Si Chen
ABSTRACT
The think-aloud protocol is an effective method frequently used by designers and researchers to understand how users interact with computing systems. However, there is limited research on the use of this method with deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) populations, especially in virtual settings. In this paper, we investigate the behaviors of DHH participants in virtual think-aloud sessions to better understand the challenges of conducting this type of research with this population. We conducted twelve virtual think-aloud sessions with DHH participants using Zoom, and we gathered feedback from surveys, interviews, and observations. Our results identified DHH behaviors leading to a lack of clarity in think-aloud data, such as asynchrony between signing and navigating the interfaces, as well as the use of visual descriptive signs instead of explicit terminology to ambiguously refer to interface components. Based on our findings, we provide methodological and design implications to help researchers effectively carry out virtual think-aloud studies with DHH participants (e.g., when and how to prompt for clarification).
- Peter Afflerbach. 2001. Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In Methods of literacy research. Routledge, 97–114.Google Scholar
- Bhavya Bhavya, Si Chen, Zhilin Zhang, Wenting Li, Chengxiang Zhai, Lawrence Angrave, and Yun Huang. 2022. Exploring collaborative caption editing to augment video-based learning. Educational technology research and development 70, 5 (2022), 1755–1779.Google Scholar
- Susanne Bødker. 2006. When Second Wave HCI Meets Third Wave Challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles (Oslo, Norway) (NordiCHI ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182476Google ScholarDigital Library
- Riley Botelle and Chris Willott. 2020. Birth, attitudes and placentophagy: a thematic discourse analysis of discussions on UK parenting forums. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 20, 1 (2020), 1–10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.Google Scholar
- Erica Burman and Ian Parker. 2016. Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Olga Capirci and Chiara Bonsignori. 2022. Beyond Orality: The Case of Sign Languages. Rethinking Orality I (2022), 69.Google Scholar
- Sambhavi Chandrashekar, Tony Stockman, Deborah Fels, and Rachel Benedyk. 2006. Using think aloud protocol with blind users: a case for inclusive usability evaluation methods. In Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. 251–252.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Si Chen, Yixin Liu, Risheng Lu, Yuqian Zhou, Yi-Chieh Lee, and Yun Huang. 2022. ”Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall” - Promoting Self-Regulated Learning Using Affective States Recognition via Facial Movements. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event, Australia) (DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1300–1314. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533500Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xinyue Chen, Si Chen, Xu Wang, and Yun Huang. 2021. "I Was Afraid, but Now I Enjoy Being a Streamer!": Understanding the Challenges and Prospects of Using Live Streaming for Online Education. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW3, Article 237 (jan 2021), 32 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432936Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mel Chua, Ian Smith, Miriam Nathan Lerner, Sarah Jacobs, Rita Straubhaar, Ruth Anna Spooner, and Perseus McDaniel. 2019. Does" Affordance" Mean" Thing-inform"?: Case Studies in Seeing Engineering Meaning Differently Through the Process of Technical ASL Vocabulary Creation. In 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kaitlyn Clark, Asma Sheikh, Jennifer Swartzenberg, Ashley Gleason, Cody Cummings, Jonathan Dominguez, Michelle Mailhot, and Christina Goudreau Collison. 2021. Sign Language Incorporation in Chemistry Education (SLICE): Building a Lexicon to Support the Understanding of Organic Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education 99, 1 (2021), 122–128.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Didan Deng, Zhaokang Chen, and Bertram E Shi. 2020. Multitask emotion recognition with incomplete labels. In 2020 15th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG 2020). IEEE, 592–599.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Becca Dingman, Garreth W Tigwell, and Kristen Shinohara. 2021. Interview and Think Aloud Accessibility for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Participants in Design Research. In Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–3.Google ScholarDigital Library
- K Anders Ericsson and Herbert A Simon. 1998. How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity 5, 3 (1998), 178–186.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mingming Fan, Yiwen Wang, Yuni Xie, Franklin Mingzhe Li, and Chunyang Chen. 2022. Understanding How Older Adults Comprehend COVID-19 Interactive Visualizations via Think-Aloud Protocol. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction (2022), 1–17.Google Scholar
- Mingming Fan, Ke Wu, Jian Zhao, Yue Li, Winter Wei, and Khai N. Truong. 2020. VisTA: Integrating Machine Intelligence with Visualization to Support the Investigation of Think-Aloud Sessions. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934797Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mingming Fan, Qiwen Zhao, and Vinita Tibdewal. 2021. Older adults’ think-aloud verbalizations and speech features for identifying user experience problems. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mingming Fan, Qiwen Zhao, and Vinita Tibdewal. 2021. Older Adults’ Think-Aloud Verbalizations and Speech Features for Identifying User Experience Problems. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 358, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445680Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ryo Iijima, Akihisa Shitara, and Yoichi Ochiai. 2022. Designing Gestures for Digital Musical Instruments: Gesture Elicitation Study with Deaf and Hard of Hearing People. In Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–8.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adam Kendon. 1988. Parallels and divergences between Warlpiri sign language and spoken Warlpiri: Analyses of signed and spoken discourses. Oceania 58, 4 (1988), 239–254.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amanda Lazar, Ben Jelen, Alisha Pradhan, and Katie A Siek. 2021. Adopting diffractive reading to advance HCI research: a case study on technology for aging. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 28, 5 (2021), 1–29.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Duri Long. 2023. Conducting Remote Design Research on Embodied, Collaborative Museum Exhibits. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8.Google Scholar
- Kelly Mack, Emma McDonnell, Dhruv Jain, Lucy Lu Wang, Jon E. Froehlich, and Leah Findlater. 2021. What do we mean by “accessibility research”? A literature survey of accessibility papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kelly Mack, Emma McDonnell, Venkatesh Potluri, Maggie Xu, Jailyn Zabala, Jeffrey Bigham, Jennifer Mankoff, and Cynthia Bennett. 2022. Anticipate and adjust: Cultivating access in human-centered methods. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emma J McDonnell, Ping Liu, Steven M Goodman, Raja Kushalnagar, Jon E Froehlich, and Leah Findlater. 2021. Social, environmental, and technical: Factors at play in the current use and future design of small-group captioning. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–25.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laura Meskanen-Kundu 2021. Remote user study: a reflection on remote user research methods during the COVID-19 pandemic. (2021).Google Scholar
- Prasanth Murali, Javier Hernandez, Daniel McDuff, Kael Rowan, Jina Suh, and Mary Czerwinski. 2021. Affectivespotlight: Facilitating the communication of affective responses from audience members during online presentations. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Timothy Neate, Vasiliki Kladouchou, Stephanie Wilson, and Shehzmani Shams. 2022. “Just Not Together”: The Experience of Videoconferencing for People with Aphasia during the Covid-19 Pandemic. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jakob Nielsen. 2012. Thinking Aloud: The #1 Usability Tool. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/thinking-aloud-the-1-usability-tool/Google Scholar
- Colorado Department of Human Services. 2022. Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and DeafBlind Demographics Guide. https://ccdhhdb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/DHHDB-Demographics.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Sirpa Riihiaho 2015. Experiences with usability testing: Effects of thinking aloud and moderator presence. (2015).Google Scholar
- Vera Roberts and Deborah Fels. 2002. Methods for inclusion: employing think aloud protocol with individuals who are deaf. In Computers Helping People with Special Needs: 8th International Conference, ICCHP 2002 Linz, Austria, July 15–20, 2002 Proceedings 8. Springer, 284–291.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vera Louise Roberts and Deborah I Fels. 2006. Methods for inclusion: Employing think aloud protocols in software usability studies with individuals who are deaf. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 6 (2006), 489–501.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jazz Rui Xia Ang, Ping Liu, Emma McDonnell, and Sarah Coppola. 2022. “In This Online Environment, We’re Limited”: Exploring Inclusive Video Conferencing Design for Signers. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 609, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517488Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew Seita, Sooyeon Lee, Sarah Andrew, Kristen Shinohara, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2022. Remotely Co-Designing Features for Communication Applications using Automatic Captioning with Deaf and Hearing Pairs. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marcos Serrano, Jolee Finch, Pourang Irani, Andres Lucero, and Anne Roudaut. 2022. Mold-It: Understanding how Physical Shapes affect Interaction with Handheld Freeform Devices. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ehsan Jahangirzadeh Soure, Emily Kuang, Mingming Fan, and Jian Zhao. 2021. CoUX: collaborative visual analysis of think-aloud usability test videos for digital interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 1 (2021), 643–653.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gary W Taylor and Jane M Ussher. 2001. Making sense of S&M: A discourse analytic account. Sexualities 4, 3 (2001), 293–314.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul Ten Have. 2007. Doing conversation analysis. Doing Conversation Analysis (2007), 1–264.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clayton Valli and Ceil Lucas. 2000. Linguistics of American sign language: An introduction. Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
- Sébastien Vandenitte. 2022. Making referents seen and heard across signed and spoken languages: Documenting and interpreting cross-modal differences in the use of enactment. Frontiers in psychology 13 (2022), 784339.Google Scholar
- Iris Xie, Rakesh Babu, Tae Hee Lee, Melissa Davey Castillo, Sukjin You, and Ann M Hanlon. 2020. Enhancing usability of digital libraries: Designing help features to support blind and visually impaired users. Information Processing & Management 57, 3 (2020), 102110.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Exploring Think-aloud Method with Deaf and Hard of Hearing College Students
Recommendations
Accessibility for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Users: Sign Language Conversational User Interfaces
CUI '20: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Conversational User InterfacesWith the proliferation of voice-based conversational user interfaces (CUIs) comes accessibility barriers for Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) users. There has not been significant prior research on sign-language conversational interactions with ...
Understanding deaf and hard-of-hearing users' interest in sign-language interaction with personal-assistant devices
W4A '21: Proceedings of the 18th International Web for All ConferenceProliferation of voice-controlled personal-assistant devices poses accessibility barriers for Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) users. In this mixed interview (N=21) and survey (N=86) study, DHH American Sign Language (ASL) signers reported little ...
Analyzing Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Users’ Behavior, Usage, and Interaction with a Personal Assistant Device that Understands Sign-Language Input
CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsAs voice-based personal assistant technologies proliferate, e.g., smart speakers in homes, and more generally as voice-control of technology becomes increasingly ubiquitous, new accessibility barriers are emerging for many Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) ...
Comments