Subtitles are not the same as sign language

A lot of deaf people have terrible grammar because ASL greatly simplifies and in some cases omits things that aren't really needed to get the idea across. There is Signed English, but that is primarily for English speaking people and basically meets hearing and non-hearing people part way. To a deaf person, SE is overly verbose and the word order is strange. (For example, SE has 'running,' which is the word 'run' followed by a sign for 'ing.' ASL does away with 'ing' because it is obvious in context.)

Also, intent is a lot more clear in ASL than in written language, since expressions are part of the language, as is openness/closeness of the signs, etc. (To use a previous example, you can easily 'run quickly' or 'run awkwardly' or 'run with barely any energy left' in ASL using only the word for 'run,' and what type of running is pretty clear. Not so if the word 'run' is written or even spoke by itself!)

So I would expect most deaf people to find ASL a whole lot easier to understand than spoken English in written format.

The fact that live political presentations use a signer, and not the typical news floating matte banner along the bottom suggests pretty much the same. If text was preferable, they'd just feed off the teleprompter. So I do think ASL is preferable for many reasons.

PS: If you ever wrote down what those signers are saying verbatim, a speaking/reading person might find it baffling because of just how different ASL grammar is, and the lack of expression and space in plain text.

Are you going to add a real human, a deepfake human or a stick xkcd-like graphic? (is the last option possible?)

Do you have some proof of concept video?