Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Speech For The Deaf 188

Posted by Hemos from the making-the-deaf-speak dept.
I am linus's ho writes "CNN is running a story about gloves which transelate sign language into audble speach, in a stephen hawking type mannor, only, i suppose, much different. The article can be found here"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Speech For The Deaf More

Speech For The Deaf

Comments Filter:
  • utterly amazed nobody has posted yet...

    Another step closer to virtual reality booths....

    SB

    • Re:Neat (Score:2, Funny)

      by thefalconer ( 569726 )
      Virtual reality? Eh, I don't know about that. But I'd sure be interested to know what that thing would have to say if someone who was wearing one of those gave you the finger. :)
  • I can mount my expedition into the jungles of Africa and search for King Solomon's mines...
  • Kinda like that thing they had in the movie 'Congo' for the gorilla

    • Re:Congo (Score:3, Funny)

      by !splut ( 512711 )
      Amy the gorilla runs around gesticulating idiotically

      "Peter! Peter! Amy can't get stupid glove off! Peter! Glove stupid idea! Give banana! I kill you!"

  • You say Tomato, I say Tom Ate All (Score:5, Funny)

    by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Friday August 23, 2002 @06:51PM (#4130791) Journal
    "...transelate...audble speach, in a stephen hawking type mannor..."

    A well-mannered spokesman for Stephen Hawking assured the public today that he will continue to live in his manor. He intends to use his existing traslator to audibly speak as he does now, and will be no meaner.

  • I was going to post a comment about the spelling mistakes, but then I hesitated. The blatant spelling errors in the story must be a joke. Right?

  • Can't work in reverse (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ra5pu7in ( 603513 ) <ra5pu7in@@@gmail...com> on Friday August 23, 2002 @06:52PM (#4130797) Journal
    This only helps one way in the conversation. It can help the deaf person be understood by those who do not know sign language. The deaf person still has to read lips (or have a pad with speech recognition) to know what is said in response.
  • "CNN is running a story about gloves which transelate sign language into audble speach, in a stephen hawking type mannor, only, i suppose, much different. The article can be found here" "transelate"? "audble"? It seems to me that we need gloves that translate badly spelt words into the correct spelling as one types! :-)
    • " It seems to me that we need gloves that translate badly spelt words into the correct spelling as one types! "

      You mean like your brain does when youd read the words and understand them anyway? :oP
      • Depends on how you read. If you read phonetically, then yeah, works just fine. If you read by word-shape recognition, it slows you down. The two methods have pretty much alternated every few years in elementary schools, so it's probably close to evenly split in terms of the adult population.

        I think these days, they (the guy in the basement with all the phones, I guess) think that phonetics (Hooked on Phonics!) is an easier, faster way to learn to read, though word-shape-recognition yields a faster reader, and usually better spellers too.

        I read by word shape recognition. Massive misspellings annoy the crap out of me.

  • Hmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by voicebox ( 516987 )
    Hmm, that sounds too complicated. I think I'll just use my eyes...

  • 4 Mistakes! (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Verizon Guy ( 585358 )
    4 blatant spelling mistakes in two short sentences. Is that too much to fix in backSlash? I mean, it only takes 5 seconds of your time.
  • I'll finally be able to understand what gang-bangers are saying when they make those hand signals.

    For hizzle my schnizzle...

  • never gonna work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Friday August 23, 2002 @06:55PM (#4130815) Homepage Journal
    My wife is a sign language interpreter, so I have some experience from which to speak.

    Anyone who's spent any time around those who speak ASL or any other sign language as their primary language know that there's a hell of a lot more to sign language than the hands. It's also body posture, relative positions of the hands, and especially facial expressions. The main distinguishment between a question and a statement, for example, is all in head posture and facial expression. Another thing that this doesn't address is what's known as classifiers, where the signing person identifies some hand shape and/or position in space as a particular object/person and then uses that same shape and space in the way we would use a pronoun. This is not something I can see software picking up from mere gloves. (BTW all of this is hyper-simplified both by the fact that I myself do not know ASL and by the fact that I'm not discussing this in an ASL-technical forum).

    Bottom line: it may have some limited utility in some very special conditions, but it will not simply allow a deaf person to put on a pair of gloves and have an instant voice.

    • Good point. This reminded me that there are other things, like people's names. These can be spelled out or signs invented for them. Hi, my name is J-O-H-N D-O-E. What will it say if the persons makes an unknown gesture? Can it be programmed on the spot to later recognize that gesture?

    • Re:never gonna work (Score:3, Interesting)

      by truefluke ( 91957 )
      Exactly. One of the things that a reputable sign language course (i.e. should be a Deaf teacher) does is get people to use a facial mirror. It would be passed around the class and people would have to 'mock' a facial expression as a reaction to a sign, for example:

      How do you feel? (happy/sad face)

      Boo! (surprise)

      And so on. Later they would be taught how to sign an imperative statement vs. an interrogative statement. Specifically, the eyebrows.(go look it up online, it's out there)

      Also of note, shaking your head 'no' negates a signed statement in American Sign, example:

      q: do you have money?

      a: (shaking head) have money

      That would be perfectly valid ASL. Even if they can teach this thing all the dialects and regional sign languages out there, it's the biggest waste of time I've ever heard. No mainstream application value at all.

      You'd be better off learning some basic ASL signs and signing them they way English speakers are used to, in English word order.

      • Learning ASL isn't going to help you at all to communicate with the people this article is about.

        They're all signing Auslan which is about as close to ASL as English is to French.
    • Anyone who's spent any time around those who speak ASL or any other sign language as their primary language know that there's a hell of a lot more to sign language than the hands. It's also body posture, relative positions of the hands, and especially facial expressions ... Bottom line: it may have some limited utility in some very special conditions, but it will not simply allow a deaf person to put on a pair of gloves and have an instant voice.

      Sure. "Computer" sign language will wind up being a "dialect" of traditional sign language-- sort of like a pidgin English. It may even become a full language unto itself. (Think of the version sign language that deaf and blind people rely on, but with even more flexibility.)

      And people take it upon themselves to learn the new dialect and even contribute to its evolution it because it will allow them to communicate to a much larger audience-- namely, all of the folks in the world who don't understand sign language. A little inconvenience never stopped anyone who really wanted to make his opinions known.

    • While I think you give valid examples of sign language that a glove-based translator will be hard pressed to recognize and translate, I think you may be overlooking the utility of this glove.

      There is no reason to suppose that new signs cannot be created specifically for the glove so that almost anything that can be expressed in English can be expressed with the glove. A deaf person will simply have to learn the new gestures to fully utilize the glove, in the same way that a typist has to learn a QWERTY or Dvorak keyboard.

      Once this has been properly tested and developed with the help and participation of the international deaf community, I see no reason that a deaf person, regardless of nationality cannot use the glove to communicate with a hearing person in his/her native language. At least, one-way communication will possible in multiple languages. Add a speech to glove-language translator and you have a two-way system.

      Heck, with this glove, a deaf person will have an advantage over hearing people. He or she may make him/herself understood in several languages. Just a thought.
      • What you describe is called signed english, and it is generally considered anathema to the Deaf community. You speak as someone who thinks that Deaf want to be hearing or english speakers, which as a rule they do not. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but that's not what I'm talking about.
    • Hi elmegil,

      This is my research, and some of what you say is absolutely true.

      About facial gestures: absolutely true. Facial gestures are very important in sign, as are facial expressions and vocal inflections in human speech. But we can still talk over a phone line, or with very poor audio quality, or even with monotone voice. You can still do quite a bit within this limitation, say, if you had to visit a doctor. It would be a lot easier than having to scribble everything down, and a lot cheaper/more convenient than hiring an interpreter.

      About classifiers and spatial pronouns: There's two things at work, actually. Classifiers are an ability to Bottom line: Your wife has nothing to worry about :-). She'll still have a job for many years to come.

      • Classifiers are an ability to Bottom line: Your wife has nothing to worry about :-). She'll still have a job for many years to come.

        Unfortunately your post got mangled :-). I certainly meant to cast no aspersions on your research per se, nor am I concerned about my wife's career opportunities (she's taking time off for our child for a year or so anyway). I am mostly reacting to the tone of the original post, and the sense in which it implies that this was all Deaf people really needed to join the rest of us. And I figure that more slashdotters than not had no real idea about how sign language really works. Good luck with your research, and I hope it helps a lot of people.

  • I figured he was joking about being linus's ho until I saw the spelling.....hmm...hookers...text-to-speech...

    (ANNOUNCER'S VOICE)
    ...Now in development for the speech-impaired: A gesture-to-speech translator that works in a Stephen-Hawking-type manner, though, I suppose, much different...

    Thrust
    *slight pause*
    (ROBOTIC VOICE) That'll be $40

  • Is the word "fap" in its vocabulary?

    "All art is quite useless" -- Oscar Wilde


  • Do those gloves come with a built-in spell checker?
    Maybe for words like: transelate ... audble speach ... mannor, etc.

    Hay, I'm fare gaame when I mayke spelin erors two. ;)

  • Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Friday August 23, 2002 @07:05PM (#4130863)
    And this is a big win over simply typing what you want to say in on a keyboard and outputting it via a speech synthesizer? This sounds like yet another case of a solution in search of a problem to me.
    • Firstly, there's an even simpler solution than a keyboard: a piece of paper and a pen. Most (non-geeks) can write faster than they type anyway, so why bother with the keyboard at all?

      Secondly, I feel it does offer an advantage -- it uses the medium of communication that the Deaf themselves prefer to use. Sign languages are not a word-for-word translation of English. No offence to Deaf people intended, but if you've ever read any unedited text by Deaf (say, e-mail), their grammar is sometimes poor. It's not because Deaf are stupid, it's just it's not their language, and the language that they do use -- ASL or Auslan or whichever sign language -- is so totally foreign to spoken language that it is hard for them to come to grips with the grammar. So forcing them to use English is already forcing them to do something they'd prefer not to do. It's like saying why bother with Babelfish when anyone could learn Spanish?

  • Do they have sign language for dirty words?

    Is it anything like I imagine?

  • I wonder if they have a special macro for rapid repetitive back and forth motion to be translated into a sultry "Oh yeah, right there baby! Right there! That's the stuff!"
  • CNN is running a story about gloves which transelate sign language into audble speach, in a stephen hawking type mannor, only, i suppose, much different. The article can be found here

    Microsoft has one good feature A SPELL CHECK

    Microsoft correctly text:

    CNN is running a story about gloves which translate sign language into audible speech, in a Stephen Hawking type manner, only, i suppose, much different. The article can be found here
  • Now your kung fu can speak for itself.
  • One may be interested to see that while i masquraded as Linus's ho, this story was posted. However, as my obviously pro-BSD self, the same thing was rejected. This is proof of conspiricy
  • ... I don't typically flip people off until they're facing away.
  • they did this with the signing gorilla 5 years ago. ./ editors: just because the website says it was posted today doesn't mean it is fresh news.

    also, just because the website says it was posted last week doesn't mean you shouldn't post it front page just because you missed it.

  • RIght. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truefluke ( 91957 ) on Friday August 23, 2002 @07:19PM (#4130914) Homepage
    I sign. And I'm hearing impaired. And there is no possible way that this thing would be able to keep up with my signing speed once I'm in the 'zone', or in deep, conceptual sign.

    If it is a word for word thing, then it will sound like broken English, and then when I do idiomatic sign, just like speaking idiomatic english, you have to infer the context to get the meaning.

    Heh. this is ridculous. Why people just don't learn sign is beyond me.

    • "Why people just don't learn sign is beyond me."

      Speaking from experience, it's really, *really* difficult to learn sign if you are not exposed to it in your day-to-day life.

      I used to know enough ASL to get myself through a basic conversation, mainly because I saw deaf people talking every weekend. Then I moved out of the area.. I'd be hard pressed to remember most simple signs these days, let alone carry out any sort of intelligible conversation.

      As for the output of this method.. I'd have to say that even the broken english that would result would be a heck of a lot better than needing to fumble for a pencil and pad of paper constantly...
      • That much is very true. I won't argue that point. You'll lose it, if ya don't use it.

        HOWEVER having said that, EVERY major city has some core of Deaf folks around, they have deaf club socials, silent dinners, signed presestations at 'film night', bowling/other sports leagues, etc.

        Find the closest available city center next to you and go take part!

        Don't blame ASL for being too 'difficult' tho (I'm not saying you are)...mankind gestured before spoken structured speech evolved, so ...(shrug) go out there and have fun with it! Just like riding a bike.

        • Even if there were a perfect technology to let deaf people communicate in the "normal" way, do you think the deaf would use it?

          You pointed out an important thing, there is a deaf subculture that is tightly knit. I have little experience with it, by my girlfirend majored in hearing and speech disorders in college, and she tells me about it every time I think of some gizmo to help disabled people.

          Do you think that the deaf subculture would reject ANY gizmo, no matter how advanced, just because it's a pride thing?
    • Once before when I saw your sig I thought....ASL? Well, I'm sure it's taken....but by what?

      Most people (myself included) don't encounter the seriously hearing impaired in our daily lives, and never have had a good enough reason (that is, enough motivation, however wrong that may be) to learn ASL. I do, however, speak Spanish because I encounter that every day, it being the second language of the US. My grandmother is hearing impaired, but doesn't know ASL - she just uses a hearing aid. I suppose it would help, but since she can speak English it's not necessary - I just have to talk a little louder, towards her left ear.

      I don't mean to be offensive...I'm just explaining the 'ridiculous'-ness of my impairment.
    • Why people just don't learn sign is beyond me.
      Well, the last time I actually had to interact with a deaf person was about four years ago. Since then, I haven't run into any deaf people that I actually had to communicate with. Why should I learn sign? It's simply not worth my time, in the same way learning Chinese or Greek or Zulu is not worth my time. I simply would not have enough use for them to justify spending the time. (Saying that I should go find deaf, Chinese, Greek, or Zulu people to hang out with is not a justification.)

      I'm not denigrating the languages; I'm sure there are plenty of people who would get great value from learning ASL, or Chinese, or Greek, or Zulu; I'm simply not one of them.

    • Agreed. To use a canonical ASL example:

      FINISH TOUCH SAN FRANCISCO

      accompanied by a facial expression used to mark a question, translates as "Have you been to San Francisco?" (FINISH is used as a marker of completed action--sometimes that's rendered with a perfect tense in English, but not always; also, ASL, like Klingon :), doesn't have "to be.")

      Another facial expression gets used like the Japanese topic marker wa, and in its presence, word order in an utterance isn't necessarily what an English speaker would expect.

      (Then there's the placement of adjectives after the things they modify, an influence of French and French sign language on ASL, or the use of rhetorical questions...)

      As for why people don't learn sign...in my case, I do want to learn sign, but I'd have to travel quite a distance to get to a place that teaches it seriously. (As a programmer, I'm always looking for the BNF at the back of the book--surely someone's written a generative grammar for ASL? Please?)

  • I am linus' karma ho (Score:3, Informative)

    by philam3nt ( 267961 ) on Friday August 23, 2002 @07:19PM (#4130920) Homepage
    A much more informative page that explains the technology (called GRASP - Glove-based Recognition of Auslan using Simple Processing) briefed in the CNN article can be found on Waleed Kadous's website:

    GRASP Site:
    http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~waleed/thesis.htm l [unsw.edu.au]

    More generalized Gesture & Sign Language Recognition Research:
    http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~waleed/gsl-rec/ [unsw.edu.au]

    Also see the self-proclaimed Gesture Recognition Home Page (good resource, tons of links)
    http://www.cybernet.com/~ccohen/ [cybernet.com]

    Or just search google [google.com] like I did for 'Machine Gesture Sign Language' and get a wealth of links.
    </whoring>
  • The awful 1995 movie Congo [all-reviews.com] featured a gorilla wearing gloves that, in the movie's world, translated sign language into speech.
  • ..."Fuck You" if you give someone the bird? Or maybe "Go Fuck Yourself?" Maybe when you give the thumbs up it says "Roger Ebert is a Homo." When you give the Texas University "Hook 'Em Horns" sign, will it say "Satan is my all powerful master?" Would it actually say "Talk to the hand, etc." if you stuck your palm in someone's face? Or if you smack a girl in the ass, maybe it'll say "Nice tush, sweetheart."

    Oh, the possibilities... Now even deaf people can get slapped by a woman for saying the wrong things...

  • hmm (Score:1)

    by taernim ( 557097 )
    I wonder what it will say when people wearing it flip someone off... :p
  • Unaware you've your middle finger shoved up your nose, a disembodied voice respondingly chants "f**k you" throughout the ghetto... sweet.

  • This project is more difficult than it appears (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blonde rser ( 253047 ) on Friday August 23, 2002 @07:34PM (#4130978) Homepage
    Upon first look these 95% does not seem that impressive. 1 in 20 words wrong or every third sentence gives across the wrong meaning. This would not be useful for effective communication.

    But to give proper credit to the reseachers, understanding signs is very difficult: atleast, if not more, difficult than comprehending speach. Signs are not just a shape of the hand. Words and phrases are distinguished by differences in shape, location, and motion. Plus there are other subtle differences that usually cannot be picked upon by non-signers. Much in the same way there are subtle differences that speakers can pick up between similar sounding words but cannot hear with out the context of language.

    The only reason that speakers are able to comprehand speach in real time is because they have an area of the speciallized for comprehension. Without this area - known as Wernicke's area - the mind is simply not quick enough to understand speach as quickly and fluently as it does. This is why, despite a computer's much faster processing ability, it is unable to comprehend speach as well as we do.

    The amazing thing about Wernicke's Area is that in the case of signers it is able to leap from auditory comprehension to visual comprehension. So all the power that goes into speach comprehension is also used in signing comprehension. In this respect a computer picking up 95% is an impressive accomplishment.
  • From many years of experience as a top customer service agent for McDonalds, I can tell you that when taking a deaf person's order all you need is to know how to read.

    What's the sign for Big Mac again?

    One deaf friend of mine got out of many speeding tickets because the officer couldn't communicate with him. You think he's going to rush out and buy some Magic Talking Gloves?

    The deaf community won't buy it. For accuracy and comfortability they'll want a skilled and gifted translater. You know, someone who cares enough to learn the language.

    BOTTOM LINE: Give it to the hard of hearing or hearing impaired who don't know how to sign. Just make sure the third finger works.

    One last question, does anyone know how to sign "Natalie Portman eats hot grits" ? Anyone?

  • Beta version transcript (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hey look at that!

    No over there!

    No, there!

    Watch out!

    See that?!

    You missed it!
  • 1. Are there different versions of the middle finger gesture? One 'adult', and another 'radio edit'?

    2. When will we see a mod of this thing to a baseball glove so that we can get a translation of what the manager converse to the players on the field, live via TV?

    I'm only half joking. :P
  • One would think that being mute would be the main characteristic that one would need this invention for...not specifically deafness.
  • Hi everyone,

    Thanks for everyone's comments. I'm the one who did the work. If you want to find out more, there's more info at my PhD web page [unsw.edu.au].

  • now the blind can hear the deaf :-)
  • It is good that people are thinking about how to help the deaf, I just don't see this as all that useful. I am amazed that they have gotten up to 95% accuracy...though I suspect that this is with someone who went through a long training with the device, and they do mention that it has to be calibrated...a lot like the speech to text programs that never really caught on.

    I think the annoyances would outweigh the benefits. They would be a pain to deal with...you would constantly have to turn them on and off so they don't start speaking when you are simply using your hands to say, pick something up. They would likely be very easy to break...your hands put things through a lot of stress.

    Plus, a hearing person who is motivated can communicate with a deaf person if they put forth any effort. My high school had a program for deaf people, so I saw many of them around school...and never had a problem communicating with them. We did not use proper sign language like they used with each other, but a mix between gestures that we could all figure out, and lip reading. I have run into several of them since then and did not have any trouble communicating without pen or paper. My guess is many of them would rather communicate in this way, than deal with a flawed system that is a pain to use.

    That being said...it is good that research is being done on the topic, because it not only opens people's eyes to the hassles that the deaf must go through...but it opens up a possibility where maybe in the future a system like this could be worked out that is more effective...though I think it would be very hard to do, perhaps it would not be impossible.
    • Speech recognition is not a dead concept. You can read all about the C-Print [rit.edu] system that is being developed at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) [ntid.edu] (And RIT [rit.edu]. Shameless plug, since I'm working there temporarily). The C-Print system uses both a typing and voice recognition system to create the captioning. The captioning is then displayed in realtime on a notebook computer screen or VGA monitor just below the line of view of a student. (There's also a webcam feed so the students can use that to watch both the captioning and the lecturer.)

      Advantages of the system: Creates a transcript of the class. This is automatically saved and is avaliable for the student to review later. (Remember, deaf students can't exactly take notes while they're watching continuous action). Don't nessecairly have to pay for a notetaker and interpreter for those classes.

      Disadvantages: Cam is pretty stationary, and is only really useful for lecture classes. Cost is a bit higher, in equipment and captionist fees.
  • Okay, folks, can we PLEASE quit it with the "This is totally useless! Understanding sign language requires blah blah blah etc." comments? Just because YOU can't think of any reason to use it, doesn't mean there isn't valuable scientific knowledge being gained here. Maybe this will lead to a breakthrough in visual recognition systems. Who knows? Crapping on other peoples' work before much is even knows about it... great. What have YOU contributed to human progress?
    • Besides, there is no reason to suppose that new signs cannot be designed specifcically for this glove so that it can be used to say anything. And not just in English, but in any natural language. The deaf will just have to learn the new signs, a small effort compared to how useful it can be in the long run.
      • Besides, there is no reason to suppose that new signs cannot be designed specifcically for this glove so that it can be used to say anything

        But what would be the point of that? Sure, you could construct a new protocol, which must be learned, for translating hand movements to speech, but, as many other readers have pointed out, that would be a keyboard. In fact, it would be worse than a keyboard. With a keyboard, you know the language and only need to learn the input method. In this case, you not only have to learn the input method, you also have to learn the language (or the device's strange corruption of it).

        If it can't understand idiosyncratic speech, it cannot understand speech at all. If the fact that this device can translate a preprogrammed static set of ASL into speech constitutes a breakthrough, then we should all rejoice that real-time universal translators exist. As long as we all speak in boolean expressions with a static vocabulary, universal translation is easy, whether in spoken language or sign language.

        But if I'm handed a translation device and told I'm going to have to learn its language before I can use it, I'm going to raise my eyebrow quizically.
  • "...sign language into audble speach..."

    I like Smints. They're really powerful mints. By the same token, are Speaches peachier or something?

    I'm usually not one to fuss about spelling, but I guess I've seen so many instances of "speach" in news.admin.net-abuse.email that by now it kind of bothers me.
  • ....the the Nintendo Power Glove. Or else this is just doomed from the get go.
  • The winner of this year's Intel Science Talent Search [intel.com] invented it.
    • Not exactly. His translates fingerspelling into letters. I still give him major props, it's still damn good work for a kid of his age, but it's still easier for a deaf person to pull out a pen and paper than to use his tool.

      Sign language is a much bigger concept than fingerspelling. Other people have given much better explanations than I have.

  • Where this will come in handy... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ironica ( 124657 ) <pixelNO@SPAMboondock.org> on Friday August 23, 2002 @09:40PM (#4131404) Journal
    Everyone's going on about all the times this won't be useful... but think about when it will be.

    - Asking for directions on a streetcorner
    - Finding out bus fare
    - Ordering dinner in a restaurant
    - Picking up the phone when no one else is around

    And so on. There are a ton of mundane things that will be very hard for a deaf person to do without the assistance of a hearing person, but might be pretty important. A device like this might make it much, much easier and safer for a deaf person to travel alone... like I did, traveling around Europe with my crappy little Radio Shack five-language translator. Yeah, I couldn't have deep philosophical conversations in French, German or Italian (Spanish I do ok in on my own), but I could get food and a hotel room.
  • Surfing autopr0n?

    Fwap. Fwap. Fwap. does not compute.


  • I have a great fear that we're progressing into a world where English is the norm, and that bothers me quite a bit. Sign language is by all accounts a valid and full featured language, just not a spoken one. I don't believe that people should be required or even expected to communicate in a non native language if they don't want to...and especially if they can't. For chrissake, would it kill people to learn a little bit of A/ISL? And similarly would it be that much of a problem for people in countries like the US to catch up with the much of the west and expect fluency in multiple tongues? This thing comes across as a sort of disability device and that sickens me. Sign Language is not a disability. Nor Spanish, nor Hebrew, Pashto or anything else. And despite claims by the right, English is not the official language here in America. Whew. Breathe.

    • I don't believe that people should be required or even expected to communicate in a non native language if they don't want to

      If you can't communicate in a non-native language, then expect people who aren't fluent in your native language not to understand you.

      would it kill people to learn a little bit of A/ISL?

      I've never had to deal with someone who only speaks sign. Given that, why should I take what's going to amount to a semester class for even the most basics of the language? I could spend that time learning other stuff; even language-wise, I'm better off improving my German or learning some Spanish or Russian.

      Sign Language is not a disability.

      Being deaf and unable to learn to speak a spoken language is.

      Nor Spanish, nor Hebrew, Pashto or anything else.

      Nor is Achinese, Acoli, Adangme, Afrikaans, Aljama, Albanian, Aluet, Amharic, Apache, Arabic, Armenian, Araucanian, Arapaho, Arawak, Assamese, Avaric, Avestan, Awadhi, Aymara, or Azerbaijani. Once you've learned those, come back and we can start on the B's.

      There are 5,000 languages in the world, and over a hundred with several million speakers. Even the most dedicated speaker will find it very hard to be fluent in even ten of them. Artificial aids to communicate with those who don't share your language are always useful.

      English is not the official language here in America.

      It happens to be what the inhabitants of the US speak. There are many ways that it can made be easier for someone who doesn't speak native English, but it is the lingua franca of the land, and unless you're Mohammed, and expect the mountain to come to you, you're going to need to learn the language for day to day life in America. (Why is that American tourists are blasted for going to foreign countries and not knowing any of the language, but people can move to America and we should accomadate them not knowing any English?)
  • Everyone seems to be focussing on the limitations of this thing and saying it will only be useful in a limited set of circumstances. Heck, EVERYTHING is only useful in a limited set of circumstances.

    However, this will be VERY useful in a large number of circumstances. Think about how many people you interact with in your day to day business, and how often you use speech to do this, I'm sure only about 1%, if that, of people can understand the ASL for "cream and sugar please" or whatnot. This glove will allow deaf people to make themselves heard to those around them, possibly not accurately, certainly not poetically, but heard nonetheless.

    Its a better idea than esperanto and vanilla coke.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close