First results

1. First results • Interface implementation • AJAX • Voice/Speech • X+V/VoiceML • USI (Universal Speech Interface) • LPTV (Speech Processing and Transmission Laboratory of the University of Chile) • Text-free interfaces/solutions for illiterate people • literature overview • Deaf and hard of hearing and literacy • Assistive Technologies

2. Interface implementation - AJAX • AJAX • Asynchronous JavaScript and XML • refers to the usage of a bundle of different technologies, e.g. (X)HTML, CSS, DOM, JavaScript, ... • basic idea “don't reload whole HTML page, but only necessary regions” --> save bandwidth, separate data, format, style and function • example: GoogleMaps

3. Interface implementation - AJAX • AJAX Accessibility issues • Google search of “+ajax +accessibility” yields many hits • most problems concerned with screen readers, but also apply to people with cognitive problems: dynamic updated of regions not always visible/clear to user; how should the screen reader react if some region of the “page” is updated? • W3C-WAI group to tackle issues: ARIA (Accessible Rich internet applications) http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria

4. Interface implementation - AJAX • AJAX Accessibility • not impossible to design accessible sites using AJAX: one of the award winners of Germany's 2006 BIENE Awards (Barrierefreies Internet eröffnet neue Einsichten; barrier free Internet opens new insights) uses AJAX • recommendation throughout many accessibility related web resources: only very experienced web designers should use AJAX to create accessibility critical sites

5. AJAX resources • AJAX and Screenreaders: When Can it Work?: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/ajax-screenreaders-work[...] Let's face it, a great many AJAX applications (dare I say, "most"?) use this approach for its own sake, and don't really benefit from it all -- they could just as well use traditional POST and response. [...] I'm forced to conclude that, unless a way can be found to notify screen readers of updated content, AJAX techniques cannot be considered accessible, and should not be used on a production site without a truly equivalent non-script alternative being offered to users up-front. • Making Ajax Work with Screen Readers: http://juicystudio.com/article/making-ajax-work-with-screen-readers.php#further • Improving accessibility for today’s AJAX - To hack or not?: http://www.access-matters.com/2007/01/22/improving-accessibility-for-todays-ajax-to-hack-or-not/ • W3C initiative: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) Suite Overview: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria • Roadmap for Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA Roadmap): http://www.w3.org/TR/aria-roadmap/ • W3C's Protocols and Formats Working Group (PFWG) http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/

6. Interface implementation - Voice/Speech • X+V/VoiceML • XHTML-Profile; uses VoiceXML as “vocabulary” • X+V brings spoken interaction to standard WWW content • X+V brings together voice modules that support speech synthesis, speech dialogs, command and control, speech grammars, and the ability to attach Voice handlers for responding to specific DOM events • Voice interaction features are integrated directly with XHTML and CSS, and can consequently be used directly within XHTML content.

7. Interface implementation - Voice/Speech • X+V/VoiceML • VoiceXML: • W3C recommendation • brings the Web to telephones • All examples of X+V/VoiceML encountered so far require telephone as input and special browser

8. Interface implementation - Voice/Speech • X+V/VoiceML Resources • Introduction at W3C: http://www.w3.org/Voice/Guide/ • Definition at http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-v11spec/index.html • Implementations: • http://www.w3.org/Voice/#implementations • Opera: http://dev.opera.com/articles/voice/ • Alternatives: • Microsoft's SALT (Speech Application Language Tags): www.saltforum.org

9. Interface implementation - Voice/Speech • USI (Universal Speech Interface) • Solution of Carnegie Mellon University • Based on XML, but not VoiceML • Goal: enable non-specialists to easily create speech interfaces to their applications • Status: research not finished, open if/how can be extended to portuguese • References: • http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~usi/ • Arthur R. Toth, Thomas K. Harris, James Sanders, Stefanie Shriver and Roni Rosenfeld. Towards Every-Citizen's Speech Interface: An Application Generator for Speech Interfaces to Databases. In Proc. ICSLP 2002.

10. Interface implementation - Voice/Speech • LPTV (Laboratorio de Procesamiento y Transmisión de Voz - Speech Processing and Transmission Laboratory at the University of Chile) • Speech and Speaker recognition software; Usability evaluation of dialogue systems • R&D efforts currently focused on Spanish language; papers encountered mostly technical

11. Text-free interfaces/solutions for illiterate people - synopsis • Akan et al. (2006) • eScreening: Developing an Electronic Screening Tool for Rural Primary Care • case study of interface development • strategy: "simple" interface, touchscreen, flash, audio+text

12. Text-free interfaces/solutions for illiterate people - synopsis • Chand and Dey • Jadoo: a paper user interface for users unfamiliar with computers • Computer literate users create a “paper user interface” for computer illiterate users • “paper user interface” contains description (e.g. write e-mail) and barcode, barcode scanning invokes respective process (login, start e-mail client, open window “compose e-mail”)

13. Text-free interfaces/solutions for illiterate people - synopsis • Huenerfauth 2002 • Developing design recommendations for computer interfaces accessible to illiterate users. • design recommendations for two specific scenarios (health information, job search) of the usage of the simputer (Indian low-cost hand-held device)

14. Text-free interfaces/solutions for illiterate people - synopsis • Martins et al. 2003 • Aspectos da Interação Humano-Computador em Sistemas para Jovens e Adultos não Alfabetizados • short-paper about a system for the evaluation of literacy levels of young adults • semiotic approach • audio messages with “simple” messages: “if ... press button ...” • usage of photographic images instead of abstract designs • only upper-case letters • usage of “leichte Sprache” (“easy to read texts”: short phrases, only one information in each sentence, ...)

15. Text-free interfaces/solutions for illiterate people - synopsis • Medhi and Sagar 2006 • Text-Free User Interfaces for Illiterate and Semi-Literate Users • ethnographic design process; novice illiterate users • Bollywood method: tasks are embedded in dramatized stories involving the subject • semi-abstracted, instead of purely iconic graphics • maps with landmarks • avoid text, numbers ok • voice feedback • graphics with action cues and according to religious/cultural/... context (left-to-right, hut vs. apartment block, ...)

16. Text-free interfaces/solutions for illiterate people - synopsis • Plauché and Prabaker (2006) • Tamil market: a spoken dialog system for rural India • “Traditional user study techniques, however, favor literate users and are ill-suited to research in developing regions” • design process of a speech-based UI of an agricultural query system • system doesn't have a display • users navigate by uttering one of a set of 30 “command words” • user study using Wizard-of-Oz technique • users with little or no education were reluctant to participate • comparison of performance of illiterate vs. literate users not statistically relevant

17. Text-free interfaces/solutions for illiterate people - synopsis • Pretorius and Bosch 2003: • Enabling Computer Interaction in the Indigenous Languages of South Africa: The Central Role of Computational Morphology • description of problems of computational processing of indigenous languages in South Africa

18. Text-free interfaces/solutions for illiterate people - synopsis • Waichman et al. 2007: • Do farmers understand the information displayed on pesticide product labels? A key question to reduce pesticides exposure and risk of poisoning in the Brazilian Amazon • user study • population: 15.8% illiterate, 64.5 % semi-illiterate (4 years of education) • difficulties: "foreign language", too technical, small fonts • only 22.4% read labels, only 13.2% understood • level of education adequate for trading • regarding resource constraints, reading and writing ability is high • willingness to read not associated with education level or farming experience but with time of pesticide use • color coding scheme as indicator of toxicity meaningless to sample population • no clear understanding of pictogram meaning

19. Text-free interfaces/solutions for illiterate people - references Akan, K. D.; Farrell, S. P.; Zerull, L. M.; Mahone, I. H. & Stephanie Guerlain, S. (2006). eScreening: Developing an Electronic Screening Tool for Rural Primary Care. In: Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium, 2006 IEEE Chand, A. & Dey, A. K. (2006) Jadoo: a paper user interface for users unfamiliar with computers. In: CHI '06: CHI '06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, 2006, p. 1625-1630 Huenerfauth, M. P. (2002). Developing design recommendations for computer interfaces accessible to illiterate users. University College Dublin, 2002 Martins, I. H.; de Carvalho, L. A. V.; Ferreira, L.; do Socorro Martins Calháu, M. & Benício, M. L. T. (2003). Aspectos da Interação Humano-Computador em Sistemas para Jovens e Adultos não Alfabetizados. In: CLIHC '03: Proceedings of the Latin American conference on Human-computer interaction. ACM Press, 2003, p. 235-238 Medhi, I. & Sagar, K. (2006). Text-Free User Interfaces for Illiterate and Semi-Literate Users. In: ICTD '06. International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, 2006, p. 72-82 Plauché, M. & Prabaker, M. (2006). Tamil market: a spoken dialog system for rural India. In: CHI '06: CHI '06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, 2006, p. 1619-1624 Pretorius, L. & Bosch, S. E. (2003). Enabling computer interaction in the indigenous languages of South Africa: the central role of computational morphology. interactions, ACM Press, 2003, 10, 56-63 Waichman, A. V.; Eve, E. & da Silva Nina, N. C. (2007). Do farmers understand the information displayed on pesticide product labels? A key question to reduce pesticides exposure and risk of poisoning in the Brazilian Amazon. Crop Protection, 2007, 26, 576-583

20. Deaf and hard of hearing and literacy • Open: degree of alphabetization of deaf and hard of hearing in Brazil • In the U.S., deaf people have much lower literacy levels than hearing people, especially deaf people with hearing parents

21. Assistive Technologies • Types (http://www.microsoft.com/enable/at/types.aspx) • Alternative input devices (physical imp.): • Alternative keyboards (also visual/cogn. imp.?) • Electronic pointing devices • Sip-and-puff systems • Wands and sticks • Joysticks • Trackballs • Touch screens (also visual/cogn. imp.?)

22. Assistive Technologies • Types (contd.) • Braille embossers (visual) • Keyboard filters (visual, illiterate) • Light signaler alerts (auditory) • On-screen keyboards (visual) • Reading tools and learning disabilities programs (cognitive, illiterate) • Refreshable Braille displays (visual) • Screen enlargers, or screen magnifiers (visual) • Screen readers (visual, illiterate) • Speech recognition or voice recognition programs (visual, illiterate) • Text-to-Speech (TTS) or speech synthesizers (visual) • Talking and large-print word processors (visual) • TTY/TDD conversion modems (auditory)

23. Assistive Technologies • Key questions: • Which devices should be used? What is the cost? Are there free/open source solutions? • Is the assistive device compatible with the respective hardware? • Is the assistive device compatible with the respective software (browser integration, other applications, linux)? • A good overview of product examples can be found at http://www.anditec.pt/produtos/index.php and http://www.barrierefrei-kommunizieren.de/datenbank/index_produkte.php?lang=_en&PHPSESSID=6c2740b33fefd8f367dae0383509f251