exploratory study of deaf individuals’ use of technology and its usability in emergency and...

7/28/2019 Exploratory Study of Deaf Individuals Use of Technology and its Usability in Emergency and Everyday Situations.

1/6

Exploratory Study of Deaf IndividualsUse of Technologyand its Usability in Emergency and Everyday Situations.

Jen Adam

DePaul University,

School of CDM1 East Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, IL 60604

[email protected]

Valerie Fenster

DePaul University,


Chicago, IL 60604

[email protected]

Jason Friedlander

DePaul University,


Chicago, IL 60604

[email protected]

Jeri Herrera

DePaul University,


Chicago, IL 60604

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

A large number of deaf and hearing-impaired people rely

on mobile devices and relay services, such as Smartphone

applications, text and video messaging and video remote

interpreting to aid communication in everyday situations.

Despite these advancements, people who are hearing

impaired face unique challenges with regards to being

alerted to emergency situations and importantenvironmental sounds, such as sirens, alarms and

informational announcements. Many devices exist on the

market today to alert the hearing-impaired to these and

other sounds. However, literature reviews seem to indicate

there is still a need for improvements to alerting

technology. Through interviews with hearing-impaired

people, we explored the utilization and desired features of

technology available to individuals in home and non-home

environments. Participants reported that existing mobile

technology tends to lack sufficient vibration strength to be

effective. We discovered that a majority the people we

interviewed were resistant to new alerting technology.

Author KeywordsDeaf; emergency alerts; mobile devices; videophones;

flashers; vibration; video relay service; video remote

interpretation; ASL.

ACM Classification Keywords

H.5.2 User Interfaces

General Terms

Human Factors; Design; Languages; Performance;

Reliability.

INTRODUCTION

In the U.S., there are approximately 37 million deaf and

hearing-impaired people with an estimated one in ten living

with some degree of hearing loss [3].

Sound awareness tools help hearing-impaired people know

when doorbells sound, phones ring and alarm clocks go off

through vibration sensing, flashing lights and visual

displays [5]. Deaf users regularly use mobile text devices

such as Blackberries and Sidekicks to text message each

other. Wearable technology, such as hearing aids, makes it

easier for Deaf users to communicate with hearing

individuals and with each other [2, 7]. For those people inthe U.S. who could benefit from wearing a hearing aid, only

one out of five actually wears one [3].

Deaf users text one another using mobile devices, and

developers have made advances in the compression of sign

language video so that Deaf users can communicate over

the telephone lines [2] using American Sign Language

(ASL). Since ASL can be communicated at the same rate as

spoken language, [2] hearing-impaired users make and

receive phone calls using video display and face-time

technology. Video mobile phones make it possible for

Deaf people to communicate in their native sign language

[2]. Video recording and conferencing software allow both

hearing and non-hearing individuals to easily communicatewith one another. Much progress has been made to support

communication between deaf and hearing people, including

automatic recognition of sign language using computer

vision techniques and translation of spoken language into

text signed by an Avatar [5].

Despite the advancements that allow Deaf users to

communicate with one another, catastrophes leave these

individuals unaware. During 2005s Hurricane Katrina,

two of the primary reasons people did not evacuate were

either being a person with a disability or a family member

of someone with a disability. About one third of those who

did not leave their homes during this disaster were people

with a disability. A lesson learned from Hurricane Katrina

and other disasters in recent years is that the special needs

of people with disabilities must be integrated into all

aspects of emergency management [4].

Hearing-impaired people face unique challenges in

emergency situations, e.g., when an emergency vehicle

approaches. They may miss important safety cues because

they cannot hear. They may inadvertently walk in front of

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for

personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are

not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies

ear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior

specific permission.


2/6

oncoming traffic or miss an important knock at the door. In

public spaces or unfamiliar places, they may be unaware of

fire alarms or public service announcements. Kelchner

(2012) reported, Deaf drivers must rely on their sense of

sight to warn them of dangers while on the road [6].

In an effort to understand how Deaf people currently find

out about emergency situations, we conducted a study to

explore how assistive technology is used in home and non-home environments.

This paper will demonstrate that the majority of our

participants are resistant to new technology. Some feel they

are deaf and dont need to receive more information, while

others feel the technology they use is already adequate.

They do not receive adequate information pertaining to

emergency situations. When outside the home, they rely

heavily on visual cues to stay informed of their

environment. They are exceptionally cognizant of people

running or those that look agitated or panicked. This

generally alerts them to potentially dangerous situations and

encourages them to seek more information or run for cover.

Our study shows that assistive technology alone does not

offer Deaf people necessary communication channels

acquiring public service announcements or emergency

information. Federal and local agencies not do an adequate

job of disseminating critical emergency or public service

announcements to Deaf people. According to our

participants, assistive technology devices do not offer this

information.

METHODS

Participants

Three female and two male participants took part in our

study. All five participants were profoundly deaf and

ranged in age from 13 to 53. The 13-year old participant

used a cochlear implant. Three of the four adults did not use

any type of hearing device, while the fourth used hearing

aids in both ears and could not hear without them.

The participant with a cochlear implant considered herself

as hearing-enabled, and she did not use American Sign

Language (ASL). In school, her teachers use a Bluetooth

microphone headset to transmit sound to the receiver in her

implant. The four adult participants all use ASL to

communicate in person. They also combined ASL with

devices that were video-enabled to make phone calls. Their

video devices included videophones, and iPhones, Androids

or computers with applications such as Skype, Tango,Video Logging (vLogs) and video email.

The following table represents the demographic profile of

our study sample.

Part. Age Gender Primary

Communication

Method Used

P1 21 - 31 Male ASL

P2 32 - 42 Female ASL

P3 43 - 53 Female ASL

P4 13 Female Blue tooth microphone,

Reading lips

P5 32 - 42 Male Read lips, ASL

interpreter, in writing,

through Purple

Table 1. Participant demographics and primary

communications method used.

Part. Hearing

Technology

Used

Assistive Technology Used

P1 None Video Relay Service (VRS), vLog,

iPhone

P2 None Android, VRS vLog, ASL

interpreting, Tango, Skype

P3 None Blackberry, VRS, vLog, ASL

P4 Cochlear

Implant

Blue tooth microphone, Cell phone

P5 Hearing aid

in both ears

iPhone, Bluetooth, Purple App,

iMessage, Video Remote

Interpreting (VRI) Video mail,

Tango, Skype

Table 2. Participant hearing and assistive technology used.

Data collection

Our team, distributed in California and the Midwest, took

two different approaches to recruiting participants. Two

respondents were recruited through GLAD (Greater Los

Angeles Agency of Deafness). A Snowball Sampling

technique was used to recruit our remaining three

respondents from team members friends in Boston,

Milwaukee and Chicago.

The Los Angeles GLAD interviews were conducted

remotely via a normal telephone conversation. A hearingenabled person, fluent in ASL, interpreted for both the

hearing moderator and the hearing-impaired

participant. Sitting with the participant, the ASL interpreter

signed the moderators questions to the participant and then

spoke the participants signed responses back through the

phone to the moderator.

The Boston interview was conducted remotely using AOLs

Instant Messenger (AIM). In this case, there was no need


3/6

for an ASL interpreter or relay service as interview

questions were typed into AIM and the participant typed

responses back to the moderator in the same manner.

The Milwaukee interview used video remote interpreting

(VRI), allowing the moderator to use a regular phone line to

place the call. The participant used a videophone that

displayed an ASL interpreter (the operator). As the

moderator spoke, the operator signed questions to theparticipant. As the participant signed responses back

through the video display, the operator interpreted the ASL

and spoke the answers to the moderator.

The interview in Chicago was conducted via Skype. This

was the interview involving the participant with a cochlear

implant. The moderator and participant could hear each

other. Due to technical issues between the cochlear implant

and Skype, the participants father needed to repeat

questions and answers for clarification purposes.

Research shows that average Deaf high school graduate

reads at a fourth grade level; therefore, interview questions

were word-checked to ensure all respondents could easily

understand each question. [1]

Participants were interviewed about the alerting

technologies they currently use. We used a questionnaire

format consisting of open-ended, multiple choice and

priority-based preference questions.

Participants were asked to describe the type(s) of assistive

technology, if any, they used to communicate between both

deaf and hearing-enabled people. We asked them to

describe how often they are in home and non-home

environments, and how they communicate with both deaf

and hearing-enabled individuals in these settings.

Participants were asked to describe how they are alerted tosounds, for instance, doorbells and telephones, and if they

might see improvement areas for how they are alerted to

sounds today.

We inquired how they currently learn about emergency

situations, for example, fires or severe weather, and if they

would be interested in or had ideas for new ways to be

alerted.

Finally, we asked them to rate features such as long battery

life, reliability, style, mobility or being discreet as being a

priority consideration when developing a new alerting

technology. Because participant and moderator could not

always see each other, the moderator read off the features,allowing time for the participant to write each down. They

then asked the participant to review their list and to call out

their feature preferences in priority order.

Data Analysis Procedures

Interview sessions were recorded and transcribed for data

analysis. The transcriptions were used to count the

frequency in which participants responded to

straightforward questions, for instance, the type(s) of

assistive technology used, or whether or not a hearing aid

was worn or ASL was used. Given the small sample size,

we attempted to analyze data patterns for technology

improvements and the need for new communication

methods.

We reviewed the transcripts using a qualitative inductive

coding technique to search for commonly mentioned

participant attitudes. Codes were noted and then combinedto create themes, determining any positive or negative

positions regarding assistive technology, alerts for home

and non-home environments and emergency situations.

RESULTS

When asked what type of assistive technology or other

forms of communication participants use today, four of our

five said they use ASL to communicate. The fifth is a 13-

year old and uses a cochlear implant. The four participants

using ASL also use a Video Relay Service to communicate

with other deaf persons. Videophones with flashers are used

in home and office environments. Smartphones, such as

Blackberrys, iPhones, Androids with video calling allows

callers to sign to one another. Varying smartphoneapplications, such as text transcription are used along with

sound recognition applications. These applications are used

to a lesser degree due to less reliability.

Participants that reported they live and/or work in home and

non-home environments. Four out of five stated one or

more Deaf persons are also present. If a hearing roommate

or family member is present in the home, then that person

generally communicates using use ASL, too. We asked how

participants communicate in non-home group settings like

office environments, when hearing persons are present. For

the four that use ASL, they stated they read lips, use pencil

and paper, and use an ASL interpreter who can facilitate

communication during a meeting.

When at home, participants said they use light flashers to

let them know someone is ringing the doorbell. One

participant asks visitors to email her prior to coming over to

alert her to a time to expect a knock at the door. She also

uses a flasher that turns a lamp on and off alerting her

someone is at the door. To wake our participants up in the

morning, alarm clocks are connected to flashers or operate

by shaking the bed. Flashers are also used on telephones to

let participants know a call is coming in.

Our participants indicated that receiving emergency alerts

via text message would be helpful, but they did not indicate

if these should be a separate emergency application orembedded into their smartphone or another device. Three of

our five participants said, when in public places, they rely

on the reactions of the hearing to alert them to emergency

situations, and four out of five answered that they would

not use any device at all for emergency situations.

If any type of emergency-related technology is developed

for their use, participants stated their preference is to keep

their hands free, and would clip devices to their clothing.


4/6

They would also hang items around their necks or keep

items in their purse. One participant mentioned something

like a watch might be of interest. Perhaps keeping their

hands free is to ensure they can still communicate

effectively using ASL.

When asked about areas for improvement to current

technology, participants said that vibratory notification

found in their smartphones should be made stronger.

Participants also rated reliability as the number one feature

necessary for a new technology, and that incorporating

technology into an existing smartphone and mobility shared

the number two spot.

Figure 1. At the Greater Los Angeles Agency for Deafness,

hallways are always visible through open glass doors (left) and

fire alarms are fitted with flasher lights for emergencies.

Figure 2. Flasher lights on her videophone notifies a Deafperson a caller is trying to reach her (left). When the phone is

answered, the caller signs hello to the recipient (right).

Figure 3. A Deaf caller using a Video Relay Service (VRS) waits

for the ASL operator to appear (left). The ASL operator

appears on the main video display, ready to interpret a callbetween deaf and hearing callers (right).

Figure 4. A Deaf caller uses her Android to make a face-to-face

video call (left). Seeing an upper and lower screen display that

shows both callers simultaneously, they converse using ASL

(right).

Figure 5. Deaf callers used teletypes before video technology was

available (left). Todays smaller desktop models have replaced

older floor models and can be used where video technology is

unavailable (right).

DISCUSSION

From our interviews, we learned that participants rely on a

combination of in-home assistive technology, mobile

devices, and visual acuity to alert them to potentially

hazardous situations as well as important environmental

information. People are using assistive technology such as

specialized Smartphone applications, video relay services,

and videophones. These are generally equipped with light

flashers or vibration to alert users of incoming information.

Hearing-impaired people also rely on those who are

hearing-enabled to alert them in certain situations, such as

for announcements in public places. One participant who

frequently travels expressed frustration at having missed

announcements alerting him to schedule changes. This

causes obvious time delays, in addition to hassles such as

fees for making new travel arrangements. When asked how

he would have liked to receive this information, he

indicated that text messages to his phone would be ideal.

We learned that deaf and hearing-impaired people are very

visually oriented and they rely on other people (movement,

activity, panic) in their environment to alert them to

dangerous / emergency situations.

Ambient sounds can be very informative in non-threatening

situations, as well. Hearing-enabled people rely on sound

for situational awareness, for instance a person in another

room, a siren in the distance, or approaching footsteps. In

reviewing work by Ho-Ching, Mankoff and Landay, we

learned that very little research has been done in the area of

non-speech sound recognition [5]. We feel that Deaf people

may be unaware of their needs because they dont currently


5/6

hear and dont recognize the criticality of not hearing, and

that further research needs to be conducted. The work being

done by Ho-Ching et al looks promising and should be

followed up with further studies to understand if there is a

desire for deaf people to be notified of ambient sounds via

non-distracting visual display [5].

A nation-wide service is currently under development to

alert mobile device users of emergency situations in theirvicinity [8]. Research has studied the optimal strength and

pattern for vibrations to provide a unique identifier for

hearing-impaired users to quickly recognize the signal [8].

We think that current visual devices such as Smartphones,

videophones, video relay services and even vLogs

(YouTube, etc.), could be improved by outfitting them with

direct feeds for deaf users that are hooked up to government

agencies, police agencies, FBI, to send out alerts to

subscribers.

It is very hard for us to draw any major conclusions based

on the limited participant number and with the technology

being so young and still being adapted by many people. If

we simply focused on the technology and history we cansay that a few years ago, if people were asked do they need

a calendar, a text messaging device, a camera, games and

apps on a telephone, most people would have said, "No".

In many cases, not until we mentioned "what if you could

invent something else, something that warned you about

something you couldn't see" did our participants start to talk

about something new.

Only two participants seemed interested in solving our

research questions. Perhaps it is because these are issues

they deal with every day as members of Deaf culture, living

in a hearing world.

Our literature research and responses from at least one of

the participants uncovered that current vibration alerts on

mobile devices, especially the iPhone, do not meet their

needs. Although they are able to use the accessibility

settings to create custom vibration patterns for various

callers and features, the vibration pattern is often too weak

to be considered reliable. Reliability was rated amongst a

majority of our participants as the most important

requirement on any assistive device.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we described the interview process completed

to understand how Deaf users employ assistive technology

today.We have shown that Deaf users rely on technology to assist

them with alerts for everyday interactions such as doorbells,

phone calls and alarms clocks. With emergency situations,

there is a deficiency in reliable services for alerting Deaf

users to potential danger and public health situations. We

found that they are not very receptive to technology for

emergency or alerting situations and rely upon their

remaining four senses, as well as visual cues taken from

hearing-enabled counterparts, to aid them.

The results presented here may provide preliminary

direction to uncover how Deaf users, identifying themselves

within Deaf culture, would embrace specific aspects of

technology for alerting in everyday and emergency

situation. Further investigation into this study would

provide a better understanding into the attitude of Deafusers, who do not wish to hear, but would like to be alerted

to specific situations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank all of our participants. We would

especially like to thank GLAD (Greater Los Angeles

Agency of Deafness). GLADs warm reception to our study

was very much appreciated. GLAD offered us access to

participants, a guided tour of their facility and allowed us to

photograph assistive technology in their offices.

REFERENCES

1. Azbel, L. (2004). How do the deaf read? The paradox ofperforming a phonemic task without sound [Whitepaper]. Retrieved from:

http://psych.nyu.edu/pelli/docs/azbel2004intel.pdf

2. Cherniavsky, N., Chon, J., Wobbrock, J. O., Ladner, R.E., & Riskin, E. A. (2009, October 4). Activity Analysis

Enabling Real-Time Video Communication on Mobile

Phones for Deaf Users [White paper ACM]. Retrieved

from DePaul University, School of CDM:

https://d2l.depaul.edu/d2l/lms/content/home.d2l?ou=152

844

3. Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness. (2012).Statistics & Population. Retrieved from

http://www.gladinc.org/information-center/resources

4. Harkness, L. (2009). Colorado Assistive TechnologyCoalition. Retrieved from

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalsc

hool/programs/atp/Documents/Assistive_Technology_a

nd_Emergency_Management.pdf

5. Ho-Ching, F., Mankoff, J., & Landay, J. A. (2003). Canyou see what I hear? The Design and Evaluation of a

Peripheral Sound Display for the Deaf [White paper].

Retrieved from

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~io/publications/old-pubs/469-

ho-ching.pdf

6. Kelchner, L. (2012). Issues That Deaf People Face.Retrieved fromhttp://www.ehow.com/list_6023189_issues-deaf-people-

face.html

7. Power, M.R., & Power, D. (2004). Everyone herespeaks TXT: Deaf people using SMS in Australia and

the rest of the world. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf

Education. Retrieved from

http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/3/333.full.pdf


6/6

8. Harkins, J., Tucker, P. E., Williams, N., & Sauro, J.(2010, April 19). Vibration Signaling in Mobile Devices

for Emergency Alerting: A Study With Deaf Evaluators

[Online Journal]. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf

Education, 15(4). Retrieved from

http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/4/438.full