Raja Kushalnagar

Raja S. Kushalnagar

The viewing size of a signer correlates with legibility, i.e., the ease with which a viewer can recognize individual signs. The WCAG 2.0 guidelines (G54) mention in the notes that there should be a mechanism to adjust the size to ensure the signer is discernible but does not state minimum discernibility guidelines. The fluent range (the range over which sign viewers can follow the signers at maximum speed) extends from about 7° to 20°, which is far greater than 2° for print. Assuming a standard viewing distance of 16 inches from a 5-inch smartphone display, the corresponding sizes are from 2 to 5 inches, i.e., from 1/3rd to full-screen. This is consistent with vision science findings about human visual processing properties, and how they play a dominant role in constraining the distribution of signer sizes.

Raja Kushalnagar, Gary Behm, Kevin Wolfe et al.

Students who are deaf and hard of hearing cannot hear in class and do not have full access to spoken information. They can use accommodations such as captions that display speech as text. However, compared with their hearing peers, the caption accommodations do not provide equal access, because they are focused on reading captions on their tablet and cannot see who is talking. This viewing isolation contributes to student frustration and risk of doing poorly or withdrawing from introductory engineering courses with lab components. It also contributes to their lack of inclusion and sense of belonging. We report on the evaluation of a Real-Time Text Display with Speaker-Identification, which displays the location of a speaker in a group (RTTD-ID). RTTD-ID aims to reduce frustration in identifying and following an active speaker when there are multiple speakers, e.g., in a lab. It has three different display schemes to identify the location of the active speaker, which helps deaf students in viewing both the speaker's words and the speaker's expression and actions. We evaluated three RTTD speaker identification methods: 1) traditional: captions stay in one place and viewers search for the speaker, 2) pointer: captions stay in one place, and a pointer to the speaker is displayed, and 3) pop-up: captions "pop-up" next to the speaker. We gathered both quantitative and qualitative information through evaluations with deaf and hard of hearing users. The users preferred the pointer identification method over the traditional and pop-up methods.

Raja Kushalnagar, Matthew Seita, Abraham Glasser

Deaf individuals face great challenges in today's society. It can be very difficult to be able to understand different forms of media without a sense of hearing. Many videos and movies found online today are not captioned, and even fewer have a supporting video with an interpreter. Also, even with a supporting interpreter video provided, information is still lost due to the inability to look at both the video and the interpreter simultaneously. To alleviate this issue, we came up with a tool called closed interpreting. Similar to closed captioning, it will be displayed with an online video and can be toggled on and off. However, the closed interpreter is also user-adjustable. Settings, such as interpreter size, transparency, and location, can be adjusted. Our goal with this study is to find out what deaf and hard of hearing viewers like about videos that come with interpreters, and whether the adjustability is beneficial.

Abraham Glasser, Kesavan Kushalnagar, Raja Kushalnagar

Many personal devices have transitioned from visual-controlled interfaces to speech-controlled interfaces to reduce costs and interactive friction, supported by the rapid growth in capabilities of speech-controlled interfaces, e.g., Amazon Echo or Apple's Siri. A consequence is that people who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) may be unable to use these speech-controlled devices. We show that deaf speech has a high error rate compared to hearing speech, in commercial speech-controlled interfaces. Deaf speech had approximately a 78% word error rate (WER) compared to a hearing speech 18% WER. Our findings show that current speech-controlled interfaces are not usable by DHH people. Based on our findings, significant advances in speech recognition software or alternative approaches will be needed for deaf use of speech-controlled interfaces. We show that current speech-controlled interfaces are not usable by DHH people.