1 / 10

SoftBridge in Action: The First Deaf Telephony Pilot W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

University of Cape Town. Computer Science & Communication Sciences and Disorders. SoftBridge in Action: The First Deaf Telephony Pilot W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis. Work in Progress. Deaf Telephony. Text-based communications SMS Instant Messaging Deaf Telephones, e.g. Teldem

myra-snyder
Download Presentation

SoftBridge in Action: The First Deaf Telephony Pilot W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. University of Cape Town Computer Science & Communication Sciences and Disorders SoftBridge in Action: The First Deaf Telephony PilotW Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis Work in Progress

  2. Deaf Telephony • Text-based communications • SMS • Instant Messaging • Deaf Telephones, e.g. Teldem • Real-time Bridging to PSTN • Text-to-Speech (TTS) • Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

  3. Prototypes and problems with Automated Deaf Telephony • Telgo323 & TelgoSIP • One way direction • Bi-directional work in progress • Automatic Speech Recognition • Poor free-flow recognition rates • Restricted domain conversations • Accent bias W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

  4. SoftBridge W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

  5. Experimentation • Deaf user (DU) has a Text in/Text out Exodus client • Hearing user (HU) can vary the media input/output • All conversations logged for subsequent analysis W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

  6. Test One • Explaining procedure via SoftBridge vs. signed language interpreting created a real exchange • DU concerned that HU would not comprehend “Deaf writing” • DU used half-duplex (from Teldem experience) • Computer literacy of this DU was high • PCs proximity too close W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

  7. Test Two • TTS messages arrive abruptly and delivered quickly (no replay or visualization) • DU again concerned about Deaf literacy to unfamiliar HU • DU liked synchronous exchange (better than SMS) • Presence indication required to alert for incoming • DU acts in Teldem character mode, rather than complete message W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

  8. Test Three • Expected, and got, poor ASR performance that required • Overly careful articulation • Pauses between words • researcher to use text to clear up misunderstanding • Relied on the fact that this DU had effective repair skills • Log mechanism needs to annotate HU output modes W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

  9. Next Steps • Client software needs presence indicators • Server software • Log requires more automated annotation • “Teldem-ese” inserted into TTS dictionary • Move to other input/output devices, e.g. Teldem, cellphone, telephone • Expansion of trials to Deaf users with more typical text and computer literacy • How to get the hearing community to accept the delays and poor quality? W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

  10. Authors • William Tucker • btucker@cs.uct.ac.za • Meryl Glaser • mglaser@uctgsh1.uct.ac.za • John Lewis • jlewis@cs.uct.ac.za W Tucker, M Glaser and J Lewis

More Related