Event banner
Microsoft Teams Sign Language View AMA
Event Ended
Tuesday, Dec 13, 2022, 09:00 AM PSTEvent details
We are very excited to announce a Microsoft Teams ‘Ask Microsoft Anything’ (AMA) specific to the new Sign Language View in Microsoft Teams Meetings!
The AMA will take place on Tuesday, December...
JohnSteckroth
Updated Aug 27, 2025
billyhowell
Dec 13, 2022Copper Contributor
Hello. My name is Billy Howell and I am in North Carolina.
billyhowell
Dec 13, 2022Copper Contributor
In case the technical staff who are responding are only monitoring this thread, my comment/question is...
Hello. My name is Billy Howell and I am in North Carolina. As a technologist and a person who supports customers as a contractor, I have specific concerns around Teams and Teams Live events roadmap. Specifically ... For entities who are held accountable for considering accommodations for users who have protected statuses such as deaf and hard of hearing, the ambiguity between teams and teams live events makes it difficult to determine which features are actually present in each platform. Entities who have to select solutions which are bound by these considerations are unable to consider the Teams platform for large scale meetings because the limitation of 1000 users that teams has for video streaming means that users who rely on sign language interpreters cannot see the interpreter. Teams live events doesn’t have that technical restriction on video streaming, but the newest sign language view is not available in live events. I would ask if the appropriate priority can be placed on either unifying both platforms' feature sets used for accessibility OR the 1000 participant limit be addressed so that live events can be retired as the work around? The 1000 participant limit seems like an engineering resource constraint put on the product to prevent oversaturation of that platform's infrastructure. The lack of unified features between the platforms seems like a lack of development resources. Both seem addressable from an outside perspective.