Can you spot the video difference?

Can you spot the differences between these three videos? Maybe the irony? Before you complain, think first. Keep it clean...and nice. That's my only request.





The last video talks about this guy in a screenshot which can be found here.

Enjoy.

Thought of the Day.

Big mystery question of the day. Why do some people to my blog and leave comments about how great "deafhood" is or something along that line but refuse to leave their real name behind? Are they embarrassed to show their faces about a philosophical concept? The problem with "deafhood" is the people who don't walk the walk and instead become walking hypocrites. A common sight, I'd say. If it makes people feel good to tout it like a trophy, be my guest. I prefer the most simplest way without any baggage or political correctness and that is accept people for who they are...not about what they are. It doesn't matter if they have a hearing loss or not. I have said this many times in my blogs in the past and elsewhere. If people are so doggone crazy about "deafhood" then why the anonymity when commenting in my blog in the effort to advertise on how great it is? Just like anonymous Matt.

That's my "Thought of the Day."

Doubters of Sarah Churman...and the hypocrisy

Oh, I covered this before but it was done in a video format about how so many people, especially some deaf people, doubted Sarah Churman's ability to hear and even speak so well even after getting her implantable Envoy hearing device. What surprised me out of all of the videos I produced this one video I did has netted me with over 8,500 hits since last year in October 2011.Must've been a flurry of video searches going on when Sarah Churman's video went viral.

Neat.

The other video I did in July of 2009 that turned out well netted me over 5,400 hits. A video I produced called, "A positive ASL video of a 1 year old baby." And the next video I produced back in July 2011 was a video for hearing people only called, "When deaf/hh people speak, the hypocrisy from the deaf culture." A video where I discussed the hypocrisy I saw from a certain select group of deaf people in the deaf community when I pointed out to Jeff who did the very same thing producing a video for hearing people only. Just as well I also pointed out Tim Riker who did the very same thing by talking at the AB2072 Senate Health Hearing on June 23, 2010 instead of signing. And when I pointed that out in my blog about the hypocrisy they certainly circled the wagon around Tim Riker in the effort to "protect" him for speaking when they have furiously for years tried to prop up the positive message of ASL. And in the end, that group had to fall back speaking to a group of hearing people at the Senate Health Hearing despite having an ASL interpreters readily available. And this was a deaf guy, fluent in ASl, who was the the chapter president of the California Association of the Deaf (Sacramento chapter). A chapter that represents culturally deaf people who chose to speak over signing.

Now, as I think about it, my "for hearing people only" video for some reason has gotten more attention than Jeff's video even though we both produced a video for hearing people only. Why is that? Interesting.

Oh, and don't forget. Sarah Churman's new book is almost out. Don't forget to buy a copy.

Hypocrisy when it comes to captioning vs transcript in videos?

This has been an ongoing hypocrisy for quite awhile when it comes to signed videos that do not provide any subtitles or captions but instead provide transcripts for those who do not know sign language. For years culturally deaf people have complained loudly how videos they watched were never captioned such as TV shows and movies over cable and the internet, including YouTube videos. But that has been changing slowly (or quickly depending on your perspective) while captioning and easy to use subtitling technology catches up. But imagine instead of subtitles or captions you have a transcript for each video. Why not just provide a transcript instead?

Well, it's not quite the same thing since it provides an obvious disconnect between the viewers and those in the videos because other visual cues and emotions would be entirely lost.  So, it makes good business sense is to provide captions/subtitles along with the signing in a video. This allows non-signing viewers a certain connect with signers seen in a video. It is just not those who do not know sign language but those who may be weak in sign language and having captions helps. It also makes good common sense to include captions in videos since that will help reach a wider audience regardless of who the viewing audience is.

But the hypocrisy continues. Some bray saying that putting captions in a signing video "pollutes" it. If that is their logic for an excuse then putting captions in a speaking video also "pollutes" it. Laughable on both sides.

So, if you are running a deaf/hh business or an organization and have the means and wherewithal to include captions to your videos then please do it. If you believe in communication access and inclusion your business or organization ought to be including captions/subtitles in their videos otherwise you and your organization or business  just end up as a bunch of hypocritical people with a stupid excuse not to provide captions/subtitles but tosses out a transcript instead. If you do that, then please do not complain again about the lack of captions or subtitles in movies, TV shows, news shows, internet videos, and on YouTube.  In fact, you would have no right to complain because your organization or business refuses to provide captions/subtitles in their own videos. In fact, by refusing to do so you've become just like....them.

Double Dog Dare You!

It is just fascinating to hear comments every now and then through the grapevines that gets filtered down to me in my emails about the few Deaf people who continually dismiss me as someone who is supposedly angry at the Deaf community for "not accepting me." Or that I'm "lonely" which is funny because whenever I opine strongly or present facts on certain deaf-related issues in my blogs (or vlogs) do they resort to this sort of low ball approach of attacking instead of making cogent arguments. Whenever a loss for words they go for the guns and call me an "extremist" something ..something.. whatever. It's like them playing the race card over and over and over because that is  their only response they have left in the cards thinking it's a cogent argument.

Deaf community does not accept me?

How droll and laughable that argument has become lately.

Why? Well, looking back it's funny because the term "Deaf community" has always meant the culturally deaf community. That has always been the defined framework for years in the attempt to instill that message so far ingrained it can only mean "culturally deaf people" (Padden, Carol; Tom Humphries (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture) and nothing else.

Nowadays you have some Deaf people trying to move the goal post in their desperate bid to concoct a new meaning of the term "D"eaf as to also include people with all kinds of hearing loss whether they are hearing aid users, cochlear implant users, oral deaf, SEE users, cued speech users, late deafened (and not "latened" deaf, folks!), implantable hearing aid users, and anybody with mild to profound hearing loss. In other words, their newly made up term "D"eaf people would apply to the 36 million people with hearing loss in the United States. Using the argument that I am "angry" because the "Deaf community" hasn't accepted me becomes even sillier worthy of a joke or two. It simply becomes a losing argument! Wait til I show this to my Deaf, deaf, hh and hearing Facebook friends and fans of my blog and ask them why they have not "accepted me" for who I am.

Note the sarcasm.

Let's suppose they keep the original intended meaning of the term "D"eaf that Deaf people have
worked so hard to define over the last 25 years (see Padden, Carol; Tom Humphries (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture) to mean "culturally deaf people" and apply that term in "Deaf community" with all of its intended meaning.

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture.  The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society.  We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people.

 Fine. Except that using the same argument that I am "angry at the Deaf community" for not
"accepting me" fails miserably as well because it would indicate a "members only" mentality based on sign language and culture. I have many Deaf friends (old and new ones, even the ones from NTID) that I keep track of in my Facebook and Deaf people I don't know well enough who simply accept and support me for who I am. They are part of the Deaf community. In other words, I see no evidence of their rejection of me.  In all actuality, the whole rejection notion comes from the very few Deaf people who simply have a beef with me and don't like me. Pretty straight forward and obvious. Heck, even Tayler Mayer doesn't reject me and that's a whole lotta Deaf community behind him with his DeafRead and DVTV communities which continues to grow and thrive despite the failed walkout.

Bottom line, we simply accept each other for who we are. I feel no rejection from the "Deaf community" as a whole, folks. Sorry to disappoint the few "unfans."

If that's not the "Deaf community" context in mind then perhaps it's using the "Gallaudet University as the Deaf community" argument since I did go there from 1988 to 1991 in only 3 1/2 short years graduating with a bachelor degree in mathematics. Even using that argument fails on so many levels because a good portion of my Deaf friends were the ones I met while at Gallaudet University. Heck, I even got kudos from Deaf people sitting in the audience (and on the panel) after I did my verbal speech presentation at the first ever blog/vlog (see video of my presentation at 1:25 to 1:42 with an ASL interpreter) conference at Gallaudet University, including comments in my blog offering praise and kudos from the very people in the Deaf community.  It was an honor that Jill Bradbury at Gallaudet University selected me along with several other bloggers/vloggers to attend the conference. She left an astute comment in my blog about diversity.

Mike - I thought it took a lot of confidence to stand up and speak during your panel. By doing so, you helped the conference make a strong statement about embracing diversity in the deaf community. Waving hands! At dinner someone said to me that you are supporting the deaf community in a really valuable way through your interest in technology. Thanks for keeping us informed! Jill.Bradbury | 02.04.07 - 1:28 pm |

It's all about embracing diversity. I accept people with hearing loss regardless of their background, regardless of whether they know sign language or not. The same goes on their acceptance of me for who I am regardless of my communication preferences or background. I just go about a different way of interacting with people of various backgrounds and communication preferences. Something that few seem to not understand.

It's one thing to disagree with a person's opinion but an entirely another realm of fantasy to use a piss poor claim of my being "angry" because the Deaf community "rejected" me as a substitute argument.  Having several Deaf people who don't like me or reject me do not make a "Deaf community."

Gawrsh! *kicks a pebble*

This whole blog piece was precipitated when I looked back on some old comments that were a few years old on somebody else's blog. A few Deaf people actually  "double dog" or "triple dog" dared me to sign in my own video believing I couldn't sign and I was simply a helpless ol "orally." And, of course, the rest was history once I did that. But then they complained even more because of my opinionated signed vlogs both in the signed and spoken format (along with my own subtitles).  Got to laugh at the irony when it comes to diversity and accessibility. How about if I do a "double dog" dare to those same people and ask them to add subtitles in their own signed vlogs? No, make that a triple dog dare! I bet dollars to donuts they won't.

The elimination of a scourge....

An organization in New Zealand is setting out to eradicate this scourge that affects an estimated 284 million people worldwide. Approximately 80% of the cases are due to causes which could have been prevented, treated or cured in the first place. This scourge cost the New Zealand society some $2.8 billion dollars in 2009. Multiply this cost in all of the countries worldwide and you'll see how exacting this condition affects society. This organization makes a point that this "is a scourge to be avoided at all costs." Just like the scourge of polio that is now a thing of the past. The irony here is that no outrage will be directed at this organization's ultimate goal in New Zealand on finding ways to eliminate this "scourge."

And then you have Dimity Dornan who says that deafness is scourge and that one day it will disappear just like polio. Yet you have some Deaf people in an outrage over this attempt at eradicating the condition of hearing loss whether it's mild or profound hearing loss.

Funny thing, if you were born with a hearing loss or became deaf pre-lingually and later in life as an adult you lose your vision completely but you'd be the first one to step up to have your eye-sight restored once a cure for vision loss becomes available. The irony would be that you'd object to a cure and the eradication for hearing loss but not for eradicating vision loss. Me think some people out there are hyperventilating a wee bit too much.

Hypocrisy in Six Flags' Deaf Awareness Day?

Is it truly a "deaf and hard of hearing awareness" day when the facts tell otherwise that the majority of the more than 30 million people with hearing loss in the United States do not know or use sign language? It's nice that Six Flags at Magic Mountain is able to provide sign language interpreters but there are no real time captioning or other services for deaf and hard of hearing people who do not know sign language. At best, this "deaf and hard of hearing" awareness day looks to be more one sided and not a real "melting pot" of deaf and hard of hearing people of various communication preferences. At worst, it's a continued discriminatory practice. If Six Flags is serious about raising deaf/hh awareness by inviting people with hearing loss to come to their amusement park then they need to be aware of the fact that the majority of people with hearing loss (from mild to profound) do not know sign language and that alternative communication options must be realized.

Read below the email responses I got today. I hope Six Flags will take to heart to add captioning to all of there shows in conjuction with ASL interpreters during once their year Deaf and Hard of Hearing Awareness Day.

UPDATE V: Obviously there will be some people who don't really care if deaf/hh non-signers happen to attend the Six Flags D/HH Awareness Day and do not get their communication access need met for just one measely day. What they are really saying is "It's not my problem."

But consider this. This isn't about ADA but about recognizing the potential in drumming up more business and positive exposure. This is not an awareness day if it's only about deaf/hh who know and communicate only in sign language. Awareness day about deaf and hard of hearing people includes deaf/hh people who use and depend on other means of communication and where they get their information on a day to day basis. In otherwords, don't be selfish and ignorant at the same time. If non-signers were to be truly felt welcomed at Six Flags where they took the effort to provide open captioning alongside with sign language interpreters, then what better place for non-signers to see a lot of signers in one place and hopefully get them interested in sign language? It' simply becomes a win-win scenario. What Six Flags is doing is a Win-Lose scenario because they haven't captured the non-signers as part of their business plan. For all intent and purposes the awareness they are raising is simply a "Deaf Culture Awareness Day" and not "Deaf and Hard of Hearing Awareness Day."

UPDATE IV: Just sent an email to NAD about this one.

UPDATE III: I've also sent emails to HLAA and AGBELL about this as well letting them know about the upcoming D/HH awareness day at Six Flags. And I will probably find a few more emails to send to such as NAD.

UPDATE II: A second reponse from William Shandling of Six Flags Magic Mountain after I read and replied to his first email to me.

Mike,

I will be summiting your original Web Comment as a “suggestion” in our Guest Service system, so our Park Management sees your recommendation.

Thank you again for contacting our park.

William

Thank you for the quick response.

Will Six Flags consider this option in the very near future for those who would enjoy Six Flags' stage shows in a captioning format? The "Deaf and Hard of Hearing Awareness Day" is a day about people with hearing loss and their communication needs. By just providing only interpreters you only address those who know sign language which does not raise awareness about the majority of deaf and hard of hearing communication need from those born with hearing loss to those who acquire deafness later in life. Consider that 1 out of 10 people one will have a hearing loss of some kind, 1 out 100 people one will likely have a hearing loss in the severe to profound range. And 1 out of 300 people you may likely come across a culturally deaf person who knows sign language. By presenting a Deaf and Hard of Hearing Awareness Day you may have accidentally encouraged deaf and hard of hearing people who don't know sign language to come to this event without realizing that Six Flags has not provided any means of communication support for them, especially for popular shows where voice is used.

I hope Six Flags will consider this seriously in the near future since not only this makes good marketing sense (e.g. open captioning) it makes good sense for every day use at Six Flags because 1 in 10 of your customers that come through the gates will likely have a hearing loss of some kind. Something for Six Flags to think about.

Again, thank you for the quick reply.

Mike McConnell

UPDATE: I received a reponse from Six Flags Magic Mountain.

Mike,

Thank you for contacting Six Flags Magic Mountain, and for inquiring about services being offered on our Deaf & Hard of Hearing Awareness Day. American Sign Language Interpreters will be on hand at the stage shows. Six Flags Magic Mountain will be unable to provide captioning services for those who do not sign.

Have a Six Flags day.

William
Six Flags Magic Mountain
Guest Relations

The upcoming Six Flags Magic Mountain's Deaf & Hard of Hearing Awareness Day on Saturday, June 5, 2010, I am wondering if you will have captioning services for those who are deaf or hard of hearing who do not know sign language? The majority of deaf and hard of hearing people in the United States do not know sign language or have very little exposure to be competent in understanding it among the 30 million people with hearing loss.

Thank you for your time.

Mike

NAD Does Not Care for Deaf People?

Just to point out the level of hypocrisy generated by some of those in the Deaf community who say that deaf/hh blogs need to include an ASL video equivalent to help those who are "functionally illiterate" or illiterate altogether, I would respectfully point out to you to take a look at the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) website.

The NAD website is a site that most Deaf people would go to check out news, updates, upcoming conferences, legal issues and so on. But there is something that is glaringly apparent in the NAD website and that if Deaf people aren't complaining about accessing NAD's website you will notice that the NAD website is almost and completely devoid of any ASL videos!! I checked on all the tabs that linked to various topics under "Legal Rights," "Advocacy Issues," "Take Action," "Info & FAQs," "Newsroom," and "Inside NAD" and found not one single ASL video that is dedicated to explain each of the topics and subtopics in ASL. It is obviously and readily apparent that there is no ASL videos to click on anywhere on the NAD site under a variety of topics and issues.

Videos done in ASL (along with a transcript with no captioning for those who want to learn ASL) was done by Beth Scoggins, president of NAD, seen in her NAD's President Blog . These videos are basically done as a lip service to Deaf people because throughout the rest of the NAD site there is no ASL video equivalent to go with the printed versions of NAD's website to help explain in layman terms in ASL to those who may need it. But instead, the NAD website is overwhelming English dominated in the printed format.

Why is that?

Now, where are the pitchforks, the torches, the angry Deaf mob pounding at the door of NAD for ignoring and excluding them, Deaf people with poor English skills, from accessing their website with no ASL video equivalents? Yet, NAD claims the mantle of diversity and accessibility for 30 million people with hearing loss which would be questionable at this point. NAD's website is mostly accessible towards those whose primary language is the English language and not ASL. Why has NAD ignored these Deaf people for so many decades with their oppressive use of the English language that is the common language for the majority of the population, including Deaf people, in the United States?

So, my point is this. If ya'll are going to go after Deaf Village for requiring any videos or vlogs (ASL, voice, cued, signing) be captioned, subtitled or included with a transcript and you're angry for them requiring ASL vlogs or videos have the English text equivalent then I think it's better that you focus your efforts on going after NAD instead. NAD has been oppressing the few Deaf people with poor English skills for years by paying them lip service for not providing an ASL video equivalent to the printed formats on the NAD website. And NAD is supposedly proud of their ASL heritage but their website is not "ASL-friendly"?

Onto blogs and vlogs.

Blogs are personal in nature and it's up to the descretion of the blogger to do whatever he or she wants. The same for vlogs. The decision to include captioning, subtitling, transcripts or signing videos is up to the blogger/vlogger if he or she believes in providing equal access and inclusion. As for Deaf Village's guideline #5 requiring ASL videos or vlogs be captioned or included a transcript is for the expressed purpose on ensuring access to the greatest number of people with hearing loss (also for hearing people, too) since the English happens to be the most commonly used language in the United States, including among Deaf people, for the 30 million people with hearing loss. ASL is not.

Hypocrisy? Double Standards? You be the judge.

The one common language that all Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people in the United States have immediate access to on the internet is the printed English language.

Now, tell me. I'm utterly befuddled with this glaringly and obvious conundrum by those screaming about Deaf Village's #5 requirement (submitted video entries require a texted version). Why hasn't there been a collective hue and cry over Deaf bloggers for not including ASL video versions of their blog entries? Deaf bloggers have been doing this for years. Ridor is a good example who have purposely ignored those who want/require/need an ASL video version of the written texted entries. He is, after all, a well known and favored Deaf blogger. No? What about DeafRead? They failed to provide an ASL video version in their guidelines and elsewhere! Boy, talk about not having "mutual respect." And yet no one is screaming bloody murder over that one? What about Gallaudet University's website for not including ASL video versions with all of their texted versions? And NTID? Or other Deaf websites? Why not the outrage over these bloggers and websites? It's because everybody knows that English is the one common language that is immediately accessible to the largest group of people, including Deaf. So by eliminating the texted version requirement would not fit the philosophy of Deaf Village on providing the most common form communication access. The printed English language is that common ground we all have.

Now, until people start addressing the issue of "non-compliance" committed by Deaf bloggers, Deaf websites, Gallaudet University's websites, NTID, DeafRead, etc, for not including ASL video versions of their texted entries then those people "might" have a leg to stand on with their complaints. Otherwise trying to spin it in the direction of Deaf Village on not having that "mutual respect" would be nothing but a hypocrite response. I'd say that'd be a heck of an Achilles Heel right there by those making that complaint. I'm sorry to say this but people need to look into their own Deaf mirrors before making those charges of double standards. Go after the Deaf bloggers first for a change because these bloggers ought to know better to include ASL video versions of their texted entries. Right?

Ok. I'm being quite facetious and sarcastic, obviously so, but I'm trying to make a point here, and I apologize to those who may feel offended by my comments here. But if people are going to make charges of "double standards" then please apply those same charges to the many Deaf bloggers and Deaf websites for not including an ASL video version of their texted entries. Else you end up looking like a hypocrite.

Deaf Village's target audience isn't only just Deaf people but people with heairng loss from all stripes and those who want to learn more about deafness and read about deaf/hh people experiences. But the bottom line in all this is that the one common language shared by all is the English language.

UPDATE I (a response):

Tony wrote:

Secondly, Ridor’s blog is a personal site, which is different to deaf village which is an
“aggregator”. Once again, the terms for access are different.

Um, Tony. That kind of reasoning doesn't fly which you infer that an aggregator site has an obligation to help ensure access. Not in the case of any aggregator business. People are saying that DV should somehow be obligated to provide a captioning or transcripting service for Deaf vloggers which are also personal blog sites in the form of videos. If an argument is going to be used in the attempt to somehow exempt Deaf bloggers or Deaf websites from their responsibilities on providing text versions of their ASL video blogs then it won't work if they scream in the same breath that they are entitled to these captioning demands simply flies in the face of incredulity. Else they'd be walking hypocrites. It's also called a "non sequitur" with that kind of reasoning.

So, for the case of Deaf Village you are saying, Tony, in fact, that Deaf Village should somehow provide a text version of vloggers' ASL video blogs so that they can be submitted properly? If so, then certainly DeafRead should also provide subtitles or transcripts for videos by those who speak and want to share his/her opinions to the Deaf masses on deafness issues supposing the person doesn't know how to type or don't know how to do subtitling. Ok. A far-fetched scenario but still equally applicable on the DeafRead side. The resources are simply not there to address these concerns. So, the onus or responsibility still falls on the person making the video to ensure access in the form of a text version. The responsibility does not fall on the content aggregator site when it comes to providing captions/subtitles or transcripts. It's the individuals. That's already clear.

Secondly, everybody knows that English is the one common language that is immediately accessible to the largest group of people, including Deaf. So by eliminating the text version requirement it would not fit the philosophy of DV on helping provide the most common form communication access. And that would be the printed English language which is that common ground we all share.

Now, if Deaf Village (or even DeafRead) or a future aggregator site had the resources, the time, the people and the money I'm sure they would be all too happy to provide a service to help include captions/subtitles or transcript for vloggers' ASL video blogs in order to stay compliant with DV's philosophy on equal communication access. The English language in the printed format is, again, the most common form of communication access that is accessible to the majority of people out there, including Deaf. Guideline #5 is there for a reason, to ensure that readers who do come to DV's content aggregator site will be ensured that whatever mode of communication used in blogs and vlogs will be seen in English.

Now, supposing a service is available for free, will Deaf vloggers take up this service and ensure that their ASL video blogs be captioned in English so that the larger audience can access their video blogs? Or will they take the "purity" route like Tayler did and forego any captioning because it "ruins" or "distract" those who watch ASL vlogs keeping to the mantra of ASL-only videos? Remember, these availble resources do take time, money and people power to make it work.

My response to Mishka Zena

When navel gazing goes too far into the trash can

What Mishka Zena said:

Actually, Shelley, I think Mike does get it. He doesn’t care as he apparently feels the needs of the oral deaf and hearing people more important than the needs of ASL users. Again this is my personal interpretation based on my observations on his posts and comments the last two years.

Incidentally he had already read this post the first time. This is not new to him, not at all, yet he is still pressing on for cc/subtitling of ASL vloggers while being quiet about blogs not being accessible to ASL users.

My response of which I already replied in her blog comment box:

Mishka, it’s a bit of a non sequitur (not to mention being a bit disingenuous) in the attempt to say that written blogs ought to have ASL video interpretations just to make it “fair.” If that’s the case then Closed Captioning on television shows and such ought to be replaced with an ASL interpreter in the corner of the tv screen. If it’s English is so bad to read then make sure you go after Gallaudet University for not including an ASL version for every article written whether it’s news, sports, administration update and so on. If you really want to see hypocrisy go after Gallaudet University or NTID for not including ASL versions in all of their writings over the internet. Or what about the countless Deaf websites that do not have ASL video versions next to their written English sections?

Secondly, you are making a statement (as well as helping perpetuate the 4th grade reading literacy myth/fact) about the literacy levels that Deaf people have by sayinig they are unable to read yet they have no problem taking the time to comment in many blogs. Maybe you ought ought to go after Ricky Taylor’s blogs for not including an ASL vlog version alongside each and every blog entry? But I don’t see Deaf people reaching for their pitchforks going after him for not adding an ASL version to his blog entries. Heck, go after DeafRead for no having an ASL version for their guidelines. After all I wonder how many Deaf people who already read DR’s guidelines didn’t understand them at all because it was all in English? Who knows, maybe they violated DR’s guideline umpteen times it’d make your head spin? You wanna talk about hypocrisy, diversity and accessiblity all in one fell swoop now, Mishka?

English is the one single common language that is accessible to the majority population, deaf or otherwise, who are literate. ASL is not accessible to the majority of the population in the United States. The majority of Deaf people are literate enough to read simple sentences to more complex ones such as yours, Mishka. I guess you better starting adding an ASL version of your blog entry just for the sake of “fairiness.” After all, you blogs are certainly not “accessible to ASL users.”

And for the record, I have not read or accessed Mishka Zena's post until today. Oh, and I do get it. It just perhaps you guys don’t get it and the level of hypocrisy y’all are displaying?

Equal Access – When a Village Agrees

The one single issue unanimously agreed upon without hesitation by those who helped found Deaf Village was that submitted video blogs (“vlogs”) are required to be subtitled/captioned or included with transcripts to go with them. Currently there are a few people outside of Deaf Village who are having a bit of a conniption fit over Guideline #5. However, this was a decision that came from a diverse group of Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people from a variety of background and life experiences. This was a decision that naturally made sense because greater communication access to video blogs (or any online videos for that matter) whether signed, cued speech or spoken would reach more people and increase inclusivity. This requirement is no more of an eye-brow raiser than the requirement for television shows or movies to be captioned just so the viewing audience can feel more “included” like any others. It just makes good common sense that videos need to have that kind of access. Not doing so merely shuts out those who do not know sign language, cued speech or unable to hear or understand clearly the spoken words in a video blog. The greater majority of the population with hearing loss does not know signing or even cued speech but rather English as their major language of use in the United States (even elsewhere, too). It’s better to grant communication access to the majority of the 30 million people with hearing loss than to exclude them along with the rest of the hearing population by doing an ASL-only video blog with no captioning/subtitling or transcripts. And it's just not a deaf thing either when it comes to captioning since hearing people benefit from it as well like those learning the English language. Deaf Village’s goal is about inclusivity rather than to practice total exclusiveness. And thus by allowing video blogs with captions/subtitles or transcripts the readers, whether deaf, hard of hearing or hearing, will have the opportunity to understand what was said.

It is NOT Deaf Village’s responsibility to provide captioning/subtitling or transcript services to video bloggers in order to ensure that their videos are accessible to the rest of the population. Deaf Village is in the aggregator business. After all, the onus falls on the vlogger to decide whether it's important to provide subtitles or transcripts for their online videos or not. And they should be mindful of their own demands from others (e.g. movies, tv shows, online shows, video blogs, YouTube videos, etc) on requiring/wanting/wishing that videos be subtitled/captioned or included a transcript at the very least. The irony of seeing people complain about Deaf Village’s guideline concerning subtitling or transcript requirement is that for years a certain group of people with hearing loss complained the loudest about how no captioning/subtitles were available over the internet when it came to online videos. Deaf Village now has that opportunity to help ensure that video blogs come with captioning/subtitling or transcripts.

Should a technology down the road come up with a software that can convert sign language into printed text automatically as easily as the spoken words into text then the issue of captioning/subtitling or transcript requirement wouldn’t be such an “issue.” But for right now those who submit videos online are asked to proactively make sure that their internet videos are captioned/subtitled or come with transcripts at the very least before Deaf Village accepts them. Doing so would allow deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people contribute and interact more fully in an accessible “village.”

Currently YouTube offers a way to add subtitles for your submitted videos. Overstream.net also allows subtitling capability for online videos. Laptops often contain software that allow subtitling such as Windows Movie Maker.

Regardless on how videos are prepared, the responsibility lies with each person to ensure that their own submitted videos be captioned/subtitled or included with a transcript at the very least. Lest he or she become a hypocrite by demanding all videos be captioned.

The idea of “inclusivity” simply opens more doors to those who want to participate and understand, in this case, what each vlogger has to say. For those who are serious about equal access themselves need to be proactive in what they believe in when it comes to captioning needs. This is about the assurances on providing an accessible service to the greatest number of people and not about a single communication ideology that promotes exclusiveness to the greater number of people. If one is serious on reaching out to the greater number of people then one should also seriously consider on taking the time and effort to add subtitles or transcripts to their own video blogs or online videos.

Deaf Pagan said it well,

“I’ve always been taught that it is not enough to just sit around and complain when there’s a problem. If you’re not willing to be a part of the solution, then you’re only contributing to being a part of the problem.”

After all, when I make my own online videos I make sure I take the time and effort to include subtitles to all of my videos whenever I speak. Hopefully others will take to task this same philosophy when it comes to signing, using cued speech or by using one's voice by speaking.

UPDATE: Deaf Village's requirement that submission of vlogs be captioned/subtitled or included transcripts is not intended to create "apathy towards ASL" or "drive ASL vloggers away" but rather to create greater inclusiveness *FOR ALL*. Not all can sign or understand sign very well and having, especially, a subtitled video can help create a continued interest for those who want to learn sign language someday. Or cued speech. Or whatever. It's the message that people want to hear, watch or read about. But if your target audience is a Deaf one then you don't have to worry about subtitling or adding a transcript to your vlogs. Or if you want your message to be heard by reaching out to a greater number of people then include subtitle or transcript to your vlog. But if you want Deaf Village to accept your vlog then their guidelines must be met, which means a vlog need to have subtitle or a transcript. Otherwise, it'd be practicing greater exclusiveness to the rest of the population.

The Achilles Heel - Saying What They Mean

It’s been several days since the deaf/hh community-wide uproar broke out over the forcible removal of Rachel’s blog from DeafRead’s aggregator site based on circumstantial evidence(s), assumptions, and the refusal to engage in due process (i.e. benefit of the doubt) regarding Rachel’s own defense. The Achilles Heel in DeafRead's justification for doing so in this whole thing are primarily three things:

1) No prior notification or warning
2) No due process
3) No real clarification on guidelines on what’s really permissible or not, and the unclear definitions of some of the words behind those guidelines.

The main guideline that prompted the removal of Rachel’s blog was under DeafRead’s #6 Guideline doled out to Rachel as their "reason" for her blogsite address removal which copied and pasted here:

“6) Commerical Sites
We do not link to commerical sites for the purpose of generating profit, other than our own (we have expenses to cover!).”

Now, it is rather curious to read Jared’s latest blog entry regarding this matter. that he has done on behalf of DeafRead’s editors and owner was to try and clarify certain positions *AFTER* the fact and not *BEFORE* in the attempt to somehow “prove” as if they actually had these clarifications already set in stone (of course, fooling no one). If hindsight is your friend so is owning up to your own mistakes, too. But that has never happened…yet. However, in Banjo’s blog, “Oh the drama!” (and who hasn’t?) Tayler supposedly admitted his own error about Amy’s DVDs advertisements in an AIM conversation with Banjo. But why “admit” this one particular error in Banjo’s blog? Why couldn’t Tayler just post that “grievance” in his own blog as a step towards reconciliation and acknowledgement in making the faux pas of the year? Either Tayler gave Banjo the “ok” to print his particular comment from their AIM conversations or he did not. I am supposing it’s the former rather than the latter. And if so, then why? Is Tayler somehow trying to move forward in a way to save face by giving Banjo the “ok” to use his comments in his blog? Well, it seems so.

In other blogs I’m seeing comments that essentially point out how Rachel’s blogsite is more like exhorting a “religious experience” based on her own positive experiences with her and other people’s cochlear implants. But it’s funny when people try and point that out using a particular euphemism since there are those who are just as equally “religiously supportive” on the use of ASL even to the point where purists rail against cochlear implants as being “bad” and not good for the Deaf community. Whatever. People who do that reminds me of this phrase, “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.” Hypocrisy comes to mind, too.

Now we get into this conflict of interest complaint. In the last sentence in Jared’s blog a comment made by him that was really wanting.

“We believe it is petty behavior to target a blog by disclosing evidence.”

I disagree. You say you (i.e. DeafRead) have “evidence” but the crux of this is you either have the “evidence” and you disclose it or you don’t have it. There is nothing petty about disclosing evidence to back up your assertions and reasons for a blog removal. What’s petty is targeting a blogsite based on circumstantial evidence hinged entirely on Guideline #6 that's open wide under the sun to interpretation with no means of due process, no advanced warnings or concerns, no efforts to contact the blog owner to try and work this out and get the underlying answers first, and no real clarifications on guidelines on what’s really permissible or not based on undefined set of terminologies. What’s obviously petty is to not acknowledge their own mistakes. Jared has made clear on behalf of DeafRead editors that they did in fact err in their judgment against Rachel based on the re-introduction on new "clarifications" about DeafRead’s quidelines. Which means, in short, that the DeafRead’s guidelines were never clear in the first place.

Jared's ends with this concluding remark on behalf of DeafRead.

I hope this vlog makes it clear the reason why we recently removed an aggressively marketing blog when its relationship to a corporation was discovered. As long as there is proper disclosure or the blogger stays true to the ethos of blogging, DeafRead will continue to list deaf-related posts of the blog.

Aggressively? And against all common sense and logic they still see this as an aggressive marketing blog (Rachel’s) when all it was it was about her experiences and others about cochlear implants. All this has been at best a continuing of mixed messages by the editors of DeafRead while making no attempt at reconcillation, acknowledgement or accountability. Kind of reminds me of the last two Democratic hopefuls' own messages in 2004 and 2008.