Amelie Unger
Dieter P. Wallach
ABSTRACT
In this experience report, we describe an approach to ability-based focus groups with sign language users in a remote environment. We discuss our main lessons learned in terms of requirements for sign language-accessibility within research, calling out issues such as the need to address users in their natural language, ensuring translation for all parts of research processes, and including users not only within the conducted method but already within preparation phases. Based on requirements such as these, we argue that HCI research currently faces a dilemma when it comes to hearing researchers working with the sign language user population—having to handle the increasingly emphasized demand for conducting user research with this specific target group while lacking accessible tools and procedures to do so. Concluding our experience report, we address this dilemma by discussing the two sides of its fundamental challenge: Inadequate communication with and insufficient representation of sign language users within research.
Supplemental Material
- Melissa L Anderson, Timothy Riker, Stephanie Hakulin, Jonah Meehan, Kurt Gagne, Todd Higgins, Elizabeth Stout, Emma Pici-D’Ottavio, Kelsey Cappetta, and Kelly S Wolf Craig. 2020. Deaf ACCESS: Adapting Consent Through Community Engagement and State-of-the-Art Simulation. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 25, 1 (2020), 115–125.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jo-Ellen Asbury. 1995. Overview of Focus Group Research. Qualitative Health Research 5, 4 (1995), 414–420. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.Google ScholarCross Ref
- George Balch and Donna Mertens. 1999. Focus group design and group dynamics: lessons from deaf and hard of hearing participants. American Journal of Evaluation 20, 2 (1999), 265–277.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Steven Barnett, Michael McKee, Scott R. Smith, and Thomas A. Pearson. 2011. Deaf Sign Language Users, Health Inequities, and Public Health: Opportunity for Social Justice. Preventing Chronic Disease 8, 2 (2011), 1–6.Google Scholar
- H-Dirksen L Bauman. 2004. Audism: Exploring the Metaphysics of Oppression. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9, 2 (2004), 239–246.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Burton O. Cowgill, Alison Herrmann, Jessica Richardson, Debra S. Guthmann, Michael M. Mckee, Mallory Malzkuhn, and Barbara A. Berman. 2020. Understanding E-Cigarette Knowledge and Use Amongd/Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students and the Need forTailored Prevention Programming: A Qualitative Study. American Annals of the Deaf 165, 3 (2020), 335–352.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johannes Fellinger, Daniel Holzinger, and Robert Pollard. 2012. Mental health of deaf people. The Lancet 379, 9820 (March 2012), 1037–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61143-4Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johannes Fellinger, Daniel Holzinger, Rudolf Schoberberger, and Gerhard Lenz. 2005. Psychosoziale Merkmale bei Gehoerlosen: Daten aus einer Spezialambulanz fuer Gehoerlose. Der Nervenarzt 76, 1 (2005), 43–51.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John D. Gould and Clayton Lewis. 1985. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM 28, 3 (1985), 300–311.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patrick Graybill, Julia Aggas, Robyn K. Dean, Susan Demers, Elizabeth G. Finigan, and Robert Q Pollard. 2010. A Community-Participatory Approach to Adapting Survey Items for Deaf Individuals and American Sign Language. Field Methods 22, 4 (2010), 429–448. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul C. Higgins. 1979. Outsiders in a Hearing World: The Deaf Community. Urban Life 8, 1 (1979), 3–22. Publisher: SAGE Publications.Google ScholarCross Ref
- ISO. 2019. ISO 9241-210:2019. Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems2(2019).Google Scholar
- Michael Kipp, Quan Nguyen, Alexis Heloir, and Silke Matthes. 2011. Assessing the deaf user perspective on sign language avatars. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ACM Press, Dundee, Scotland, UK, 107–114.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thilo Kroll, Rosaline Barbour, and Jennifer Harris. 2007. Using Focus Groups in Disability Research. Qualitative health research 17, 5 (2007), 690–698.Google Scholar
- Richard A. Krueger. 2014. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. SAGE Publications. Google-Books-ID: 8wASBAAAQBAJ.Google Scholar
- Raja S. Kushalnagar and Christian Vogler. 2020. Teleconference Accessibility and Guidelines for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Users. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, Virtual Event Greece, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Harlan Lane. 2005. Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10, 3 (2005), 291–310.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jens Lindemann. 2009. Zur Kommunikation zwischen Gehörlosen und Normalhörenden. Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation: Elektronische Sprachsignalverarbeitung (2009), 287–294.Google Scholar
- Fernando Loizides, Sara Basson, Dimitri Kanevsky, Olga Prilepova, Sagar Savla, and Susanna Zaraysky. 2020. Breaking Boundaries with Live Transcribe: Expanding Use Cases Beyond Standard Captioning Scenarios. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, Virtual Event Greece, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Vaishnavi Mande, Abraham Glasser, Becca Dingman, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2021. Deaf Users’ Preferences Among Wake-Up Approaches during Sign-Language Interaction with Personal Assistant Devices. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Lukas Mathis. 2016. Designed for Use: Create Usable Interfaces for Applications and the Web (2 ed.). Pragmatic Bookshelf.Google Scholar
- Rachel I Mayberry and Bonita Squires. 2006. Sign Language: Acquisition. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics 11 (2006), 291–296.Google Scholar
- Michael McKee, Deirdre Schlehofer, and Denise Thew. 2013. Ethical Issues in Conducting Research With Deaf Populations. American Journal of Public Health 103, 12 (2013), 2174–2178.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Morgan and Richard A. Krueger. 1998. The Focus Group Guidebook. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328164Google ScholarCross Ref
- David L. Morgan. 1996. Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology 22, 1 (1996), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jenny Singleton. 2014. Toward Ethical Research Practice With Deaf Participants. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 9, 3(2014), 59–66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jessica J. Tran, Tressa W. Johnson, Joy Kim, Rafael Rodriguez, Sheri Yin, Eve A. Riskin, Richard E. Ladner, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2010. A web-based user survey for evaluating power saving strategies for deaf users of mobileASL. In Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ACM Press, Orlando, Florida, USA, 115.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Todd N. Witte and Anton J. Kuzel. 2000. Elderly Deaf Patients’ Health Care Experiences. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 13, 1 (2000), 17–22. Publisher: American Board of Family Medicine Section: Original Article.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacob Wobbrock, Krzysztof Gajos, Shaun Kane, and Gregg Vanderheiden. 2018. Ability-Based Design. Commun. ACM 61, 6 (2018), 62–71.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacob Wobbrock, Shaun Kane, Krzysztof Gajos, Susumu Harada, and Jon Froehlich. 2011. Ability-Based Design: Concept, Principles and Examples. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 3, 3 (2011), 9:1–9:27.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Lost in Translation: Challenges and Barriers to Sign Language-Accessible User Research
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Teleconference Accessibility and Guidelines for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Users
ASSETS '20: Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and AccessibilityIn this experience report, we describe the accessibility challenges that deaf and hard of hearing users face in teleconferences, based on both our first-hand participation in meetings, and as User Interface and Experience experts. Teleconferencing poses ...
Mobile sign language translation system for deaf community
W4A '12: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web AccessibilityNowadays, web technologies are a very efficient way to ensure communication between a large and heterogeneous audience. Furthermore, web information is mainly based on textual and multimedia content and consequently, some people with special needs, such ...
Community-Driven Information Accessibility: Online Sign Language Content Creation within d/Deaf Communities
CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsInformation access is one of the most significant challenges faced by d/Deaf signers due to a lack of sign language information. Given the challenges in machine-driven solutions, we seek to understand how d/Deaf communities can support the growth of ...
Comments