I assume there must be a reason why sign language is superior but I genuinely don’t know why.

  • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The UK’s always been pretty inclusive and this law’s been around for decades, since way before subtitles were practical, or even visible on crappy old b&w CRT screens

    • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      So it’s just because they haven’t bothered updating some guideline booklet about new technologies?

      Nobody has gone like: BTW this new thing called subtitles, could actually replace sign language requirements especially now that we have color TVs

      That said, I can imagine sign language to be better at real time interpretation, than someone typing in the speach unless they use some really good transcription software

      • GreatAlbatrossA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ll just reply on this one too, we have fairly detailed recomendations and guidelines on access services in the UK. If you’re curious, it’s summarised really well in this document (10 pages).

        Live subtitles always used to be done using a stenograph, or similar, though having a look now speech-to-text seems more common. As I happened upon it too, here is a cool white paper by BBC R&D on inserting a longer delay in live events to allow the subtitles to follow more closely.