In an interesting email development, I was advised to provide such
subtitling for the benefit of everyone in the room, the implication
being that any work is more readable (and more correctly readable) if
it has English text visible on screen.  We're not talking about this,
we're just told what to do ("best practices").

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Bernard Roddy <> wrote:
> Hi everyone:
> I'm just now reading Caryn Cline's thread.
> Suppose we were asked to provide closed captioning for a silent film.
> I have placed a moratorium on showing anything in class.  We will just
> read.  (Of course it's not an art or film class.)
> My own work often derives from a classroom experience, and there is
> often a voiceover.  But I still think there should not be an
> assumption that it will be subtitled.
> We will be told that the hearing impaired should expect to be provided
> the same opportunities as those who can hear the voiceover.  For me
> the question should then be, was this a difference or an impairment?
> I have an Ethics class in which three interpreters serve a single
> student.  There is one who is native speaker of sign, and another who
> is simply proficient.  They will talk about which was their first
> language.  The student's first language is sign, and this means there
> is some need for translation from his use of sign for the proficient
> sign interpreter by means of the native sign speaker.
> Bernie
FrameWorks mailing list

Reply via email to