bar Stewards who sell the bandwidth to the
broadcasters, so its actually cheaper to put it out with it hard coded than
as an extra.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 27/12/2017 07:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
And what is your problem? You can turn off AD certainly,

I believe a certain broadcaster screwed up recently and had only the AD
audio track.

In those cases you need to have some tolerance or maybe you need to
just
stick a bit of tape over it.

I suspect that the original poster is writing about Digital Onscreen
Graphics which cannot be turned off. On some channels they can be quite
subtle and just show the channel identity. On other channels they can be
much more annoying being animated and/or include pop-up advertising for
the next or future programs. Children's channels are often the worst
offenders, after all we must educate them that unnecessary crap graphics
all over the screen is acceptable and normal. Once accepted it will become
normal to have on-screen banner advertisements during the programs rather
than have advertising breaks.


Some people cannot read fast enough to keep up either.

The broadcasters will have to tell the actors to mumble slower Surely
the sub-titles only reflect what is being said on screen? Missing out some
dialogue is likely to cause confusion.

Many Deaf people don't think much of modern subtitles compared to the
old
teletext kind, which were bigger and easier to read.

On boxes I've owned the display of sub-titles have had user readability
options. Perhaps those complaining should consider their choice of box
more carefully.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

He is but that is not the reason for signing. Many reasons exist for signing
as not everyone can read fast enough. If you notice the way signed programs
go out its normally on the repeat or a later transmission, not on the
original. The reason you are not allowed to hide these is because of the
stupid way bandwidth is managed by Freeview, trading it off across the
multiplexed channels. it would in reality be very easy to generate a signed
graphic or real person and use digital techniques to mix it in or insert
it. However AD and subtitles use little more bandwidth than a normal
transmission and can be accommodated, signing has either to be part of the
transmission or not, If it was separate, more bandwidth would be needed,
costing more dosh, and more to the point reducing somebody elses bandwidth.

As I always said about digital TV, the system is run for pack em in get the
dosh in to the people who run it, rather than make it have redundant
capacity to allow for such extras as optional signing.

If your attitude to disability shown here is the same as in the real world,
how you have survived so long eludes me! :-)
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/17 08:21, alan_m wrote:
On 27/12/2017 07:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
And what is your problem? You can turn off AD certainly,

I believe a certain broadcaster screwed up recently and had only the AD
audio track.

In those cases you need to have some tolerance or maybe you need to just
stick a bit of tape over it.

I suspect that the original poster is writing about Digital Onscreen
Graphics

No, About gesticulatng gurning gargoyles which are signing for deaf people
who are too stupid to use subtitles

Well I'm not sure about that always being the case. I thought you all might
like to know that once all stations are equipped, AD is going to be used on
adverts. Proctor and Gamble are pioneering this, and its about bloody time
after all our money is as good as the sighted types money is.


As for Dogs, well that is a fact of life to stop people pirating the
content.
You also get audio versions on radio, particularly in special events like
live concerts, where during a bit of a pause an announcer will state you are
listening to xxx or whatever.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Graham." wrote in message
news
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 06:23:24 +0000, Tjoepstil
coalesced the vapors of human
experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension...

do we have to be subjected to gurning gesticulating gargoyles in the
corner of the screen, who cannot be eradicated by mere button push?

Its as bad as the 'NARative audio track, designed for people who
presumably cant watch the telly they just tuned into...

It's not a GGG, it's called a DOG, Digital On-screen Graphic, and
it's there so you always know what channel you are watching, but have
you noticed it does disappear when the adverts are on, the advertisers
insist on that!


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Well I realised it as you know. Sadly as you will read, the capitalist
system of broadcasting has made it hard or expensive to actually send out
signing so you can turn it off.


Incidentally do you ever go to the cinema? Have you ever wondered about the
new screenings? Recliner screenings, Autistic friendly screenings and baby
friendly screenings are just some I have seen recently. OK but are they
doing it just to be awkward to everyone? No they are doing it to get bums on
seats as its used. Same goes for signing and subtitles AD and talking menus
and program guides on tv as well. Nobody will do these things if it were not
needed.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/17 07:59, Graham. wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 06:23:24 +0000, Tjoepstil
coalesced the vapors of human
experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension...

do we have to be subjected to gurning gesticulating gargoyles in the
corner of the screen, who cannot be eradicated by mere button push?

Its as bad as the 'NARative audio track, designed for people who
presumably cant watch the telly they just tuned into...

It's not a GGG, it's called a DOG, Digital On-screen Graphic, and
it's there so you always know what channel you are watching, but have
you noticed it does disappear when the adverts are on, the advertisers
insist on that!


We no. I am talking about deaf signing ****heads.



--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

I would agree, I hope my previous posts tell you why its not.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"PeterC" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 06:23:24 +0000, Tjoepstil wrote:

do we have to be subjected to gurning gesticulating gargoyles in the
corner of the screen, who cannot be eradicated by mere button push?

Its as bad as the 'NARative audio track, designed for people who
presumably cant watch the telly they just tuned into...

That gesticulating makes it almost impossible to watch the programme. I've
a
bit of trouble since my early teens with processing fast-moving random
objects in complex situations.
Funnily eneough, road conditions aren't a problem, but e.g. running
through
woodland with the other lads, I'd have to stop and reset. Same in a busy
shopping centre, especially with mirrors on pillars, I can get
disorientated.
All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it should be
optional, so as to consider those who can't tolerate it.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 10:01:10 AM UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:

[...]

If your attitude to disability shown here is the same as in the real world,
how you have survived so long eludes me! :-)

Bear in mind he has plenty of disabilities of his own ... as evidenced here daily...

J^n

On 27/12/17 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
My grumble is that you can't pipe the*text* for subtitles into a text-to-
speech box and play that alongside the original soundtrack. Something
that would help Brian, and SWMBO.

That is essentially what Narrative tracks are. They are all over the
satellite transmissions as opposed to freeview.


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it should be
optional,

It is optional. It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as the only
version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing and I find
that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to ignore it.
There should be the option for people with such 'minor' 'disabilities'.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 27/12/17 22:19, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it should be
optional,

It is optional. It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as the only
version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing and I find
that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to ignore it.
There should be the option for people with such 'minor' 'disabilities'.

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.



--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/12/17 22:19, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it
should be optional,

It is optional. It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as the
only version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing
and I find that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to
ignore it. There should be the option for people with such 'minor'
'disabilities'.

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the opera performance I went to a couple of years ago. If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 28/12/17 08:13, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/12/17 22:19, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it
should be optional,

It is optional. It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as the
only version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing
and I find that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to
ignore it. There should be the option for people with such 'minor'
'disabilities'.

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the opera performance I went to a couple of years ago. If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.


It seems that you and the OP have perfect everything, except for the
fact that your *thinking* processes are profoundly ****ed up.

"charles" wrote in message
...

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the opera performance I went to a couple of years ago. If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.


In the first place, in answer to TNP's point, which is based solely
on ignorance* - sign language isn't a substitute for or a "translation"
of spoken language or dialogue. It's a completely independent account
of a situation as interpreted by one deaf person and communicated
to another in a language which may not even share the same structure
and vocabulary as spoken language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_l...oken_languages


Just as hearing people are afforded the opportunity to experience
their own language on both radio and tv broadcasts, so its only fair
that deaf people should have the opportunity to experience their own
language in broadcasts occasionally. If only in the small hours
of the morning when most "normal" people, at least might be expected
to be asleep.

Which isn't to say that its regrettable that this isn't a feature
which could be given a digital channel of its own 24/7 maybe to be
shared between the BBC and others; but that's a different question.

As to opera. Given the existence of critically acclaimed recordings of
performances of most popular operas at least, and the ready availability
nowadays of affordable players, speakers etc., one might equally ask
why anyone i.e with hearing would want to go to opera "performances"
at all. Presumably the reasons "they" choose" to do so, are exactly
the same reasons deaf people choose to do so as well.


michael adams

....

On 28/12/17 09:28, Richard wrote:
On 28/12/17 08:13, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/12/17 22:19, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it
should be optional,

It is optional.Â* It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as the
only version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing
and I find that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to
ignore it. There should be the option for people with such 'minor'
'disabilities'.

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital
transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the operaÂ* performance I went to a couple of years
ago.Â* If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.


It seems that you and the OP have perfect everything, except for the
fact that your *thinking* processes are profoundly ****ed up.

No, in fact you have clearly demonstrated that you can't think, only
virtue signal.

What is achieved by a handwaving gurning gargoyle, that subtitles cannot
do? Nothi g.

You are like all the people who prattle on about disability legislation.
You have never actually had to deal with the *real* problems of being
disabled.

The truth is that the BBC and other staions have to employ disabled
minorities, so they make up jobs that they can do.


--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On 28/12/17 10:04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Richard
wrote:

On 28/12/17 08:13, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/12/17 22:19, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it
should be optional,

It is optional.Â* It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can
exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as the
only version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing
and I find that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to
ignore it. There should be the option for people with such 'minor'
'disabilities'.

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital
transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the operaÂ* performance I went to a couple of years
ago.Â* If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.

It seems that you and the OP have perfect everything, except for the
fact that your *thinking* processes are profoundly ****ed up.

In what way?


Just take charles as an example. If he just goes to the opera for the
music, why bother?

On 28/12/17 10:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/12/17 09:28, Richard wrote:
On 28/12/17 08:13, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/12/17 22:19, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it
should be optional,

It is optional.Â* It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can
exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as the
only version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing
and I find that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to
ignore it. There should be the option for people with such 'minor'
'disabilities'.

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital
transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the operaÂ* performance I went to a couple of years
ago.Â* If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.


It seems that you and the OP have perfect everything, except for the
fact that your *thinking* processes are profoundly ****ed up.

No, in fact you have clearly demonstrated that you can't think, only
virtue signal.

What is achieved by a handwaving gurning gargoyle, that subtitles cannot
do? Nothi g.

You are like all the people who prattle on about disability legislation.

Put the bottle down. Where did I mention disability legislation?

You have never actually had to deal with the *real* problems of being
disabled.

And you know this, how?


The truth is that the BBC and other staions have to employ disabled
minorities, so they make up jobs that they can do.

I guess we should just grind 'em up for fertiliser.

On 28/12/2017 08:13, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/12/17 22:19, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it
should be optional,

It is optional. It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as the
only version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing
and I find that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to
ignore it. There should be the option for people with such 'minor'
'disabilities'.

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the opera performance I went to a couple of years ago. If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Glennie

"She has been profoundly deaf since the age of 12 and claims to have
taught herself to hear with parts of her body other than her ears."

--
Max Demian

PeterC posted
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 06:23:24 +0000, Tjoepstil wrote:

do we have to be subjected to gurning gesticulating gargoyles in the
corner of the screen, who cannot be eradicated by mere button push?

Its as bad as the 'NARative audio track, designed for people who
presumably cant watch the telly they just tuned into...

That gesticulating makes it almost impossible to watch the programme. I've a
bit of trouble since my early teens with processing fast-moving random
objects in complex situations.

I haven't but I still can't watch programmes with the gesticulating GGs.
It is simply too distracting.

And it is not true, or not generally true, that they go out on repeats
in the small hours. Many's the time I've recorded a movie on Channel
Four to watch the next evening, and find I can't watch it because of the
signing.

Brian says "many people" can't read subtitles and need the signing.
Exactly how many people are we catering for here, and how many are we
excluding?

--
Jack

alan_m posted
On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it should be
optional,

It is optional. It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving.

No, it isn't.

If recording the program there will be a code in the EPG description to
identify this type of repeat so that you can exclude it by using your
program filters.

Oh good. So I can solve the problem by not watching TV programmes that I
would have liked to watch.

--
Jack

Richard posted
On 28/12/17 10:04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Richard
wrote:

On 28/12/17 08:13, charles wrote:
Particularly at the opera* performance I went to a couple of years
ago.* If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.

It seems that you and the OP have perfect everything, except for the
fact that your *thinking* processes are profoundly ****ed up.
In what way?


Just take charles as an example. If he just goes to the opera for the
music, why bother?

He didn't say he just goes to the opera for the music. He asked why
people go who *can't* hear the music. If you can't understand the
logical difference, it's your brain that's damaged.

I tell you what, if I went to the opera and that was going on in front
of me, I'd insist on my money back, and I'd never go again.

--
Jack

michael adams posted

Just as hearing people are afforded the opportunity to experience
their own language on both radio and tv broadcasts, so its only fair
that deaf people should have the opportunity to experience their own
language in broadcasts occasionally.

No, it's not, because the former can be provided without inconveniencing
other people, while the latter can't.

If only in the small hours
of the morning when most "normal" people, at least might be expected
to be asleep.

Which isn't to say that its regrettable that this isn't a feature
which could be given a digital channel of its own 24/7 maybe to be
shared between the BBC and others; but that's a different question.

As to opera. Given the existence of critically acclaimed recordings of
performances of most popular operas at least, and the ready availability
nowadays of affordable players, speakers etc., one might equally ask
why anyone i.e with hearing would want to go to opera "performances"
at all.

In order to see the performance *and* hear it, of course.

--
Jack

On 28/12/17 11:31, Handsome Jack wrote:
Richard posted
On 28/12/17 10:04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Richard
wrote:

On 28/12/17 08:13, charles wrote:
Particularly at the operaÂ* performance I went to a couple of years
ago.Â* If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.

It seems that you and the OP have perfect everything, except for the
fact that your *thinking* processes are profoundly ****ed up.
Â*In what way?


Just take charles as an example. If he just goes to the opera for the
music, why bother?

He didn't say he just goes to the opera for the music. He asked why
people go who *can't* hear the music. If you can't understand the
logical difference, it's your brain that's damaged.

I tell you what, if I went to the opera and that was going on in front
of me, I'd insist on my money back, and I'd never go again.


Oh dear. Another retard. The opera is a visual as well as an auditory
experience.
If you went to the opera... yeah!

On 28/12/17 11:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Richard
wrote:

On 28/12/17 10:04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Richard
wrote:

On 28/12/17 08:13, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/12/17 22:19, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it
should be optional,

It is optional.Â* It will be repeat of a normal program with
inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in
the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can
exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as
the
only version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing
and I find that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to
ignore it. There should be the option for people with such 'minor'
'disabilities'.

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital
transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the operaÂ*performance I went to a couple of years
ago.Â* If you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.

It seems that you and the OP have perfect everything, except for the
fact that your *thinking* processes are profoundly ****ed up.

In what way?

Just take charles as an example. If he just goes to the opera for the
music, why bother?

Why bother with what? Or d'ye mean, why bother to go?

Yes. Why bother to go for the music and singing if you wish to be that
precise?



I go largely for the music, assuming that you include the singing as
part of the music. And I do know what the rest involves, having
volunteered for more than 10 years for a semi-pro opera company (not in
this country, though).


Perhaps those who are unable to hear the racket go for the story and
visual experience.

On 28/12/17 11:28, Handsome Jack wrote:
PeterC posted
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 06:23:24 +0000, Tjoepstil wrote:

do we have to be subjected to gurning gesticulating gargoyles in the
corner of the screen, who cannot be eradicated by mere button push?

Its as bad as the 'NARative audio track, designed for people who
presumably cant watch the telly they just tuned into...

That gesticulating makes it almost impossible to watch the programme.
I've a
bit of trouble since my early teens with processing fast-moving random
objects in complex situations.

I haven't but I still can't watch programmes with the gesticulating GGs.
It is simply too distracting.

And it is not true, or not generally true, that they go out on repeats
in the small hours. Many's the time I've recorded a movie on Channel
Four to watch the next evening, and find I can't watch it because of the
signing.

Brian says "many people" can't read subtitles and need the signing.
Exactly how many people are we catering for here, and how many are we
excluding?

Excluding? In your case, one.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:28:28 +0000, Handsome Jack wrote:

Brian says "many people" can't read subtitles and need the signing.
Exactly how many people are we catering for here, and how many are we
excluding?

It's not just that. Signing is a totally different language and does not
have a letter-by-letter, word-by-word or even sentence-by-sentence
correspondence with English. It may be their first language.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 28/12/17 10:42, Richard wrote:
On 28/12/17 10:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/12/17 09:28, Richard wrote:
On 28/12/17 08:13, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/12/17 22:19, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it
should be optional,

It is optional.Â* It will be repeat of a normal program with inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in the
EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can
exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as the
only version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing
and I find that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to
ignore it. There should be the option for people with such 'minor'
'disabilities'.

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital
transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the operaÂ* performance I went to a couple of years
ago.Â* If
you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.


It seems that you and the OP have perfect everything, except for the
fact that your *thinking* processes are profoundly ****ed up.

No, in fact you have clearly demonstrated that you can't think, only
virtue signal.

What is achieved by a handwaving gurning gargoyle, that subtitles
cannot do? Nothi g.

You are like all the people who prattle on about disability legislation.

Put the bottle down. Where did I mention disability legislation?


I saidf you are *like* them. I mentioned it.

You have never actually had to deal with the *real* problems of being
disabled.

And you know this, how?

Because otherwise you would understand how truly useless most disability
legislation is at dealing wioth real disabilities.

As opposed top theorteocal ones


The truth is that the BBC and other staions have to employ disabled
minorities, so they make up jobs that they can do.

I guess we should just grind 'em up for fertiliser.

Why not just pay them [less] to stay at home?


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

"Handsome Jack" wrote in message
...

I tell you what, if I went to the opera and that was going on in front of me, I'd
insist on my money back, and I'd never go again.

Had you been a regular attender or even bothered to read the
prospectus beforehand, you'd have been aware that perfomances
with signing are flagged as such with a big BSL beside them.
In the case of this Spring's Carmen only one performance out
of the 12 is signed.

http://www.roh.org.uk/productions/ca...y-barrie-kosky

That being for Monday March 12th

Many of the other productions offer no signed perfomances at all.

So either some people didn't bother to check beforehand, or
were simply taken for mugs by the ticketing agency. But were
equally clueless in either case, I'm afraid.


michael adams

....

In article , George
wrote:

"Handsome Jack" wrote in message
...

I tell you what, if I went to the opera and that was going on in front
of me, I'd insist on my money back, and I'd never go again.

Had you been a regular attender or even bothered to read the prospectus
beforehand, you'd have been aware that perfomances with signing are
flagged as such with a big BSL beside them. In the case of this Spring's
Carmen only one performance out of the 12 is signed.

http://www.roh.org.uk/productions/ca...y-barrie-kosky

That being for Monday March 12th

Many of the other productions offer no signed perfomances at all.

So either some people didn't bother to check beforehand, or were simply
taken for mugs by the ticketing agency. But were equally clueless in
either case, I'm afraid.

Sometimes, you go to a particular performance because the date suits your
diary.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Handsome Jack" wrote in message
...
michael adams posted

Just as hearing people are afforded the opportunity to experience
their own language on both radio and tv broadcasts, so its only fair
that deaf people should have the opportunity to experience their own
language in broadcasts occasionally.

No, it's not, because the former can be provided without inconveniencing other people,

Except that they can't be heard by deaf people. Which deaf people
presumably regard as an inconvenience even if you don't.

And even if the alternative language point is temporarily
disregarded for the moment, many subtitles don't actually
represent what's actually being said, often with comical
consequences.

while the latter can't.

Which is quite simply wrong. The only programmes to be signed
are repeats of programmes shown earlier. Even if your bogus
point about films was true, these transmissions wouldn't
be unique and those fims would be subject to numerous repeats
both before and afterwards.


michael adams

....

Bob Eager posted
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:28:28 +0000, Handsome Jack wrote:

Brian says "many people" can't read subtitles and need the signing.
Exactly how many people are we catering for here, and how many are we
excluding?

It's not just that. Signing is a totally different language and does not
have a letter-by-letter, word-by-word or even sentence-by-sentence
correspondence with English. It may be their first language.

This doesn't appear to answer my question. How many deaf people cannot
read text subtitles but can understand sign language?

--
Jack

George posted

"Handsome Jack" wrote in message
...

I tell you what, if I went to the opera and that was going on in
front of me, I'd
insist on my money back, and I'd never go again.

Had you been a regular attender or even bothered to read the
prospectus beforehand, you'd have been aware that perfomances
with signing are flagged as such with a big BSL beside them.

Haven't been since moving out of London years ago. But if I did decide
go to the opera again, I wouldn't expect to have to read up on the
politics of disabled lobbying groups before buying a ticket. BSL? WTF?

In the case of this Spring's Carmen only one performance out
of the 12 is signed.

http://www.roh.org.uk/productions/ca...y-barrie-kosky

That being for Monday March 12th

Many of the other productions offer no signed perfomances at all.

So either some people didn't bother to check beforehand,

Probably they had no idea that such things happened.

or
were simply taken for mugs by the ticketing agency. But were
equally clueless in either case, I'm afraid.

In which case it's fine to take their money for an experience they can't
enjoy? Remind me never to go again.

--
Jack

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , George
wrote:

"Handsome Jack" wrote in message
...

I tell you what, if I went to the opera and that was going on in front
of me, I'd insist on my money back, and I'd never go again.

Had you been a regular attender or even bothered to read the prospectus
beforehand, you'd have been aware that perfomances with signing are
flagged as such with a big BSL beside them. In the case of this Spring's
Carmen only one performance out of the 12 is signed.

http://www.roh.org.uk/productions/ca...y-barrie-kosky

That being for Monday March 12th

Many of the other productions offer no signed perfomances at all.

So either some people didn't bother to check beforehand, or were simply
taken for mugs by the ticketing agency. But were equally clueless in
either case, I'm afraid.

Sometimes, you go to a particular performance because the date suits your
diary.

But why chose a performance where you know beforehand that you're
going to be spending a lot of the time (whenever you notice the
arm waving at the side) wondering why half the audience are there
at all ?

At least unlike Hugh you weren't moved among the OAP's. Who at
a guess, along with deaf people paying full price, probably
get any last minute concessionary tickets that are going.


michael adams

....

In article , michael adams
wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , George
wrote:

"Handsome Jack" wrote in message
...

I tell you what, if I went to the opera and that was going on in
front of me, I'd insist on my money back, and I'd never go again.

Had you been a regular attender or even bothered to read the
prospectus beforehand, you'd have been aware that perfomances with
signing are flagged as such with a big BSL beside them. In the case of
this Spring's Carmen only one performance out of the 12 is signed.

http://www.roh.org.uk/productions/ca...y-barrie-kosky

That being for Monday March 12th

Many of the other productions offer no signed perfomances at all.

So either some people didn't bother to check beforehand, or were
simply taken for mugs by the ticketing agency. But were equally
clueless in either case, I'm afraid.

Sometimes, you go to a particular performance because the date suits
your diary.

But why chose a performance where you know beforehand that you're going
to be spending a lot of the time (whenever you notice the arm waving at
the side) wondering why half the audience are there at all ?

At least unlike Hugh you weren't moved among the OAP's. Who at a guess,
along with deaf people paying full price, probably get any last minute
concessionary tickets that are going.

Please tell me why deaf people go to an opera.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England