skip to main content
10.1145/3144826.3145365acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Tools and Methods Applied in Interactive Systems to Evaluate the User Experience With Deaf/Hard of Hearing Children

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The evaluation of a system is part of the development process that must be done preferably with potential users, since they can give new ideas and relevant feedback about the user experience of it, so a User-Centered Design approach could give better results to the final product. But involving users with special needs like those in condition of disability is not an easy task for researchers, since there are variables that must be carefully taken into account in order to successfully extract information from these special users. In this study, we applied different evaluation methods in the design of an Interactive System where Deaf and Hard of Hearing children were part of it. Some of the methods used were modified to satisfy the needs of the children as well as their skills.

References

  1. Amanda Stent, and Srinivas Bangalore. 2014. Natural Language Generation in Interactive Systems. Cambridge University Press, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ute Ritterfeld, Michael Cody and Peter Vorderer. 2009. Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects. Routledge, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Pedro M. Latorre et al. 2014. TimeMesh: Producing and Evaluating a Serious Game. Interaccion '14: 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jeanne Lam et al. 2015. Technology in education: Technology-Mediated Proactive Learning. Springer-Verlag Berlin, Hong Kong. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Susan Gabel and Scot Danforth. 2008. Disability and the Politics of Education: An International Reader. Peter Lang, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Nancy K. Mellon et al. 2015. Should All Deaf Children Learn Sign Language? Pediatrics 136, 1: 170--176.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Leandro Flórez Aristizábal et al. 2017. Towards the Design of Interactive Storytelling to Support Literacy Teaching for Deaf Children. In HCI for Children with Disabilities, Josefina Guerrero-García, Juan Manuel González, Jaime Muñoz and César A. Collazos (eds.). Springer International Publishing, 115--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ln Michaud and Kf McCoy. 2000. An intelligent tutoring system for deaf learners of written English. In Proceedings of the fourth international ACM conference on Assistive technologies, 92--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Cayley Guimarães, Moisés H.R. Pereira and Sueli Fernandes. 2015. A framework to inform design of learning objects for teaching written Portuguese (2nd Language) to deaf children via sign language (1st Language). In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gladys Tang. 2017. Sign Bilingualism in Deaf Education: From Deaf Schools to Regular School Settings. Bilingual and Multilingual Education, Encyclopedia of Language and Education: 191--203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Amy R. Lederberg, Brenda Schick and Patricia E. Spencer. 2013. Language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Successes and challenges. Developmental Psychology 49, 1: 15--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Daniel Ling and Cristina Moheno de Manrique. 2002. El maravilloso sonido de la palabra: programa auditivo-verbal para niños con pérdida auditiva. Trillas.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Andrea De Giacomo et al. 2013. Children with cochlear implants: Cognitive skills, adaptive behaviors, social and emotional skills. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 77, 12: 1975--1979.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Minhua Ma and Andreas Oikonomou. 2017. Serious Games and Edutainment Applications. Springer International Publishing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sandra Cano et al. 2017. Interactive Systems Design Oriented to Children with Special Needs. In HCI for Children with Disabilities, Josefina Guerrero-García, Juan Manuel González, Jaime Muñoz and César A. Collazos (eds.). Springer International Publishing, 73--89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandra Cano et al. 2015. Model for Analysis of Serious Games for Literacy in Deaf Children from a User Experience Approach. Interacción '15 Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on Human Computer Interaction: 9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jessica Korte, Leigh Ellen Potter and Sue Nielsen. 2015. An experience in requirements prototyping with young deaf children. Journal of Usability Studies 10, 4: 195--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Anna Cavender and Richard E. Ladner. 2008. Hearing Impairments. In Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research (1st ed.). Springer-Verlag London, 25--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Soraia Silva Prietch and Lucia Vilela Leite Filgueiras. 2013. Double testing: potential website resources for deaf people and the evaluation instrument Emotion-LIBRAS. In Proceedings of the 2013 Chilean Conference on Human - Computer Interaction - ChileCHI '13, 10--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ryohei Egusa et al. 2013. Evaluation of interactive puppet theater based on inclusive design methods a case study of students at elementary school for the deaf. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 467--470. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Ryohei Egusa et al. 2016. Preparatory development of a collaborative / interactive learning game using bodily movements for deaf children. IDC '16: 649--653. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jonathan Cadeñanes and María A. González Arrieta. 2014. Augmented Reality: An Observational Study Considering the MuCy Model to Develop Communication Skills on Deaf Children. IntelligenceLecture Notes in Artificial: 233--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jonathan Cadeñanes and María A. González Arrieta. 2014. Development of Sign Language Communication Skill on Children through Augmented Reality and the MuCy Model. 45--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ryohei Egusa, Tsugunosuke Sakai and Haruya Tamaki. 2016. Designing a Collaborative Interaction Experience for a Puppet Show System for Hearing-Impaired Children. 2: 424--432.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Athanasios S. Drigas et al. 2013. Web 2.0 Learning Strategies for Disabled Students. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics 3, 4: 125--140. Retrieved from http://access.library.unisa.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1503139287?accountid=14649%0Ahttp://www.library.unisa.edu.au/applications/findit/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabiglobal&rft_val_fmt=Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Miki Namatame and Noboru Matsuda. 2012. An application of peer review for art education: A tablet PC becomes a language for students who are hard of hearing. Proceedings 2012 17th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education, WMUTE 2012: 190--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Carol Marchetti et al. 2012. Crossing the Communication Barrier: Facilitating Communication in Mixed Groups of Deaf and Hearing Students. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 25, 1: pp.51-63. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ970019.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ornella Mich. 2011. E-drawings as an evaluation method with deaf children. ASSETS '11 The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility: 239--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Norziha M. Mohd Zainuddin, Halimah Badioze Zaman and Azlina Ahmad. 2011. Heuristic evaluation on Augmented Reality courseware for the deaf. Proceedings - 2011 International Conference on User Science and Engineering, i-USEr 2011: 183--188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Ornella Mich. 2009. Evaluation of software tools with deaf children. Proceeding of the eleventh international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility - ASSETS '09: 235--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Carina S. González-González, Mariana Cairós-González and Vicente Navarro-Adelantado. 2013. EMODIANA: Un instrumento para la evaluación subjetiva de emociones en niños y niñas. Actas del XIV Congreso Internacional de Interacción Persona-Ordenador.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Pablo Vicente Torres-Carrion and Carina Soledad Gonzalez-Gonzalez. 2017. Instrumento observacional para la evaluación emocional continua en videojuegos adaptada a personas con Síndrome de Down. V Congreso Internacional de Videojuegos Educativos CIVE 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Sandra Cano et al. 2017. Assessing User Experience for Serious Games in Auditory- Verbal Therapy for Children with Cochlear Implant. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing: 861--871.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Mohammadi Akheela Khanum and Munesh Chandra Trivedi. 2012. Take Care: A Study on Usability Evaluation Methods for Children. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science 3, 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Afke Donker and Panos Markopoulos. 2002. A Comparison of Think-aloud, Questionnaires and Interviews for Testing Usability with Children. In People and Computers XVI - Memorable Yet Invisible. Springer London, London, 305--316.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolmet Barendregt, Mathilde M. Bekker. 2013. Exploring the potential of the drawing intervention method for design and evaluation by young children. CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '13): 193--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Wolmet Barendregt, Mathilde M. Bekker and Ester Baauw. 2008. Development and evaluation of the problem identification picture cards method. Cognition, Technology and Work 10, 2: 95--105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Javier Marco, Sandra Baldassarri and Eva Cerezo. 2010. Bridging the gap between children and tabletop designers. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC '10: 98--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Janet Read, Stuart Macfarlane and Christopher Casey. 2002. Endurability, Engagement and Expectations: Measuring Children ' s Fun. Interaction Design and Children: 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Ester Baauw and Panos Markopoulous. 2004. A comparison of think-aloud and post-task interview for usability testing with children. Proceeding of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and children building a community - IDC '04: 115--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. A.A. Navarro-Newball et al. 2014. Talking to Teo: Video game supported speech therapy. Entertainment Computing 5, 4: 401--412.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Andrés D. Castillo Saavedra and Luz S. Quintero Velasco. 2001. Herramienta Software didáctica como soporte en la enseñanza del lenguaje oral para niños con dificiencia auditiva "Vivoso." Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cali.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. PescAPPs. 2016. Memory Kids. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pescapps.Memory&hl=enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Proyecto DANE. 2012. Grupolandia. Retrieved from http://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.infinixsoft.asdragrupos&hl=enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Janet C. Read and Stuart MacFarlane. 2006. Using the fun toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Interaction design and children - IDC '06: 81--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Cathy Malchiodi. 1998. Understanding Children's Drawings. The Guilford Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Elizabeth Münsterberg Koppitz. 1968. Psychological evaluation of children's human figure drawings. Grune & Stratton. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1017833.1017848Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Tools and Methods Applied in Interactive Systems to Evaluate the User Experience With Deaf/Hard of Hearing Children

      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 Other conferences
        TEEM 2017: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality
        October 2017
        723 pages
        ISBN:9781450353861
        DOI:10.1145/3144826

        Copyright © 2017 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: 18 October 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        TEEM 2017 Paper Acceptance Rate84of109submissions,77%Overall Acceptance Rate496of705submissions,70%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader