Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

signlvideo.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

#41

Post by lupire »

Things4People wrote: post #3
Robtech23 wrote: post #2

This looks like a good idea. What is the difference between sign language and subtitles?

Many deaf people have poor grammar because American Sign Language (ASL) greatly simplifies and, in some cases, omits things that are not really needed to convey an idea. To a deaf person subtitles are is overly verbose and the word order is strange (for example, subtitles has "running," which is the word "run" followed by a sign for "ing." ASL does away with "ing" because it is obvious in context).

How could you have made the website and not understand what sign language is?

Re: Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

#42

Post by duskwuff »

dangus wrote: post #33
mcdonje wrote: post #24

>You are excluding more than 700 million people from your content. I'm sorry, but that is not a believable stat. You mean to tell me close to 1/10 of the planet is deaf and speaks ASL and doesn't read a written language? I'm all for the project. I'm 100% in favor of increasing accessibility. I just don't believe that stat. Are you sure it isn't 700k? That'd be more reasonable considering Wikipedia says a 1972 survey…

There aren’t even 700 million people in the entire world who have any form of hearing loss. The rate is 5%. OP should clean up that marketing pitch. I think it’s a good service that doesn’t have to be sold by shaming the potential customer. Source: https://disabilitease.com/percentage-world-deaf/

> The rate is 5%.

And they don't all use ASL, either. Not all deaf people rely on sign language, especially if they became deaf later in life, and there are numerous other sign languages used outside the US which aren't mutually intelligible with ASL.

Re: Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

#43

Post by klyrs »

Things4People wrote: post #3
Robtech23 wrote: post #2

This looks like a good idea. What is the difference between sign language and subtitles?

Many deaf people have poor grammar because American Sign Language (ASL) greatly simplifies and, in some cases, omits things that are not really needed to convey an idea. To a deaf person subtitles are is overly verbose and the word order is strange (for example, subtitles has "running," which is the word "run" followed by a sign for "ing." ASL does away with "ing" because it is obvious in context).

Your description of ASL here is a red flag. Temporal aspect and grammar are not encoded in specific signs, and the sentence structure is derived from French. I can read some truths into your words here, but it's a damn stretch.

As a hearing person with knowledge of the language and friends in the community, you sound like an barely-informed hearing person with a capitalist-savior complex. If that isn't you, be transparent about who you are and why you're in the business.

Re: Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

#44

Post by klyrs »

watersb wrote: post #18
MikusR wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So deaf people can't read books?

I think this is a good question, because I had always thought of American Sign Language (ASL) as a transcription of English. But I learned that ASL is a language all of its own, grammar and syntax are not always the same. In college, I learned a bit of a sign language- "C Sign" - that is actually an adaptation of English. At the time, C Sign was the thing that hearing, native English speakers were taught as a way to…

I think you mean SEE, not C? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_Exact_English

Re: Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

#45

Post by klyrs »

lupire wrote: post #37
GauntletWizard wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the best technical writers I've met were classmates from the NTID, the National Technical Institute for the Deaf at Rochester Institute of Technology. But I think it was that english was in some ways a "foreign" language that made them so good; They went out of their way to be clear to the point of verbose, probably because it was unnatural and they felt it. I don't want to sound judgemental, but I learned a…

Hearing people have no concept of personal distance :-) They will yell at you from across a room!

With ASL, you can yell across a highway!

Re: Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

#46

Post by JadeNB »

mcdonje wrote: post #24

>You are excluding more than 700 million people from your content. I'm sorry, but that is not a believable stat. You mean to tell me close to 1/10 of the planet is deaf and speaks ASL and doesn't read a written language? I'm all for the project. I'm 100% in favor of increasing accessibility. I just don't believe that stat. Are you sure it isn't 700k? That'd be more reasonable considering Wikipedia says a 1972 survey…

> You mean to tell me close to 1/10 of the planet is deaf and speaks ASL and doesn't read a written language?

While the number is clearly far too large even taking into account what I'm about to say, I think someone doesn't have to not read any written language to be excluded. For many ASL speakers, ASL, not English, is their native language. Although I read French passably, I would consider subtitles available only in French, and not in English, to be serving my needs poorly; and I think the same can be said of an ASL speaker asked to "make do" with English-language subtitles.

Re: Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

#47

Post by JadeNB »

smegsicle wrote: post #27

> [if you don't use our product] You are excluding more than 700 million people from your content i assume this is coming from a place where all abilities and disabilities are equal and any kind of value judgement is immoral, so maybe you could find it useful to know that in the real world, 700 million deaf people might find it offensive that you assume they are illiterate

> 700 million deaf people might find it offensive that you assume they are illiterate

You don't have to be illiterate to prefer subtitles in your native language, which, for many ASL speakers, is ASL, not English.

Re: Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

#48

Post by chaps »

smegsicle wrote: post #14
chaps wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

....what? How do you read what they wrote and come up with that question?

the part where it says "the word order is strange" is implying that they don't know how to read properly

I'm sorry but, I don't know how it's possible to read that and interpret it to imply that deaf people can't read. It's a strange question to ask. Maybe it's the word order that throws them off.

Re: Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

#49

Post by jhanschoo »

mcdonje wrote: post #24

>You are excluding more than 700 million people from your content. I'm sorry, but that is not a believable stat. You mean to tell me close to 1/10 of the planet is deaf and speaks ASL and doesn't read a written language? I'm all for the project. I'm 100% in favor of increasing accessibility. I just don't believe that stat. Are you sure it isn't 700k? That'd be more reasonable considering Wikipedia says a 1972 survey…

> any sign language

so presumably not just ASL. In any case, this is probably a sorely needed service, if there are robust production pipelines for subtitling and dubbing in other written languages but not for sign languages.

Re: Show HN: Subtitles are not the same as sign language

#50

Post by ksaj »

smegsicle wrote: post #16
endisneigh wrote: post #13

What's surprising about this to me is that ASL has no written form. I found si5s but it doesn't seem incredibly mainstream. I'm curious how people who speak primarily with ASL interact on the internet. How do people who speak with ASL communicate over long distances without video, if not text? An AMA would be appreciated. An interesting idea would be processing subtitles to some sort of digital mannequin that makes a…

not to mention that watching a video with subtitles means glancing at the text when a new line comes up, while watching a video with a signing translator means having to glance at the signer for every single word, right?

A person who signs regularly can do reasonably well from the "corner of the eye" because they speak / sign in groups all the time. Reading text is not anywhere near as efficient, in terms of understanding while watching other activities going on at the same time.

Also, because it isn't Signed English (which is actually a thing) there is a specific grammar to it that makes it super efficient. That's why it often looks like the signer on political broadcasts isn't telling the whole story, when in fact they might even be telling more of it than text alone could convey.

I have a number of deaf friends and acquaintances (I'm almost deaf in one ear, and HoH in the other, so I have hearing aids), and I know at least from them, that written English is not their forte. A lot of grammar, like adding "ing" to the end of verbs and gerunds, is pretty baffling to someone who hasn't grown up hearing them in speech. Since I actually can hear (just not very well), my spoken/written English is not affected.

Post reply on HN