As a deaf web developer with an interest in web accessibility, this topic interests me on a number of levels. Here, I’ll limit myself to commenting on one aspect of the discussion.
Some of the comments are the equivalent of raised eyebrows and eye rolls over the fact Deaf people don’t consider themselves disabled. So, in an nutshell, here is a bit of insight to the psyche of Deaf Culture.
Deaf culture—like all culture—has a rich, fascinating and painful history. Deafness is hereditary. Deaf people have deaf children. In less mobile eras, there were rural communities with large populations of deaf people. One such community was on Martha’s Vineyard off the coast of Massachusetts. On this island, deafness was so prevalent that all the members of the community knew and used the regional sign language to communicate. The result was that Deaf people were fully integrated into the community and held leadership roles.
(For more on the Martha’s Vineyard Deaf, Lisa Herrod cites Nora Ellen Groce’s excellent book, Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. It’s one of my favorite books.)
As education for the Deaf became formalized, the deaf children of Deaf parents were sent away to schools for the Deaf. “Oralism” an educational philosophy championed by Alexander Graham Bell (yes, the Telephone guy) was popular at the time. Oralism was a program in which deaf children were are taught to speak the sounds and words of a language they could not hear. The method of teaching deaf children to speak often involved force—and, did not yield the best results in spoken language.
With Oralism being literally forced upon them, Deaf people took refuge in their Sign Language and community. Their world outlook became clarified: They believe they are whole. They believe they do not need to be “changed” or “fixed.” They believe, therefore, they are not “disabled.”
Joe Clark makes an interesting point that if Deaf People reject the term “disabled,” their proper place is alongside other linguistic minorities. I can’t speak for Deaf People, but I believe that is where the Deaf view themselves.
Joe Clark also make a valid point that there are regional dialects of sign language. Thus when providing communication access to a global audience, sign language may not be the most effective use of resources. That said, government sites could consider using their nation’s sign language.
Thank you Lisa and ALA for the thought-provoking article and discussion.
I’ve read the article with interest, but the Anglocentrism of it all puts me off. Non-native English readers have just as much difficulity in understanding slang, or reading complicated texts. I think even native speakers profit from the bulleted list of requirements, because it is a list that applies for writing to ANY audience.
Apart from the captioning and subtitling of content, which is more or less considered a different subject by this article, I really fail to see the difference in approach to accessibilty for the web in almost any other context.
I can imagine already the way I’m going to be slashed about this comment, but please do understand that I’m absolutely not saying anything about the cultural and social aspects of d/Deafness, but solely about applying skills to make a web page accessible.
I understand that presenting the article from an anglocised perspective might be off-putting for some readers. It is something that we discussed in the initial stages of my writing the article. I actually tried writing it with a generic perspective but some concepts were too difficult to explain clearly.
Also, as my studies and training were in Australia, I have a much deeper understanding of “Auslan”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auslan than other sign languages. For more of a European perspective, Harlan Lane’s When the Mind Hears (see recommended reading list) documents the French deaf education system of the 1700’s brilliantly.
I agree with your other points and it’s great to see that you’ve taken from the article what I was trying to convey.
There are general accessibility considerations that apply to a wide range of users that will also address many needs of Deaf users. Conversely, designing with Deaf users in mind will enhance the accessibility of content for a wide range of users that extends much further than the deaf/Deaf and HOH.
My aim was to highlight the unique differences of the Deaf and the ways in which we can provide a better online experience.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Richard Fink
@Jeffrey Zeldman
Thank you for the air-clearing response to my post.
You’ve earned the right with me, as a reader, to believe that what you tell me is so, is so.
If my take on the piece was off-base, then it is I who retract.
Sarcasm is definitely not intended but this article flew right over my head. There are those with various levels of deafness, apparently, and those with various levels of ignorance. Mine, after reading this article falls into the category of “A Lot”.
Resources to examples, simple straight forward examples, would help tremendously in comprehension and implementation, e.g. a simple audio/music file with explanations that address the issues discussed.
PS—Speaking of accessibility, for those who can never remember login information, a link that would e-Mail that info would help.
I wish there was more of an emphasis on captioning as there is for accommodating vision loss on the web.
I guess the difference is that vision loss affects pretty much every website, whereas hearing loss only affects a few. I have never needed to incorporate sound into a website, so I have never needed to accommodate deaf, Deaf or hard of hearing people. Every website I write, on the other hand, has visuals – mostly text, some tables, some graphics – so it is vital that I know how to write these to serve someone with vision loss.
It’s not that deaf people are any less deserving of attention and consideration than blind people, but that their needs are – in terms of the internet – a heck of a lot less.
First off, I’m HOH, so technically part of little-d deaf. I recently took an ASL class and found how much of the cultural aspect of Deafness I have dealt with, but never realized. I also learned how much I didn’t know about the Deaf culture. However, I’m going to attempt to address this question from the standpoint of a person who has been involved on both sides of the coin.
James Edwards brings up the question of whether deaf people are really disabled. The disability question is highly sensitive, but has a matter of perspective to it.
To the Hearing world, the deaf are disabled. They must generally interpret or translate their communications to written or other form. They must accomodate that they cannot just poke their heads in a person’s office, and ask a question. In this sense, they are more correctly disadvantaged, in that extra steps must be made to accomodate their lack of hearing (or greatly reduced hearing).
However, the general perception among most hearing people is that those who cannot hear are stupid / mentally incompetent / etc.
Deaf/HOH individuals are not—barring additional medical problems—mentally incompetent. In essence, they have been forced to be “stupid” by those who refuse to help them to overcome the disadvantage. In actuality, they are quite intelligent, and generally understand things on a much more complex level than those of us in the hearing world do, simply because they must figure out how it works, rather than being told.
In short, being disadvantaged (referring to the fact that there are obstacles to overcome in the world around them), and being Disabled (mentally and/or physically incompetent) are two vastly different things, and the deaf are, for the large majority, not Disabled. They are disadvantaged (mostly by the ignorance of others around them).
I hope that this helps individuals who don’t understand the reason why the disability question is so sensitive, and why Deaf individuals become so upset when the deaf are referred to as “Disabled”. I also hope it clarifies the issue.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Kerri Hicks
It seems what you’re calling for, Lisa, is localization. Localization of web sites is a much bigger issue in Europe than the US or Australia—are your visitors French, German…?
On the one hand, I’d consider localizing my web site for Deaf people using the same metric that I’d use when I would consider localizing for any other culture. (If I had such a metric—I don’t generally worry about localization in my current day job.)
But I also object to the notion that I should feel compelled to localize for the Deaf when I don’t localize for the Mexican, or the Chinese. If Deafness is not a disability, but a culture, why should this particular community bubble to the top for attention ahead of others—many of which are more populous?
Deaf culture does not preclude D/deaf people in English-speaking countries from learning English. ASL might be an American Deaf person’s first language, but English is the language primarily spoken in the USA. As you attest, being Deaf does not mean you’re stupid. No argument there. Consider this, then: We expect Japanese people in the US to learn English…we don’t generally localize our TV programming or web sites for the Japanese. Same with the French. (Some TV shows have SAP for Spanish-language translation, but that’s pure marketing.) Doesn’t it follow, then, that it’s the Deaf person’s obligation to learn English to participate in English-speaking media, just like any other culture does?
I’ve been a web accessibility advocate for a dozen years, and a parent of a deaf child for some time less than that. My son is fluent in English. When he sees the word ‘comfortable’ in television captions, he knows precisely what it means. He enjoys watching American television and read books written in English, just like all the other kids his age. If you want to do that, though, you have to learn English.
All that said, I think web localization is a massive, important issue, and when we discuss localization, we should consider Deaf culture right up there with the Greeks. :-)
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Todd Wright
As a bilingual Deaf person, I am sometimes concerned how simplified “Deaf” English subtitles are perceived – inevitably as “dumbed-down” English – which reinforces the misconception that Deaf people are retarded or have very low intelligence. I would prefer all subtitles and/or captions be more like literal translations with transcribed sound effects – I view media with full English captions as I do understand English very well. For other Deaf people who do not have very good English comprehension skills, translation through Auslan would definitely be the better choice rather than “Deaf” subtitles.
I am part of a group of volunteers that produces a TV programme for the Deaf community on community channels – called “SignPost”. We intentionally made the programme accessible to Deaf and hearing viewers, as well as Hearing Impaired viewers, by adding English captions and voice-over translations. However there are rare instances where there is no Auslan on the screen and this year we are looking into solutions such as super-imposed interpreters on the screen – it is very true that sometimes we (even being Deaf ourselves) forget that there are Deaf people who cannot understand captions.
My partner works with people with disabilities and, as a web designer, we’re always talking about how to come about new ideas using software that we can create interesting programs for childeren with learning disabilities. One of the main problems from a developer’s point of view, is building applications that take into consideration all the different types of users and all their varying abilities and disabilities, eg. childeren with Cerebal Palsy have a diverse spectrum of physical abilily and some of them have intellectual disabilities. The problem becomes how do you create an application that is accessible for all users?
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
nori kuro
The author, Lisa Herrod, makes the case that web designers should consider the Deaf community as a distinct culture versus a “˜disabled’ population. The article is focused on the author’s experience with the deaf community and her understanding that the Deaf community is a “linguistic and cultural minority group, similar to an ethic community.”? She uses the big D, as you would the big I for the Italian community, the big C for the Chinese community and so on.
This is an important understanding as the present understanding from the web community is that deafness is the opposite of blindness. If we make audio captioning available, as we do alt text on an image for the blind, we have solved the usability issues for the deaf.
This oversimplification is the wrong approach for designing web content for the Deaf community. Herrod does point out that in the last 18 months, the web community has become more aware of deafness and how it influences the design of web pages. But this focus is still on captioning, “transcription of speech and important sound effects”? and subtitling which is “written translation of dialogue”?.
Herrod goes further to make several points that all web designers should consider.
The first point is that in the Deaf community they “speak”? sign language. Sign languages are “˜visual-spatial’ and many elements of these languages do not have a natural written form. Deaf people rely heavily on facial expression to convey essential meaning and emphasis, and there is no direct written translation for these meanings and emphasis.
Another important point is that direct translation will not always work, phonetic based language i.e. English, can be mid-leading. Herrod uses the example of the phrase, “once in a blue moon”?. This phrase means occasionally or once in a while, but when translated into a signed language, the meaning of blue moon can be ambiguous or misleading.
English as a language uses many synonyms while there are very few used in signed languages. Sign languages rely more on facial expression or body language than it does on other words with similar meaning.
These are all important points that present a challenge for anyone designing for the web.
Herrod does make a case for several solutions to this problem. There is no single solution, but there are several things that can make a website more user friendly for the Deaf community:
“¢ Reference Writing for the Web 101
“¢ Use more multimedia
These suggestions are very important and would make any website that is being targeted to the deaf community more usable for them. The use of multimedia is really key, as a deaf person, I always rely on any medium with video or visual access. It is hard to understand from written language what is the meaning. Also, as a Japanese native speaker, the point of a discussion always come first, this makes communication much easier. Once you establish what you are talking about, it is easier to comprehend.
This is a very good article because Lisa Herrod has really attempted to explain what the Deaf community is about. The concept that it is a community, with their own language should be the starting point web design.
Yours is an interesting question:
bq. How do you create an application that is accessible for all users? bq.
The problem is that it isn’t really possible. I think the best we can do is focus on making a site that is accessible to as many people as possible.
Accessibility specialists such as Brian Kelly and Liddy Neville have been writing about building for ‘Adaptability’, which focuses on creating accessible sites taking an holistic, inclusive approach that considers the primary user groups, purpose and context.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Luk10
Thank you, Lisa, for the article. However, for most part you are biased towards sign language which is accessible only locally to a tiny group of Deaf people – like Kerri Hicks explained in her #39 post:
“If Deafness is not a disability, but a culture, why should this particular community bubble to the top for attention ahead of others — many of which are more populous?”
Should we try to squeeze 5 different sign language interpreters (ASL, BSL, etc.) into one screen to “translate” one spoken English and on top of this being covered with captions – one row in “normal” written language and another row in “plain” language with a glossary for “specialized” vocabulary? ;0) That would be very interesting and indeed very confusing to watch.
I totally agree with Joe Clark that captioning is the main thing that we have been fighting for years and is accessible to much more people than just those who have hearing loss. It is the number one priority we should focus on right now.
Do you have any user research or any hard data to prove how many Deaf people are actually saying they “cannot” read and are demanding sign language interpreters for online videos vs captioning?
Here’s Marlee Maitlin’s presentation on behalf of NAD (National Association for the Deaf) and on behalf of 36 million deaf, Deaf, and hard of hearing Americans:
Marlee Maitlin signs, but CANREADANDWRITE in English. So do millions of D/Deaf and HOH Americans. Not only we can read captions, but also we can write emails, chat online, send text messages, read websites.
I don’t care if a person with hearing loss can speak or sign – as long as s/he can have a good command of written language. Only with those skills you will be able to succeed in the mainstream society.
I totally agree with Dan Guy saying: “Written language should be everyone’s second language. It should be the lingual equalizer.”
I also agree with Martin Smales that many deaf people in Australia are bi-lingual (Auslan and English) – so there are many of them here in the USA. Many college educated Deaf signers I have been personally meeting (including those from Deaf families) are well familiar with slangs and idioms of English.
I understand that certain websites that cater to Deaf users – such as Deaf organizations, sites selling products and services for Deaf people, Deaf forums, etc. – would need vlogs or signed videos which would make a perfect sense. However, including sign language interpreters for such mainstream sites as CNN, BBC, etc is insane.
By the way, I personally can speak, read, write, sign in several languages and I am PROFOUNDLY deaf.
Your ending doesn’t make sense either about online accessibility: “I’ll be surprised if that doesn’t make you want to learn a few signs yourself.”
It would have been more useful if you spent most of your article educating web specialists and website owners about how to find and use resources for captioning and transcriptions. Many of us are frustrated enough trying to explain to hearing website owners why we need them. On top of this you are making it more confusing for hearing people with advertising this sign language and Deaf culture thing and more frustrating to the majority of us who need captions – which in turn would increase SEO for those website owners.
Maybe you should end instead that you will be surprised if with all benefits for SEO it doesn’t make hearing people want to make more videos captioned??
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
celticchrys
I don’t think the analogy of reading text as a second language holds up. Someone who first learns sign, and then learns to read text is only slightly different from someone who first learns to speak and then learns to read text. No one is born reading text.
For one, the signing is the foundational communication, and for the other, the speech is. Still, excellent article; good food for thought.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
charlesdelarow
With more people aging, deafness is getting more frequent. The senses, especially the eyes are ears and prime sensors for us and I know through a relative, how hard it is when these disappear. Simple things become almost impossible.
49 Reader Comments
Back to the ArticleEileen Foster
As a deaf web developer with an interest in web accessibility, this topic interests me on a number of levels. Here, I’ll limit myself to commenting on one aspect of the discussion.
Some of the comments are the equivalent of raised eyebrows and eye rolls over the fact Deaf people don’t consider themselves disabled. So, in an nutshell, here is a bit of insight to the psyche of Deaf Culture.
Deaf culture—like all culture—has a rich, fascinating and painful history. Deafness is hereditary. Deaf people have deaf children. In less mobile eras, there were rural communities with large populations of deaf people. One such community was on Martha’s Vineyard off the coast of Massachusetts. On this island, deafness was so prevalent that all the members of the community knew and used the regional sign language to communicate. The result was that Deaf people were fully integrated into the community and held leadership roles.
(For more on the Martha’s Vineyard Deaf, Lisa Herrod cites Nora Ellen Groce’s excellent book, Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. It’s one of my favorite books.)
As education for the Deaf became formalized, the deaf children of Deaf parents were sent away to schools for the Deaf. “Oralism” an educational philosophy championed by Alexander Graham Bell (yes, the Telephone guy) was popular at the time. Oralism was a program in which deaf children were are taught to speak the sounds and words of a language they could not hear. The method of teaching deaf children to speak often involved force—and, did not yield the best results in spoken language.
With Oralism being literally forced upon them, Deaf people took refuge in their Sign Language and community. Their world outlook became clarified: They believe they are whole. They believe they do not need to be “changed” or “fixed.” They believe, therefore, they are not “disabled.”
Joe Clark makes an interesting point that if Deaf People reject the term “disabled,” their proper place is alongside other linguistic minorities. I can’t speak for Deaf People, but I believe that is where the Deaf view themselves.
Joe Clark also make a valid point that there are regional dialects of sign language. Thus when providing communication access to a global audience, sign language may not be the most effective use of resources. That said, government sites could consider using their nation’s sign language.
Thank you Lisa and ALA for the thought-provoking article and discussion.
Eileen Foster
Just wanted to say that the above comment is a U.S.-centric history/view of Deaf Culture.
Thanks,
Eileen
Martijn ten Napel
I’ve read the article with interest, but the Anglocentrism of it all puts me off. Non-native English readers have just as much difficulity in understanding slang, or reading complicated texts. I think even native speakers profit from the bulleted list of requirements, because it is a list that applies for writing to ANY audience.
Apart from the captioning and subtitling of content, which is more or less considered a different subject by this article, I really fail to see the difference in approach to accessibilty for the web in almost any other context.
I can imagine already the way I’m going to be slashed about this comment, but please do understand that I’m absolutely not saying anything about the cultural and social aspects of d/Deafness, but solely about applying skills to make a web page accessible.
Lisa Herrod
Hi Martijn
I understand that presenting the article from an anglocised perspective might be off-putting for some readers. It is something that we discussed in the initial stages of my writing the article. I actually tried writing it with a generic perspective but some concepts were too difficult to explain clearly.
Also, as my studies and training were in Australia, I have a much deeper understanding of “Auslan”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auslan than other sign languages. For more of a European perspective, Harlan Lane’s When the Mind Hears (see recommended reading list) documents the French deaf education system of the 1700’s brilliantly.
I agree with your other points and it’s great to see that you’ve taken from the article what I was trying to convey.
There are general accessibility considerations that apply to a wide range of users that will also address many needs of Deaf users. Conversely, designing with Deaf users in mind will enhance the accessibility of content for a wide range of users that extends much further than the deaf/Deaf and HOH.
My aim was to highlight the unique differences of the Deaf and the ways in which we can provide a better online experience.
Richard Fink
@Jeffrey Zeldman
Thank you for the air-clearing response to my post.
You’ve earned the right with me, as a reader, to believe that what you tell me is so, is so.
If my take on the piece was off-base, then it is I who retract.
. thacker
Sarcasm is definitely not intended but this article flew right over my head. There are those with various levels of deafness, apparently, and those with various levels of ignorance. Mine, after reading this article falls into the category of “A Lot”.
Resources to examples, simple straight forward examples, would help tremendously in comprehension and implementation, e.g. a simple audio/music file with explanations that address the issues discussed.
PS—Speaking of accessibility, for those who can never remember login information, a link that would e-Mail that info would help.
Thanks.
Stephen Down
I guess the difference is that vision loss affects pretty much every website, whereas hearing loss only affects a few. I have never needed to incorporate sound into a website, so I have never needed to accommodate deaf, Deaf or hard of hearing people. Every website I write, on the other hand, has visuals – mostly text, some tables, some graphics – so it is vital that I know how to write these to serve someone with vision loss.
It’s not that deaf people are any less deserving of attention and consideration than blind people, but that their needs are – in terms of the internet – a heck of a lot less.
Douglas Phillips
First off, I’m HOH, so technically part of little-d deaf. I recently took an ASL class and found how much of the cultural aspect of Deafness I have dealt with, but never realized. I also learned how much I didn’t know about the Deaf culture. However, I’m going to attempt to address this question from the standpoint of a person who has been involved on both sides of the coin.
James Edwards brings up the question of whether deaf people are really disabled. The disability question is highly sensitive, but has a matter of perspective to it.
To the Hearing world, the deaf are disabled. They must generally interpret or translate their communications to written or other form. They must accomodate that they cannot just poke their heads in a person’s office, and ask a question. In this sense, they are more correctly disadvantaged, in that extra steps must be made to accomodate their lack of hearing (or greatly reduced hearing).
However, the general perception among most hearing people is that those who cannot hear are stupid / mentally incompetent / etc.
Deaf/HOH individuals are not—barring additional medical problems—mentally incompetent. In essence, they have been forced to be “stupid” by those who refuse to help them to overcome the disadvantage. In actuality, they are quite intelligent, and generally understand things on a much more complex level than those of us in the hearing world do, simply because they must figure out how it works, rather than being told.
In short, being disadvantaged (referring to the fact that there are obstacles to overcome in the world around them), and being Disabled (mentally and/or physically incompetent) are two vastly different things, and the deaf are, for the large majority, not Disabled. They are disadvantaged (mostly by the ignorance of others around them).
I hope that this helps individuals who don’t understand the reason why the disability question is so sensitive, and why Deaf individuals become so upset when the deaf are referred to as “Disabled”. I also hope it clarifies the issue.
Kerri Hicks
It seems what you’re calling for, Lisa, is localization. Localization of web sites is a much bigger issue in Europe than the US or Australia—are your visitors French, German…?
On the one hand, I’d consider localizing my web site for Deaf people using the same metric that I’d use when I would consider localizing for any other culture. (If I had such a metric—I don’t generally worry about localization in my current day job.)
But I also object to the notion that I should feel compelled to localize for the Deaf when I don’t localize for the Mexican, or the Chinese. If Deafness is not a disability, but a culture, why should this particular community bubble to the top for attention ahead of others—many of which are more populous?
Deaf culture does not preclude D/deaf people in English-speaking countries from learning English. ASL might be an American Deaf person’s first language, but English is the language primarily spoken in the USA. As you attest, being Deaf does not mean you’re stupid. No argument there. Consider this, then: We expect Japanese people in the US to learn English…we don’t generally localize our TV programming or web sites for the Japanese. Same with the French. (Some TV shows have SAP for Spanish-language translation, but that’s pure marketing.) Doesn’t it follow, then, that it’s the Deaf person’s obligation to learn English to participate in English-speaking media, just like any other culture does?
I’ve been a web accessibility advocate for a dozen years, and a parent of a deaf child for some time less than that. My son is fluent in English. When he sees the word ‘comfortable’ in television captions, he knows precisely what it means. He enjoys watching American television and read books written in English, just like all the other kids his age. If you want to do that, though, you have to learn English.
All that said, I think web localization is a massive, important issue, and when we discuss localization, we should consider Deaf culture right up there with the Greeks. :-)
Todd Wright
As a bilingual Deaf person, I am sometimes concerned how simplified “Deaf” English subtitles are perceived – inevitably as “dumbed-down” English – which reinforces the misconception that Deaf people are retarded or have very low intelligence. I would prefer all subtitles and/or captions be more like literal translations with transcribed sound effects – I view media with full English captions as I do understand English very well. For other Deaf people who do not have very good English comprehension skills, translation through Auslan would definitely be the better choice rather than “Deaf” subtitles.
I am part of a group of volunteers that produces a TV programme for the Deaf community on community channels – called “SignPost”. We intentionally made the programme accessible to Deaf and hearing viewers, as well as Hearing Impaired viewers, by adding English captions and voice-over translations. However there are rare instances where there is no Auslan on the screen and this year we are looking into solutions such as super-imposed interpreters on the screen – it is very true that sometimes we (even being Deaf ourselves) forget that there are Deaf people who cannot understand captions.
James Mason
My partner works with people with disabilities and, as a web designer, we’re always talking about how to come about new ideas using software that we can create interesting programs for childeren with learning disabilities. One of the main problems from a developer’s point of view, is building applications that take into consideration all the different types of users and all their varying abilities and disabilities, eg. childeren with Cerebal Palsy have a diverse spectrum of physical abilily and some of them have intellectual disabilities. The problem becomes how do you create an application that is accessible for all users?
nori kuro
The author, Lisa Herrod, makes the case that web designers should consider the Deaf community as a distinct culture versus a “˜disabled’ population. The article is focused on the author’s experience with the deaf community and her understanding that the Deaf community is a “linguistic and cultural minority group, similar to an ethic community.”? She uses the big D, as you would the big I for the Italian community, the big C for the Chinese community and so on.
This is an important understanding as the present understanding from the web community is that deafness is the opposite of blindness. If we make audio captioning available, as we do alt text on an image for the blind, we have solved the usability issues for the deaf.
This oversimplification is the wrong approach for designing web content for the Deaf community. Herrod does point out that in the last 18 months, the web community has become more aware of deafness and how it influences the design of web pages. But this focus is still on captioning, “transcription of speech and important sound effects”? and subtitling which is “written translation of dialogue”?.
Herrod goes further to make several points that all web designers should consider.
The first point is that in the Deaf community they “speak”? sign language. Sign languages are “˜visual-spatial’ and many elements of these languages do not have a natural written form. Deaf people rely heavily on facial expression to convey essential meaning and emphasis, and there is no direct written translation for these meanings and emphasis.
Another important point is that direct translation will not always work, phonetic based language i.e. English, can be mid-leading. Herrod uses the example of the phrase, “once in a blue moon”?. This phrase means occasionally or once in a while, but when translated into a signed language, the meaning of blue moon can be ambiguous or misleading.
English as a language uses many synonyms while there are very few used in signed languages. Sign languages rely more on facial expression or body language than it does on other words with similar meaning.
These are all important points that present a challenge for anyone designing for the web.
Herrod does make a case for several solutions to this problem. There is no single solution, but there are several things that can make a website more user friendly for the Deaf community:
“¢ Reference Writing for the Web 101
“¢ Use more multimedia
These suggestions are very important and would make any website that is being targeted to the deaf community more usable for them. The use of multimedia is really key, as a deaf person, I always rely on any medium with video or visual access. It is hard to understand from written language what is the meaning. Also, as a Japanese native speaker, the point of a discussion always come first, this makes communication much easier. Once you establish what you are talking about, it is easier to comprehend.
This is a very good article because Lisa Herrod has really attempted to explain what the Deaf community is about. The concept that it is a community, with their own language should be the starting point web design.
Lisa Herrod
Hi James,
Thanks for your comment on the article.
Yours is an interesting question:
bq. How do you create an application that is accessible for all users? bq.
The problem is that it isn’t really possible. I think the best we can do is focus on making a site that is accessible to as many people as possible.
Accessibility specialists such as Brian Kelly and Liddy Neville have been writing about building for ‘Adaptability’, which focuses on creating accessible sites taking an holistic, inclusive approach that considers the primary user groups, purpose and context.
It’s really interesting reading.
Lisa Herrod
Hi Nori
Thanks for such a great summary of the article, I’m glad you liked it and that as a Deaf person, you agree with my approach.
Asian sign languages are fascinating, particularly for the palm writing of certain words. Does Japanese SL use palm writing for certain characters?
All the best,
Lisa
aratakojima
I would like to tell you that I had translated this article into Japanese.
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/aratako0/20090107/p1
But I have to apologize to you that I forgot to tell you that I had done and published it a year ago!
I’m sorry and thank you for your great article.
Luk10
Thank you, Lisa, for the article. However, for most part you are biased towards sign language which is accessible only locally to a tiny group of Deaf people – like Kerri Hicks explained in her #39 post:
“If Deafness is not a disability, but a culture, why should this particular community bubble to the top for attention ahead of others — many of which are more populous?”
Should we try to squeeze 5 different sign language interpreters (ASL, BSL, etc.) into one screen to “translate” one spoken English and on top of this being covered with captions – one row in “normal” written language and another row in “plain” language with a glossary for “specialized” vocabulary? ;0) That would be very interesting and indeed very confusing to watch.
I totally agree with Joe Clark that captioning is the main thing that we have been fighting for years and is accessible to much more people than just those who have hearing loss. It is the number one priority we should focus on right now.
Do you have any user research or any hard data to prove how many Deaf people are actually saying they “cannot” read and are demanding sign language interpreters for online videos vs captioning?
Here’s Marlee Maitlin’s presentation on behalf of NAD (National Association for the Deaf) and on behalf of 36 million deaf, Deaf, and hard of hearing Americans:
http://www.nad.org/issues/civil-rights/communications-act/21st-century-act/marlee-matlin-fcc-field-hearing-testimony
Marlee Maitlin signs, but CAN READ AND WRITE in English. So do millions of D/Deaf and HOH Americans. Not only we can read captions, but also we can write emails, chat online, send text messages, read websites.
I don’t care if a person with hearing loss can speak or sign – as long as s/he can have a good command of written language. Only with those skills you will be able to succeed in the mainstream society.
I totally agree with Dan Guy saying: “Written language should be everyone’s second language. It should be the lingual equalizer.”
I also agree with Martin Smales that many deaf people in Australia are bi-lingual (Auslan and English) – so there are many of them here in the USA. Many college educated Deaf signers I have been personally meeting (including those from Deaf families) are well familiar with slangs and idioms of English.
I understand that certain websites that cater to Deaf users – such as Deaf organizations, sites selling products and services for Deaf people, Deaf forums, etc. – would need vlogs or signed videos which would make a perfect sense. However, including sign language interpreters for such mainstream sites as CNN, BBC, etc is insane.
By the way, I personally can speak, read, write, sign in several languages and I am PROFOUNDLY deaf.
Your ending doesn’t make sense either about online accessibility: “I’ll be surprised if that doesn’t make you want to learn a few signs yourself.”
It would have been more useful if you spent most of your article educating web specialists and website owners about how to find and use resources for captioning and transcriptions. Many of us are frustrated enough trying to explain to hearing website owners why we need them. On top of this you are making it more confusing for hearing people with advertising this sign language and Deaf culture thing and more frustrating to the majority of us who need captions – which in turn would increase SEO for those website owners.
Maybe you should end instead that you will be surprised if with all benefits for SEO it doesn’t make hearing people want to make more videos captioned??
Luk10
P.S. I would like to also add that there are many D/deaf and HOH people who can speak, read, write, and sign more than one language. So no excuses.
celticchrys
I don’t think the analogy of reading text as a second language holds up. Someone who first learns sign, and then learns to read text is only slightly different from someone who first learns to speak and then learns to read text. No one is born reading text.
For one, the signing is the foundational communication, and for the other, the speech is. Still, excellent article; good food for thought.
charlesdelarow
With more people aging, deafness is getting more frequent. The senses, especially the eyes are ears and prime sensors for us and I know through a relative, how hard it is when these disappear. Simple things become almost impossible.