• GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    That seems like a problem that would be well addressed by investing more resources into the live captioning process, though.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        To be clear, I’m not necessarily against sign language interpreters.

        They do miss out on what I consider to be an important part of accessibility though - they are not an example of universal design. High-quality captions are an example of universal design, which gives them higher staying power (what right-winger would move to kill captions?) and makes it easier to justify investments.

        • half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          ASL is not English, though. It has its own grammar structure and words (obviously) so it is functionally a different language than written English. People who speak ASL as a first language are essentially learning a second language with written English, one that is based on spoken language they can’t hear. As a result, many in the Deaf community struggle to read and write. Add to that the stress of it being an emergency and having to process the text in real-time before it disappears? I just don’t see captions being the answer for this already vulnerable community, especially in life-or-death situations.