skip to main content
10.1145/2700648.2809857acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesassetsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Evaluating Alternatives for Better Deaf Accessibility to Selected Web-Based Multimedia

Published:26 October 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

The proliferation of video and audio media on the Internet has created a distinct disadvantage for deaf Internet users. Despite technological and legislative milestones in recent decades in making television and movies more accessible, there has been less progress with online access. A major obstacle to providing captions for Internet media is the high cost of captioning and transcribing services. This paper reports on two studies that focused on multimedia accessibility for Internet users who were born deaf or became deaf at an early age. An initial study attempted to identify priorities for deaf accessibility improvement. A total of 20 deaf and hard-of-hearing participants were interviewed via videophone about their Internet usage and the issues that were the most frustrating. The most common theme was concern over a lack of accessibility for online news. In the second study, a total of 95 deaf and hard-of-hearing participants evaluated different caption styles, some of which were generated through automatic speech recognition.

Results from the second study confirm that captioning online videos makes the Internet more accessible to the deaf users, even when the captions are automatically generated. However color-coded captions used to highlight confidence levels were found neither to be beneficial nor detrimental; yet when asked directly about the benefit of color-coding, participants strongly favored the concept.

References

  1. Bain, K., Basson, S., and Kanevsky, D. Accessibility, transcription, and access everywhere. IBM Systems Journal (2005), 589--603. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Sheng, L. and Xu, J. Using social software to improve learning performance of deaf university learners. In The 2nd IEEE International Conference on Information Management and Engineering (ICIME) (Chengdu, China 2010), IEEE, 703--706.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Sloan, D., Stratford, J., and Gregor, P. Using multimedia to enhance the accessibility of the learning environment for disabled students: reflections from the Skills for Access project. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology (Mar 2006), 39--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Freire, A. P., de Bettio, R. W., Frade, E. G., Ferrari, F. B, Monserrat Neto, J., and Libardi, H. Accessibility of web and multimedia content: techniques and examples from the educational context. In Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian symposium on Multimedia and the web (Salvador, Brazil December 2013), ACM, 7--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kožuh, I., Hintermair, M., Ivanišin, M., and Debevc, M. The concept of examining the experiences of deaf and hard of hearing online users. Procedia Computer Science, 27 (2014), 148--157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Zickuhr, Kathryn. 2010. Online Activities. Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/12/16/online-activities/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheung, A. and Slavin, R. How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review (2012), 198--215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L., and Vanderheiden, G. 2008. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. W3C. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. GSA IT Accessibility and Workforce. 2015. Opening Doors to IT. Section 508.gov. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from http://www.section508.gov/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Pascual, A., Ribera, M., and Granollers, T. Impact of web accessibility barriers on users with hearing impairment. In Proceedings of the XV International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. (Puerto de la Cruz, Spain 2014), ACM, 8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Phillips, A. 2014. FCC Issues New Rules to Improve Captioning Quality. National Association of the Deaf. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from http://nad.org/news/2014/3/fcc-issues-new-rules-improve-captioning-quality.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. National Association of the Deaf. 2014. FCC Requires Closed Captioning of Online Video Clips. National Association of the Deaf. Retrieved July 2, 2014 from http://nad.org/news/2014/7/fcc-requires-closed-captioning-online-video-clips.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Automatic Sync Technologies, LLC. 2014. Closed Captioning Cost and Pricing. Caption Sync. Retrieved January 22, 2015 from http://www.automaticsync.com/captionsync/closed-captioning-cost/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. CPC Computer Prompting & Captioning Co. 2015. CPC Closed Captioning Blog. CPC: Home of e-Captioning. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from http://cpcweb.com/blog/2012/09/the-top-5-closed-captioning-concerns-answered/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Lasecki, W. S., Kushalnagar, R., and Bigham, J. P. Helping students keep up with real-time captions by pausing and highlighting. In Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference (Seoul 2014), ACM, 39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Human Factors International. 2000. Human Interaction Speeds. Human Factors International. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from http://www.humanfactors.com/newsletters/human_interaction_speeds.asp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith, S. M. and Shaffer, D. R. Speed of speech and persuasion: Evidence for multiple effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 10 (1995), 1051--1060.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. CGBiz LLC. 2012. The Pre-Payment Requirement. Scribie: Audio Transcription, Perfected. Retrieved September 7, 2012 from https://scribie.com/blog/2012/09/the-pre-payment-requirement/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Wactlar, H. D., Kanade, T., Smith, M., and Stevens, S. M. Intelligent access to digital video: Informedia project. Computer (1996), 46--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Jutla, D. N. and Kanevsky, D. wisePad services for vision-hearing-and speech-impaired users. Communications of the ACM (2009), 64--69. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Google. 2009. Automatic captions in YouTube. Official Blog. Retrieved November 19, 2009 from http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/automatic-captions-in-youtube.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2012. Speaker Recognition Evaluation. Information Technology Laboratory. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://nist.gov/itl/iad/mig/sre12.cfm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Fincher, S. and Tenenberg, J. Making sense of card sorting data. Expert Systems, 22, 3 (2005), 89--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Nuance Communications, Inc. 2015. Dragon Speech Recognition Software. Dragon NaturallySpeaking. Retrieved January 17, 2015 from http://www.nuance.com/dragon/index.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Apple Inc. 2015. Siri: Your wish is its command. iOS 8. Retrieved January 17, 2015 from http://www.apple.com/ios/siri/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Public Schools of North Carolina. 2013. North Carolina End-of-Grade Tests -- Grade 8. Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved June 30, 2013 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/testing/releasedforms/grade8readingreleased.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. University of South Florida. 2013. FCAT Express Eighth Grade Reading. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. Retrieved June 30, 2013 from http://fcit.usf.edu/fcat8r/default.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Munteanu, C., Baecker, R., Penn, G., Thoms, E., and James, D. The Effect of Speech Recognition Accuracy Rates on the Usefulness and Usability of Webcast Archives. In CHI Proceedings: Visualization and Search (Montréal 2006), ACM, 493--502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Wald, M. Crowdsourcing correction of speech recognition. In Proceedings of the 8th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (Hyderabad, India 2011), ACM, 22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Kacorri, H., Shinkawa, K., and Saito, S. Introducing game elements in crowsourced video captioning by non-experts. In Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference (Seoul 2014), 2014, 29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Vermuri, S., DeCamp, P., Bender, W., and Schmandt, C. Improving speech playback using time-compression and speech recognition. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing (Vienna 2004), ACM, 295--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Vertanen, K. and Kristensson, P. O. On the benefits of confidence visualization in speech recognition. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (Florence 2008), ACM, 1497--1500. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Bartlett, J. 1919. Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. Bartleby.com. Retrieved August 20, 2013 from http://www.bartleby.com/100/139.39.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating Alternatives for Better Deaf Accessibility to Selected Web-Based Multimedia

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        ASSETS '15: Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility
        October 2015
        466 pages
        ISBN:9781450334006
        DOI:10.1145/2700648

        Copyright © 2015 ACM

        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 bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 26 October 2015

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        ASSETS '15 Paper Acceptance Rate30of127submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate436of1,556submissions,28%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader