machine translations

[C. Tijsseling, R. van Kempen.]

Hello,

Franz Dotter wrote:

>The posting of Corrie gives me the opportunity to ask you the following:
>
>Many programs which are advertised as to "translate" written into sign
>language only perform a method of producing a signed word for every written
>word. Seen objectively, this is no translation at all, at the best we would
>get a variant of Signed Dutch or English, etc. Is that what the deaf
>community wants?
>
>I ask my question because
>1. the false advertisements of "translation" have a false impression of
>sign language in the public as  their consequence (a fact which I dislike
>very very much) and
>2. I do not know how the sign language community looks at the problem (and
>woul follow the majorities direction).

I am glad Thomas Hanke gave a good description of our project ViSiCAST, and
the way sign language is being 'translated' in it. Thank you, Thomas. :-)

All I want to add to it is: as a native Deaf and functionally deaf person it
is my first concern that sign language is handled, viewed and translated in
a proper way. I consider it my main responsibility to involve the opinions
of the sign language community in the project and keep them posted.
Of course there are other projects or companies where one is not aware of
the sign language community, and I have seen some weird examples and ideas
about the translating of sign language. But this does not count for
ViSiCAST, of which I know that the Dutch Deaf community approves what they
have seen of it so far.

And now, me being naughty: how about sign language researchers who cannot
sign, and understand sign language, themselves? Or even have the courage to
communicate with deaf people at all? ;-)

Greetings, Corrie