Eh?

If this is about the national anthem you do realize that the signers interpretation of the words is literally the "song" for the deaf persons. Just like every singers rendition varies, some we like more than others. Get this deaf people feel the same way about the interpreters.

So if you're wound up tight enough to be annoyed about this enough to start a thread, you might want to invest in some Hydroxyzine, or bourbon, or weed.

If this is about something else you might want to invest in some context clues. Not all of us are in your living by room.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

If this is about the national anthem you do realize that the signers interpretation of the words is literally the "song" for the deaf persons. Just like every singers rendition varies, some we like more than others. Get this deaf people feel the same way about the interpreters.

So if you're wound up tight enough to be annoyed about this enough to start a thread, you might want to invest in some Hydroxyzine, or bourbon, or weed.

If this is about something else you might want to invest in some context clues. Not all of us are in your living by room.

---

Possibly referring to the Brown University presser earlier? Homeboy was front and just off center and having a gay Ol time moving his hands around.

For a news conference, completely unnecessary. Close captioning would suffice just fine.

Now, for those wanting to take things to a next level… some streaming services will include a sign language option in addition to CC. I recommend watching a show with lots of cursing for maximum entertainment value.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

If this is about the national anthem you do realize that the signers interpretation of the words is literally the "song" for the deaf persons. Just like every singers rendition varies, some we like more than others. Get this deaf people feel the same way about the interpreters.

So if you're wound up tight enough to be annoyed about this enough to start a thread, you might want to invest in some Hydroxyzine, or bourbon, or weed.

If this is about something else you might want to invest in some context clues. Not all of us are in your living by room.

---

Possibly referring to the Brown University presser earlier? Homeboy was front and just off center and having a gay Ol time moving his hands around.

For a news conference, completely unnecessary. Close captioning would suffice just fine.

Now, for those wanting to take things to a next level… some streaming services will include a sign language option in addition to CC. I recommend watching a show with lots of cursing for maximum entertainment value.

---

Yes. Referencing the Brown shooting.

You have a very valid point. I fast-forwarded through it which was provided additional entertainment value for the ASL guy.

Hill08 said:

---

Doesn't every TV have this? Do we really have to have someone that basically takes over the entire frame with sign language?

---

No, it's stupid. And they usually find the most pathetic DEI person they can find to stick up there flailing about doing sign language when yeah, just use closed captioning, it's 2025. Oh man... Almost 2026!

Literal virtue signalling.

Australia says hold me fosters…

Wouldn't Title II trump whatever feels anyone may have? Full accessibility compliance would either necessitate an on-site ASL interpreter or a live screen captioning. Those two are the only ways to be truly Title II compliant for the people in live attendance at any presser.

ETA: … and kids that can't read closed captioning on TV…


I'm busting my tail trying to make my A&M department Title II compliant before the April deadline. I still don't understand why this doesn't fall within the state mandated DEI ban. I've been learning accessibility practices for years because, you know, the equity and inclusion part.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

If this is about the national anthem you do realize that the signers interpretation of the words is literally the "song" for the deaf persons. Just like every singers rendition varies, some we like more than others. Get this deaf people feel the same way about the interpreters.

So if you're wound up tight enough to be annoyed about this enough to start a thread, you might want to invest in some Hydroxyzine, or bourbon, or weed.

If this is about something else you might want to invest in some context clues. Not all of us are in your living by room.

---

Possibly referring to the Brown University presser earlier? Homeboy was front and just off center and having a gay Ol time moving his hands around.

For a news conference, completely unnecessary. Close captioning would suffice just fine.

Now, for those wanting to take things to a next level… some streaming services will include a sign language option in addition to CC. I recommend watching a show with lots of cursing for maximum entertainment value.

---

ASL is not the same as closed captioning. ASL is the language for Americans that are deaf. Pre-linguall people prefer that because that is their native language basically

I would have paid very good money to see someone try to sign during a post game Ed Orgeron presser.

BusterAg said:

---

I would have paid very good money to see someone try to sign during a post game Ed Orgeron presser.

---

Need to find a signer that speaks CSL

The lip reader ASL war is so silent.

What are we mad about? When should I take to the streets?

Why can't we get cc in English for Mexican programs…

I have ADHDTV


I never see commercials.

Get several of them.


Surround See

TV's don't natively have close captioning. Most of the time, the broadcast services submit the teleprompter words to become the close captioning. When it's a live interview, there's usually a delay so that a service can transcribe it. Some formats are moving to AI and that's even worse.

Only way to give proper emergency information in a timely, live manner is ASL. Many deaf/HOH also don't communicate in full English, so ASL doesn't always have an English counterpart.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

If this is about the national anthem you do realize that the signers interpretation of the words is literally the "song" for the deaf persons. Just like every singers rendition varies, some we like more than others. Get this deaf people feel the same way about the interpreters.

So if you're wound up tight enough to be annoyed about this enough to start a thread, you might want to invest in some Hydroxyzine, or bourbon, or weed.

If this is about something else you might want to invest in some context clues. Not all of us are in your living by room.

---

Well, I am not listening to you anymore!

I think it's more about the prominence and DEI like nature of many of these cats at the pressers.

I recall years ago it used to be like a Picture in Picture of a lady who looked like a librarian with minimal facial embellishment.

So maybe a compromise somewhere here.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think it's more about the prominence and DEI like nature of many of these cats at the pressers.

---

Why in the hell do they have cats at the presser?!

Dallas Cowboys do it right. They have a DCC who signs so no one minds her.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Hill08 said:

---

Doesn't every TV have this? Do we really have to have someone that basically takes over the entire frame with sign language?

---

No, it's stupid. And they usually find the most pathetic DEI person they can find to stick up there flailing about doing sign language when yeah, just use closed captioning, it's 2025. Oh man... Almost 2026!

---

How would Deaf people attending the press conference be able to use CC?

I need those words on the screen. Especially with all the British TV I watch.

TA-OP said:

---

Wouldn't Title II trump whatever feels anyone may have? Full accessibility compliance would either necessitate an on-site ASL interpreter or a live screen captioning. Those two are the only ways to be truly Title II compliant for the people in live attendance at any presser.

ETA: … and kids that can't read closed captioning on TV…


I'm busting my tail trying to make my A&M department Title II compliant before the April deadline. I still don't understand why this doesn't fall within the state mandated DEI ban. I've been learning accessibility practices for years because, you know, the equity and inclusion part.

---

Genuinely curious what's so bad about learning accessibility practices. Especially working in a form of education.

We have a winner, it is a fact that most journalists having a hearing disability. Think what they thought Trump said about Charlottesville.

BQ78 said:

---

We have a winner, it is a fact that most journalists having a hearing disability. Think what they thought Trump said about Charlottesville.

---

I think you misspelled "learning".

Had a friend in college whose mom was deaf so he got used to watching TV with CC which lead me getting used to it and preferring to do the same. Now most of my family prefers it as well.

Gotta love first world problem threads.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

If this is about the national anthem you do realize that the signers interpretation of the words is literally the "song" for the deaf persons. Just like every singers rendition varies, some we like more than others. Get this deaf people feel the same way about the interpreters.

So if you're wound up tight enough to be annoyed about this enough to start a thread, you might want to invest in some Hydroxyzine, or bourbon, or weed.

If this is about something else you might want to invest in some context clues. Not all of us are in your living by room.

---

Possibly referring to the Brown University presser earlier? Homeboy was front and just off center and having a gay Ol time moving his hands around.

For a news conference, completely unnecessary. Close captioning would suffice just fine.

Now, for those wanting to take things to a next level… some streaming services will include a sign language option in addition to CC. I recommend watching a show with lots of cursing for maximum entertainment value.

---

There's closed captioning floating in the air for people who are actually present in the actual news conference? I imagine these are ADA requirements since it's always a govt event. But who cares? It's ok to sometimes acknowledge a non-significant percentage of fellow humans could actually benefit from something at the risk of your odd annoyance.

87IE said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Hill08 said:

---

Doesn't every TV have this? Do we really have to have someone that basically takes over the entire frame with sign language?

---

No, it's stupid. And they usually find the most pathetic DEI person they can find to stick up there flailing about doing sign language when yeah, just use closed captioning, it's 2025. Oh man... Almost 2026!

---

How would Deaf people attending the press conference be able to use CC?

---

Read lips.

BigRobSA said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think it's more about the prominence and DEI like nature of many of these cats at the pressers.

---

Why in the hell do they have cats at the presser?!

---

Haitians.