Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3638067.3638133acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards the adaptation of SAwD for Deaf Users: Pilot Sessions with the Stakeholders Identification Diagram

Published: 24 January 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Our work focuses on the inclusion of deaf users in participatory design approaches. This entails not only increased awareness of the diversity of participants, but also the use of appropriate research instruments. In existing and novel research artifacts found in the literature, not only the language, but also how deaf persons rely on a spatial and visual way for thinking, acting, representing ideas, and interacting, become key factors for autonomous participation. In this paper, we present three phases of our research journey, namely, contextualization, ideation and redesign, and evaluation of a proposed adaptation of the Stakeholder Identification Diagram (SID) artifact, used in the Socially Aware Design approach. Twenty research sessions were carried out with and by a group of deaf and hearing codesigners: Sixteen virtual meetings with the research team, and four face-to-face pilot sessions. The evaluation phase took twelve sessions in total since we had to go back and iterate with the contextualization phase. Also, after pilot sessions, we met to analyze results and discuss previous phases. Various alternatives for adaptations in the layout and in the way of using the instrument were ideated and discussed before reaching a first version to be tested in pilot sessions. This work presents three main contributions: the three-phase framework to adapt research artifacts by working with a team of diverse profile and educational background, the collaboration between deaf and hearing researchers as codesigners in the field of HCI in Brazil, and the adaptation of the SID artifact to consider deaf participants. To the best of our knowledge, neither of the last two contributions have been previously explored. We aim to generalizing our adaptation process to other instruments for working with deaf researchers and participants.

References

[1]
Adriana Alvarado Garcia, Juan F. Maestre, Manuhuia Barcham, Marilyn Iriarte, Marisol Wong-Villacres, Oscar A Lemus, Palak Dudani, Pedro Reynolds-Cuéllar, Ruotong Wang, and Teresa Cerratto Pargman. 2021. Decolonial Pathways: Our Manifesto for a Decolonizing Agenda in HCI Research and Design. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI EA ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 10, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3450365
[2]
Maria Cecília Calini Baranauskas. 2009. Socially aware computing. In VI International Conference on Engineering and Computer Education (ICECE 2009), Vol. 3. 1–5.
[3]
M. Cecília C. Baranauskas. 2014. Social Awareness in HCI. Interactions 21, 4 (jul 2014), 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/2621933
[4]
Maria Cecília Calani Baranauskas and Elaine C. S. Hayashi. 2021. Design da interação e ambientes de aprendizagem baseados em tecnologia. In Informática na Educação: ambientes de aprendizagem, objetos de aprendizagem e empreendedorismo. Série Informática na Educação CEIE-SBC, v.5. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação.
[5]
Maria C. C. Baranauskas, Maria C. Martins, and José A. Valente. 2013. Codesign de Redes Digitais: Tecnologia e Educação a Serviço da Inclusão Social. Penso, Porto Alegre, RS.
[6]
Rachel Boll, Shruti Mahajan, Jeanne Reis, and Erin T. Solovey. 2020. Creating Questionnaires That Align with ASL Linguistic Principles and Cultural Practices within the Deaf Community. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, Greece) (ASSETS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 61, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3418071
[7]
Danielle Bragg, Oscar Koller, Mary Bellard, Larwan Berke, Patrick Boudreault, Annelies Braffort, Naomi Caselli, Matt Huenerfauth, Hernisa Kacorri, Tessa Verhoef, Christian Vogler, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2019. Sign Language Recognition, Generation, and Translation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. In Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) (ASSETS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3353774
[8]
Albert M. Cook and Jan Miller Polgar. 2008. Cook & Hussey’s assistive technologies: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Mosby Elsevier, St. Louis.
[9]
José Valderlei da Silva, Roberto Pereira, Samuel Bastos Buchdid, Emanuel Felipe Duarte, and Maria Cecília Calani Baranauskas. 2016. SAwD - Socially Aware Design: An Organizational Semiotics-Based CASE Tool to Support Early Design Activities. In Socially Aware Organisations and Technologies. Impact and Challenges, Maria Cecilia Calani Baranauskas, Kecheng Liu, Lily Sun, Vânia Paula de Almeida Neris, Rodrigo Bonacin, and Keiichi Nakata (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 59–69.
[10]
Flabiéli Pricila Ferreira de Miranda and Soraia Silva Prietch. 2016. Emotion-Libras: Instrument for Use in Human-Computer Interaction Researches Considering People Who Are Deaf as Potential Users of Technology. In Proceedings of the 15th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (São Paulo, Brazil) (IHC ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 44, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3033701.3033746
[11]
Athanasia-Lida Dimou, Vassilis Papavassiliou, Theodoros Goulas, Kyriaki Vasilaki, Anna Vacalopoulou, Stavroula-Evita Fotinea, and Eleni Efthimiou. 2022. What about synthetic signing? A methodology for signer involvement in the development of avatar technology with generative capacity. Frontiers in Communication 7 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.798644
[12]
Edward T. Hall. 1959. The Silent Language. Anchor Books, New York.
[13]
Edward T. Hall. 1990. The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books, New York.
[14]
Gary T. Henry. 1990. Applied social research methods series (vol. 21 ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc., Hershey, PA, USA, Chapter Practical sampling. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985451
[15]
Matt Huenerfauth, Kasmira Patel, and Larwan Berke. 2017. Design and Psychometric Evaluation of an American Sign Language Translation of the System Usability Scale. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (ASSETS ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3132540
[16]
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 (Dundee, Scotland, UK) (ASSETS ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1145/2049536.2049557
[17]
Martin Kolkman. 1993. Problem Articulation Methodology. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Twente, Enschede, NL.
[18]
Kecheng Liu. 2000. Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
[19]
Manuel Martínez Gutiérrez and José Rafael Rojano-Cáceres. 2020. Interpretation of the SUS questionnaire in Mexican sign language to evaluate usability an approach. In 2020 3rd International Conference of Inclusive Technology and Education (CONTIE). 180–183. https://doi.org/10.1109/CONTIE51334.2020.00040
[20]
Carol A. Padden and Tom L. Humphries. 1988. Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-198904000-00022
[21]
Polianna Paim, Soraia Silva Prietch, and J Alfredo Sánchez. 2022. Adapting Codesign Techniques for the Construction of a Learning Environment of a Written Second Language for the D/deaf. Interacting with Computers 35, 2 (10 2022), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwac023 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/iwc/article-pdf/35/2/315/51667415/iwac023.pdf
[22]
Roberto Pereira, Samuel B. Buchdid, Leonardo Cunha de Miranda, and Maria Cecília Calini Baranauskas. 2013. Paying attention to values and culture: an artifact to support the evaluation of interactive systems. In International Journal for Infonomics (IJI), Vol. 1(1). 792–801.
[23]
Soraia Prietch, Flabiéli Miranda, Polianna Paim, Vanuza Leite, and Camila Soncini Nogueira. 2021. A Sign Language Self-Report Instrument for Research on Emotional User Experience. In X Latin American Conference on Human Computer Interaction (Valparaiso, Chile) (CLIHC 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 3 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3488392.3488399
[24]
Soraia S. Prietch, J. Alfredo Sánchez, and Josefina Guerrero. 2022. Deriving socio-technical good practices for automatic sign language processing systems from socially aware codesign. In VIII Jornadas Iberoamericanas de Interacción Humano-Computadora (Havana, Cuba).
[25]
Timothy Reagan. 2020. Social Justice, Audism, and the d/Deaf: Rethinking Linguistic and Cultural Differences. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1479–1510. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_108
[26]
Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka. 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, MI.
[27]
José Valderlei da Silva and M. Cecília C. Baranauskas. 2020. Interaction Spaces and Socioenactive Dimensions: Exploring Perturbations of IoHT. In Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Diamantina, Brazil) (IHC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 23, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3424953.3426495
[28]
Ronald Stamper. 1973. Information in Business and Administrative Systems. Wiley Inc, New York, NY.
[29]
Karin Strobel. 2016. As imagens do outro sobre a cultura surda (4rd ed.). UFSC, Florianópolis, SC.
[30]
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 (Orlando, Florida, USA) (ASSETS ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/1878803.1878825
[31]
Tirp TV. 2018. O silêncio e a fúria - poetas do corpo. Edinho Santos’ performance. Retrieved May 28, 2023 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20dovmD3Y1A

Index Terms

  1. Towards the adaptation of SAwD for Deaf Users: Pilot Sessions with the Stakeholders Identification Diagram

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      IHC '23: Proceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      October 2023
      791 pages
      ISBN:9798400717154
      DOI:10.1145/3638067
      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 the author(s) 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: 24 January 2024

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. Artifact adaptation
      2. Cultural artifacts
      3. Sign language users
      4. Socially Aware Design

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Conference

      IHC '23

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 331 of 973 submissions, 34%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 26
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)26
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
      Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media