From Public Information Screens to Two Way Deaf Communication

By Tim Scannell  | Deaf BSL user, accessibility consultant and BSL tutor

The Google Pixel 11 Pro demonstration gave me a rare feeling of genuine momentum. It suggested a move beyond one-way information towards technology that could help Deaf people communicate with the world around them.

Concept image showing the move from a public information screen to personal two-way communication

Why the Pixel demonstration felt different

I have followed sign-language technology for years, and I am usually cautious about demonstrations. A short video can look impressive without showing how a system performs with different signers, regional variation, fingerspelling, facial grammar or real-life background conditions. The Pixel 11 Pro demonstration still surprised me because it placed sign-language recognition on an everyday consumer device rather than inside a specialist service.

The feature demonstrated sign language being translated into text and audio. That direction matters because it starts with a Deaf person signing. The Deaf user is not simply receiving information selected by somebody else. They are initiating the communication and deciding what they want to say.

Google has announced ASL-to-English capability; official BSL support has not been confirmed. The wider possibilities discussed in this article, including tannoy announcements appearing on a phone, describe where connected accessibility could go rather than a claim that every function is available now.

The limit of a public information screen

A digital signer on a station, airport or public-service screen can make selected information available in sign language. That is useful when the translation is accurate, easy to find and shown at the right time. It remains one-way communication. The organisation chooses the message, the location and the timing. The Deaf person watches but cannot ask a follow-up question, explain a problem or start a new conversation through the same screen.

Personal technology offers a different direction. A Deaf person could sign to a phone and have their message presented as text or speech. Spoken replies, announcements and alerts could return to the phone as captions or, where appropriate, sign-language content. Instead of searching for one accessible screen, the user carries the communication tool with them.

This does not make public information screens unnecessary, and it does not remove the need for qualified interpreters or other reasonable adjustments. It changes the balance of control. The user can choose when to communicate, who to communicate with and which form of access works for that situation.

Key definitions

Term	Meaning
One-way accessibility	Information is made accessible to a Deaf person, but the person cannot respond or influence the exchange through the same system. A digital signer presenting a pre-selected announcement on a public screen is one example.
Two-way communication	Both people can send, receive and clarify information. In this context, a Deaf person may sign and receive a response through text, audio or sign language, depending on the people and technology involved.
Deaf-led	Deaf people hold meaningful influence over the purpose, design, decisions and evaluation of a project. The term should describe decision-making power, not simply the presence of Deaf participants.
Co-design	The intended users work with the project team from the beginning and continue to influence the product as it develops. Co-design includes identifying the problem, setting priorities, testing, reviewing changes and deciding what success looks like.
Underserved community	A community that does not receive fair or adequate access to services, investment or opportunities. The term describes the barriers and gaps in provision; it should not imply that the community lacks knowledge, ability or ambition.
Community engagement	An ongoing relationship in which an organisation listens, responds and reports back. A single consultation, survey or unpaid test is not enough to demonstrate trust or sustained engagement.

Testing is professional work

I recently declined an invitation to volunteer for one to two hours of testing on a sign-language product. The invitation came from someone who is not a native sign-language user. That made me question how Deaf native signers were involved and how their knowledge was valued.

As a Deaf native BSL user, BSL tutor and accessibility consultant, I do not arrive at a test as an empty participant. I bring decades of language experience, professional judgement and an understanding of the barriers Deaf people face. I notice whether the camera captures facial expression and signing space, whether the task reflects natural conversation, and whether the interface places control with the Deaf user.

Late-stage voluntary testing may identify usability problems, but it should not be described as co-design. If a company wants specialist evaluation, it should define the work, pay for the expertise and explain how feedback will influence the product. If it wants community participation, it should build that relationship before the main decisions have already been made.

What funders and decision makers should ask

Funding can give a company credibility as well as money. Decision-makers therefore need evidence that community involvement is real. A polished demonstration and a list of Deaf testers do not show who held influence or whether the product changed.

1. Which Deaf people helped define the problem before development began?

2. Were native sign-language users involved in leadership and paid roles?

3. How were regional variation, age, ethnicity, disability and different communication preferences represented?

4. What changes were made because of Deaf feedback?

5. How will the organisation report accuracy, limitations, privacy safeguards and failures?

6. Can Deaf participants challenge a decision, or are they only invited to comment?

7. What will remain available when the pilot or grant ends?

   
   

Organisations should also be careful with the claim that they are reaching an underserved community. If the relationship is new, a more accurate description is that they are aiming to reach Deaf people who are currently underserved, building trust and engagement, and co-designing the pilot from the beginning. That wording is honest about the starting point and creates a clear test for future progress.

Watch Deaf stories before making the funding decision

I recommend that decision-makers watch CODA, Reunion and Deaf President Now! before awarding grants to companies that claim to serve Deaf communities. The films are different in style and purpose, but each gives viewers to pay attention to sign language, facial expression, identity, family relationships, leadership and the right of Deaf people to be heard.

They should not be treated as a substitute for meeting Deaf people or learning from national sign-language communities. They can, however, help a decision-maker recognise why communication access is tied to autonomy and why Deaf people resist decisions being made about them without them.

After watching, the decision-maker should return to the application and ask a simple question: does this project give Deaf people genuine influence, or does it only make them visible in the funding story?

Where the momentum should take us

The Pixel 11 Pro demonstration does not solve every communication barrier. It does make a wider direction easier to see. A Deaf person could carry a tool that supports communication across shops, transport, workplaces and everyday conversations instead of depending on an accessible screen being installed in the right place.

The next stage needs careful testing with diverse Deaf signers, clear limits, informed consent and a route to human support when technology is not suitable. Healthcare, legal matters, safeguarding and other high-risk situations cannot be reduced to an impressive demonstration. Accuracy and user choice matter more than speed to market.

The strongest progress will combine technical development with Deaf leadership. Funders can accelerate that progress by paying Deaf experts, requiring evidence of co-design and checking what changed as a result. Companies can earn trust by being open about what their systems can and cannot do.

The future I want is personal, two-way and controlled by Deaf people: technology that helps us communicate with the world around us, not another screen that only talks at us.