designing a deaf culture specific web site – participatory design research for knack.fi

i

Designing a Deaf culture specific web siteParticipatory design research for knack.fi

Suvi Kitunen, MA ThesisUniversity of Art and Design Helsinki, Media Lab

Designing a Deaf culture specific web site

Suvi Kitunen MA Thesis 2009 / Media LabUniversity of Art & Design Helsinki

Participatory design research for knack.fi

Kouvola, Finland 2009Kymenlaakson Ammattikorkeakoulu, University of Applied SciencesPublications,Series A. No. 25

Helsinki, Finland 2009The Finnish Associationof the Deaf Publications. No. 53

© Suvi Kitunen, the Finnish Association of the Deaf, and Kymenlaakson Ammattikorkeakoulu, University of Applied SciencesSciences, 2009

Published by the Finnish Association of the Deaf, Osata/KnacK Project with the support of RAY, and Kymenlaakson Ammattikorkeakoulu, University of Applied SciencesSciences, 2009

Design and photos by Suvi Kitunen

Printing by Kopijyvä Oy, Jyväskylä

ISBN: 978-952-5681-53-6ISSN: 1239-9086ISSN: 1457-1099

2nd Edition

iii

The design research by Suvi Kitunen aims to provide design recommendations for Deaf culture specific web sites taking into consideration the implications of Deaf culture and sign language as a first language on web user experience. So far web sites localised for sign language users have been merely concerned with providing signed alternatives to written and auditory content but have failed to take into consideration the cultural aspects of signed communication. The knowledge was gathered through participatory design methods and applied in the development of Knack.fi web site, aiming to serve dyslexic Deaf children and their families.

Overall, this thesis made two contributions. Firstly, it demonstrated that the unduly narrow focus on accessibility and usability has undermined the impact of culture upon user experience. Secondly, drawing together ideas on the literature and supported by the findings of the user research, it developed a preliminary list of design recommen-dations for future developments.

KeyworDsDeaf and hard of hearing, participatory design, user experience, interface design, cross-cultural design, accessibility, dyslexia

Abstract

v

There are a number of people who have contributed to this study, and without their input this thesis would have been impossible. I would like to thank RAY (Finland’s Slot Machine Association) for financial support and the Finnish Association of the Deaf for giving me the opportunity for this design research.

I owe my greatest gratitude to my Principal supervisor Dr Päivi Rainò for her support, guidance, and enthusiasm in helping me to develop my thesis. You provided me with your expert knowledge on Deaf culture that was the foundation of this design research. Our fruitful conversations greatly advanced my work. A special thanks to my Associate supervisor Dr Antti Raike for sharing his knowledge about Design for All -thinking and constructive comments that helped to develop a convincing work. I am also thankful for people sharing their views and expertise. A special thanks to my peer students Keri Knowles, Margaret Plaisted, and Riia Celen for

their thoughtful comments. I am also thankful for the experts of Deaf rhythmics: Terttu Martola, Russ Palmer, and Elina Kivelä-Taskinen.

Most importantly, I owe special thanks to the members of the Deaf community who were willing to participate in the design process and accepted me, a hearing, to work with them. For me it has been a journey to a land, totally unknown to me – yet so fascinating and exiting. The more I spent time with you, the more I listened to you, the more I realised the richness of your traditions, customs, and beliefs – and especially stricken by their strength. Without your helpfulness, enthusiasm, and kindness would I not understood the bigger picture but forced my own ideas and ideals to a world that I did not fully understand – yet, never can I do it fully. Thanks to Hanna Paulanto, Jari Nyberg, Kalle Juusti, Johan Pallari, Päivi Majava, Pia Taalas, Mikko Palo, Maarit Widberg-Palo, Anja Hurtamo, Jukka Hurtamo, and Senni Virkkunen.

Acknowledgements

vi

Abstract iiiAcknowledgements vContents vi

1 INTroDUCTIoN 1

2 CUlTUral INqUIry 3 2.1 layers of Deaf culture – from values to artefacts 3 2.1.1 Prominence of deafness 3 2.1.2 From oppression towards recognition 4 2.1.3 Culture – shared conceptual map 4 2.1.4 Sign language: Visuo-gestural world 7 2.2 Digital communication tools in Deaf culture 8 2.2.1 Innovation within Deaf Communities 8 2.2.2 Digital texts for hearing impaired 9 2.2.3 From accessibility to people-centred design approach 12 2.3 Case studies: a normative comparison of six web sites 16 2.3.1 By Deaf designers 16 2.3.2 By Deaf organisations 18 2.3.3 By hearing to offer sign language content 18 2.4 summary 20

3 INTerFaCe INqUIry 22 3.1 Values an interface brings forth to its users 22 3.1.1 Instrumental value 22 3.1.2 Emotional value 23 3.1.3 Cultural value 23 3.2 layers of culture oriented interface design 24 3.2.1 Visceral design 25 3.2.2 Behavioural design 26 3.2.3 Reflective design 27 3.3 summary 28

4 DesIgN researCh 29 4.1 Design purpose and challenges 29 4.2 Participatory design methods and cultural framework 31 4.3 Participants 33 4.4 Four phases of culture-specific participatory design 33 4.5 Measure of successful process 35

5 DesIgN ProCess 36 5.1 Contextual inquiry 36 5.1.1 Observations 36 5.1.2 Stakeholder meetings 37

Contents

vii

5.2 Identification of Deaf culture specific features 38 5.2.1 Focus group 38 5.2.2 Card sorting 41 5.2.3 Interviews 46 5.3 Integration of Deaf culture specific features 47 5.3.1 Brainstorming session 47 5.3.2 Workshops 49 5.3.3 Co-designing prototypes 52 5.4 summary 52

6 reVIew oF KNaCK.FI 53

7 reCoMMeNDaTIoNs 57 7.1 Physio-pleasures 57 7.1.1 Access to sound – visually 57 7.1.2 Scannable content 58 7.1.3 Content on demand 58 7.1.4 Balance between content, foreground and background 58 7.1.5 Visual support for a signer 58 7.1.6 Colours 58 7.1.7 Symbols and icons 58 7.1.8 Signing guide 58 7.2 socio-pleasures 59 7.2.1 Global friends 59 7.2.2 Video applications 59 7.3 Psycho-pleasures 59 7.3.1 Visual feedback 59 7.3.2 Presentation of Deaf people 59 7.4. Ideo-pleasures 59 7.4.1 Fluent signers 59 7.4.2 Faces 60 7.4.3 Dominant signing 60

8 DIsCUssIoN 61 8.1 satisfaction 61 8.2 Contribution of the study 62 8.3 limitations of the study 63 8.4 Future work 63

References 65Appendix 1: Focus group 74Appendix II: Thematic interview 75Appendix III: Concent form 76

This study aims to provide design recommendationsfor Deaf culture specific web sites taking into consideration the implications of Deaf culture and sign language as a first language on web user experience. The participatory design research was conducted in the course of designing a pilot web site for Osata (KnacK) project in 2008–2009. Finally, the findings of the design activities were concluded into general design recommendations. Despite an extensive body of research on usability, accessibility, and user experience, web sites localised for sign language users have been merely concerned with providing signed alternatives to written and auditory content. Simultaneously, however, they have failed to take into consideration the cultural aspects of signed communication that ultimately affect user experience. Consequently, web sites localised for sign language tend to only provide access to the content but rarely offer a web browsing experience that Deaf users would enjoy and be comfortable with.

This study is grounded on previous studies that claim: if an interface meets one’s cultural needs, it enhances one’s browsing experience. This realisation of the importance of culture is the newest turn in user experience studies. This means that the value of an interface does not only lie in its material form such as aesthetics or functions but in the meanings that it brings forth to its users. Thus, more effort should be put on culturally sensitive design elements, which are preferred within a particular cultural group. In the context of this study, this means looking beyond accessibility, functionality, and usability of an interface, and considering the impact of Deaf culture on design features. Thus, it is important to start the interface design process by analysing the design context including cultural, historical,

and organisational constraints. In other words, the designer needs to understand both the social and cultural contexts of use as well as the meanings the stakeholders give to the interface.

This leads to the adaptation of participatory design methods that engage with the community. The purpose of this design research is not to search for quantitative or objective research ‘truth’ but rather to look for inspirational and actionable insights on how the cultural practices affect the way web sites should be designed to meet the real needs of Deaf users. In this participatory design approach, the course of designing forms the actual research. The goal is not just to empirically understand how Deaf users currently experience web sites, but also to identify how they would like to experience them; that is, to simultaneously envision, shape, and transcend it in the ways participants find buoyant.

The design research focussing on user preferences in the Deaf culture was carried out during the winter of 2007 until the end of spring 2009. In order to develop a user focussed design project, eleven members of the Deaf culture (all who are sign language users) were invited to participate for the duration of the study. These participants included Deaf and hard of hearing grass-root users, designers, academics, and researchers. Their experience and opinions were recorded and fed back into the next design stage. The design process involved three main phases: (1) contextual inquiry through observation and stakeholder meetings; (2) identification of Deaf culture specific design features through a focus group session, card sorting method, and thematic interviews; and (3) integration of the identified design features by

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

2

way of a brainstorming session, two collaborative workshops, and development of prototypes in collaboration with deaf designers. Results from the participatory study were applied in the process of designing a pilot web site for the KnacK project.

The web site is part of a larger project being run by the Finnish Association of the Deaf in which the primary aim is to raise awareness of learning disabilities in Deaf and hard of hearing children. The KnacK/Osata initiative is based on studies that have proven that disorders in perception of rhythm are linked with difficulties in learning. This highlighted a need for deaf and hard of hearing children to practice rhythm – a step forward in the process of relieving learning disorders of these children. The web site has been designed to inspire, encourage, and inform deaf and hard of hearing children and their stakeholders. In order to reach them, three primary target audiences have been defined: children, parents, and professionals, all of which may be hearing, deaf or dyslexic. This variety of users brings about a challenge to create a boundary object – an interface between the different communities of practice. Although digital technologies allow localisation and modification of interfaces to meet the needs of diverse sets of people, solutions that would satisfy both parties are non-existent.

Overall, within the limitations and confines of this design study, this thesis makes two contributions. First, it identifies and demonstrates that the unduly narrow focus on accessibility has undermined user experience. There is a need to consider the full range of issues involved in designing pleasurable interfaces. The findings are consistent with previous cultural studies; but importantly, they have not been the focus in the previous web interfaces designed for Deaf users. Secondly, drawing together ideas from the literature, an overview of design implications has been established and developed into a set of design recommendations that is supported by findings from the user research carried out.

Document overview

Chapter 2 provides cultural context for this design research. The first part is devoted to define the concepts relating to Deaf Culture, history, and sign language. The second part discusses the design climate in relation to communication tools and web sites targeted to Deaf users.

Chapter 3 investigates how interfaces become adapted, valued, and appreciated. The first part defines three different levels – instrumental, emotional, and cultural – by which an interface becomes valued by its users. The second part studies three different phases – recognition, exploration, and reflection – of interface usage that are influenced by one’s culture.

Chapter 4 first discusses the design challenges of this study and defines them through Jordan’s Four-Pleasures framework. Then, it explains participatory design methods and Moalasi’s socio-cultural framework that are employed in this study. Finally, it describes the participants chosen for this study and the schedule of the design process.

Chapter 5 reviews the entire participatory design process. It reviews the methods and outcomes of each design phase. There are three of these phases: (1) contextual inquiry, (2) identification, and (3) integration of Deaf culture specific features.

Chapter 6 reviews design solutions including the aesthetic, interaction, and technical choices made.

Chapter 7 develops the findings of participatory research into general design recommendations. Utilising Jordan’s Four-Pleasure framework it explains the physical, social, psychological, and ideological features of an interface that are engaging for Deaf users. These recommendations are to assist the designing of sign language web sites in future.

Chapter 8 discusses the contribution of the study, its application to Deaf culture specific web sites, and the future research areas.

3

Culture and language affect one’s attitudes, behaviours, ways of thinking, and even remembering; and thus, also fundamentally influences the way interfaces should be designed for specific cultural groups. This chapter examines this cultural context. In the first part, it reviews different layers of Deaf experience, and the role of sign language within Deaf culture. In the second part, it discusses how digital communication tools have influenced Deaf culture, and reviews how web sites are designed for sign language users today.

2.1 layers oF DeaF CUlTUre – FroM ValUes To arTeFaCTs Different layers of Deaf culture have formed over centuries as Deaf people developed communities, enabling them to live in the world that is designed for the average. To better understand these different layers, this section first discusses the prominence and history of deafness. Then it defines four different layers of Deaf culture that form the mindset in which Deaf people operate. Finally, it looks at one fundamental component of Deaf culture, that is, sign language.

2.1.1 Prominence of deafnessStatistics for the number of deaf people depends on the definition, and of interpreting the resulting figures (Benderly, 1980; Johnston & Schembri, 2007). Nevertheless, it has been estimated that deafness, from moderate to profound hearing loss, affects one person in a thousand in developed countries (Ladd 2003; Johnston & Schembri, 2007). According to WHO (2006), deafness has been estimated to affect 278 million people worldwide. In Finland, there are approximately 8000 people with a hearing loss (Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö,

2001) out of which 5000 have sign language as their first language (Report of the Government on the application of language legislation 2009). The remaining 3000 are people who have lost their hearing later in life, traditionally referred to as hard of hearing. A much smaller number who suffer total or near total hearing loss as an adult are described as deafened. From the Deaf cultural perspective, both of these groups are hearing people who have lost some of their hearing. There are also those who have lost their hearing during early childhood and are described as severely deaf. For them, as for hard of hearing, hearing may be possible with sophisticated hearing aids. Only 0.1 percent of the population are congenitally deaf. They are described as profoundly deaf as they are incapable of hearing speech with the aid of normal hearing aids. (Ladd 2003; Sacks, 1991)

Before the era of cochlear implant, Deaf people without any hearing experienced fundamental language barriers in their early childhood. This affected the development of meaningful relationships with their hearing peers. As a consequence, they formed close relationships with other Deaf children with whom they could comfortably communicate through sign language. Moreover, they often attended the same Deaf schools or activities arranged by Deaf clubs, and a high percentage of them (90%) married another Deaf person. In no time they were completely integrated into the Deaf community, sharing and participating in the culture: a language, experiences, values, and ways of interacting with each other. (Ladd, 2003)

The Deaf culture still affects all the areas of Deaf life: both the explicit forms of culture, which consists of artefacts such as Deaf art; as well as the implicit

Chapter 2

Cultural inquiry

4

forms of culture consisting of patterns of thinking (Ladd, 2003; Sacks, 1991). Thus, the reality of severe and profoundly deaf is totally different from hard of hearing, and deafened who have spent their childhood with hearing peers. To distinguish between the terms physically deaf and culturally Deaf, a small ‘d’ is used when referring to people from a medical perspective, and a capital ‘D’ is used when referring to culturally Deaf (Woodward, 1972).

In Finland, there are around 20-30 deaf born annually, and 95% of them are hard of hearing, wearing cochlear implants (Kentala & Jero, 2007; Lonka & Hasan, 2006). This means that the number of totally deaf is on the decrease. Moreover, as the implant allows hard of hearing children to hear – in varying degrees – most of them are now able to communicate with their hearing parents without the aid of sign language. As 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, the implants no longer necessitate the use of sign language. As a result, these children do not become full members of the Deaf community as before, and do not posses the feeling of shared experience (Ladd, 2003). Thus, the future of the Deaf society and culture is uncertain, but the considerations that arise from Deaf communities are of the deepest importance, despite the population being small, as Sacks (1991) points out.

2.1.2 From oppression towards recognitionThe society designed for hearing starts to recognise and understand the needs of Deaf people. This results of Deaf communities’ centuries-long struggle against mainstream culture. Throughout time Deaf people have formed communities and supported each other. This togetherness has brought forth a unique Deaf way of life: patterns of behaviour, beliefs, attitudes, and values referred to in English as Deaf world, Deaf community, and only more recently as Deaf culture. (Ladd, 2003) However, Deaf have struggled to survive under a set of policies and discourses that have prevented them from fostering their culture and using their mother tongue. This oppression reached its peak in the mid-19th century – referred to as oralism – when signing was seen only as a primitive form of language and the inability to speak as an inability to think. As a result, deaf students – for whom speaking was extremely difficult – were forced to speak, even violently. This tradition of oralism spread across schools around the globe. It was officially exercised in Finland up until the 1970s (Salmi & Laakso, 2005).

During the past 20 years, the repression of sign language has slowed, even halted. The 1980s marked a paradigm shift for Deaf people. The old medical model – which saw deafness only as a disability – shifted into a social model, which insisted fundamental equality for all human beings. This inclusive approach meant that society should be designed for all. Consequently, accessibility legislation was implemented. It was concerned with ensuring that technological solutions meet the needs arising out of hearing impairments, such as text telephones, TV subtitles, and videophones for deaf people. Despite the urge to recognise deaf people as full members of society, the legislation did not meet the requisites of Deaf culture nor did they address the sincere needs of the Deaf community. (Ladd, 2003) Moreover, it was not until 1995 that sign language was recognised as an official language in Finland, and not until 1999 that Deaf were entitled to have instructions in sign language at school (Salmi & Laakso, 2005)1.

Frankly, there is still a demand for the recognition of Deaf cultural issues that lie outside of the hearing impairment (Salmi & Laakso, 2005; Ladd, 2003); that is, to see deafness from a linguistic and cultural perspective. Rather than seeing themselves as disabled, Deaf consider themselves as a language minority, similar to other oppressed cultural minorities and indigenous populations such as Sami people: both have fought for their rights to use their language, preserve their heritage, and follow their customs that have formed around shared experiences, values, and history. Within the Deaf community, Deaf are the ones that are trusted and it is import to share the same cultural heritage. This forms the basis of Deaf experience in which the inability to hear is seen as a secondary. Ladd (2003) hence proposes that Deaf should be seen as dual-category members: some of the issues might relate to issues of non-hearing whilst others to language and culture.

2.1.3 Culture – shared conceptual map The way people perceive sensory experiences is not universal: the values and meanings that are given to

1 In Finland, the Basic Right Reform in 1998 (§ 14.3 of

the Constitution) entitled Deaf to develop and maintain their own

language and culture. The reform of the school legislation (§ 1 of

the Act on Basic Education [628/1998]) extended the rights to

have instructions in sign language (§ 10) as well as to be taught sign

language as the mother tongue (§ 12). (Basic Education Act, 2008)

5

people, objects, and events are strongly influenced by one’s culture (Hofstede, 1991). Culture is a result of enculturing and an unconscious learning process (Hall, 1997). Yet, the way Deaf experience the world combines both biological and social factors that are fundamentally linked with each other (Ladd, 2003; Mindess, 2006). Thus, in this study the Deaf way of being – including sign language, shared collective consciousness, and issues related to different sensory order – are all encompassed under the same term culture. It includes both unconscious and conscious levels: there are aspects that people think of as external to themselves and are able to verbalise; and there are aspects that are so embedded to the everyday that they have become invisible, implicit, and unrecognised (Ladd, 2003; Hall, 1997).

Varying authors have been defined culture in many different ways. Among them Hofstede (1991, p.5) defined culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the member of one group or category of people from another”. According to Hofstede (1991, 2001), culture can be defined through five different dimensions: power distance, individualism, toughness/masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and long term orientation. Though Hostede’s definition and theory has been often used in cross-cultural web design studies (i.e. Marcus & Guild, 2000; Würtz, 2005; Callahan, 2005; Evers, 1997), research based on these models have been criticised for simplifying the complexity of real-world interaction processes (i.e. Ess & Sudweeks, 2005; Barnett & Sung, 2005; and Hewling, 2005). Faiola and Matei (2003) have criticised this approach most dramatically. They argue that these models neglect cognitive style of users focusing solely on surface design elements such as aesthetics. Faiola and Matei (2003) stress that both cognition and behaviour are dependent on one’s socio-cultural context: people with different cultural backgrounds not only behave but also think, feel and perceive the world differently. They develop a cultural cognitive theory that stresses the importance of culture specific cognitive styles and their impact on speed and easiness of finding information.

Despite the fact that the study by Faiola and Matei (2003) aims to take a step further in cross-cultural web design research, it fails to recognise culture specific meanings that users give to the system. This view is supported by Lee (2004) who argues

that designers are mainly concerned with the outer layers of culture, and tend to overlook the inner core layers. Thus, this study uses Spencer-Oatey’s (2000) cultural model as it provides tools to look at both the inner and outer layers of culture. Its onion structure illustrates how culture is manifested in four different layers: it consists of four rings moving from the most invisible aspects of culture to the most visible ones. As illustrated in Figure 1 these layers form the cultural context of Deaf people, that is, the mindset within which the members of Deaf culture operate. 1. Basic assumptions and values. The innermost circle holds the core ideas and values held by the society. For people outside the cultural group, this proves the most difficult to recognise. In contrast to individualistic Western culture, Deaf culture is filled with collectivist values: Deaf people value sharing information, strong in-group ties, group decision making, and strong identification with the group (Mindess, 2006; Hall, 1997). This means that the analytical, objective, and individualistic approach of the West is foreign to the Deaf people who prefer personal and collective means. The members of Deaf culture also use more symbolic, indirect, and non-verbal cues in which most meanings are embedded in the context of interaction. (Mindess, 2006)

2. Beliefs, attitudes, and conventions. The second layer carries the steps or the accepted norms of doing things. These cultural meanings organise and regulate the second layer; that is, shared knowledge, goals and beliefs, and a common way of talking. For example, a dialogue in a first time meeting of two Deaf Americans is totally different compared to an encounter of two hearing Americans: the Deaf people would ask about schools they attended and to whom they are related; whereas hearing Americans would most commonly ask what one does for a living. (Mindess, 2006)

3. Systems and institutions. The third layer refers to the cultural aspects that are shown through education, political, family units, and social and legal systems. In the case of Deaf culture it consists of organisations, schools, clubs, libraries, and museums that the members of Deaf culture have created in order to ease their lives and to bring Deaf people together (Ladd, 2003). Frankly, Deaf community is formed around these artistic, leisure, and sporting activities: these organised

6

events allowed Deaf people to meet up with their friends as well as to share and receive information. These activities have been a powerful resource in the struggle to gain equal positioning with the hearing. (Ladd, 2003)

4. Visible artefacts and customs. The fourth layer carries the most visible aspects of culture: tangible artefacts such as words, gestures, and pictures, which carry a particular meaning within the cultural group; and intangible rituals

and behaviours such as norms of greetings, communicating, and paying respect to others. The most visible aspects of Deaf culture include sign language and a set of discourses such as Deaf arts, folklore, sense of humour, and even Deaf Olympics – things Deaf people are proud of and wish to pass on to future generations. These artefacts and practices symbolically manifest the shared experiences concerning Deaf history as well as political, economical, and social contexts that frame their lives. (Ladd, 2003)

The layers of Deaf experience in four rings based on Spencer-Oatey’s (2000) cultural model and Figure 1. Mindess’ (2006) and Ladd’s (2003) work on Deaf culture.

7

2.1.4 sign language: Visuo-gestural world Around the world wherever communities of Deaf people have formed, sign languages have developed. As sign languages are born as a result of natural interaction in Deaf communities, they are closely related to Deaf people’s cultural values and social behaviour (Padden & Humpries, 1988). As the meanings of sounds are cut off, Deaf people have generated a language system that relies on vision. Even if numerous sign languages around the world have developed separately from each other, they are strikingly similar in terms of grammar and vocabulary (i.e. Zeshan, 2003; Rathmann, 2005). In contrast to spoken languages, which consist of vocal articulators, sign languages consist of sequences of movements and configurations of hands and arms, face, and upper torso. Sign languages differ from spoken languages in two significant ways: their (1) modality of production that is gestural instead of oral; and (2) perception that is visual instead of aural channel. (Zeshan, 2003)

Not only do sign languages encode meanings in gestures opposed to words but also represent these meanings differently compared to spoken languages. In other words, sign language users understand, observe, and make sense of the world in a visual way (Sacks, 1991). Even though sign languages and spoken languages can convey the same information, sign languages exploit visual imagery, space, and movement in a way that is not available to spoken languages (MacSweeney, 2008; Rainò, 2006). In contrast to linear, one dimensional spoken languages, sign languages use multiple layers: a signer is able to provide several visual attributes at the same time using hand shapes, movement, gestures, and expressions. An essential feature of sign languages are polysynthetic signs. They describe a location of an object and a manner of an action in a such a detail that in English would require a whole sentence to be translated (Jantunen, 2003). For instance, in just a few seconds, a signer is able to explain the form, size, and consistency of an object; the three dimensional location in which the action takes place in relation to the actor; the manner in which the action takes place; as well as the intensity and characteristics of the process (Rainò, 2006). As these non-verbal features are atypical for Western languages, they are easily forgotten when designing for sign language users (Rainò, 2006). These differences are also identified by Shelley Lawrence (1996 in Mindess, 2006) who distinguishes seven characteristics of native American Sign Language (ASL):

Contrasting.1. Opposites are used to describe what something is and is not. Descriptive personal accounts.2. Information is given through empirical stories rather than through hard facts or figures. Examples3. . Explanations are given through a specimen rather than by a definition.Nesting4. . Objects and phenomena are identified by description, analogy, or function instead of by label. Reiteration.5. The same thing is repeated side by side or at the beginning and end of the remark.Multiple perspectives6. . Different point of views are given to describe an object or a scene.Role shifting.7. Signer takes different characters to describe the way in which an action was done.

Nevertheless, even if spoken and sign languages may seem so contrary at first, several linguisticians have recognised that sign languages resemble language in communal cultures – among them several Asian and African languages as illustrated in the following three examples. Firstly, the use of expressive ideophones (carriers of iconic meanings) highly resembles Kammu, a language spoken in Laos (Bergman and Dahl, 1994). Secondly, the use of manual gestures – instead of paraphrases – is similar to Igbo, a language found in Nigeria (Rathmann, 2005). Thirdly, the topic-comment structure of sign language can be found in Chinese – a stark contrast to Aristotelean rhetoric of Western languages which follow from main to subordinate information (Zhu, 2005). Yet, the similarities are not only found in grammar but also the manner in which communication takes place: both are characterised by non-linguistic communication in which the meanings of a message rely heavily on the context of the communication and gestures of the communicator. In these high context cultures communication refers to shared experiences, and evokes affective responses (Levine, 1985).

Not only the cross-cultural comparison but also the connection between language use and perception has intrigued researches for decades (i.e. Whorf, 1956; McLuhan 1962; Classen, 1993). In its strongest form linguistic relativists claim that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it. This view is supported by cross-cultural studies on colour perception; for instance, studies by Berlin et al. (1997), and most recently by Drivonikou et al. (2007), have demonstrated a clear correlation between the colour terms available in a language

8

and the colours that its speakers can conceptually handle. Moreover, it can be argued that it is not only the language that affects thought and perception but also the communication style that is determined by one’s culture. Building up on McLuhan’s (1962) theory on the impact of the printing press invention on Western culture, Classen (1993) states that the dominance of written communication changed mainstream culture: it lead to an analytical and fragmented mode of thought, depersonalisation, and individualism; whereas before, society was based on oral tradition. As sign language does not have a written or printed format, which would be used in day to day communications, the Deaf culture still relies on oral tradition. In contrast to analytical and individualistic Western mode of though, Deaf people think holistically and their communication relies on human contact and interplay (Mindess, 2006).

2.2 DIgITal CoMMUNICaTIoN Tools IN DeaF CUlTUre Deaf culture has been influenced by technological innovations especially so by communication devices (Mindess, 2000). Firstly, this chapter reviews the ways digital communication tools have enhanced the lives of Deaf people, and how they have developed these tools to fit into their life experience. Secondly, it reviews how web sites have been developed to fit into this experience by giving an overview of the Deaf specific web design practice. Thirdly, it questions the traditional definition of web accessibility and compares it to people-centred design approach. Finally, it represents a few case studies.

2.2.1 Innovation within Deaf CommunitiesThe US has been a forerunner of introducing communication tools for Deaf people. These tools have been the foundation for major initiatives in innovation, design, and policy development for today’s accessible products and services (Lang, 2000). In the late 1960s, the American deaf community made history by introducing teletypewriters (TTY), a text messaging system before the era of mobile phones. It became significant in empowering, bonding, and enlightening Deaf people as it enabled them to communicate over long distances, schedule appointments with their hearing friends, or to book a time for a doctor without the help of a translator. It was a forerunner of today’s social media in which Deaf people were able to post news items from their private homes. (Lang, 2000) Decades later, in 1990s, interactive palm-sized devices called text pagers were introduced to and adopted by the American

Deaf community. It surpassed mobile phones with a complete keyboard and a screen that showed more detail than that of a standard mobile. With the new technology people with a hearing loss could surf the Internet or send email on the go, wirelessly. (Mindess, 2006) In Finland, it was not until in the beginning of the 1980s that the text phones offered new possibilities for Deaf to deal with their day to day communication (Salmi & Laakso, 2005). In Finland, as well as in the rest of the Europe, Deaf communities have been heavy users of text messaging (SMS) rather than pagers as in these countries no such services or devices have been developed for deaf users.

Today, the Internet has became an important communication tool especially for the young Deaf people around the world who use numerous blogs, bulletin boards, forums, and web sites to facilitate communication and to build vast communities across national boundaries. Most of these technologies, however, are text based. This means that Deaf people and hard of hearing must express themselves in writing if they want to participate. Even if the possibility to send SMS or e-mail has given Deaf people an access to public services and communication, for some Deaf people writing is a real struggle. This is especially so due to the fact that there is no visual feedback from facial expression or body language. (Lang, 2000) This is against the widely held misconception that since deaf people see, they can easily and comprehensively access written material (Israelite et al., 1992). Even if most Deaf people are bilingual, acquiring fluent writing and reading skills may be a daunting task: sign language users must learn to manipulate a language structure and grammar which is foreign to them (Ladd, 2003).

By far, to use video is the only possibility to offer content for sign language users in their mother tongue. Consequently, Deaf have striven to produce new tools and appliances based on sign language that would better meet their communication and recreational needs. In the UK, Deaf people repeatedly insisted that the BBC develop a system to provide text based content for hearing impaired. This then spread across Europe for mainstream use as a form of teletext. (Thomson, 1992 in Rainò, 1997) In Finland, during the 1990s, one of the key drives has been the development of signed video production that spread rapidly (Salmi & Laakso, 2005). Today, several web sites have been launched for Deaf users in order to support the need for

9

signed videos. Many features of these sites resemble mainstream online TV and video sharing sites such as YouTube or Vimeo as seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Similarly, the rise of video-sharing web sites like YouTube, has lead to a golden age for deaf documentaries, home-made clips, video blogs, signed music videos, and short films such as a British comedy sketch Four Deaf Yorkshiremen (Swinbourne, 2007) which has reached over 100,000 views. Deaf have also launched sites of their own to distribute signed video such as D-PAN for Deaf performing artists in the US and a video sharing site Sign Tube in the UK.

Today’s better broadband connections have also enabled sign language users to communicate in their mother tongue using web cams and video relay (Mindess, 2006). In Greece, as a part of EU funded eGOV accessibility project, a group of researchers have worked on a Greek Sign Language terminology glossary to be used with a virtual finger-spelling and digit keyboard (Fotinea & Efthimiou, 2008). A group of researchers from Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the UK worked together on project called WISDOM (Wireless Information Services for Deaf People on the Move) in 2000–2004. One of the resulting applications of the project was a real time conversation service allowing person-to-person live communication; that is, a possibility for Deaf users to show emotions, tone, and meaning through expressions – impossible on text based services. Of the needs expressed by Deaf users, the project also resulted a service called Deaf Station (see Fig. 4), providing an online access to sign language information services. These include details about employment, sports, and arts, and most importantly, sign language news that are updated daily. (Deaf Studies Trust, 2000)

The web site discourse within Deaf communities entails a tension between reusing established forms of traditional web design in combination with new ways to embed sign languages. Many official authorities and public services such as Tate Gallery offer sign language content on their web sites to offer Deaf people access in their mother tongue. In addition to translational content, several web sites have been designed especially with Deaf users in mind. One of the most recent initiatives has been an EU funded project DEAFVOC (Sign Languages and European Written Languages in Virtual Vocational Education for the Deaf) that lasted from 2003 till 2006. It aimed to provide bilingual teaching material online in English, Czech, Finnish, and Greek.

This included sign language for these respective countries. Another recent educational initiative in Finland is VIIVI – a web portal that offers learning material in sign language (see Fig. 5).

Nevertheless, web sites are not systematically produced in sign language due to difficulties in embedding sign language; restricting standards and legislation; lack of resources and suitable formats; and shortage of technical skills and appropriate content management. Sign videos on the Internet has long been a challenge for three main reasons. Firstly, the quality of the video needs to be high so that the gestures and hand shapes are clearly visible. Secondly, long video clips are difficult to navigate: it is much harder to find the right piece of information on a video compared to text. (WWW-sivut ja viittomakieli, 2003) Thirdly, the process of translating text into sign is costly and time consuming. To solve this problem, there have been attempts to create 3D models, i.e. Vcom 3D, ViSiCAST, and DePaul University American Sign Language Project that would automatically translate text into signing. Yet, there have been no satisfactory systems capable of understanding meanings and context of subtle non-verbal cues in sign language (i.e. Rainò, 2006; Koskela et al., 2008).

2.2.2 Digital texts for hearing impairedResearchers and educators have examined the effectiveness of embedding a variety of other supports in digital text to make instructional materials more accessible to deaf or hard of hearing users. In Finland, already in 1997, Raike explored possibilities for distributing sign language content over the Internet for Deaf children in Ateneum’s (Finnish National Gallery) Discoveries project. Raike (1997) concludes that the hypermedia for Deaf users could benefit from using the combination of text, sign language, images, animation, and graphics. This view is inline with studies by Anderson-Inman and Horney (1998 in Anderson-Inman & Horney, 2007). They found that students with hearing impairments use multimedia resources differently compared to hearing students: hearing impaired relied more on graphics and video signing than on text. Similar findings by Gentry et al. (2004, 2005) suggest that not only video but also images and other illustrative methods could greatly enhance the reading and understanding of the text by deaf and hard of hearing. The difficulty, however, lays in getting the combination of elements right for a particular person and particular tasks (Nelson & Camaratan, 1996).

10

DeafTV that offers videos produced in British sign language.Figure 2.

Sign Language TV that holds a collection of videos in Finnish sign language.Figure 3.

11

Sign Language TV that holds a collection of videos in Finnish sign language.Figure 3.

Deaf Station in Britain offers news in sign language.Figure 4.

Finnish VIIVI web site that offers learning material in sign language.Figure 5.

12

In addition to the studies on how sign language users use multimedia resources, few studies conducted on web usability of Deaf users have focussed on linking accessibility to cognitive abilities of deaf users and their speed of information retrieval. In Spain, Fajardo et al. (2004, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2009) conducted several studies aiming at finding ways to improve web accessibility for deaf people in a research program called Cogniweb. Their studies have shown that reading literacy of Deaf users slows down their ability to search information and increases their possibility of getting disoriented on hierarchical text based web sites. Fajardo et al. (2008a) showed that Deaf people were slower in forming verbal categories compared to hearing. They concluded that verbal navigation on web sites is not appropriate for deaf users. In their later studies, they also argued that wide structures of verbal information, though overloading Deaf users (2008b), may also facilitate the visual search and match process of Deaf users (2009). These findings are supported by Japanese usability study by Namatame and Kitajima (2005) which showed that hard of hearing users faced more difficulties in finding appropriate links and hidden semantic structures. They concluded that the text processing and visual scanning of Deaf users was more intuitive and less structured compared to that of hearing users.

As the studies have shown the inadequacy of text-based links for Deaf users, researchers have investigated alternative methods. Fajardo et al. (2008a) found that Deaf people utilise visual-matching strategy more often than a semantic approach to navigate compared to hearing. In a later study, Fajardo et al. (2008c) concluded that Deaf users were faster in graphical web search compared to hearing if the information was not located in deep structures of hypertext. Fajardo et al. (2008c) recommend the use of graphical hyperlinks for very frequent and familiar concepts, and the use of sign language to support textual hyperlinks. Similarly, Namatame and Kitajima (2008) showed that labelled-icon has an advantage over text for sign language users as they require less eye fixation both in terms of frequency and number. They conclude that icons help in recognising what is represented quickly, and labelling helps to clarify the meaning of previously unfamiliar icons.

Despite the fact that there are no completely satisfactory interfaces developed to date, in theory, web sites have a huge potential to become

meaningful and useful for Deaf people; that is, organised in the way that reflects the world as they perceive it. The Internet and sign language are connected in one important dimension: the Internet is a visual information highway and sign language a highly visual language (see Muir and Richardson, 2005). In theory, Deaf people have more visuospatial capacity to maintain and manipulate visual and spatial information derived from the sign language usage. Technological advances such as flash videos and javascript libraries have made it possible to create customised viewing experiences on web sites: to add interactive elements and pointers that allow more precise navigation within the clips; to provide on-demand content that is initiated by the time code; and to create modifiable players that can be used to allow each individual user to tailor the interface that best suites their needs. In the following the policies and discourses that frame the design paradigm of sign language web site are discussed and then a few examples of web sites targeted or localised to Deaf users are reviewed.

2.2.3 From accessibility to people-centred design approach Usability and accessibility are essential parts of interface design today. Especially so for sites targeted towards Deaf users: these sites need to find the right balance between the needs of Deaf users while ensuring it is accessible to others. This Design for All – linked with the terms inclusive design widely used in Britain and universal design used in the US and Japan – is a political term used especially in Europe that calls for designing for human diversity, social inclusion, and equality (Design for All Europe, 2009). It describes two processes simultaneously: firstly, the ability of the user to access information; and secondly, the design effort to enable a page to function with the assistive devices used by individuals with disabilities (Nielsen & Pernice, 2001; Foley & Regan, 2002). According to Design for All e-Accessibility Network EDeAN (n.d.), the discourse aims at providing equal opportunities for everyone to participate in the society and to include the true diversity of users including those who are currently marginalised by mainstream design practices.

This discourse has strongly affected the web design policies of many government and educational institutions. Among these is the web discourse by the Finnish Association of the Deaf that requires that all their official web sites must meet accessibility criteria. Official guidelines set by the World

13

Wide Web Consortium (W3C) provide a list of instructions that web sites need to meet in order to be usable and accessible to people with a wide range of disabilities. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) has recently launched an improved version of the standards WCAG 2.0 that calls for the following four web site qualities: Firstly, web sites should be perceivable, that is, to provide text alternatives for images, captions for audio, adaptability of presentation, and colour contrast. Secondly, they should be operable by providing keyboard access, strong colour contrast, timing of input, and navigability, and also they should avoid seisure. Thirdly, web sites should be understandable, that is, readable, predictable, and assistive. Fourthly, they should be compatible with assistive technologies such as screen readers. (Caldwell, 2008)

The most obvious group to encounter accessibility barriers are the visually impaired who are not able to access the information if the font size is too small, there is not enough contrast, or they are unable to use screen readers on a site. As sound is

used sparingly on web sites and most of the content is visual, Deaf or hard of hearing users rarely face physical barriers in accessing functions or content on a web site. Though W3C does not yet provide official guidelines for Deaf people, The Royal National Institute for Deaf People emphases the importance of plain language, short paragraphs, balanced colours, alt tags in images, clear links, large font, captions or text for multimedia content, and diagrams or photos to visualise content (RNID, n.d.).

The limitation of these guidelines for Deaf people has been noticed i.e. by Namatame and Kitajima (2005). Their argument is that these guideline do not deal at all with behavioural characteristics of Deaf people such as the different interaction methods compared to that of hearing. The problem with the accessibility standards is that they focus merely on functionality, underestimating the importance of user experience. The standards assure that a web site has all the inevitable qualities that allow everyone to perform a function, and access information and content on it, but they do not

Accessibility in this study does not only refer to physical access but takes into consideration also Figure 6. social and culture-linguistic levels of accessibility that are not part of traditional guidelines such as WAI.

14

such as cluttered and complex page layouts; and confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms. In the study, the most accessible web sites – in most cases – were the ones with appealing look and feel, encompassing graphics, and photos. They conclude that sites can be visually appealing and sophisticated and still being fully accessible. Consequently, they argue that accessibility should not be viewed as a constrain but rather as a challenge and a prerequisite for a successful design.

Meares-Irlen Syndrome (MIS) is one of the issues that is missing in the guidelines. According to Irlen (1997 in Evans, 2005), it troubles 12–14% of the general population, and 46% of those with dyslexia2. The syndrome is characterised with symptoms of visual stress and visual perceptual distortions that can be alleviated by using individually prescribed coloured filters. (Evans, 2005) This is in contrast with WAI recommendation that suggest using high contrast. Several web sites such as Barclays and the BBC have solved the contradiction by offering the opportunity to change the background colour and contrast levels to meet individual needs.

In short, we have demonstrated that the WAI guidelines are incapable of addressing all needs. The question then is what is accessibility, how it should be defined, and can it be narrowed down into a checklist. Compared to WAI; British Museum, Library and Archive (MLA) offers a much more holistic definition of accessibility in regards of museum spaces. In addition to physical and sensorial barriers that are addressed by the WAI standards, it also recognises several other barriers that may prevent participation: these are intellectual, attitudinal, cultural, social, financial, or technological. As this approach acknowledges the multidimensional aspect of accessibility, calling for sensitivity towards varieties of human experience, perception, thought and values, it is used a basis for this study to understand accessibility. This means that accessibility is not used as a checklist but as a mental construction to guide the design process; that is, an attitude towards the act of designing to listen to people and their various needs.

2 Dyslexia is a low reading ability, which cannot be

explained by lack of education or emotional stress (American

Psychiatric Association, 1994). It is a highly individual condition

that can undertake several different forms with varying degrees

(Al-Wabil et al., 2007).

guarantee that the users are able to do it fluently nor enjoy using them (Fig. 6). Jordan (2000) has even claimed that the joy of use and meaningfulness of the interface is a more important aspects of user experience than the functionality itself.

Lack of the user-centred design approach has also been also recognised by others. Regan (2004), an Accessibility Product Manager at Macromedia, emphasises that web sites should not be designed by principles or standards but they should be designed for people. He claims that today accessibility on the web lacks imagination. This view is shared by Piggott (2002), a regional director of a British disability charity called MENCAP. She argues in an article called eAccessibility for all for Ability – ICT Magazine about Disability Issues – that the guidelines by W3C give a direction for designers, but in reality they are too far from people with cognitive disabilities to produce people-centred designs (Piggott, 2002). Piggott challenges learning technologists to involve disabled students in the design of accessible web sites so that they would become more satisfactory for their users. Even if the WAI guidelines addresses the importance of images, the MENCAP (see Fig. 7) is a rare example in its field, employing a visual approach to increase accessibility. It utilises the power of icons, videos, and colours to visualise information. The approach taken by MENCAP is in contrast, for instance, to the Finnish equivalent papunet.net (see Fig. 8) that offers information and material to people with difficulties in speech. Though being clean and simple, it is much plainer in its design. Papunet does not utilise the power of visual medium. Its presentation lacks creativity and style: the site is heavily text based; it uses hardly any images, colour, or imagery; nor does its navigation provide any visual cues for the user. Papunet reflects Regan’s (2004) claim that there is a misconception of accessibility representing restriction on creativity.

The misconception that accessibility equals uninteresting design has been also identified by Petrie et al. (2004) who argues that web designers have misunderstood the term accessibility as if the sites for disabled need to be uninspiring and plain. Their user evaluation based study encompassed 100 web sites and involved 51 disabled users including Deaf, hearing impaired, dyslexic, blind, partially sighted, and physically disabled. Participants faced 585 different problems with web sites from which 45% were not presented on any WAI checklist

15

British Mencap web site takes a people-centred design approach. Figure 7.

Papunet web site focuses on meeting WAI accessibility standards.Figure 8.

16

2.3 Case sTUDIes: a NorMaTIVe CoMParIsoN oF sIx web sITes To get an understanding of the contemporary state of web sites targeted for Deaf audiences an normative comparison was conducted. This chapter reviews altogether six different web sites which take different approaches to designing for sign language users. This section defines three different genres of Deaf specific web sites: ones designed by small groups of Deaf people, by Deaf organisations, and by national institutions. These authoring bodies have different interests, guidelines, and goals. Thus, the approach they take towards the designing for sign language users varies greatly.

2.3.1 by Deaf designersWeb sites in this category are targeted to Deaf users and designed by Deaf designers. These sites usually take an experimental approach to design as they are not bound to existing platforms nor regulations such as accessibility guidelines. Instead, they take experimental approaches to offer sign language content, focusing solely on the needs of Deaf audiences.

Characteristics Aesthetics• are vivid and colourful. Lots of images and other visual elements are used to illustrate the content.Signing guide• tells the user what one can do on the site by pointing to different parts of the page while signing. There may also be more than one signer in a video. The style of signing is informal, storytelling style. Sign videos are big in size and take up most of the screen estate. Navigation• utilises icons or signed videos in combination with text links.

Case 1: Deaf Video Production This site is developed by a group of Finnish Deaf filmmakers to offer information about signed video production.

As the Figure 9 illustrates, a background image showing camera lights and a camera take most of the screen estate to illustrate theme of the site visually for the user. Within the image there are two small paragraphs of text that welcome the visitor to the site and inform about the content of the site. Below the text there is an image link, a signed introduction video. The video begins by the signer walking in and switching the light on. Once on

the stage he welcomes the visitor to the site, and then presents the content of the site by pointing at different navigational items while explaining. The camera and lights stay on the signer’s background to give the context to what is being signed. Similarly, navigation utilises images and colours to visualise and categorise the content. Main navigation is formed of text-based buttons placed on the top of the screen. Sub-navigation is placed on the right. It utilises colour-coded links with images attached to them. In addition to the home page, there are six sections on the site: general, ordering videos, archive, contact details, gallery, and feedback. Only one of the sections, that is, general, has a sign language alternative to text. However, this is the only page with a long passage of text within the whole site. The rest of the articles – except contact and feedback – utilise images to visualise the content. For example, the video descriptions are accompanied with a screen shot of the film.

Case 2: Deaf Free Camp Europe 4The site is developed in Belgium by a Deaf designer. It provides information about an international camp for Deaf people, created purely in International Sign Language.

The site has three main sections (program, subscribe, and baggage), and four additional information pages (guestbook, image gallery, participants, and credits). Navigation of the site relies on signed words and symbols such as a pen to illustrate the guestbook and a camera to illustrate the image gallery. There are only two text labels: subtitling for video guestbook, and contact details on the top of the page. There are several signed videos moving at the same time that make the site restless, but the look and feel is highly visual. An introduction video welcomes the user to the site in which two signers explains the history of DFCE camps and what one can do on the site. All signed videos on the site are built around narratives. For instance, the camp program section – instead of giving a schedule of camp activities – parades a story in which events are explained in a chronological order to draw a picture of what one can experience on the camp. Throughout the video, background images are used to illustrate the activities as they are mentioned; for example, a photo of a bonfire appears behind the signer while she describes an evening to be enjoyed by a campfire (see Fig. 10).

17

Case 1: Introduction video on the home page of the Finnish Deaf video production web site.Figure 9.

Case 2: A sign video on the program section of the international Deaf camp Europe web site.Figure 10.

18

2.3.2 by Deaf organisationsThe sites that belong to this category belong to organisations or institutions that represent Deaf communities. These sites are restricted by organisational policies and rules of their funding bodies. Targeted for hearing and Deaf audiences, the goal of these sites is to spread organisational information such as news and events.

Characteristics Aesthetics• relies on corporate look and feel. They are text heavy with few images. Sign videos • are placed inside a box against a clean and simple background. Usually there is one signed video on the home page to sign the main content of the site. The style of the signing is formal. Navigation • is often placed in a banner or presented as a list of text-based links.

Case 3: The Finnish Association of the Deaf The Finnish Association of the Deaf is the central Deaf organisation in Finland. The organisation has an obligation to produce sign language online content within the WAI guidelines, that is, the design priority is to design inclusive sites.

On the top, there is a header with a main navigation banner, search box, and a photo displaying two people signing. The content is divided into three columns: in the middle there is one signed video that signs the main news item; on the right there are abstracts to further news; and on the left there is a list of shortcuts to different sections of the page. Below those, there are further advertisements and shortcuts to events and services. The site has seven subsections: services, news, culture, sign language, organisation, communicaton, and contact details. In the subsections, the articles are text heavy. All the pages have a small blue toned image showing faces of Deaf people, always placed on the right below contextual navigation. Though the images illustrate a range of Deaf community members, they do not communicate the content of the page. Only articles within the organisation section have signed alternative to the text.

Case 4: British Deaf AssociationThe British Deaf Association is the largest Deaf organisation in the UK that presents the British Sign Language (BSL) community and campaigns for the legislation of BSL.

On the top, there is a header that has a logo, search bar, and links to members login, contact us, and home page. There are three columns on the page: on the left, there is a main navigation; in the middle, there is some welcome text and a RSS feed of six most recent news items; and on the right, there is a signer that welcomes the user. The signer introduces the user to the news items below the fold. In the relevant sections, the signer is consistently placed in the same position on screen and guides the user through the content of those pages. Within the subsections of the site, six of the twenty items have a signer explaining the content of that section. Though look and feel remains the same, the signer in each section is a different one. If the text equivalent of the site is a list of links, the signer points to those sections to describe them. Three of the remaining items without a signer presents a list to further subsections of the site utilising clipart images to illustrate the content of those sections. Otherwise, hardly any images are used to illustrate the articles; only news items have an image attached to them. Rest of the text items benefit from using bullet points to brake down the text. It makes the text easier to scan not only for sign language users but also for hearing visitors that want to grasp the content of these articles quickly.

2.3.3 by hearing to offer sign language contentSites in this category are national organisations such as art galleries, broadcasting companies, and museums – mostly owned and funded by a government. They have the resources to localise their sites for sign language users. These sites are bound to governmental guidelines to follow Design for All principles. On these sites sign language videos are used as an alternative to written content. This is to provide more equally accessible site for everyone, even if most of the users of these sites are hearing.

Characteristics Aesthetics• follows corporate look and feel. The sites are often text heavy with few images.Sign videos • are not shown by default but can be found in subsections of the site that are targeted for sign language users. The videos function as replacements for text, they are usually small in size, and are filmed against a plain background.Navigation• on these sites is most often text-based. The main navigation is placed on a banner on the top of the page and contextual links are within a left or right hand side column.

19

Case 3: Home page of the web site of the Finnish Association of the Deaf.Figure 11.

Case 4: Home page of the British Deaf Association’s web site.Figure 12.

20

Case 5: Tate – British and international modern and contemporary artTate is a British institution of modern art that consists of four art museums.

The Tate web site provides information about the museums themselves, their collections, and research activites. If the user clicks BSL icon on the home page, the user is taken to a page that shows a list of Tate information provided in BSL. However, the site lacks consistency: it also provides glossary terms in BSL that are not listed on this page. There is no way to know this: in order to benefit from the feature, the visitor has to know the right navigational path to find it or to discover it by accident. On the glossary terms page one can switch between BSL and text definition mode by clicking an icon next to the alphabetical list of terms. Only 21 of the 300 items are signed and if one clicks any other alphabet to explore further definitions, the signed content is lost. To get back to the signed content one has to go to the glossary main page and scroll down to find a link to the list of signed items.

Case 6: YLE – Sign Language news by the Finnish Broadcasting CompanyYLE is a Finnish Broadcasting Company that provides news in sign language.

The link to sign language items is on news section placed on the left hand side column. The link is placed in the same box with links to other news categories targeted to minorities such as those in Swedish and Sámi language. The main page of sign language news section is divided into two parts: (1) content area with articles and (2) a column with links to most recent TV news in sign language. All the articles are combined with an image and some of them have a signed alternative. On the bottom of the page there is a tab which one can use to switch between text and video mode to search items related to sign language.

2.4 sUMMaryThe cultural inquiry in this study has explored the mindset in which sign language users operate. This includes sign language, shared collective consciousness, and issues related to different sensory orders. In this study these are all encompassed under the same term culture. Building on the cultural model by Spencer-Oatey

(2000) and Mindess’ (2006) study on Deaf culture, this chapter has distinguished four layers of Deaf culture: (1) basic assumptions and values that are the core ideas and values held by the community; (2) beliefs, attitudes, and conventions; (3) systems and institutions; and (4) visible artefacts and customs.

This chapter has also identified that Deaf culture has been influenced by digital technology, and especially so by communication devices. It has reviewed how they have enhanced the lives of Deaf people, and how Deaf have developed these tools to fit into their life experience. These tools, with their signed narratives and sign guides, are in contrast with the ways hearing are used to find information on the web. This chapter has also illustrated how the unduly narrow focus on accessibility has undermined the user experience on most of these sites.

Finally, this chapter has given six case studies that reveal different approaches towards designing web sites for sign language users. These examples have illustrated differences between sign language sites designed by hearing and Deaf designers: the more freedom and the more Deaf designers involved in the project; then, the less text there is and more visual devices are used to illustrate the content. Furthermore, the sites designed by Deaf designers use sign language more dominantly and creatively than sites designed by hearing: sign videos are not used purely as alternatives to text, but as pieces of art that utilise the power of stories and images within the signed video to engage the user with what is being communicated.

21

Case 5: The sign language videos on the TATE art gallery web site are found Figure 13. when one enters glossary terms section.

Case 6: On the web site of the Finnish Broadcasting Company, there is no sign Figure 14. language shown by default but it provides links to sign language videos such as TV news.

22

This chapter first examines instrumental, emotional, and cultural value of an interface. Then it studies cross-cultural interface design, identifies three different layers of an interface, and reviews how they can be mapped into cultural features.

3.1 ValUes aN INTerFaCe brINgs ForTh To ITs Users This section studies different aspects of user experience. It builds up a notion that the traditional terms connected to user experience, as with accessibility, are unduly narrow. This leads looking beyond accessibility, functionality, and usability of an interface and considering how user experience is affected by the values that users bring with them while interacting with a system.

The term user experience refers to the quality of experience gained from interacting with a system. Traditionally it has been used to stress functionality and usability, that is, biological and physiological factors of design. Originally user-centred design originates from industrial needs to transform professional technologies for non-experts. It applied theories of cognitive science and psychology to shape interfaces. (Keinonen, 2008) The research on the area has focused almost exclusively on instrumental aspects of interaction, although the term aims at describing the experience of human-technology interaction holistically (Djajadiningrat, et al., 2002).

However, user experience is not only an instrumental quality of a system but it is the holistic feeling that one gains as a result of this interaction. The way one makes sense of this

interaction process does not exist in a vacuum: it is influenced by previous experiences. It is a result of a continual engagement with one’s culture, self, and others that creates collective meanings to these interactions. These meanings provide a description of the values that people bring with them when they act with technology such as web sites. (Djajadiningrat, et al., 2002; McCarthy & Wrigth, 2004; Jordan, 2000; Margolin, 1997)

In the following, the concept of user experience is divided into three different layers of values in order to review a holistic understanding of the concept. It moves from the traditional focus of usability research to current notion of usability that includes emotional (i.e. Jordan, 2000) and cultural (i.e. Krippendorf, 2006) aspects of an interface. This means considering how the user experience is born out of different values that users bring with them while interacting with the system. These values are instrumental, behavioural, and reflective.

3.1.1 Instrumental valueInstrumental value consists of functional benefits and ergonomic usability that an interface brings forth to its users. Usability is a term used to emphasise the importance of effectiveness, intuitiveness, and ease-of-use (Nielsen,1993; Norman, 2004) as well as to minimise the cognitive and physical demands placed on users (Jordan, 2000). The most referred definitions of usability are given by Nielsen (1993) and international Ergonomic requirement standard (ISO). Nielsen (1993) defines usability in terms of learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction. ISO 9241-11 (International Organization for Standardization, 1998) sets a more

Chapter 3

INTERFACE INQUIRY

23

technical core definition as a set of measurements: “The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.” All of these are measured on subjective or objective rating scales that emphasise issues such as the users ability to handle errors, learn easily, frequency of the product use, and physiological responses of the user.

Though, usability can be seen as a key component of pleasurability, usable products are not necessarily enjoyable to use. Even though usability is concerned with satisfaction, it is traditionally used to refer to avoidance of physical and cognitive discomfort forgetting psychological and emotional context of use (Jordan, 2000). Jordan (2000) even argues that usability approaches are dehumanising: they promote a view of a user as a cognitive and physical component that uses products only as tools to complete tasks. He calls for understanding users holistically in which the quality of a design should be valued on the basis of wider relationship between a product and the people it is designed for. This means that physically accessible and functional design is not enough: the users are not going to use the product if it does not reflect their personal and social values (Buchanan, 1996; Sanders, 2004).

3.1.2 emotional valueRecently, the attention of usability studies has changed towards a wider range of interests aiming at matching new interactive technologies with human-to-human communications, organisational requirements, and social and emotional perspectives. A number of researchers have contended that the overall user experience is affected by emotions. This importance of emotion and non-instrumental needs without clear and precise goals has been referred to by a number of terms including pleasure-based approach (Jordan, 2000), joy-of-use (Nielsen, 2002), empathic design (Battarbee, Koskinen &Mattelmäki, 2003), and emotional design (Norman, 2004).

Already in the early nineties Brenda Laurel (1993) argued that engagement in computer mediated activity is as much about emotional and aesthetic relations as it is about rational and intellectual ones. Years later several authors such as Dant (1999), Blythe and Hassenzahl (2003), and Norman (2003) have argued: in order to become enticed, acquired or desired, a product needs to offer different kinds of benefits associated with the product use.

Similarly Jordan (2000) calls for understanding users holistically in which the quality of a design should be valued on the basis of wider relationship between a product and the people it is designed for. Jordan (1999) defined pleasurability as the emotional, hedonic, and practical benefits associated with products. Practical benefits, according to Jordan, are the outcomes that result from using the product. Hedonic benefits are those relating to the sensory and aesthetic pleasure associated with the products. Emotional benefits are those that correlate with a user’s mood, such as enhancing user’s satisfaction, excitement, or happiness.

This insight is at the core of the emerging turn towards user experience. Motivations to use interfaces are not only rational or goal driven but also ones that bring sheer pleasure: people play games, buy fancy clothes, and decorate their homes without direct functional benefits (Krippendorf, 2006). Krippendorf (2006) argues that these intrinsic motivations enhance usability immensely as they bring life to technology. Davis et al. (1992) proved in their study on extrinsic and intrinsic motivations that the more useful and the more enjoyable programs are the more easily they are accepted by their potential users. Similarly Norman (2003) claims that emotions may be the most critical element in ensuring product success.

3.1.3 Cultural valueThe newest turn on user experience studies is the realisation of the importance of culture. This means that design should connect not only emotionally but also culturally with users; consequently, they all can use the same systems each in their own way as naturally and effortlessly as possible (Krippendorf, 2006). Numerous studies have shown that people from various cultures experience, understand, and perceive things differently (i.e. Hall 1976, 1983; Hofstede, 1991, 2001; Nisbett, 2003; Trompenaars, 1997). Therefore, it is through better understanding of the users’ sensorial perception and cultural values that design is capable to meet users’ real needs and make their experiences more meaningful. Krippendorf (2006) calls this as a semantic turn in design in which diverse cultural meanings generate a need for new design practices that connect culture, cognition, and design. He acknowledges that the sole purpose of interfaces are to be meaningful, remain useful, and enable members of the community to feel at home with them. Thus, the

24

value of an interface to its users does not only lie in its functional benefits but in the meanings and values that it brings forth to its users (Rafaeli & Pratt, 2006; Krippendorf, 2006; Sengers, 2003).

To become successful, an interface needs to embed the ways members of a society make sense of the world: people are not going to use the system if it undercuts their cultural values and needs (Buchanan, 1996; Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1998; Sanders, 2004; Krippendorf, 2006). Barber and Barber (1998) conducted a term culturability to link culture and usability as well as to emphasise the importance of one’s cultural background on user experience. They argue that it is important that usability is redefined in terms of a cultural context: what is user friendly for one culture can be vastly different for another. Moalasi (2007) takes a similar approach claiming that no matter how innovative and beautiful a product is, if it fails to gain user’s acceptance, it will be a wasted design effort. This means that where identity matters conformity follows – one size does not fit all. People use objects that serve and strengthen their identity, the ones they like to be associated with. Moalasi (2007) suggests that if culture is integrated into design features it will become meaningful for its users and facilitate product acceptance. He argues that this can be accomplished by employing metaphor, allusion, and historical and cultural references that form a product language – the shape and form of the interface.

3.2 layers oF CUlTUre orIeNTeD INTerFaCe DesIgNNumerous studies have suggested that differences in language, thinking, and communication style affect web use, satisfaction, and usability. These differences influence the way one recognises, interacts, and values web sites. Multiple studies in behavioural and cognitive psychology have uncovered significant differences in the way people behave, think, assign value, and engage others in different cultures (i.e. Evers & Day, 1997; Evers, 1998; Faiola, 2002; Faiola & Matei, 2005; Jhangiani & Smith-Jackson, 2007). The key notion here is that the collection of experiences constructed over history becomes part of one’s identity and affects how one learns and creates meanings. This is why our cultural environment determines what we are able to see, how we construct meanings of what we have seen, and also how we process this information. These culture

specific styles are embedded in the values held by the members of that culture and their patterned ways of thinking, interacting, and responding.

These differences in communication styles pose challenges to the ways in which web sites should communicate their messages. The research on cultural differences has slowly also begun to shed light on cross-cultural web design. Web sites communicate on multiple levels: how the information is categorised, how the sentences are constructed, what types of images and colours are used, and through which mediums messages are being delivered (text, images, video, audio, animation). All of these elements send a distinctive message to the visitor.

Most commonly cross-cultural web design studies (e.q. Barber & Barber, 1998; Marcus & Guild, 2000; Callahan, 2005) have examined visual elements on web sites through Edward T. Hall’s culture specific communication styles1 (1976, 1983) or Hofstede’s (1991, 2001) cultural dimensions2. One of these studies is by Elisabeth Würtz (2005) who analyses graphical design features on high and low context web sites. She proposes that high context cultures are likely to use more imagery, less text, and develop strategies for mimicking human presence and communal values more than low contest cultures. Her finding suggests that web site designers seeking to make sites accessible to specific cultural groups will likely profit from

1 Hall (1976, 1983) claims that meaning and context

are tied together and in order to understand communication one

should address them concurrently with the words themselves.

According to Hall, in some cultures, like in most Asian cultures, the

message relies heavily on non-verbal and para-verbal communi-

cation in which the time, situation of the communication, and

relationship between the interlocutors is important. Whereas

in many Western countries, including Scandinavia and the US,

communication is low-context, that is, direct, explicit, issue ori-

ented, and less personal.

2 Hoftede (1991, 2001) proposes an alternative to

the Hall’s high-context (HC) and low-context (LC) dimension.

He observed that HC cultures tend to be collectivistic while LC

cultures tend to be individualistic. In individualist societies ties

between individuals are loose and individual decision-making is

encouraged. On the contrary, in collective societies in-group ties

are strong, following societal norms is valued, and group decision-

making is encouraged.

25

using specific parameters addressed in high and low context cultures as a starting point for developing culturally-aware web sites.

However, research based on these models has been criticised for simplifying the complexity of real-world interaction processes and cultures (e.q. Ess & Sudweeks, 2005; Barnett & Sung, 2005; Hewling, 2005). Most strongly so by Faiola and Matei (2003), who argue that these models neglect the cognitive style of users, focusing solely on surface design elements such as aesthetics. They develop a cultural cognitive theory that stresses the importance of culture specific cognitive styles and their impact on speed and easiness of finding information. Despite the fact that their study aims to take a step further in cross-cultural web design research, it fails to recognise culture specific meanings and emotions – the betweenness of users and technology in which interfaces evolve and become meaningful to its users. This view is supported by Lee (2004) who argues that designers tend to overlook the inner core layers of culture, being based mainly on the outer layers.

There have been few studies exploring the linkage between culture and emotional operators (Tsai et al., 2008), or memory strategies of users (Norman, 2004; Scherer, 1997). One of these is Lin’s (2007) framework for designing cultural objects. Lin distinguishes three levels of culture that can be incorporated into cultural design: (1) the inner level, containing special content such as stories, emotions, and cultural features; (2) the mid level, dealing with function, operational concerns, usability, and safety; and (3) the outer level, dealing with colour, texture, form, decoration, surface pattern, line quality, and detail. This division of culture into outer and inner layers is similar to several other cultural models such as Spencer-Oatey’s onion models (discussed on p. 6). Lin (2007) maps these three levels of cultural objects into three levels of design features. The model is based on Norman’s (2004) three levels of meanings of artefacts in use; that is, visceral, behavioural, and reflective levels of cognition and emotional processing. This model resembles several other representations of artefacts with entities of three such as the one proposed by Krippendorf (2006). In his model the phases of interaction are recognition, exploration, and reflection phase. Together, all of these levels of user experience determine the user’s overall appraisal of an

interface. In the following these different layers of meaning – that users give to an interface from initial recognition to evaluation – are discussed more in detail.

3.2.1 Visceral designDesigning for immediacy is what Norman (2004) calls visceral design and Krippendorf (2006) as recognition by sense. This dimension refers to the immediate, unconscious, and intuitive sensation evoked by colours, movement, proximity, or similarity before significant interaction occurs (Norman, 2004). In other words, the visceral design features form the first impression. In the context of web sites this means that users will usually first scan the page for visually interesting content; only after something grabs their attention, will they actually start to read. In other words, these affordances (actionable properties) are the perceived experience and understanding evoked by the surface design elements. These elements include the way items or functions are grouped; links, buttons and menu items are labelled; colours and images are used; and the page is laid-out.

Both Norman (2004) and Krippendorf (2006) agree that this level of user experience is subjective and culturally conditioned. According to Krippendorf (2006), cultures differ in the respect of what is perceived foreign and what is not. He argues that this first level of recognition reflects one’s personal history of perceived similarities and differences. Thus, it is not only one’s physical abilities but also language, communication style, and mode of thought that affect how one perceives an interface. Similarly, Norman (2004) argues that something which appears as an affordance to a member of one culture might pass unnoticed to a member of another.

A number of studies have explored differences in the way different cultures perceive their environment. For instance Classen (1993) demonstrates the inadequacy of Western perceptual models for understanding non-Western cultures; for instance, in the case of fire: the Tzotzil emphasise its heat; the Ongee its smoke; and the Desana its colours. Several other researchers have focused on studying the differences in perception between low and high context cultures. According to Mindess (2006), Deaf culture belongs to high context cultures which are characterised with a holistic mode of thought that is linked with oral communication style. Members of these cultures have a tendency to perceive

26

scenes globally; that is, the context and the field as belonging together (Nisbett et al., 2001; Nisbett & Norensayan, 2002). Western cultures, on the other hand, as a result of written tradition (McLuhan, 1962), have a tendency to perceive objects separately from the scene and assign them into categories and separate them from the field (Nisbett & Norenzayan, 2002). The study by Dong and Lee (2008) proposes that holistically-minded people – a category in which Deaf also fallen into (Mindess, 2006) – tend to scan a web page as a whole. They suggest that in order to cater to people from holistic cultures: (1) the context of the web site should be shown clearly to provide an overall picture of the page; and (2) attention should be placed on the harmony between foreground, background, and content.

Another well research area of visceral design is aesthetics. Several studies have pointed out that the aesthetic perceptions and conception of beauty are culturally dependent (Kurosu & Kashimura, 1995; Travinsky, 1997; Prabhu & Harel, 1999; Cho et al., 1999). This means that the conception of beauty is shared within a culture: it is informed

by dispositions, needs, expectations and use of language that do rely on universal laws. In practise this means that interface aesthetics must fit the taste and lifestyle of the target audience in order to be engaging and enjoyable to use. Beauty then is not a property of an interface, but a property of perception that is heavily influenced by one’s culture (Krippendorf, 2006). This means that in order to design a web site that is appreciated by Deaf audience, their social context needs to be understood.

What is more, a number of studies (Tractinsky, 1997; Lavie & Travinsky, 2004; Lindgaard & Dudek, 2003; Norman, 2004; Hartmann et al., 2008) have suggested that the immediate sensorial impact is linked with the overall perception of an artefact. This means that positively perceived aesthetics override users’ poor usability experience – often referred to as an assimilation or halo effect. This is extremely important in regards of the Deaf community: as previously discussed, it is a strongly visually oriented culture in which anything that is visual is open for comment (Ladd, 2003). However, if an interface looks pleasing at first sight but frustrates during the interaction, the appeal does not pay off (Overbeeke et al., 2003). As observed by Lee (2004), cross-cultural design research is still limited to visceral design such as identifying aesthetic stereotypes of a culture. More design effort should be placed on the behaviour and exploration phase of interface use. This phase is discussed in the following section.

3.2.2 behavioural designThe behavioural level processes the sensorial information from the visceral level. It determines the usability and usefulness of an interface. This level is exploration “by cognition and action”, as defined by Krippendorf (2006, p.105). The behavioural level determines how the sensed data – such as relationships between interface elements – are interpreted and defines the implicit assumptions about the interface. This understanding moves users through tasks and determines what is being explored. Of the three levels, as Norman states (2003), this is the most commonly researched aspect of design: performance, effectiveness, user-friendliness, and controllability are the focus of traditional usability research.

There are only few studies on Deaf people’s search strategies and usability. As discussed in the previous section, Fajardo et al. (2008) identifies three

Three layers of culture mapped into Figure 15. three layers of design features moving from outer, visible, and tangible levels towards inner, invisible, and intangible (adapted from Lin, 2007).

27

cognitive factors that affect Deaf people’s efficiency when searching the Internet for information: reading skills, verbal categorisation abilities, and visuospatial span. In Japan, Natamame et al. (2006) research showed that the types of links hearing and hard of hearing participants selected were significantly different in terms of the amount of semantic information contained in the links as illustrated in Figure 16. Their findings suggest that Deaf users apply a visual-matching approach rather than semantic strategy to navigate on the Internet. To meet this visual need, their study recommends two things: (1) visual support to help to grasp information structures easily; and (2) use of easily comprehensible representations instead of complex labels. One of the rare examples to support this notion is an online learning portal targeted toward Deaf users called CinemaSense: it visualises the relations between terms regarding film production to facilitate learning and understanding (Honkela et al., 2000; Raike, 2005). Inline with these findings, studies have shown that in general representation of verbal and non-verbal materials simultaneously result in faster learning and improved recollection (Presno, 1997).

The differences in understanding information differently is not solely due to the differences in sensory order but also due to one’s culture: it has been proven that different cultures categorise items (Lucy, 1992)3 and search information in fundamentally different ways (Choong & Salvendy, 1999)4. Though, the representation of categories within the semantic memories of Deaf people is still unclear, Marschark and Everhart’s (1997) study suggests that category labels may be less important for Deaf people than for hearing. Several authors have also argued that the perception of user-friend-liness varies across cultures (i.e. Krippendorf, 2006; Dong & Lee, 2008). This can be presumed true for Deaf people as well, as they have shown

3 Lucy’s study (1992) showed that Yucatec Maya and

English speakers process in formation of concrete objects

differently: Yucatec preferred material-based classification,

whereas English preferred shape-based classification.

4 Choong and Salvendy (1999) showed that different

cultures often focus on different attributes of the same items of

object. For an example, Americans tend to focus on functional

attributes, whereas Chinese focus on thematic attributes, that is,

according to where they are used – not what they are used for.

to use somewhat different problems solving skills compared to hearing (Rainò, 1997; Marschark & Everhart, 1997). As sign language is a visual-spatial language, it can also be assumed that the differences in encoding and recalling environment are not only medical but culture-linguistically based (Gentry et al., 2004, 2005). This view is supported by recent studies which suggest that sensory compensation among the Deaf people does not lead to enhanced visuospatial skills; though, an early acquisition of sign language leads to above average performance on face recognition, block design, movement detection, and spatial memory (Mayberry, 2002; Marschark & Hauser, 2008).

3.2.3 reflective designReflection considers the rationalisation and intel-lectualisation of an interface including the feelings, emotions, and cognition involved in experiencing a web site. This level of design is concerned with the message and meaning of a product as well as its use. According to Lin (2007), this is the aspect that varies the most between individuals as it is a result of several factors such as one’s culture, experience, education, and personality. Yet, it is the least considered level of design and hardly touched upon by research. This level deals with cognitive processing and is accessible only via memory. (Krippendorf, 2006) Interpretations of aesthetics are not only based on material, form, and function; they are also dependent upon the people’s interests,

Differences between the types of Figure 16. links that the hearing and the hard of hearing participants selected that were identified in the study by Namatame et al. (2006).

28

lifestyles, and culture in which they exist. Beyond the initial impact, a product can evoke positive memories, emotion, and images (Hummels & Van der Helm, 2004). Following this line of thought, Blythe and Hassenzhal (2003) argue that engaging activities and objects are relevant and personally meaningful. Similarly, MacDonald (2002) suggests that the meanings and values that we give to perceived information is influenced by the way our brains and senses are evolved biologically in a particular cultural context. This means that people will respond to an interface positively if it employes references to cultural meanings that open deeper content, evoking interest and inspiring the user to apply this new knowledge to aspects of his or her own life. A perceived interface only becomes interesting and important when the observer is able to understand it and relate to it.

3.3 sUMMaryThe literature reviewed has demonstrated that interfaces become valuable to its users through different layers – instrumental, emotional, and cultural. To meet these layers, interaction design can be divided into three layers: visceral, behavioural, and reflective from which the reflective design is the least researched aspect. Through these layers, interfaces become meaningful to their users. To sum up: in addition to functionality and usability, emotional and cultural factors affect the overall user experience.

In short, in order to enhance web user experience, it is important to identify the features that are likely to facilitate product acceptance such as identity, meaning, traditional aesthetics, and bonding, as well as to understand how to design interfaces that are compatible with users’ cognitive patterns. Designing for user experience then, is to pay attention to users and their relationship with the system. This includes respecting the users; commitment to the user needs and desires; and a holistic understanding of the interaction that is influenced by one’s culture.

29

Chapter Four first examines the purpose and challenges of this research and development (R&D) project. It then discusses the participatory design methods and participants involved in the development process. Finally, it reviews the structure and schedule of the design process. It also looks at the validity of the research and set measures for the project’s success.

4.1 DesIgN PUrPose aND ChalleNges This R&D project gathers ideas for improvements in a normative case study in which the end deliverable is a pilot web site for KnacK project. This study aims to understand the ways in which interfaces could become meaningful for Deaf users by considering the implications of Deaf culture and sign language as a first language on web user experience. The design process includes three main phases: (1) contextual study; (2) identification of Deaf culture specific features; and (3) integration of the identified features so that Deaf people will be comfortable using them. Finally, it aims to provide design recommendations for future developments, considering the effect of Deaf culture on web user experience. It takes ideas from participatory design research, and collates them into design recommen-dations by using Jordan’s Four-Pleasure framework that can be applied to future designs.

Due to the importance of tacit knowledge in this context, the purpose of this design research is not to search for quantitative or an objective research ‘truth’ in its traditional terms, but rather to look for inspiration and actionable insights on culturally rooted conventions that influence user experience including functional and aesthetic design choices

that Deaf people make. In order to pinpoint these intangible aspects of an interface, this research is qualitative in nature.

The main driving force of this applied research was to tackle the problem of Deaf users being unsatisfied with sites that are designed for them. Even web sites that meet the accessibility criteria – and sometimes them especially – do not seem to attract Deaf users. When interviewed during the preliminary research, a group of Deaf people stated that they are unable to engage with most web sites for three reasons: firstly, because they were not in their own language, secondly, because accessible sites look boring and ugly, and thirdly, because they did not feel at home when using them. Similar results have been found for example in Britain (Skelton and Maruyama, 2006).

This study aims to understand the ways interfaces could become meaningful for Deaf users. This means that the interfaces should carry affordances, which reflect the visions of the Deaf community and its social reality. If we can identify these affordances that bring pleasure to sign language users, we could change the way interfaces are designed for them and by them. Thereby, the challenge of this study is to identify how web sites can be designed to meet the real needs of Deaf users – a successful culture-oriented product design is greatly affected by the enjoyment it affords (i.e. Moalasi, 2007). Essentially, this means translating the Deaf way of doing, seeing, and representing into interface design features; that is, features which enable Deaf users to feel engaged and comfortable. In this study we adopt Jordan’s (2000) Four-Pleasures framework to categorise these

Chapter 4

Design researCh

30

pleasures as the structure provides a way to look beyond product functionality and usability. Jordan (2000) stresses – whilst not disagreeing with the advantages of usability design – that usability and functionality focused design approaches tend to take a limited stance on people. They only focus on physical and cognitive user needs, not taking into consideration emotional, social, and cultural ones. Jordan (2000) claims that well-designed products are those that understand people’s needs and bring joy to their lives.

The pleasurability framework provides a way to categorise people’s needs and to gain insights into what different kinds of pleasures a web interface could provide for Deaf users. Not only does it so from a physiological perspective but also from a social, psychological, and ideological perspective as illustrated in Figure 17. The framework has been used in several interface studies (i.e. Harrison, 2004; Jhangiani & Smith-Jackson, 2007) to identify needs of user groups which differ somewhat from mainstream users, as well as referred to in cultural studies to identify culture specific needs in designing pleasurable products (i.e. Moalasi, 2007). The framework consists of the following categories:

Physiological pleasures. These are derived from sensory organs such as smell, touch, and vision as well as physical fit with the user. Thereby, psychological pleasures stem from complete physical access to a product. This is the aspect of traditional accessibility research which identifies that Deaf people, for instance, face disadvantages with auditory content compared to the mainstream population.

Social pleasures. These are derived from relationships with others, that is, from the role of the product in interpersonal relationships. These pleasures can be also derived from the status which the product confers. This includes the culture which user belongs to and the values and customs associated with it. As identified in the cultural inquiry section, a sense of normalcy is important for Deaf people as they do not want to be categorised as disabled. Due to the history of oppression, the feeling of togetherness is important to Deaf community and artefacts that enable the community members to interact socially with each other are important. This category also includes the aesthetics of the product that can send either a negative or positive message of the targeted culture.

Interface features mapped into Jordan’s Figure 17. (2000) Four-Pleasures framework.

Psychological pleasures. These are derived from cognitive and emotional reactions. This deals with things like how easy the product is to use, and the emotions it triggers during its use. It includes characteristics of intelligence, skill, and creativity. It includes the perceived ease-of-use and the ability to learn, memorise, and tolerate errors. This is the area of traditional usability research. As discussed in Chapter Three, there are cross-cultural differences in what is considered user friendly and what is not. The way people understand, memorise, and categorise information varies depending on people’s

31

cultural context. If an interface fits psychologically with the user, it will provide enjoyment; on the contrary, if it does not, it will cause frustration.

Ideological pleasures. These are derived from people’s values and personal aspirations. This category is about whether or not the product is consistent with its users’ identity, values, and ideology. The cultural onion model (Fig. 1, p. 6) illustrated that there are value structures distinctive to Deaf culture. This category also includes the look and feel of an interface: the interface brings pleasures if its reinforces one’s self-identity.

Based on Jordan’s framework this design research focuses on identifying the following interface features that could enhance its possibility to become appreciated by Deaf users:

Physio-pleasuresErgonomics• : What features allow sign language users to work effectively on a web site?Accessibility• : What features are required to make an interface accessible to Deaf users?

socio-pleasuresSocial interaction:• What features make social interaction more satisfactory to Deaf users?Information access:• What features are needed to give sign language users full access to information, that is, being able to be heard and informed?

Psycho-pleasuresUsability• : What features make a site easy to use for Deaf users? Aesthetics• : What aesthetic qualities enhance the appreciation of an interface by Deaf users?

Ideo-pleasuresSelf-identity properties• : What interface features reinforce the feeling of being part of the Deaf community? Look and feel• : How web sites should look and feel to deliver values, tastes, and aspirations of Deaf communities?

4.2 ParTICIPaTory DesIgN MeThoDs aND CUlTUral FraMeworKThis study follows the participatory design ideology that puts stakeholders at the centre of design process and appraises their concerns, values, and perceptions. In the course of this research, participatory methods are used iteratively to

construct the emerging design. These methods follow a cultural framework that distinguishes two design phases: identification and integration of socio-cultural features.

As Buchanan suggests (2001, p. 9), “Design is the human power of conceiving, planning, and making products that serve human beings in the accomplishment of any individual or collective purpose”. Participatory design research helps in understanding this ‘native’ point-of-view. It utilises an ethnographic approach that seeks to develop an understanding of what the phenomena is about – instead of asking why something is as it is (Anttila, 2005). While the ethnographer is interested in understanding human behaviour as it is reflected in the life of diverse communities of people, the designer is interested in designing artefacts that will support the activities of these communities. Nevertheless, the ethnographic method provides a unique perspective: it allows to bear on understanding the way sign language users appreciate web sites. As the web site is to become part of Deaf community, it must follow the patterns of Deaf users in order to become successful, accepted, and used by the community.

Ethnography has the potential of providing a context wherein mutual understanding between users and designers can evolve. Deaf people are often sceptical about hearing people designing for them as they feel that hearing cannot know how it feels to be a Deaf person – a hearing cannot know what suits them best (Ladd, 2003). In Deaf culture, as in any oppressed culture striving to maintain its values, many everyday acts and beliefs become fundamentally political or oppositional. Consequently, even if a product is perfect from the outset, it will not be so within the community without a Deaf person involved in the development process. If we are able to recognise this, according to Ladd (2003), it enables us to go beneath surface readings of a culture. Due to this, it is important to empower, engage, and involve the community in the design process from start to finish (Von Hippel, 2005): that is, one must regard Deaf users as innovators, and not as targets objects for user research.

This leads the adaptation of design strategies, methods, and strategies that both engage the community, and in which openness is the key. Thereby, this study follows the human-centred

32

design ideology that puts stakeholders at the centre of design process and appraises their concerns, values, and perceptions (Rouse, 2007; Norman 1988; Buchanan, 2001). According to Rouse (2007), there are three primary objectives of human-centred design. These are (1) to identify, understand, and cultivate human abilities so that they could be enhanced; (2) to identify human limitation so that they could be overcome; and (3) to dictate user preferences and concerns to foster user acceptance. Similarly, following the tradition of human-centred design practice, Moalasi (2007) identified two components of the design process that allows the finished product to become cherished by its users: (1) the designer needs to understand the diverse set of stakeholders and their needs by giving a voice to them, and (2) he needs to be skilled in translating that information into design features.

It is important to note here the distinction between what people do and what they say. People are often unable to express our day-to-day activities through language as they are so embedded into our lives (Blomberg et al., 1993; Krippendorf, 2006). For this study it means that even members of the Deaf community are not fully aware of web design practices and conventions that they themselves have developed, nor are they able to express them completely through language. This requires one to gain an understanding of Deaf people’s tacit knowledge1 regarding web design, that is, their shared conventions and practices of how to design web sites.

According to Anttila (2005), tacit knowledge can be divided into two dimensions: Firstly, the technical dimension with shared expertise and know-how that makes group knowledge identifiable and accessible for a specific communities of practice. Secondly, the cognitive dimension with mental models and paradigms that permit tacit knowledge to be applied unreflectively. Participatory design methods help in allowing to capture this tacit knowledge. Not only does it make the outcome of the design accessible to all stakeholders, but – through designing with the members of the community – enables one to understand the issues concerning the design process. This can achieved

1 Tacit knowledge is gained in the course of socialisation. It

is deeply rooted in one’s ideals, values, and emotions and embedded

in practices that are gained through one’s own experiences, senso-

rial perception, and engagement in action. (Anttila, 2005)

through documenting the design activities by recording and photographing as well as writing notes during the sessions that can be analysed at the later date (i.e. Leinonen et al., 2008).

The design methods are used iteratively to construct the emerging design, which itself simultaneously constitutes and elicits the research results as co-interpreted by the designer and participants. Participatory design is a type of research in which the course of designing forms the actual research. Utilising several methods ensures that participants’ interpretations are taken into account in the research throughout the design project. The goal is not just to empirically understand the activity, but to simultaneously envision, shape, and transcend it in ways participants find buoyant. The power of participatory design research lies in its ability to bridge participants’ tacit knowledge and researchers’ more abstract, analytical knowledge (Anttila, 2005).

Yet, despite the huge interest in human-centred and emotional design, hardly any design methods have been developed to tackle culture-specific charac-teristics. There is a lack of in-depth research and appropriate methods when it comes to assisting designers with how culture should be integrated in product design (Moalasi, 2007). Even recent design books (i.e. Cooper et al., 2007; Garrett, 2004) neglect the social and cultural contexts primarily focusing on psychological and biological factors of users such as interests, experience, learning pace, reading skills, age, and education. Thus, the design process of this study is influenced by a culture-oriented framework developed by Moalasi (2007). In his doctoral theses in which he studies the relationship between culture and human-centred design, Moalasi (2007) argues that so far designers are not been able to encode culture into the design to the same extend as cognitive and physical human factors. He specifies two distinctive phases of the culture specific design process: (1) identification to specify, analyse and integrate socio-cultural factors and (2) integration to transform these factors into design features.

Due to the constraints of this thesis, this design study does not go in depth in the visual and textual content analysis that Moalasi develops. However, it adopts the conscious identification and integration of culture in the participatory design process by following these two major phases of this framework. According to the framework different data collection methods can be used to gather information on users;

33

such methods include conducting interviews, focus groups, user observation, and ethnographic methods. Integration then is the designer’s domain in which he/she needs to interact with the users to draw from their experiences in order to translate culture specific features into the design. This triangulation of theories and methods allows us to gather several point of views for the project and to recognise reoccurring Deaf culture specific design patterns.

4.3 ParTICIPaNTsParticipants were selected through purposive sampling. All participants were chosen based on the following objectives: they are stakeholders of the KnacK Project; have an interest in the design or its consequences; and are willing to support and constructively criticise the development. Those candidates best fitting these criteria were selected. Altogether 16 sign language users were chosen. Selected participants presented a wide range of Deaf community members. From these two were hard of hearing and fourteen were Deaf of which four were dyslexic2. Participants were all sign language users from 20 to 60 years of age and included researchers working at the association, web designers, translators, camera men, and academics. For the identification and integration phase of this study, participants are represented by letters A through to J. When representing independent comments, no coding is used. The coding is not used to draw linkage between the comments of individuals in different parts of this study but to make dialogues easier to follow; thus, no correlation in the coding exists between the different methods.

The involvement of stakeholders from varying fields is an asset to the project. Despite the shared cultural background, several authors, such as Ladd (2003) and Leigh (2009), have pointed out that there is no single Deaf experience: Deaf people are individuals with personal opinions, tastes, personalities, preferences, and learning styles – Deaf community is far from being homogeneous. It contains a paradox that each person is unique despite sharing the same culture. For example, though Deaf people are visually oriented, not all of them are visual learners (Marschark & Hauser, 2008).

2 Dyslexia (a learning disability) manifests itself as a

difficulty in learning to read and interpreting words and letters.

This difficulty does not result from neurological deficiency with

hearing nor general intelligence.

This learning style affects the ways in which they prefer to have information displayed. Consequently, during the design process it is important to distinguish between personal opinions, and cultural influences in order to provide culture specific recommendations.

Dyslexic participants included in this study belong to the stakeholder group of the KnacK project, diagnosed with dyslexia before or after they commenced school. Dyslexic Deaf people are one of the minority groups within Deaf community. They are included in this study for three reasons: firstly, due to the thematic needs that arise from the KnacK project; secondly, due to the fact that among the Deaf approximately 8% are diagnosed with learning disorders (Saar et al., 2004)3; and thirdly, because they are a special needs group that question the needs of the mainstream, and thus, capable of providing alternative viewpoints supporting from the minority to mainstream design thinking. It has been proven that dyslexic have visual processing problems (Livingstone et al., 1991; Skottun, 2004) as well as sensitivity to high luminance contrast (Bednarek, 2002). Consequently, those with dyslexia are easily distracted by visual noise and strong contrast. The latter especially is in contradiction with accessibility standards, which recommend the use of strong contrast. Dyslexic users have been totally neglected in this regard.

4.4 FoUr Phases oF CUlTUre-sPeCIFIC ParTICIPaTory DesIgN The process of this design research can be seen as having three main phases that are used iteratively throughout the design process. These are (1) contextual inquiry; (2) identification of cultural factors; and (3) integration of cultural factors in design. During these phases of design the designer interacts with the stakeholders in varying degrees. The design research was conducted between winter 2007 and summer 2009. As discussed in the previous chapter, the stages chosen for this design process are based both on participatory design methods and Moalasi’s (2007) culture-oriented framework. Whereas participatory design methods aim at

3 In general, 5-20% of school children are diagnosed with

learning disorders (Lyytinen, 2005), among them dyslexia. Even if

the amount of Deaf with dyslexia falls between these figures, it is

still a considerable portion of the Deaf community.

34

involving stakeholders during each phase of the design process, the socio-cultural design framework aims to ensure culture-specific features are incorporated in the design.

The ethnographic research approach required spending a long period of time with the Deaf culture. Hence, the entire design process took over a year and half to finish (see Fig. 18). This is the result of involving everyone from the beginning till the end – a design process open for everyone. Feedback from users was incorporated at each phase of the developing process to help to ensure that the concept maintains a focus on real user needs throughout the design study. Figure 18 illustrates this iterative process which consisted of three main phases (contextual inquiry, identification, and integration). These phases not only informed each other but also occasionally overlapped and took place simultaneously; that is, only the time and effort spent on them varied within the design cycle. These phases were:

1. Contextual inquiry: In November 2007, the entire design process started with contextual inquiry. This took eight months during which the project

endeavoured to understand the cultural context; to define the preliminary design challenges; and to gain a holistic understanding of stakeholders’ thoughts and behaviours.

2. Identification: In autumn 2008, as the awareness of the context had increased, work commenced on planning and animating participatory design methods to meet user needs and the design context. In order to involve as many Deaf participants as possible, several participatory design sessions were arranged. During these activities users planned and worked together to define preliminary design concepts.

3. Integration: During spring and summer 2009, the actual product design began. This included integration of the identified cultural features to form basic user interaction. Through user feedback, prototypes were polished and perfected. This phase lasted till the prototype satisfied all participants.

In order to analyse these sessions later, all meetings were recorded on video, and a professional translator was employed at all meetings to translate speech to sign and sign to speech. The methods used in each design phase are outlined in the following:

Schedule and three main phases of the iterative design process including design activities and Figure 18. their deliverables.

35

1. Contextual inquiryStakeholder meetings: • To define goals, mission, vision, and target audience.Observations• : To gain an understanding of the cultural design context.

2. IdentificationFocus group• : To evaluate existing web sites.Card sorting:• To identify Deaf culture specific themes and ways of categorising information. Interviews• : To identify Deaf culture specific concerns regarding web sites.

3. Integration Brainstorming• : To develop design concepts.Workshops• : To sketched out and test screen layouts and interactive mock-ups. Co-design: • To develop a prototype that is enjoyable and meaningful for participants.

4.5 MeasUre oF sUCCessFUl ProCess In the design process there are countless paths to take and no theories, methods, techniques, or tools that can envision the future or the final outcome (Nelson and Stolterman, 2003). In design discourse this phenomena of unknown problems and paradoxical possibilities is referred to as a wicked problem (Rittel and Weber, 1973). Thus, the design process is a trial and error procedure that aims to find new sets of methods that are triangulated during the process. This section evaluates the validity and reliability of this design study and sets measures for a successful project.

Participatory research strengthens the reliability of the study by triangulating both data sources and design methods. Moreover, the validity of the outcome is enhanced by taking into account contextual factors. Different stakeholders may have different understandings of a problem as well as acceptable solutions. There is no right or wrong: evaluation of design is always subjective depending on the stakeholders’ individual values and goals. According to Rittel and Webber (1973), there is no such a thing as a final design. The problem solving ends when the project ends, and the design process finishes when a solution is satisfies the criteria (Simon, 1969).

All solutions expose new problems which require further design and development. Yet, one cannot learn about the problem without trying solutions. The measure of success is the level of satisfaction

with the entire design process and outcomes of the research project. Satisfaction involves acceptance of less than ideal circumstances, and even an extensive compromise. The success of research relies on methods and tools that help in reaching a solution that is ‘good enough’ (Simon, 1969). Satisfaction will emerge if the design research has included stakeholders to the extent that they want to participate. As future is unknown, outcomes of the design research needs to be seen as a hypotheses for the kind of web site that could satisfy Deaf users (see Leinonen et al., 2008). This hypothesis is formed in collaboration with Deaf participants and combined with the designer’s intuition about the context of use. The success of this study is not only measured by the production of generalisable knowledge, but also by its cultural validity: its relevance and consistency within the cultural framework in which research is conducted. The research is successful if all parties are satisfied with the utility of the process and its outcomes. (Comstock, 1993)

36

Chapter Five reviews the entire participatory design process. The chapter is divided into three parts according to the main design phases of the study; that is, contextual inquiry, identification, and integration of culture specific features. Within each section respective design methods and their outcomes are reviewed.

5.1 CoNTexTUal INqUIryContextual inquiry fosters the ideology of participatory design: it entails meeting the target audience, talking to them, and observing them (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998). The technique helps in providing an understanding of the nature of user tasks, as well as in forming an understanding of project goals, stakeholder needs, and design environments (Bennett et al., 1989). In this study, these preliminary steps involved observing and spending time with Deaf people. These observations were important in forming an understanding of the cultural context. In addition to these activities, stakeholder meetings were arranged to form a goal, mission, and vision for the project web site. The phase lasted from the late winter 2007 until the end of spring 2008.

5.1.1 observationsBefore any design steps could be made, an understanding needed to be reached of the way Deaf people communicate, behave, and think. These preliminary steps involved spending time with Deaf people; attending a sign language course; seeing Deaf theatre plays; talking to Deaf people at clubs; attending seminars; as well as meeting students and their parents.

One of the first observation milestones was an attendance to two seminars of Satakieli program in Helsinki and in Mikkeli. The focus of these seminars was Deaf children with cochlear implants. The first of the seminars reviewed the recent studies about Deaf and hard of hearing music education, and the second, about their education and rehabilitation in general. The seminars were important in forming an understanding of Deaf education as well as getting a grasp of how Deaf experience rhythm.

The second integral part of the contextual study was a discussion with parents of Deaf and hard of hearing children at a Junior Program. It was an event arranged by the Service Foundation for the Deaf at a Deaf school in Jyväskylä. Of those who attended, three fathers and five mothers were invited to take part in a free-flowing discussion through voluntary sampling. The aim of the discussion was to gain knowledge of their and their children’s Internet use and attitudes towards the project. The discussion revealed that parents were using the Internet mostly for informational purposes whereas their children were using the Internet to play games on sites such as papunet.net. Children as young as three were already using the mouse and playing independently on the Internet. Parents grasped theme of the project, that is, visual / kinesthetic / haptic1 rhythm, easily, even if the concept itself was new to them. They were inspired to hear more.

1 Visual refers to the perception through sight; kines-

thetic refers to the movement of the body; and haptic refers to

the sense of touch.

Chapter 5

Design PROCess

37

The third important activity in this phase was attending a sign language course that provided basic information regarding the structure of the language. It helped in communicating with the Deaf at the future sessions as well as forming an understanding of how the language functions. This was crucial during the analysing stage, as stakeholders referred to visual features of sign language.

In short, these observational activities were important in forming an understanding of the community members, their attitudes, and prejudices. These observations in combination with field notes formed the basis for creating later design methods and activities that would suit with the community.

5.1.2 stakeholder meetingsIn order to create meaningful content for the web site, an understanding of its theme was required: How do Deaf people perceive the concept of rhythm? How do they learn rhythm? And, how would they like to experience and learn it? To answer to these questions, four stakeholder meetings were arranged. There were ten participants in each meeting from which two were hard of hearing, six were deaf, and three were hearing.

The first meeting followed a free-flowing discussion in which the participants got to know each other and formed an understanding of the rhythm project. In the meeting two music therapeutists, Russ Palmer who is blind and hard of hearing and Terttu Martola who is deaf, reviewed the ideology behind their methods. Russ Palmer focused on reviewing his methods of visualising and interpreting music in order to allow sensory impaired people to feel music through vibrations instead of auditory impulses. Terttu Martola on the other hand focused on illustrating rhythmical gymnastics in which rhythm is exercised through kinetics. In addition, the methods of a hearing composer and choreographer Elina Kivelä-Taskinen, who is experienced in teaching body percussion to deaf people, were reviewed.

During the second meeting the concept of body rhythmics was acted out so that all participants were introduced to different ways to experience rhythm. These two meetings resulted an understanding of project goals and how to reach them. In the final meeting stakeholders (Fig. 19), goals, a mission and vision for the KnacK web site were specified. The rhythm web site was to set to

Identified stakeholders of the KnacK project that may benefit from using the site.Figure 19.

38

help deaf and hard of hearing children to acquire a better sense of rhythm, and thus, relieve the severity of their learning disorders.

In order to encourage children to do rhythmic exercises, parents and other stakeholders – who are the facilitators of these children – need to be aware of the importance of rhythm and inspired by it. In the best case scenario, all Finnish parents, teachers and other stakeholders of these children – who all may be Deaf, hearing or dyslexic – would acknowledge the importance of visual and kinestic-haptical rhythm. To meet this scenario, the web site was targeted towards a network of stakeholders that include parents, children, and professionals, all of which may be hearing, deaf or dyslexic:

For parents: the web site provides tips on how to promote the enjoyment of rhythm into everyday life. It enables them to gain knowledge of how they can better facilitate their child to enjoy the world of rhythm. This is important as the parents may not always be aware of the importance of the kinesthetic-haptic rhythm since 90% of Deaf children are born to hearing parents.

For children: even if parents are too busy to play with their child, the web site provides a fun playground that is always available for practising and learning rhythm.

For professionals: the web site provides information about the project as well as the visual and kinestic-haptical theory of rhythm for teachers, researchers, and music therapists.

In short, the goals, mission, vision, and target audience were set as follows:

Goal: encourage and inform the stakeholders of deaf and hard of hearing children about deaf rhythmics.

Mission: address the sensitive issue of rhythm in Deaf culture and increase the awareness of the topic that has not yet been openly talked about.

Vision: rhythmic exercises would become part of day to day life of Deaf and hard of hearing children.

Target audience: parents, children, and professionals all of whom may be hearing, deaf, or dyslexic.

5.2 IDeNTIFICaTIoN oF DeaF CUlTUre sPeCIFIC FeaTUresIdentification involves collecting information about users, their tasks, and their environment. These material, social, emotional, and technological factors are used to shed light on Deaf people’s habits and values. These are important aspects as they contribute to product acceptance and overall user experience. Since there are often major differences between what people say and what they do, direct observation and hands on card sorting exercises were used as a supplement to focus groups sessions and interviews. All the activities were held at the Finnish Association of the Deaf in autumn 2008.

5.2.1 Focus groupA focus group is an informal technique in which a group of people who have something in common are asked about their attitude towards an artefact (Krueger & Casey, 2008). The method was used in assessing the needs and feelings of the Deaf community towards sign language web sites before working on the actual design. All participants sat around a computer screen to discuss, explore, and investigate different web sites. For this reason – in contrast to a normal focus group session which involves from six to eight stakeholders (Krueger & Casey, 2008) – only three people were invited. As a consequence, the findings of the focus group session were confirmed through interviewing eleven community members at a later stage. As limited number is incapable to truly represent the whole Deaf community, participants were carefully chosen through purposive sampling to represent as wide a range as possible. The group consisted of one hard of hearing web designer, one deaf dyslexic who is a regular Internet user, and a Children of Deaf Adults (CODA)2 who has been actively following web design practice within the community. Participants are hence forth referred to as A, B, and C respectively.

For participants, the focus group session was free-flowing and relatively unstructured, but in reality, it followed a list of issues to be discussed to met above two goals. This technique stimulates discussion that provokes elaboration and brings out users’ spontaneous reactions and ideas (Nelson,

2 A Child Of Deaf Adults (CODA) is a hearing person

who was raised by a Deaf parent or guardian. Many CODAs iden-

tify with both Deaf and hearing cultures. (Singleton, 2002)

39

1997; Krippendorf, 2006). The session was recorded on video for subsequent data analysis. In interactive systems development, the proper role of focus groups is not to assess interaction styles or design usability, but to discover what users want from the system (Nielsen, 1997). The idea of the focus group discussion was to identify their likes and dislikes of existing web interfaces, especially those targeted to sign language users. The aim of the session was to provide grounds for planning improvements to Deaf specific web design practices with two main purposes in mind:

1) To identify design challenges by recognising Deaf people’s concerns related to already existing web interfaces.2) To understand the current state of Deaf web sites by identifying the kind of web sites that are designed for sign language users as well as discussing sites that are used and appreciated by the community.

In order to ignite conversation about sign language web sites, a set-of-exemplars method was used. Providing visual objects to be discussed, they helped review the current state of web design practices within the community. As Deaf culture is highly visual, discussion through examples was important for exploring visual and functional aspects of an interface that cannot be recorded through verbal accounts. The exemplars were chosen by asking participants about the sites they regularly visit as well as by researching existing web sites targeted to sign language users before the session. None of the exemplars used were perfect but each of them included elements that appealed to Deaf users which could be combined and further developed. All together 17 different web sites were viewed (see appendix I).

To make a distinction between participants’ favourite sites and the ones they used in practice, participants were asked to show examples of sites they used daily as well as ones that were their favourites. It became evident that the most used sites were news portals, designed for hearing users such as the web presence of Finnish tabloids Iltasanomat and Iltalehti. However, when asked about sites that brought them enjoyment, paradoxically, they showed examples of sites targeted towards Deaf users.

I like the French site (Fig. 20). Let me see if I can A. find it. Here it is. You see. The signer is engaging and funny, interesting to follow. I also like the

symbols they use for navigation (Fig. 21). It’s easy to explore even if I don’t know any French. The way the signer is placed on the site is also different than normally seen on a web site. Mew... I don’t like the way it’s inside that box though.Yeah, I don’t like that either. You know the site… B. wait a moment. Here it is. This is a Finnish site (Fig. 23). I like that the man is standing there freely. Though he is too small in size. It’s hard to follow. But somehow it feels like it belongs there. It tells you what is on the site. I like that. But otherwise there is too much text on the site, and I don’t like the colours. They are boring.

The statements above illustrate how participants favoured sites in which the signer was engaging and full of character. This type of signer is illustrated in Figure 21. Participants favoured sites in which the signer was integrated with the rest of the interface elements and interacting with the users like in Figures 22 and 23; they did not like the signer being isolated in a box as in Figure 24. It became evident that, for participants, a signer on a web site did not bring functional value as such but it brought cultural value by giving access to their mother tongue.

When it came down to actual web usage, the clarity and easy-of-use were the most deciding factors for favourite sites of participants. They told that they became inpatient if a site was slow or too complex, both in terms of structure and layout. Secondly, they valued sites that offered interesting content which they could understand and use instantly. For example, participants brought up the VIA Cooperative web site as an example of a good piece of design (Fig. 25). Participants reasoned that the cause for liking the site was its visual simplicity: it has a nice colour palette and a peacefully animated top banner that catches one’s attention but at the same time is restful on the eye.

The state of current web development practices within the Association was also discussed. It became clear that the current platform used for official sites ensures that web sites meet accessibility standards. At the same time it prevents experimental approaches to try out new design solutions that would satisfy the real needs of sign language users. Moreover, the modification of these sites was stated to be costly as the platform is outsourced. The dissatisfaction for current web design practices among the Deaf community was acknowledged, but the obligation to meet accessibility standards

40

A signer of a French sign language web Figure 20. site WebSourd that is presented on every page.

Navigation of a French sign language Figure 21. web site WebSourd utilises symbols.

A signer on the home page of Finnish Figure 23. translation service Signline welcomes the user.

A signer on the home page of the Figure 24. Finnish Association of the Deaf.

Home page of the Finnish Via Sign Figure 25. Language Sector Cooperative.

A signer and a post-it note navigation Figure 22. on a personal web site of Markku Jokinen.

41

was seen as the barrier in overcoming these issues. Participants clearly expressed that the current sites targeted towards Deaf users do not cater to their genuine needs. This is the reason that the most used sites were designed for hearing users. They claimed that if there was a site designed to meet the real needs of Deaf people, they would definitely use it.

For the purpose of analysing the focus group session, a long-table approach was followed in which transcripts are cut into pieces of colour-coded cards and arranged according to identified themes and categories (Krueger & Casey, 2008). The statements of the participants were listed to sum up the prevailing mood for the group. The following summary of the focus group findings is based upon seven recurring themes: (1) simplicity and clarity; (2) visual guidance; (3) vividness and engagement; (4) charismatic signer; (5) non-isolated signer; (6) clarity of the signing; and (7) speed.

Simplicity and clarity. Participants felt that most web sites targeted towards them were ugly and cluttered. The amount of visual noise that was tolerated varied between participants with dyslexia and those without, but they agreed that they were unable to focus if there was more that one element moving on the screen at any one time. Following this line of thought, participants felt that bright and vivid colours were good but should be limited.

Visual guidance. Participants appreciated it if they were able to view and grasp the content of the site visually – in one glance. They felt that too often web sites have too much text on a single page, and as a consequence, pages are hard to follow. All participants agreed that symbols, text, and images should go hand in hand supporting each other. Especially when it came to navigation, they felt that visual clues such as symbols helped in surfing through content.

Vividness and engagement. Participants felt that they were unable to engage with sites using a corporate look. They described them as uninviting, dull, and static. Participants yearned for images or other visual elements that would draw their attentions and encourage to exploration. In addition, they emphasised the ability of images to tell stories much better than words. They felt that images should offer something to be explored – “a window to another world,” as one of the participants described.

Charismatic signer. Participants always preferred having a signer welcoming the user on the home page. If the signer varied in character at different sections of a web site, the participants felt that the sites became more engaging. The participants even considered that a well thought clothing brought added value.

Non-isolated signer. Participants felt that too often the signer was isolated inside a box as if it would be a separate element from the rest of the page. They explained they would rather have it as part of the page, interacting with its surroundings. This would help them to relate the signing with other content areas on the page. In addition, the participants said that separate signed translations was not enough: the signed video should be placed equally with the text on the page.

Clarity of signing. All participants emphasised the importance of clear signing. They stated that the size of the signer should be big enough so that hand movements and facial expressions are clear. One of the participants compared that to unreadable text: “to follow signing that is too small is as if to read text that is written with a tiny font against a cluttered background.” When it came to the movements of the signer, the dyslexic user felt that it was distracting if the signer was moving while signing; whereas the participant without dyslexia felt it made signing more natural.

Speed. Due to heavy use of video and often flash, the participants felt that many attempts to do web sites for sign language users failed, because they were too slow to use. They emphasised the importance of being able to navigate and view content quickly.

As these themes are based on concerns of only three participant, no reliable generalisation concerning the whole community can be made. Thus, the identified themes here were reassessed in the interviewing phase with eleven participants (see section 5.2.3).

5.2.2 Card sortingThe card sorting task aimed to identify Deaf culture specific content categories around theme of the KnacK project, that is, rhythm and parenting. Thus, the card sorting task was organised with two main goals in mind: firstly, to identify the way Deaf users categorise topics that relate to rhythm learning; and secondly, to identify the kinds of topics and images

42

that Deaf users can easily relate to. For the activity, eleven participants were selected all together to represent as wide a range of the community as possible. They were between 20-60 years old age, nine Deaf and two hard of hearing, six females and five males, and four with and ten without dyslexia. All of them were working at the Finnish Association of the Deaf but presented a wide range of professions including designers, camera men, academics, administrators and translators. Each session took around 20 minutes in which each participant attended individually.

Traditionally, the purpose of the card sorting technique is to explore how people group items. This enables researchers to gain a better understanding of how users categorise information, so that their expectations and priorities about the intended functions can be developed. In the classic card sorting method, possible features, functions, or design attributes are named on separate cards and participants are asked to organise them spatially in a way that makes sense to them (Morville & Rosenfield, 2006; Moggridge, 2007). These interactions enable one to learn about needs and wants that users cannot express explicitly.

For the purpose of this study, the classic card sorting method was slightly modified to better fit with the purpose of this study. In addition to traditional word cards, the participants received a set of image cards3. This was done for three reasons: Firstly, Deaf culture is highly visual and thus image cards are more suitable. Secondly, four out of the eleven participants were dyslexic: they may have faced difficulties with categorising the cards containing words written in their second language. This means that use of wordy cards would have limited their contribution and complicated their participation. Thirdly, my intention at this phase was not to get exact labels but instead to bring about themes that participants were concerned with by allowing them to impose their own interpretation.

In the beginning of each session a participant received two packs of shuffled cards with 50 cards in each (one pack with images and another one with

3 The use of image cards draws the method close to

collages developed by Sanders and William (2002) in which people

are given a set of picture and word stickers and a space on which

to arrange them according to instructions.

words written on them), one stack of blank cards, and a pen. The card sorting task included three main phases: selecting, grouping, and ranking. In the first phase, participants were asked to go through the image and word cards intuitively and remove cards they were not interested in. In the second phase, participants were asked to organise the remaining cards in to groups (see Fig. 26) and name these groups based on the pictures and words (Fig. 27). In the last phase, the participants were asked to select their favourite theme from those they had created as well as their favourite card.

Then, participants were asked to articulate the choices they had made with three objectives in mind. Firstly, to find which cards and themes were most important to them and why. Secondly, to discover their reasons for discarding particular images; that is, gaining insight into why they relate to some topics and not others. Thirdly, to illuminate the choice of image: why the chosen ones were considered attractive and what was interesting about them. This discussion was the most important: their explanation gave a deeper understanding of their ideas and visions.

There was a difference in the way participants handled the cards, especially so between the participants with learning disorders and the ones without. All the dyslexic participants refused to use the word cards or at least found them demanding to organise them. The majority, however, categorised the cards according to descriptions, analogy, or function of the groups rather than exact labels, falling in line with the Lawrence findings of the nesting feature of sign language (discussed on p. 7).

After the sessions the results were analysed in two different ways: (1) by ranking the cards according to their popularity to discover which topics and images they were interested in; and (2) by grouping the labels that emerged during the activity through semantic mapping (see Fig. 28). The analysis of the images showed that there were huge differences in the ways beauty and attraction is valued within the community; but yet, there are common themes that could be identified: importance of stories, nature, beauty, visual clarity, people playing together, and images of hands. The latter especially was considered important as it reminded the participants of sign language, as one of the participants explained:

43

One of the participants organising cards.Figure 26.

This image is my favourite. It reminds me of the moment when my first child was born. It’s decades ago but I remember that moment so vividly. Like we’d made a connection when I took him into my arms for the very first time.

Although the interests of the participants varied depending on their personality, age, and gender, five main themes emerged: (1) visual culture, (2) sports and playing, (3) experiences, (4) eager to know more, and (5) emotions. These themes were analysed through grouping the occurred labels and colour coding the reoccurring words. The resulting semantic map is illustrated in Figure 28. The emerged themes reflect charac-teristics of Deaf culture: the importance of emotions, being together, personal experiences, and doing together as well as the traditional activities held by Deaf clubs.

It’s definitely related to hands and sign language – and Deaf people. We use hands. We could not live without them.

The participants also felt that stories are important in images. The participants were especially interested in images that they could relate to their own life stories. These three comments illustrate the fact that the participants valued images that had something to say:

If there is nothing to say. I don’t like if an image is somehow empty. If its wrongly shot. Carelessly. It needs to have an idea.

The idea of an image is important. I like when an image takes you to another world and when it gets your imagination flowing – hungry to know more about the story behind it.

44

The pile of cards with notes after the card sorting tasks.Figure 27.

45

Semantic mapping of the categories that the participants produced in the card sorting task. Figure 28. Every word represents a category label and the size of that word correlates with its frequency. The smallest word on the graph occurred only once and with every additional occurrence the size of that word is increased by two points. The colours of the words correlate with the meta themes (capitalised words) that emerged from the labels. The size of the background circles represent the overall popularity of a meta theme.

46

5.2.3 InterviewsIn combination with the card sorting exercise a short thematic interview was conducted with all the eleven participants. This was for two main reasons: firstly, to draw a bridge between the findings and web site preferences; and secondly, to confirm the findings of the focus group discussion with a wider range of participants. There was a list of issues to be discussed during the interview (see appendix II) but the order and flow of conversation was open in order to facilitate discussion of unanticipated issues. During the interview the participants were asked to relate their favourite web sites, surfing patterns, and problems they face with existing systems. This is because problems and solutions are conceptual pairs: people are better at remembering the problems they encounter than envisioning non-existent ones (Krippendorf, 2006). The discussion confirmed earlier results: Deaf participants were unsatisfied with systems developed for sign language users this far. The participants emphasised their frustration with long paragraphs of text, lack of images, slow uploading times, and overly textual navigation. This was also the reason why one of the participants had been studying online communications:

I’ve been developing web sites for years. Last year, however, I decided to have a degree on online communication. I want to learn more how to create visual information. I want to share more visual information … Most of professionals in the field are hearing. If there would be more sign language users, they’d know what they are yearning for and what are their genuine needs for this type of communication.

The interviewed also highlighted the lack of interesting content as an issue. This was one of the reasons why the following participant hardly ever used web sites targeted towards Deaf people:

Meh… I hardly ever visit web sites for sign language users. Sometimes I follow events but only a little. These sites offer so little valuable content. The briefing is poor. The whole chunk of information is just blasted carelessly onto one page.

Most participants, however, said that they would visit sign language web sites if they were better designed and offered content that interested them. The only sign language web sites they followed was news offered in sign language by the

Finnish Broadcasting Company YLE (see Case Study 6 on p. 20). This is in line with the focus group discussion in which participants valued clarity and informativeness, as the following interviewee illustrates:

The most important thing is that it is clear. The image and the content. And that it is interesting and engaging. It should not be preaching – nothing like that. It should offer profound information.

Participants also confirmed the findings of the focus group session: there should not be too much content on one page. For instance, participants were asked for their thoughts on the current state of web interfaces, one responded:

I’m disturbed by all of it being mixed. Text and all – like a rathole… I mean too much text or images. I don’t know where to look or where to click on… It puts me off if the page is full of text and it’s all there at once. If there’s text, I’d like to have a choice to go to read it if I want to, but it’s too much if it’s there all at once.

Even if the interviewees were overwhelmed by text, some participants stated that they preferred to read text than to watch sign videos. One has to wait for videos to stream; text on the other hand can be scanned and read quickly, as one of the participants explained:

It may be that I haven’t got the patience to sit in front of the computer for long periods of time. Maybe I’m more text oriented. Reading is so much faster. I think I’d rather read the text.

Most of participants, however, preferred visual and signed communication to text if it was available. All the participants used both mediums and expressed that the one they used varied from one day to another:

I’ve got a learning disorder. I belong to that group of people. That’s why I’ve always been so fond of visuality. But the disorder has eased a bit since I was a little. I’ve worked hard in order to be able live with it. And now I know how to overcome it. Today I even like reading news online.

If there is signing I do watch it. If there is not, then I read the text. But I always watch if the signer has something interesting to say.

47

To sum up, the interviews confirmed the results of the focus group, finding that the speed and content of sites override the medium. The interviewees discovered that the most important factor in the interface was the easiness of comprehending.

5.3 INTegraTIoN oF DeaF CUlTUre sPeCIFIC FeaTUresDuring the integration phase, the results from the identification phase were implemented. This means that the designer needs to interact with stakeholders and explore artefacts together with them in order to transform socio-cultural factors into acceptable product features. In this study one brainstorming session and two hands-on collaborative workshops were arranged to conceive possible interface features. Ideas and experiences from every session were fed back into the following workshops and finally into the development of prototypes. All the sessions were held at the Finnish Association of the Deaf during spring 2009.

5.3.1 brainstorming session Participants: Two deaf designers who are marked as D and E.

The brainstorming method was chosen for this design research as it provides an environment that is conducive to generating novel ideas through open conversation. This means that issues are allowed to emerge spontaneously and no opinion is wrong. During the session each participant should be allowed to contribute, and each one’s opinion is respected and listened to. (Krippendorf, 2006)

The purpose of the brainstorming session was to explore different strategies, and how to integrate the identified socio-cultural features into the interface. The two most important themes that participants brought up in the identification phase were highlighted; that is, (1) what is the right balance between text and signing; and (2) what does visual clarity mean in terms interface design. The session aimed to brainstorm ideas on how such factors should be translated into interface features. There were two Deaf participants and a translator invited to the session. Both of the participants were web developers who were familiar with web design practices within the Deaf community and had experience in sign video production. Both of them had also taken part in the identification phase, and thus, were familiar with the project.

The brainstorming session ran for two hours and it consisted of three separate parts: introduction, discussion, and conclusion. In the beginning, findings from the previous research activities were introduced and the purpose of the session was explained. After the introduction, a paper (A3), pencils, and sticky notes were placed on a table. Participants were advised to use them during the session to illustrate their ideas and concepts. At the end of the session results of the discussion were summed up. Similar topics were grouped together and ideas that did not fit into the concept were eliminated. The remaining ideas were discussed once more and those for further development were decided upon.

As the previous research activities had shown, some sign language users preferred text to sign, the brainstorming session started with a discussion of the importance of sign language on web sites. Even if participants agreed that they were happy to read text on pages they stressed that signed content should be place equally with text on a web site:

D. It needs to be multiple channel. Which one I’ll use is irrelevant.

E. I watch the one that is showed first.D. It’s same for me as well. The web site kind of sets

which one I’ll use first. But I think it‘s important that both options are there.

E. But if there will be a video clip and a paragraph of text on the screen which one you will pick up?

D. I watch the video first. The text comes second.E. For me it purely depends on which one will catch

my eye first. And normally it is the text because videos are so slow. You must wait for them. By that time you’ve already read the text. But the sign language needs to be there anyhow. There are many aspects to accessibility, and one of them is an access to one’s own first language.

Slow web sites were addressed and a possible solution was suggested: display a short introduction that downloads quickly yet attracts one’s interest and catches one’s eye. From the introduction, one could then click for more information. The problem that the participant noted with introduction videos, however, was that it gets boring if the same clip appears every time you visit the site:

E. I like that the video screen is there already. Or at least there should be some sort of movement on the screen.

D. If I need to first watch a video. I do watch it. It

48

catches my eye. But if I visit the site again and I know the story – and the video is still there. That’s pointless. The interface needs to give an option what I want to watch and what not.

E. You’re right. It’s enough to have the guidance video only for the first visit.

D. That means that front page doesn’t necessarily need to have a signed video that I need to watch over and over again. Rather it should clearly show me themes for the videos that I can choose from.

When discussing solutions for refreshing the web site, the idea of discussion forums was dismissed. The participants felt that Deaf were disadvantaged on the text based discussion forums as many of them were not confident in writing:

D. If we’ll develop a discussion forum then it’s targeted to hearing users. Deaf people won’t take part into such a conversation. Some Deaf simply have such a bad knowledge of Finnish that they wouldn’t take part … The knowledge of Finnish is just so poor. People don’t know how to spell it. If one should write freely on a computer. For example, the word computer [tietokone in Finnish]. There are Deaf who write it tetokone or tetokane.

As participants agreed that writing would not work for Deaf users, another solution was a ready made list of answers that one could choose from, such as: yes, no, maybe, and absolutely yes. The participants also saw video commenting problematic as one cannot present him/herself anonymously as one normally would on forums that are text based. Another problem participants faced with signed videos was navigation:

E. There needs to be a way to navigate through the videos easily. It’s easier with a text. If you want to find a specific point in time on a video you need to drag the bar back and forth: no it wasn’t here it was ten seconds earlier. It’s always difficult to find the right piece of information on a video.

As the participant was signing he came up with a solution in which a visual navigation would appear next to the signer as he/she signs. This navigation would present themes of the clip:

D. When video starts it will sign the issues to be discussed: these five topics are to be discussed. And then I sign that this topic is related to cars, and this one deals with airplanes and this topic … and

at the same time as I sign something would appear that gives you the possibility to click on and jump straight to that entity or point in time. Even if it all would be kind of related to the same theme, a navigation would appear – for example an image of a car or airplane – as I sign.

E. But what the navigation would be like? What would be the language? Would there be an image or some text. Mew… you can imagine that there would be images that you can click on. The videos would be behind them. It would make it more appealing for the kids as well.

D. If you think about the front page. There could be a person or persons. That person would hold a picture, logo, or symbol in his hand. It may be accompanied with a tiny passage of text or a word that tells something about the content. Then there could be another person that would hold a piece of paper or some kind of a board. It could be quite perky and nice looking. Firstly, the page would have people on it; and secondly, they’d hold something on their hands.

The conversation shifted into a discussion about how information should be communicated in signed videos. Participants were strongly of the opinion that the signer needs to have some character, and the way information is presented is of extreme importance. Moreover, the style of signing determined if they found information useful, and were able to engage with what was being said:

D. If there’s some information that needs to be explained such as ‘this is what the sign language is about’, this kind of normal things, which can be a bit boring. Like sign language users in Finland: ‘There are around 5000 sign language users in Finland, bloah, blah, blah... and a people who uses sign language may be a Deaf, a translator or a next of kin.’ That is so boring! It is important yes. But it should be somehow changed to something of this sort: ‘Hi, I’m a Deaf person! Did you know that I use sign language? Don’t think that I’m the only one in Finland. There are around 5000 people like me in this country. And it is not only the Deaf people that sign to each other. I have friends that I sign with and my hearing sister signs to me as well.’ I mean that the way it’s presented needs to be totally different. It’s all about how the issue is brought up and expressed. This way it would be much more useful.

E. You’re right. Expressive. The signer needs to be lively, creative. Humour is always good. Not too serious. Some kind of liveliness.

49

Then the conversation shifted into a discussion on the way a signer should be filmed:

D. And when filming the video the background is extremely important. Purely white or blue are not really good. I think it is better that if the background dissolves – goes with the colour scheme or suites with the images on the page. I mean that it would not appear in a separate window.

D. You can play a bit with the background but the signer needs to be shown clearly and naturally. I like the idea of different people with different coloured clothes which are connected to the theme being discussed.

The discussion of themes and colour coding then shifted towards navigation. Participants felt that textual navigation is not clear or visual enough. Neither did they find signed links easy to use: it takes time to follow the movement to decipher them. They agreed that symbols would be the best solution for this purpose:

E. I hate when you need to explore all the hands to find out what they are for.

D. Yeah. Hands are not good for navigation. It needs a face as well. Sign language doesn’t exist without a face.

E. I like pictures the most or symbols if one can find a suitable one. If symbols, text, and signing are balanced, the site works. It works for both hearing and sign language users.

D. What if the navigation would be like a carousel that the user can control and roll over. There would be images or people that the user could click on. And behind them there would be always a new topic or new story. If new topics need to be added, the navigation would be easy to expand on as well.

To sum up, the brainstorming session raised the importance of providing reactive content that responds to the users actions instantly. The option of developing a discussion forum was abandoned as Deaf users would be disadvantaged in using a text-based systems, especially on KnacK web site whose target audience includes a number of dyslexic users. The participants felt that videos were problematic as they were hard to navigate, although sign videos were a necessity for Deaf users. A solution suggested was an icon based navigation that would illustrate different sections within a video.

5.3.2 workshops Two workshops were arranged to enable both designer and non-designers, giving the members of the Deaf community a voice and allowing them to be part of the design process. The workshops always included one Deaf project representative, and altogether six members of the Deaf culture that were not associated with the KnacK project. In order to distinguish preferential differences between dyslexic and non-dyslexic Deaf users, the workshops were conducted separately for both groups. The first one was held for two Deaf participants and one hard of hearing, and the second for two Deaf participants with difficulties in reading. Both workshops lasted for an hour and a half. The outcomes of the first workshop were fed into the development of the second one. In order to illustrate the findings of the previous research activities, a set of possible screen layouts were prepared for each workshop with differences in colours, symbols, and the placement of the signer. These layouts were hypotheses, examples of solutions that might meet the needs of sign language users. During the workshops, the stakeholders amended them until they were satisfied with the outcome.

All the five participants were invited through email in which the agenda of the workshop was explained. There were pens, paper, sticky notes, and scissors placed on a table. A laptop was also made available, allowing direct modification of the pre-made solution, as each workshop involved one Deaf designer. During the workshop the participants tested, evaluated, and refined different screen layouts, and interaction models: they drew, cut, pasted, and shifted different features around screen layouts to build a shared vision. The agenda for both workshops was the same:

Explanation1. . The purpose of the session, the research results so far, and the session outcome was explained. Exploration2. . Participants explored different solutions in pairs by modifying the pre-made screen layout, cutting and drawing different sections, forming a design that they were satisfied with.Documentation1. . The designs generated during the workshop were discussed once more. A final screen layout that all the participants agreed on was documented.

50

Printed paper models of the interface prototype with cut and pasted parts and drawn Figure 29. amendments made during the workshop.

51

workshop 1Participants: One hard of hearing and two deaf persons. They are coded as F, G, and H in the respective order.

The first workshop was devoted to finalising screen designs, that is, to amend paper models of the interface. Ideas from the brainstorming session were illustrated in the form of seven different screen layouts. This was to share work-in-progress with participants and to allow participants to cut and paste elements to and from interface templates in order to explore new alternatives. There were three noted issues to be explored: the placement of the signer, colours, and use of symbols.

When participants considered the placement of the signer on screen, they started by discussing the background. They liked a solution in which there was an image on signer’s background:

F. The signed videos with plain backgrounds do not invite to follow what is being signed.

G. Blank backgrounds does not even arouse my interest to follow the signing,

F. The background can’t be too dark however. It’s tiresome to follow a signer against a dark background. It is like watching TV in a dim room. It makes your eyes tired.

G. Nor can the image be directly behind the signer. It makes the signing hard to follow.

F. I think it would be better if the image could somehow dissolve on the background. You can do it easily with Photoshop. Can I show you? [He then takes the laptop and draws an example onto a computer screen.]

One of the first issues the participants addressed was how to place signing and text on the page. One of them signed:

H. Which one is the default language? Signing or text? I think they should be egalitarian. The text cannot come before signing.

G. I think signing should be there always. If you want, you can close it down and then read the text.

H. Or there could be an option. When you hover-over, two symbols would appear that would let you to choose which one you want to use [text or sign video].

F. Mew … maybe there could be subtitles.H. What if you only want to read the text?G. There could be an option in the control bar that

goes on and off as you hover-over. I mean that you can have the option there to read the text if you want to.

As we discussed the designs from the workshop, the following issues were identified as most important:

Symbols and colours 1. should be used to visualise and categorise information.

Images2. should be used to provide the context for information being communicated so that one can get a holistic understanding of what is being signed.

A signer 3. should be clearly placed so there is no disturbance with the background, but still it should dissolve seamlessly with the rest of the interface elements, naturally with its settings.

workshop 2Participants: Two deaf persons with dyslexia who are referred to as I and J.

The second workshop was held with two dyslexic Deaf participants. The purpose was to test the results of the first workshop with dyslexic users as well as to prototype basic interaction design for the web site. Dyslexic participants felt that the results of the first workshop were too colourful and restless. They also wished for less elements on the page making it easier to concentrate on the task at hand:

I. Too strong colours and those elements at the bottom make the page restless. Otherwise I like it. it is simple but the same time inviting and interesting.

Different colour schemes were tested to find a palette pleasing for participants; one that was restful, that is, allowing one to concentrate on the content. The participants felt that text next to the signer was distracting:

J. If there’s text next to a signer it shouldn’t be too dominating. If it is, it distracts. The font size should be small. Otherwise I like big font sizes. It makes it easier to read.

I. Yeah. I like those pages where I can enlarge the font size to a good size. My fluency to read varies from one day to another. Some days I like to read small fonts where as some days big text sizes work the best.

52

It is apparent from the comments above that text sections next to a signer were distracting. This creates a paradox: the text should be on the screen in a manner that it is related to the signer, and at the same time the text should not disturb signing. Participants expressed that even if one would be able to switch off the text box it is still no good: the site should be pleasant to follow from the very beginning. The solution was to place the signer on the centre of the screen, and place a symbol next to the signer from which one could click for text to appear. Alternatively, the text should be placed below the signer so that it does not compete with ones attention. Participants also thought that subtitling of the sign video was a possible solution.

After the workshop the dyslexic participants were emailed with two sets of amended screen layouts. When these participants were happy with the result, a rough prototype of the interface was created and tested with participants from both workshops. The participants also expressed that there should be only one primary image, and the remaining images and text could be relatively small; that is, not drawing one’s attention, and distracting one from following the sign video.

5.3.3 Co-designing prototypesDesigning is the phase where a designer steps back to actual design work. A working prototype was created based on drafts resulting from the workshops. To ensure the solutions would fit with Deaf culture, real-time feedback was given from a Deaf web designer over two weeks. The conversation was arranged through email and instant messaging in which design ideas and working prototypes developed for Wordpress publishing platform were shared. This made it possible to experiment with already existing plugins and open source tools that are available for everyone for future web developments.

The biggest concerned raised during the interaction design was how the signer should appear and how the navigation of sign videos could be enhanced. The Deaf designer was given a day to film different approaches and styles. The question was how the signer should be introduced: should it be there already, should it fade in, or walk into the screen? In other words, what feels the most natural in starting conversation with the user in a particular context.

The second issue of the interaction design was the role of visual aids. The designer proposed the use of diagrams and icons – such like power point slides – which would enhance the understanding of the sign video and make it more engaging. The would give context and meaning for the topic being discussed. The prototype was modified until both the Deaf designer and the workshop participants were happy with the interface and found it easy to use.

5.4 sUMMaryIn this chapter, the participatory design phase has been reviewed. The three main stages in the process were contextual inquiry, identification, and integration phase. The whole participatory design process took a year and a half, and involved eleven members of the Deaf community. All of them took part in the card sorting exercise and interviews, and seven of them attended the activities at the integration phase. The prototype that resulted from these sessions is illustrated in the next chapter.

53

Chapter 6

REVIEW of KnaCK.fIThis chapter reviews the prototype of Knack.fi web site in terms of content, functionality, and look and feel – the result from the participatory design process. Recommendations for future web site developments are discussed in the next chapter. Therefore, this chapter will not go into details of culture specific features but rather it will give an overall description of the resulting design to draw a better picture of the design outcome of the participatory research. The prototype presented here is a hypothesis of the kind of interface that brings enjoyment to members of Deaf community based on their ideas developed in workshops. The prototype is a design outcome that the participants found engaging as well as easy to use and understand. Though some of the features described here are still to be implemented, all of them have been tested.

Technology. The site was designed in php and jQuery for Wordpress publishing platform. The project also utilised jQuery based videoplayer, Flowplayer and related jQueryTools as they provided the tools needed to meet the requirements of participants: (1) the tools are designed to present content to the reader in an easy and visually pleasing manner, improving usability and responsiveness of a site without compromising accessibility; and (2) they are relatively light and can be used without huge comprises in terms of site performance.

Information hierarchy. In addition to the home page, the information hierarchy of the site consists of three main sections: play [leikkiä], learn [oppia], and feel [tuntea] as illustrated in Figure 30 that shows the front page of the site. These simple but descriptive labels were the most common words to appear in the

card sorting task in which users were free to label the categories they had formed from piles of images and words (Fig. 28, p. 45) . Under these categories there will be videos filmed by groups of Deaf people that show ways to learn rhythm through mimicking animal movements, plays for children to practice rhythm, and situations in which Deaf tell how they feel rhythm in their day to day life. The front page provides links to a rhythm game and documentary that were also developed for the project.

Navigation. There are four navigational systems within the site. The navigational systems surround the signer, making it easier for him/her to point at different sections of the site as each of the navigational items has a unique spatial direction in relation to the signer (i.e. top left or bottom middle). All the navigational elements respond to user’s mouse movements: they are animated when one hovers over them.

Main navigation1. is placed on the top of the page so that it will be easily recognised. It displays an icon for each category item and label attached to it. A feature that Deaf participants mentioned and yearned for repeatedly during the participatory design process was a visual clue to immediately draw one’s attention to main navigation. Therefore, when a user enters the web site, all four navigational items slide down from the very top of the screen. Sub-navigation 2. to content videos is placed below the signer. Once one clicks a content video icons, an overlay playing the corresponding video appears (see Fig. 31).

54

Sign video navigation3. helps users to follow what is being signed. As the signer signs, a visual presentation appears next to him/her which helps the user to navigate within the video clip to different cue points within the clip.Information navigation 4. includes icons to contact us page, sitemap, and project info. They are placed on the top right so that they can be accessed on all content areas within the site. All the pages are overlaid so that users can easily return to the page or section they were on.

Signer. On every category page there is a signer that guides the user through that section. These sections start with a short sign video: a signer asks a “Did you know” -question about the topic at hand. The video clip is randomly drawn from a pool of five different clips. Once the clip is over, a navigational menu appears next to the signer. It links to the remaining videos, helping the user to navigate through the signed clips. These include the rest of the “Did you know” -questions, and a guidance video on which the signer explains what one can do on the site. Every time a new video is launched, the navigation shrinks to the top so not disturb the sign video visually. If the user wants to watch another video while the signer is still signing, the user can expand the navigation back to its full-size. The space on the left is also used to support the signed message by showing images, diagrams, and item lists of what is being signed.

Look and feel. The visual style of the site aims to be clear and calm but yet visually interesting. The participants did not feel at home with sites using a white background, but rather longed for nature like, tranquil atmosphere. The background colours are muted so they would not visually compete with the content items such as the signer. To visually distinguish the different category sections from each other, they are colour-coded (as seen in Figures 30, 32, 33, and 34). All the categories will also have a different signer to give them a distinctive personality, and consequently, make different sections distinctive and memorable. Behind the signer there is a category image that portrays different people in rhythmic activities to further enhance the visual distinction and to create a mental image of each category. However, this image changes if the space is needed for additional visual guidance such as a diagram or an other image during a sign video.

Settings. The participants were sensitive regarding font size: it should not be too big to disturb signing nor too small if they wished to read the text. The dyslexic participants particularly expressed that the optimal font size varies from day to day: when they are tired for example, they wish for a bigger text size but sometimes a small one is better. Moreover, the colour and contrast of the text and background made a huge difference in their ability to read. Therefore, a customisation option was designed to allow users to select the settings that fit their personal needs.

Home page of Knack.fi web site.Figure 30.

55

Overlaid content video.Figure 31.

To feel section.Figure 32.

56

To learn section.Figure 33.

To play section.Figure 34.

57

Chapter Seven develops design recommendations for future web developments targeted for Deaf users. The recommendations are developed on the basis of the user research and confirmed by earlier studies on Deaf culture and cross-cultural interface design. Both the user research and literature has illustrated that not everyone in the Deaf community fits the cultural pattern precisely, but there is enough regularity to identify preferences. Presented are some of these identified tendencies to enhance Deaf people’s user experience. They are collided into design recommendations using Jordan’s (2000) Four-Pleasures framework.

Some of the recommendations may also apply to hearing people; thus, the recommendations should not be treated as a list of differences but rather as a list of issues to be considered when designing for the Deaf community. This from-minority-to-mainstream-thinking also implies that Deaf people – whose language is based on visual gestures and movements – are more sensitive to visual elements. Consequently, they have a smaller tolerance for clutter and discontinuity in design. This may also bring a new perspective in designing for other user groups such as for elderly and dyslexic users who are visually oriented due to short term verbal memory.

Even if many of the recommendations are in line with general usability guidelines, it is important to realise that the needs of Deaf users differs somewhat from mainstream users. Even though Deaf people do not face as strong physical barriers in accessing content as blind and weak-sighted people do, there are mental barriers that may be as limiting. For example, a written replacement for audio content is not enough:

the lack of confidence in writing skills may prevent taking part in text-based discussion forums, inability to use one’s mother tongue may cause frustration, and unclear guidance may prevent using the site. Additionally, this study has demonstrated that the style in which information is told was important to Deaf users: it determined if they were engaged and willing to explore content of the site.

What is more, there are countless design solutions and features needed in each project varies depending the goal of the site and its content. The recom-mendations listed here do not cover all the possible needs but the ones encountered during the users research. Neither do they function as a checklist as no design can cover all pleasures. However, they act as a list of issues to be thought of when designing web sites for Deaf culture so that Deaf users would enjoy using them. As a result of the participatory design research analysis – confirmed by knowledge drawn from earlier research and literature – the following pleasures were identified specific to the community of Deaf users:

7.1 PhysIo-PleasUresThis refers to the ability to work effectively on a web site and to access its content; that is, the ability to use a system completely. For Deaf users too long passages of text, unclear navigation, and lack of visual cues cause frustration.

7.1.1 access to sound – visually For Deaf people, the most obvious accessibility issues is access to audio content. However, a pure transcription of the sound does not give the same experience as the original format. One should think

Chapter 7

RECOMMENDATIONS

58

of visual presentations of sound, such as sound waves or illustration, to produce equal access to auditory content. These could function as ideophones in sign language that describe sensations.

7.1.2 scannable contentDeaf people face difficulties using deep information structures. Use of images and symbols help in interpreting information and creating a holistic view of the site and its content i.e. through displaying all content items in the form of icons or images rather than deep verbal structures. If text is used, carefully planned layout helps the visual reader: headers, bullet lists, margins, and indentation can be used to make text more interesting and scannable. The visual distinction between different categories within the site can be reinforced through the use of colours, images, and icons.

7.1.3 Content on demand The participant yearned for engaging but simple designs, and an interaction model that is responsive to mouse movements. Light box application, or other ajax technologies, capable of creating layered content can be used to create a visual information architecture in which one cannot get easily lost. This interaction model helps in creating content that interacts with users and is displayed on demand.

7.1.4 balance between content, foreground, and backgroundCompared to low context cultures such as most Western cultures, high context cultures – including Deaf culture – have a higher sensitivity to a balance between different elements. Similarly, this study has implied that surrounding elements inform Deaf users as much as the message itself. Thus, special care should be taken to produce a harmony and wholeness of the site: background and content should support each other. Guidelines should be created for all elements and photos to guarantee unity of the design.

7.1.5 Visual support for a signer Participants expressed that a background image behind a signer invites one to follow what the signer has to say. Today, more and more sign videos on web sites are filmed against natural settings rather than plain studio backgrounds. This may result from the increase in home made sign videos; or the increase of bandwidth, which allows sites to include more movement and details on the

screen without compensating in video quality. Regardless, the background gives more contextual information to users than plain colour. If the background is to interact with the sign video, it can be done through the use of chroma-keying and cue points. In addition to videos, other visual elements such as still images and diagrams can be used to add contextual information. However, participants found that the image should not make signing harder to follow: the background behind hand movements needs to be clean and simple, preferable monocolour and limited contrast. They found the background image pleasant when it seamlessly blended with the rest of the background, not visually competing with the signer but still being big enough to be easily seen. As an interface restricts communication to two-dimensional plane, it is more difficult to follow signing shown on a screen than in natural space.

7.1.6 ColoursThe participators abhorred white, corporate looking sites. They enjoyed seeing colours. This is partly do to the fact that a signer against white looks pale and does not provide enough contrast between the background and the skin colour in northern latitudes. However, in contrast to general accessibility guidelines, there should not be too much contrast between text and the background as it makes reading harder especially so for dyslexic people. Alternative style sheets can be used to cater people with different visual capabilities such as to increase contrast for people with low vision.

7.1.7 symbols and iconsPrevious studies have shown that the combination of icons and text is the most effective navigation method for Deaf users. Similarly, participants in this study found icons the most enjoyable means of navigating if they were aesthetically pleasing and intuitively understood. Moreover, if used consistently, icons can enhance the recognition of different sections of the site from each other and help in scanning content within a page. However, they should be used only for the most important content elements on a page so that they do not create unnecessary visual clutter that slows down the scanning of a page.

7.1.8 signing guideDeaf people are more interested if information is relayed by another Deaf person than if it is told by other means such as writing. The design

59

research illustrated the need for a person to provide information about what one can do on a site. That said, the signer should not make platitudinous remarks but to invite to explore more. While signing, the guide should point to different content parts on that page. An engaging signer that guides users throughout the site may not improve usability in its traditional terms as a good interface should be intuitive to use. However, one needs to keep in mind that Deaf people are used to face-to-face communication. The guide helps in bringing cultural value to Deaf users, and thus makes it more attractive to them.

7.2 soCIo-PleasUresThis refers to pleasures gained from social interaction as well as to pleasures gained from the possibility of being heard and informed.

7.2.1 global friendsDeaf gain huge pleasures from being able to contact their friends across the globe. The Internet creates an alternative social space where Deaf users can access and exchange information instantly as well as stay in touch with their peer groups. In terms of information exchange, the web allows Deaf people to break from the constrains of their local social environment in which one has to travel long distances to meet the other members of the community. Before Deaf exchanged and gained information solely by attending Deaf clubs, but today the ability to read, write, and sign by using digital devices is reducing the need of clubs as information channels. Thus, systems that facilitate this interaction on the Internet, would bring pleasures for Deaf users.

7.2.2 Video applications Social media sites such as Facebook are becoming adopted by Deaf users. Though text-based systems have been liberating for the Deaf community, writing does not give the freedom of expression in one’s mother tongue for sign language users. Participants felt that open source video commenting system such as Seesmic and Kaltura available for Wordpress were not good enough: (1) they did not offer Finnish translations, and (2) the blogging interface was clumsy to use. Though, developing new tools was out of scope for this design project, these tools would be worth experimenting for future development. They would offer the Deaf people the possibility to take part in online discussion in their mother tongue.

7.3 PsyCho-PleasUresThis refers to psychological pleasures that an interface offers. These pleasures include the satisfaction felt when a task is successfully completed and the emotional responses towards aesthetics of an interface.

7.3.1 Visual feedbackInstant visual feedback helps Deaf users to understand information and navigate on the site. However, constantly moving animations or scrolling text should be avoided. Deaf users find it difficult to focus when distracting movement cannot be turned off. If scrollable and animated content is used, there should also be an option to stop it. No more than one moving element should be used at a time.

7.3.2 Presentation of Deaf peopleDeaf users are naturally keen observers of physical traits, and thus, the way people are presented should be well planned. Even if the presentation depends on a genre, goal, and target audience of the web site, one should consider the following:

Emergence• . How the signer appears on the screen and disappears from it? Is the signer already presented or does he/she walk into the screen? What style delivers the right atmosphere?Clothes and accessories.• What is the signer wearing? Do the clothes and accessories match with the colour scheme of the site? Can different accessories be used to distinguish different types of content from each other? Actors• . Who is signing? Different persons can be used to present different types of information to visually and stylistically distinguish different sections of the site.Signing style. • How is the information being signed? Is the signing in a storytelling or matter-of-fact style? On the basis of this study, Deaf users seem to appreciate highly personal, vivid, and joyful signing. This reflects the natural communication style in Deaf culture which relies on face-to-face encounters and interpersonal style.

7.4. IDeo-PleasUresThis refers to the way people see and would like to see themselves including the values the product embeds. In the case of the Deaf community, an interface brings pleasures if it provides Deaf users with a feeling of being part of the culture and an ability to be proud of their heritage.

60

7.4.1 Fluent signers Deaf feel more confident if information comes in the form of stories told by another Deaf person. Thus, the pleasure gained from watching sign videos depends both on the way stories are told as well as the position of the signer in the Deaf community. Signers clearly needs to have sign language as their mother tongue; signers should not be representatives of main stream culture to whom sign language is a second language – signing skills not being as fluent as that of Deaf people.

7.4.2 Faces Deaf gain pleasures from being able to recognise other member’s of the community: it reinforces the feeling of Deaf identity. One of the important aspects of Deaf culture is the importance of people’s faces. Even signed names are based on one’s visual traits (Rainò, 2004). When a person is presented on a web site, whether as part of text or signing, the name should be accompanied with an image of that person.

7.4.3 Dominant signingThe lack of alternatives to audio content causes frustration but so does the inability access one’s mother tongue annoy Deaf users. Being proud of sign language is one of the biggest pleasures for signers. Yet, the participatory research demonstrated a paradox: the participants stressed the importance of having a signed video even if one does not necessarily watch it. Participants repeatedly expressed the need to have access to one’s mother tongue as it signifies recognition of sign language that has been downplayed and unrecognised for decades. This has two implications:

Signed video should not be used only as a •substitute for text. It should be celebrated, and placed equally with written content. Signing should be clearly visible on the home •page not only because large video size is easier to follow but as it signals that sign language has been fully recognised.

61

This thesis has reported a research and development process of KnacK project’s pilot web site Knack.fi for people with a hearing loss. A challenge was set to design an interface that would meet the real needs of Deaf users. This is because the web sites that fully met accessibility criteria – and sometimes them especially – did not attract Deaf users. The purpose of this design study was firstly to identify affordances which convey the Deaf way of doing, seeing, and representing; and secondly, embed these into design features that Deaf find buoyant. In order to develop recommendations for future web developments for Deaf users Jordan’s (2000) Four-Pleasures framework was used to categorise these features. The preliminary work reported in this thesis is a first step in that direction.

The design process showed that even if visually engaging content was the key for liking an interface, ease-of-use and speed were as important factors for Deaf participants. It became evident that participants yearned for visual guidance, but not at the cost of clarity of an interface. They did not appreciate highly experimental web sites such as the ones which utilised 3D space or landscapes for information space: the participants found them confusing and cluttered. Instead, they favoured and used sites which they found easy to navigate and understand, and that responded instantly to their actions. Even if visuality, usability and responsiveness may seem separate entities, they are strongly linked: Firstly, participant repeatedly expressed their desire for instant visual feedback such as icons that animate once they hover over. Secondly, participants stated that the use of signing guide helped them to navigate on the site and to understand the structure of the site better.

The literature review described the characteristics of sign language to draw spaces and processes in a detail. The language itself functions in a three dimensional space that allows one to exploit and mimic real world settings. On the basis of the visuo-spatial features of sign language, visual processing may be even more dominant for sign language users than for mainstream culture – even if visual thinking is embedded in every culture. Visual languages have predated the development of textual ones. In combination with textual descriptions, visualisations are used to make information more accessible to human intuition: textual presentations are frequently accompanied with pictures that exemplify the ideas contained in text allowing the viewer to discover relations and characteristics that are hidden in the textual descriptions (Marriott & Meyer, 1998).

On the Internet people expect to find information quickly, effortlessly, and concisely. Thus, in the context of designing an interface, one should think of ways to enhance the effectiveness of communication so that it can be delivered naturally, but at the same time powerfully. For Deaf users this means features that support their visuo-gestural language in a two dimensional plane i.e. use of icons on navigation; photos to illustrate the context of signing; colours to visually differentiate different sections of the site; and visual responses to mouse movements to clarify functionality.

8.1 saTIsFaCTIoN Three main objectives were presented for the participatory research: (1) to identify culture specific needs of Deaf people that an interface needs to meet; (2) to integrate the identified needs into a web

Chapter 8

DISCUSSION

62

interface; (3) to develop design recommendations that extend traditional accessibility guidelines to include not only physical but also social, ideological, and psychological needs of Deaf users. In the following section the fulfillment of each of these goals is addressed.

1. Identification of culture specific needs. The acknowledgement of reflective level required in understanding historical context of Deaf culture. It also helped one to understand why it was so important for Deaf participants to have sign language on a web site: even if most Deaf are able to read perfectly, the history of oralism and century long struggles surrounding the right to use sign language, has ensured this issue to remain sensitive. The participants strongly expressed that the term accessibility heavily depends on the person who defines it. For them it not only mean access to content and functions, but also access to their mother tongue. Therefore, it should not be secondary to text on a site: the use of sign language as a dominant feature signifies the acknowledgement and acceptance of Deaf people as full members of society.

2. Integration of culture specific needs. This research has gone beyond surface design elements to study which features are meaningful for Deaf people. It addressed the substantial limitations of previous work, targeting high-level goals and real needs of Deaf individuals. No hypotheses were set in the study goals to limit this design research, but rather it was set open to themes to be raised by participants during the design process.

3. Recommendations. Jordan’s (2000) framework provides a way to look beyond physical and cognitive needs of Deaf users to include sociological, ideological, and emotional needs. This reflection of people’s values and tastes is a perquisite for a meaningful interface as discussed earlier in this study. As noted in Chapter Two, the Deaf experience consists of both sociological and biological factors: some of the issues may be related to sign language; some to difficulties in hearing; and some to shared history and values.

8.2 CoNTrIbUTIoN oF The sTUDyThis participatory design study confirmed the findings of earlier work on user experience of Deaf people. It also suggest that Deaf people’s interface preferences resembles the ones found in high

context cultures in general. Inline with studies conducted in Japan (Natamame et al., 2006) and in Spain Fajardo et al. (2008a), the participatory design activities and interviews showed clearly that Deaf users long for visual cues rather than semantic information to navigate on the Internet. Similar to the stereotypical members of low context and holistic cultures (see Würtz, 2005; Barber & Badre, 1998; Marcus, 2001), the Deaf participants were likely to use more images and less text as well as favoured approaches that mimicked human presence and communal values. There were also similarities to findings by Dong and Lee (2008) and Nisbett and Norensayan (2002) on holistic cultures. Firstly, Deaf participants longed for the visual display of all content items, which indicated that they scan a page as a whole. Secondly, participants were sensitive to even tiny changes on the visual layout of screen space and colour palette, demonstrating their sensitivity to the balance between foreground, background, and content.

Previous studies on user experience with Deaf people have examined how effectively Deaf users are able to navigate and find information on web sites, or how intuitively they understand individual elements such as icons, text, or signing on a web site. This study is inline with the findings of earlier studies conducted in Japan (Namatame & Kitajina, 2005; Namatame & Kitajina, 2008) and in Spain (Fajardo et al., 2006, 2007, 2008c): (1) fancy design ideas are not easily captured by the hard of hearing, and (2) for navigation the use of icons accompanied with labels is the most effective means for helping Deaf people navigate on the Internet. Pervious research on Deaf interface design, however, has only touched the outer levels of design without investigating the deeper structures involved including the ideological role of sign language and its role in guiding the user. This study has demonstrated that material elements of an interface do not bring value on their own. Rather, it is the meanings an interface bring forth to users – through visceral, behavioural, and reflective levels of interaction – that are worthy. They form the overall user experience. Yet, no research on Deaf user experience on the reflective level – which is the most deepest level of interface design – has been conducted before.

The recommendations of this study are to guide future web developments. One of these is the redesign of the Finnish Association of Deaf’s web

63

site, which will commence in the near future. The findings from this research can inform the development process as Deaf participants found it “hearing”, not engaging, and unpleasant to use. Even minor design changes could enhance the user experience for Deaf people. This includes making interfaces more engaging and more intuitive to use. Based on this design study, this study recommends the following three things:

Informative images to illustrate written content •that now is heavily text driven. The images should tell stories, and bring about issues that are important to people with hearing loss. These issues include sign language, Deaf people’s cultural history, and being and doing together with other Deaf people. Dominant signer that is large in size to engage •a Deaf visitor. Clearer visual distinction between different •sections of the site; for example, through use of colours and icons.

Overall, this study has made two contributions. Firstly, it has demonstrated that the unduly narrow focus on accessibility has undermined user experience. The narrow focus of accessibility standards and usability-based approaches have tended to take a limited view of human needs underestimating cultural factors. This thesis has shown that social, ideological, and psychological issues rising from Deaf culture are as important aspects for user experience as physiological ones. The results of this study are consistent with previous cultural studies, but they have not been implemented in previous web interfaces targeted towards Deaf users. Secondly, an overview of design implications was developed into recommen-dations that were supported by the findings from the design research as well as previous studies.

8.3 lIMITaTIoNs oF The sTUDyThe result of the participatory research is closely tied to the opinions of Deaf users and their experiences with web sites. Still, the involvement of users does not guarantee the development of meaningful artefacts. There are two major drawbacks of the open participatory method. Firstly, the limited scope of this thesis makes it incapable to examine each individual feature in-depth. Secondly, there may be several issues that the study has not touched upon: the participatory design methods relies solely on participants to bring about the issues

they are concerned with. Nevertheless, agendas given by members of the culture are ones that they are concerned with, and thus, important to them. Thereby, it can be assumed that these are the issues which contribute to an interface becoming cherished by Deaf users.

The participatory design approach was suited for this type of research. It made the whole design process accessible to community members enabling the study to transcend it in ways the participant found buoyant. As opinions were part of the design process, the participants’ viewpoints were not left at theoretical level but put into practice. That is, the design outcome provided a visual example of how the cultural features should be implemented to meet the needs of Deaf users. In addition, the observations and knowledge gained as well as the research methods developed in this study are utilised in in-house training for the Finnish Association of the Deaf.

However, more in-depth research should be conducted for individual features in order to gain more reliable research results. That said, one should keep in mind that overall user-experience is always a result of components that rely on each other, and thus, the modification of one may alter the perception of the other. This is the case especially for Deaf people who are holistically minded: they have the tendency to see foreground and background together, contrasting to the analytical mainstream Western culture that tends to separate individual elements from each other.

8.4 FUTUre worKThis design research has been the first step in identifying Deaf culture specific design elements. Future research should be conducted to amend, test, and specify the findings both in theory and practice. In addition, a few interesting issues – that were out of the scope of this design study – were raised, and that warrants further research.

The positioning of the signer within a sign video.• The workshops indicated that occasionally the signed communication feels more natural if more than one signer is used, allowing a more natural flow of signing. This was also a feature used in sites that were produced by Deaf designers on experimental sites. More research should be conducted on cases in which the use of more than one signer is more effective.

64

Cross-cultural study on user experience in Deaf •culture compared to other collective cultures. The literature review on cross-cultural web design as well as the structure of sign language showed connections between sign language and collective cultures. This is in terms of language structures as well as preferences on visual styles and interface features. Among others these included preference on soft information over hard facts, images over text, and holistic perception over analytic thinking. Thus, more in-depth research should be conducted on the similarity of user experience in these cultures in order to be able transfer design ideas from one domain to another. The cross-cultural comparison might lead one to identify design features that are yet undiscovered on interfaces designed for Deaf communities.

65

Al-Wabil, A., Zaphiris, P. & Wilson, S. (2008). Examining visual attention of dyslexics on web navigation structures with eye tracking. Proceed-ings of Innovations in Information Technology, 2008. IIT 2008, Al Ain, UAEU, 717–721.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Anderson-Inman, L. & Horney, M. A. (2007). Supported e-text: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 153–160.

Anttila, P. (2005). Tutkiva toiminta ja ilmaisu, teos, tekeminen. Hamina: Akatiimi.

Barber, W. & Badre, A. (1998). Culturability: The merging of culture and usability. Retrieved from http://research.microsoft.com/users/marycz/hfweb98/barber/index.htm

Barnett, G. A. & Sung, E. J. (2005). Culture and the structure of international communication.

Journal of International Communication, 11(2), 75–88.

Battarbee, K., Koskinen. I., & Mattelmäki, T. (2003). Empathic design: User experience in product design. Helsinki: IT Press.

Benderly, B. L. (1980). Dancing without music: Deafness in America. Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Bergman, B. & Dahl. Ö. (1994). Ideophones in Sign Language?: The place of reduplica-tion in the tense-aspect system of Swedish Sign Language. In C. Bache, H. Basbøll & C.-E. Lindberg (Eds.), Tense, aspect and action: Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology. Proceedings of seminars on verbal semantics at Odense University in 1986 and 1987 (pp. 397–422). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Berlin, P., Kay, P., Maffi, L., & Merrifield, W. (1997). Color naming across languages. In C.L. Hardin & L. Maffi (Eds.), Color Catego-ries in Thought and Language (pp. 21–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centred systems.

San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., & Swenton-Wall, P. (1993). Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.),

Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 123–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Blythe, M. & Hassenzahl, M. (2003). The semantics of fun: Differentiating enjoyable experiences. In M. Blythe, A. Monk, K.F. Overbeeke & P. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 91–100). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

References

66

Buchanan, R. (1996). Wicked problems in design thinking. In V. Margolin & R. Buchanan (Eds.), The Idea of Design. CA: The MIT Press.

Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.

Callahan, E. (2005). Cultural similarities and differ-ences in the design of university web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communi-cation, 11(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/callahan.html

Cho, B., Kwon, U., Gentry, J. W., Jun, S. & Kropp, F. (1999). Cultural values reflected in theme and execution: A comparative study of US and Korean television commercials. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 59–74.

Choong, Y., Plocher, T., & Rau, P. (2005). Cross-cultural web design. In R.W. Proctor

& L. Kim-Phuong (Eds.), Handbook of human factors in web design (pp. 284–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Choong, Y., & Salvendy, G. (1999). Implications for design of computer interfaces for

Chinese users in mainland China. International Journal of Human-computer

Interaction, 11(1), 29–46.

Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L. G., & Vander-heiden, G. (2008). Web content accessibil-ity guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/

Classen, C. (1993). Worlds of sense: Exploring the senses in history and across cultures.

London: Routledge.

Comstock, D.E. & Fox, R. (1993). Participa-tory research as critical theory: The North Bonneville, USA, experience. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall & T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 103–124). Toronto: OISE Press.

Cooper, A., Reimann, R. & Cronin, D. (2007). About face 3: The essentials of interaction design. (3rd ed.). Indianapolis: Wiley publishing.

Dant, T. (1999). Material culture in the social world. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.

Deaf Studies Trust (2000). WISDOM final summary. Bristol: Centre for Deaf Studies. Retrieved from http://www.deafstudiestrust.org/files/pdf/wisdom/WISDOM_final_summary.pdf

Djadjadiningrat, K. O., Hummels, C. & Swensveen (2002). Beauty in usability: Forget the ease-of-use. In P.W. Jordan & W.S. Green (Eds.), Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability. NY: Taylor & Francis.

Dong, Y. & Lee, K. P. (2008). A cross-cultural comparative study of users’ perceptions of a webpage: With a focus on the cognitive styles of Chinese, Koreans, and Americans. Interna-tional Journal of Design, 2(2),19–30.

Drivonikou, G. V., Davies, I. R. L., Franklin, A. & Taylor, C. (2007). Lateralisation of colour categorical perception: A cross-cultural study. Proceedings of European Conference on Visual

Perception, Arezzo.

Ess, C. & Sudweeks, F. (2005). Culture and computer-mediated communication: Toward new understandings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/ess.html

Evans, B. J. W. & Kriss, I. (2005). The relationship between dyslexia and Meares-Irlen syndrome. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(3), 350–364.

Evers, V. (1998). Cross-cultural understanding of metaphors in interface design. In C. Ess & F. Sudweeks (Eds.), Proceedings of Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication (pp. 217–218). Sydney: University of Sydney.

Evers, V. & Day, D. (1997). The role of culture in interface acceptance. In S. Howard, J. Hammond, and G. Lindegaard (Eds.), Proceedings of Human Computer Interaction INTERACT’97 (pp. 260–267). London: Chapman and Hall.

67

Faiola, A. (2002). A visualization pilot study for hyper-media: Developing cross-cultural user profiles for new media interfaces. The Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(1), 51–71.

Faiola, A. & Matei, S. A. (2005). Cultural cognitive style and web design: Beyond a behavioral inquiry into computer-mediated communi-cation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/faiola.html

Fajardo. I., Abascal, J. & Cañas, J. J. (2008b). Bridging the digital divide for Deaf signer users. Proceedings of the 15th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics: The ergonomics of cool interaction. ACM Interna-tinal Conference Series, 369, Article 37.

Fajardo, I., Arfé, B., Benedetti, P. & Altoé, G. M. (2008a). Hyperlink format, categorization abilities and memory span as contributors to Deaf users Hypertext. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(2), 241–256.

Fajardo, I., Cañas, J .J. & Abascal, J. (2004). The role of working memory and long term memory in deaf’ users hypertext navigation: Review of guidelines for web accesibility. In C. Stary & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), UI4A11 2004, LNCS 3196, 320-325. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Fajardo, I., Cañas, J. J., Salmerán, L. & Abascal, J. (2006). Improving Deaf users’ accessibility in hypertext information retrieval: Are graphi-cal interfaces useful for them? Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(6), 455–467.

Fajardo, I., Parra, E., Cañas, J. J., Abascal, J., López J.M. & Gea, M. (2008c). Web textual hyperlinks supported with sign language videos. Proceedings of Workshop on Cognition and the Web: Information Processing, Comprehension and Learning. WCW2008. University of Granada. Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/infabra/WCW%202008_Extended.pdf

Basic Education Act (2004). The Constitution of Finland 628/1998. Retrieved from http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1998/en19980628.pdf

Foley, A. & Regan, B. (2002). Web design for accessi-bility: Policies and practice. AACE Journal, 10(1), 62–80. Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Fotinea, S.-E. & Efthimiou, E. (2008). Tools for Deaf accessibility to an eGOV

environment. Computers Helping People with Special Needs, 5105, 446–453. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

Garrett, J. J. (2002). The Elements of user experience: User-centred design for the web. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Publishing.

Gentry, M. M., Chinn, K. M., & Moulton, R. D. (2004/2005). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 394–403.

Green, B. (2002). Introduction with products: Beyond usability ‘human factors and design’. In P.W. Jordan & W.S. Green (Eds.), Pleasure with products: Beyond usability. NY: Taylor & Francis.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life, the other dimension of time. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: SAGE/

Open University.

Hartmann, J., Sutcliffe, A. G. & De Angeli, A. (2008). Towards a theory of user judgement of aesthetics and user interface quality. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(4), 15.

Harrison, C. M. (2004). Low-vision reading aids: Reading as a pleasurable experience. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 8(3–4), 213–220.

Hassenzahl, M. (2004). The thing and I: Under-standing the relationship between user and product. In M. Blythe, A. Monk, K.F. Overbeeke & P. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 31–42). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

68

Hewling, A. (2005). Culture in the online class: Using message analysis to look beyond nationality-based frames of reference. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-tion, 11(1), Article 16. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/hewling.html

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions

and Organisations across Nations (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Honkela, T., Leinonen, T., Lonka, K. & Raike, A (2000). Self-Organizing Maps and Construc-tive Learning. Proceedings of ICEUT’2000, International Conference on Educational Uses of Communication and Information Technologies, Beijing, 339–343.

Hummels, C. C. M. & Helm, van der A. (2004). ISH and the search for resonant tangible interaction. Personal and Ubiquitous Comput-ing, 8(5), 385–388.

International Organization for Standardiza-tion (1998). ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) — Part 11: Guidance on Usability. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=16883

Israelite, N., Ewoldt, C. & Hoffmeister, R. S. (1992). Bilingual-bicultural education for deaf and hard of hearing students. Toronto: MGS Publications Services.

Jantunen, T. (2003). Viittomien historiallinen muutos ja deikonisaatio suomalaisessa viitto-makielessä. Puhe ja kieli, 23, 43–60.

Jhangiani, I. & Smith-Jackson T. (2007). Comparison of mobile phone user interface

design preferences: perspectives from nation-ality and disability culture. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on mobile technology, applications, and systems and the 1st international symposium on Computer human interaction in mobile technology, Singapore, 512–519.

Johnston,T. & Schembri, A. C. (2007). Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jordan, P. W. (1999). Pleasure with Products: Human factors for body, mind and soul. In P.W. Jordan & W.S. Green (Eds.), Human Factors in Product Design: Current Practice and Future Trends (pp. 179–188). London: Taylor & Francis.

Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing Pleasurable Products. London: Taylor & Francis.

Keinonen, T. (2008). User-centred design and fundamental need. Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2008, Lund. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 358, 211–219.

Kentala, E, & Jero, J. (2007). Lasten sisäkorvaistut-teet. [Children and the cochlear implantation]. Duodecim, 123(16), 2014–2018.

Koskela, M. et al. (2008). Content-based video analysis and access for Finnish Sign language – A multidisciplinary research project. Proceed-ings of the 3rd Workshop on the Representa-tion and Processing of Sign anguages. 6th international conference on language resources and evaluation, Marrakech, 101–104.

Krippendorf, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. NY: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

Krueger, R.A, & Casey, M. A. (2008). Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Kurosu, M. & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: Experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, Colorado, 292–293.

Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding Deaf culture – In search of deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Lang, H. G. (2000). Phone of our own: The Deaf insurrection against Ma Bell. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.

69

Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Lavie, T. & Travinsky, S. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(3), 269–298.

Lawson, B. (2005) How designers think – the design process demystified. London: The Architectural Press.

Lee, K. P. (2004). Design methods for a cross-cultural collaborative design project. In J. Redmond, D. Durling, A. de Bono (Eds.), Proceedings of Design Research Society International Conference – Future-ground. Melbourne: Monash University.

Leigh, I. (2009). A lense on Deaf identities. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Leinonen, T., Toikkanen, T., & Silfvast, K. (2008). Software as hypothesis: Research-based design methodology. Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference 2008. ACM International Conference series.

Levine, D. (1985). The flight from ambiguity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lin, R. T. (2007). Transforming Taiwan aboriginal cultural features into modern product design: A case study of a cross-cultural product design model. International Journal of Design, 1(2), 45–53.

Lingaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2003). What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Inter-acting with Computers, 15(3), 429–452.

Livingston, M. S., Rosen, G. D., Drislane, F. W., & Galaburda, A. M. (1991). Physiological and anatomical evidence for a magnocellular defect in developmental dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88(18).

Lonka, E. & Hasan, M. (2006). Sisäkorvaistutetta käyttävien lasten kommunikaatio-, koulu- ja päivähoitotilanne Suomessa. [Communica-tional, educational and child care choices on children with cochlear implantation in Finland]. In E. Lehto, M. Hasan & R. Parkas (Eds.), Satakieliseminaari 2006 (pp. 73–9). Helsinki: Satakieliohjelma.

Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical Categories and Cognition. Glasgow. Scotland: Cambridge

University Press.

Lyytinen, H. (2005). Neurokognitiivisten häiriöiden tutkimus. In Lyytinen, H., Ahonen, T., Korhonen, T. , Korkman, M. & Riita, T. (Eds.), Oppimisvaikeudet. Neuropsykologinen näkökulma (2nd–3rd ed.). Helsinki: WSOY, 10–19.

Macdonald, A. S. (2002). The Scenario of Sensory Encounter: Cultural Factor in Sensory-Aesthtic Experience. In P.W. Jordan & W.S. Green (Eds.), Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability. NY: Taylor & Francis.

MacSweeney, M., Capek, C. M., Campbell, R. & Woll, B. (2008). The signing brain the neurobi-ology of sign language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 432–440.

Malm, A. & Östman J.-O. (2000). Viittomakieliset ja heidän kielensä. In A. Malm (Ed.), Viittomakie-liset Suomessa [Sign Language users in Finland] (pp. 9–32). Helsinki: Finn Lectura.

Marcus, A. & Gould, E. W. (2000). Crosscur-rents: cultural dimensions and global web user-interface design. Interactions, 7(4), 32–46.

Marschark, M. & Everhart, V. S. (1997). Relations of language and cognition: What do Deaf children tell us? In Marschark, M., Siple, P., Lillo-Martin, D. & Everhart, V. (Eds.), Relations of language and thought: The view from sign language and Deaf children (pp 3–23). NY: Oxford University Press.

Marschark, M. & Hauser, P. C. (2008). Cognitive underpinnings of learning by Deaf and hard of hearing students: Differences, diversity, and directions. In M. Marschark & P.C. Hauser (Eds.), Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes (pp. 3–23). NY: Oxford Universtiy Press.

Margolin, V. (1997) Getting to know the user. Design Studies, 18, 227–236.

Marriott, K. & Meyer, K. (1998). Visual language theory. NY: Springer-Verlag.

McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experi-ence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

70

McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: Univer-sity of Toronto Press.

Mindess, A. with Holcomb, T. K., Langholtz, D. & Moyers, P. (2006). Reading between the signs: intercultural communication for sign language interpreters (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.

Moalasi, R. (2007). The impact of socio-cultural factors upon human-centred design in Botswana. Ph.D. Thesis. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing interactions. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Morville, P. & Rosenfield, L. (2006). Information architecture for the world wide web (2nd ed.). Sebastapol, CA: O’Reilly.

Muir, J. M. & Richardson, I. E. G. (2005). Perception of sign language and its applica-tion to visual communications for Deaf people. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(4), 390–401. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Muller, M. J. (2002). Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In J.A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (pp. 1051–1068). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Namatame, M., Kirajima, M., Nishioka, T., & Fukamauchi, F. (2004). A preparatory study for designing web-based educational materials for the hearing-impaired. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Comput-ers Helping People with Special Needs, ICCHP2004, 1144–1151.

Namatame, M. & Kitajima, M. (2005). Differ-ences in web interaction styles of hard of hearing and hearing persons. Proceedings of the HCI International 2005, 136–143.

Namatame, M. & Kitajima, M. (2008). Compari-son of alternative representational formats for hyperlinks: Pictogram, labelled-pictogram, and text. Proceedings of the

workshop on cognition and the web: Information processing, comprehension and learning. WCW2008, 115–118.

Namatame, M., Nishioka, T. & Kitajima, M. (2006). Designing a web page considering the interaction characteristics of the hard of hearing. Proceedings of the 10th Interna-tional Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs, 136–143.

Nelson, H. G. & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way. Intentional change in an unpredict-able world. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

Nelson, K. E. & Camarata, S. M. (1996). Improv-ing English literacy and speech-acquisition learning conditions for children with severe to profound hearing impairments. Volta Review, 98(2), 17–41.

Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Boston: Academic Press.

Nielsen, J. (1997). The use and misuse of focus groups. Retrieved from http://www.useit.com/papers/focusgroups.html

Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.

Nielsen, J. (2002). User empowerment and the fun factor. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. Retrieved from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020707.html

Nielsen J & Pernice K (2001). Beyond ALT text: Making the web easy touse for users with disabilities. Design guidelines for web sites and intranets based on usability studies with people using assistive technology. Nielsen Norman Group. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.com/reports/accessibility

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently and why. NY: The Free Press.

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I. & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 8, 291–310.

71

Nisbett, R. E. & Norenzayan, A. (2002). Culture and cognition. In H. Pashler & D.L. Medin (Eds.), Stevens Handbook of Experimental Psychology: Cog-

nition (3rd ed.), 561–597. NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Norman, D. A. (1998). The psychology of everyday Things. NY: Basic Books.

Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we Love (or hate) everyday things. NY: Basic Books.

Overbeeke, K. et al. (2003). Let’s make things engaging. In M. Blythe, A. Monk, K.F. Overbeeke & P. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 7–18). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Petrie, H., Hamilton, F., & King, N. (2004). Tension, what tension?: Website accessibility and visual design. Proceedings of the 2004 international Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessi-bility (W4A). ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 63, 13–18.

Piggott, M. (2002). eAccessibility for All. Ability, 43, 22–23.

Prabhu, G. & Harel, D. (1999). GUI design preference validation for Japan and China – A

case for KANSEI engineering? Proceedings of HCI International (the 8th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction) on Human-Computer Interaction: Ergonomics and User Interfaces, 1, 521–525.

Presno, C. (1997). Bruner’s three forms of represen-tation revisited: Action, pictires, and words for effective computer interaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 224, 112–118.

Rafaeli, A. & Pratt, M. G. (2006). Artifacts and organi-zations: Beyond mere symbolism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Raike, A. (1997). Linkkejä, ankkureita, ja videoleikkeitä: Hajautettu hypermedia kuurojen tiedonsaannissa. [Links, anchors, and video clips. Distributed hypermedia in information retrieval of Deaf people]. MA thesis, University of Art and Design Helsinki.

Raike, A. (2005). Löytäjät Elokuvantajua rakentamassa: yhteisöllinen www-palvelun tuotanto. [Cinema-Sense, a collaborative web-based learning tool] Ph.D. Thesis. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.

Rainò, P. (1997). Selkosuomesta puheen kuvailuun. [From plain Finnish to description of speech]. Virittäjä, 4, 609–618.

Rainò, P (2004). Henkilöviittomien synty ja kehitys suomalaisessa viittomakieliyhteisössä [The emergence and development of personal name signs among sign language users in Finland]. Deaf Studies in Finland 2 [CD]. Ph.D. Thesis. Helsinki: The Finnish Association of the Deaf.

Rainò, P. (2006). Viittomien leksikaalisesta kuvauk-sesta. [The lexical description of sign language]. In Suominen, M. et al. (Eds.), A man of measure. Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday. Special supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics (pp. 236–242), 19. Turku: Linguistic Association of Finland. Retrieved from http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/julkaisut/sky2006special.shtml

Rathmann, C. (2005). Event structure in American Sign Language. Ph.D. Thesis. Texas: Austin Univer-sity of Texas.

Regan, B. (2004). Design: Accessibility and design: a failure of the imagination. Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility. ACM International Confer-ence Proceeding Series, 63, 29–37.

Report of the Government on the application of language legislation 2009. [Helsinki]: Ministry

of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.om.fi/en/Etusivu/Julkaisut/Muutjulkai-sut/1236880953561

Rittel, H.W.J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

RNID. (n.d.). Producing information for Deaf and hard of hearing people. London: The Royal National Institute for Deaf People [factsheet]. Retrieved from http://www.rnid.org.uk/information_resources/factsheets/deaf_awareness/factsheets_leaflets/producing_info_4_deaf_people.htm

72

Rouse, W. B. (2007). People and organizations: Explorations of human-centred design. New Jersey: Wiley-Interscience.

Saar, V., Mansikka-aho, K. & Mäki, O. (2004). Kuulovammaisuus. In Ahonen et al. (Eds.), Aivot ja oppiminen. Kliinistä lasten neuropsykolo-giaa (pp. 246–262), (2nd ed.). Jyväskylä: Atena.

Sacks, O. (1991). Seeing voices: Journey into the world of the Deaf. London: Picador.

Salmi, E. & Laakso, M. (2005). Maahan lämpimään – Suomen viittomakielisten historia. Helsinki: Kuurojen Liitto ry.

Sanders, E. B.-N. (2004). Ethnography and the empowerment of everyday people. White paper for Microsoft Corporation. Ohio: The Ohio State University.

Sanders, E. B.-N. & William, C. T. (2003). Harnessing people’s creativity: Ideation and expression through visual communication. In J.D. Langford & D. McDonagh (Eds.), Focus groups: Supporting effective product development (pp. 147–156). London: Taylor & Francis.

Scherer, K. R. (1997). The role of culture in emotion-antecedent appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 902–922.

Sengers, P. (2003). The engineering of experience. In M. Blythe, A. Monk, K.F. Overbeeke & P. Wright (Eds.), Funology: from usability to enjoyment (pp. 19–29). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Singleton, J. L. (2002). Understanding families: Hearing students with Deaf parents. Coda International. Retrieved from http://www.coda-international.org/infopacket.html

Skelton, M. & Maruyama, T. (2006). The role of the Internet in D/deaf People’s inclusion in the information society. Walsall Deaf People’s Centre (WDPC). Proceedings of Deafskills06 Conference. Wolverhampton: University of Wolverhampton.

Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö. (2001). Kuulovam-maiset. Retrieved from http://pre20031103.stm.fi/suomi/tao/julkaisut/omakieli/kuulo.htm

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culturally speaking: managing rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum.

Swindbourne, C. (Writer/director). (2007). Four Deaf Yorkshiremen [short film]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2upAsFzO9AU

Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 115–122.

Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997) Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business (2nd ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey.

Tsai, T. W., Chang, T. C., Chuang, M. C., & Wang, D. M. (2008). Exploration in emotion and visual information uncertainty of web sites in culture relations. International Journal of Design, 2(2), 55–66.

Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. NY: Oxford University Press.

WHO (2006). Deafness and hearing impair-ment. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/index.html

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Carrol, J.B. (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Woodward, J. (1972). Implications for socio- linguistics research among the deaf. Sign

Language Studies, 1, 1–7.

Würtz E (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of web sites from high-context cultures

and low-context cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/wuertz.html

WWW-sivut ja viittomakieli. (2003). Kuurojen lehti 108(1), 23–32.

73

Zeshan, U. (2003). Towards a notion of ‘word’ in sign languages. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Eds.), Word: a cross-linguistic typology (pp. 153–179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zhu, T. (2005). Written Communication across cultures. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

web sITes

Barclays Accessible Services (http://www.barclays.co.uk)

BBC – My Web My Way (http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility)

British Deaf Association (http://bda.org.uk)

CinemaSense (http://elokuvantaju.uiah.fi)

Deaf Free Camp Europe 4 (http://dfce.signfuse.com)

Deafstation: Information resource and news servise in BSL (http://www.deafstation.org)

Deaf Video Production [Kuurojen video] (www.kuurojenvideo.fi)

Deaf Video TV: Deaf Videos and Vlogs (http://www.deafvideo.tv)

DEAFVOC – a Leonardo da Vi language competence project (http://www.deafvoc.fi)

D-PAN: Deaf Performing Artists Network (http://www.d-pan.com)

DePaul University American Sign Language Project (http://asl.cs.depaul.edu)

Facebook (http://www.facebook.com)

The Finnish Association of the Deaf (http://www.kl-deaf.fi)

Finnish Sign Language TV [Viittomakielinen TV] (http://www.kl-deaf.fi/nettitv)

Flowplayer – Flash Video for the Web (http://flowplayer.org)

jQuery: The Write Less, Do More, JavaScript Library (http://jquery.com)

Kaltura – Open Source Video Community (http://www.kaltura.org )

Markku Jokinen (http://www.markkujokinen.org)

Mencap (http://www.mencap.org.uk)

Papunet (http://www.papunet.net)

Seesmic (http://seesmic.com)

Signline (http://www.signline.fi)

Sign-tube (http://www.sign-tube.com)

Tate (http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/bsl-list.js)

Tate (http://www.tate.org.uk/home/bsl.htm)

Vcom3D (http://www.vcom3d.com)

Viittomakilialan osuuskunta Via (http://www.via-ok.net)

VIIVI – Viittomakielisen opetuksen portti (http://www.viivi.fi)

Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com)

Visicast (http://www.visicast.cmp.uea.ac.uk)

Websourd – Toute l’information en Langue des Signes Française – LSF (http://www.websourd.org) [Retrieved version not available since May, 2009]

Wordpress › Blog Tool and Publishing Platform (http://wordpress.org)

YLE – Sign Language news by the Finnish Broadcasting Company (http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/viittomakieliset_uutiset/

Youtube (http://www.youtube.com)

74

The following 17 web sites were evaluated and discussed during the focus group session. All of these sites were accessed on January 13, 2009. They are listed in an alphabetical order.

Barbican (http://www.barbican.org.uk)

Deaf Nation(http://www.deafnation.org)

Elisa (http://www.elisa.fi)

The Finnish Associatio of the Deaf (http://www.kl-deaf.fi)

Globaloneness(http://www.globaloneness.org)

Headlines corporate news (http://www.corpnews.co.uk)

Iltalehti(http://www.iltalehti.fi)

Iltasanomat(http://www.iltasanomat.fi)

Kuurojen Palvelusaatio(http://www.kuurojenpalvelusaatio.fi)

Markku Jokinen(http://www.markkujokinen.org)

Shouth Creative(http://shouthcreeative.com.au)

Sign Planet(http://www.signplanet.cm)

Signfuse (http://www.signfuse.com)

Signline(http://www.signline.fi)

Viittomakilialan osuuskunta Via(http://www.via-ok.net)

Viivi(http://www.viivi.fi)

Websourd(http://www.websourd.fr)[Retrieved version not available after May, 2009]

Appendix 1

Focus Group

75

The following themes were used as a basis for thematic interview used to capture information which included participants’ Internet usage, experience, and interface preferences.

1. Internet usage a) Most commonly visited web sites b) Favourite web sites c) Sign language web sites visited d) Favourite sign language web sites

2. Experience a) Frustration on the web b) Engagement on the web

3. Wishes for improvements a) In terms of functionality and navigation b) In terms of layout c) In terms of content

Appendix II

ThemATIc InTervIew

76

In Finnish:

SUOSTUMUS

Annan tutkija Suvi Kituselle luvan tallentaa työskentelyäni. Lisäksi lupaan tutkimuksen aikana pitämäni muistiinpanot, valokuvat ja videotallenteet hänen käyttöönsä.

Videotallenteet ja muu materiaali tulee vain tutkimuksen käyttöön eikä niitä saa esittää muussa yhteydessä ilman eri sopimusta. Annan luvan materiaalin julkaisuun tutkimukseen liittyvissä julkaisuissa.

Helsingissä __ /___ 2009

______________________Allekirjoitus

______________________Nimen selvennys

In English:

CONCENT FORM

I give researcher Suvi Kitunen a permission to record my working. In addition, I promise to give the notes, photos, and video recordings that I have produced during the research to her disposal.

Video recordings and other material is only to be used for the purpose of the study and they are not permitted to be shown in any other context without a separate agreement. I give a permission to publish this material in publications related to this research.

__ /___ 2009, Helsinki

______________________Signature

______________________Print name

Appendix III

ConCent form

78

The design research by suvi Kitunen aims to provide design recommendations for Deaf culture specific web sites taking into consideration the implications of Deaf culture and sign language as a first language on web user experience. so far websites localised for sign language users have been merely concerned with providing signed alternatives to written and auditory content but have failed to take into consideration the cultural aspects of signed communication. The knowledge was gathered through participatory design

methods and applied in the development of Knack.fi web site, aiming to serve dyslexic Deaf children and their families.

overall, this thesis made two contributions. Firstly, it demonstrated that the unduly narrow focus on accessibility and usability has undermined the impact of culture upon user experience. secondly, drawing together ideas on the literature and supported by the findings of the user research, it developed a preliminary list of design recommendations for future developments.

designing a deaf culture specific web site – participatory design research for knack.fi

Documents