helena mitchell, ph.d. executive director planning for accessible emergency communications: mobile...
TRANSCRIPT
Helena Mitchell, Ph.D.Executive Director
Planning for Accessible Emergency Communications: Mobile Technology and Social Media
AEGIS conferenceBrussels, Belgium 2011
Statistics in Perspective
American Red Cross responded to more than 60,000 disasters in 2010
54 million people have some type of disability; by 2030 it will equal 20% of the population
96% of the U.S. population use wireless services or products
Wireless Use Among People with Disabilities
85% use wireless products and services 77% state access to wireless important 65% wireless device important in emergencies
70% have contacted 911, of those, 85% used a wireless device
RERC Consumer Advisory NetworkSurvey of User Needs
1600 plus people with disabilities
Challenges for People with Disabilities
Access to emergency information Receiving the message Ability to take action Technological transitions and incompatibility
issues
Access to emergency alerts Broadcasting, computers, laptops, car radios,
wireless devices, captioned tele- phony (TTY), relay and interpreting services (ASL, S-S)
Considerations for Accessible EC
“One of the challenges we face as a nation is ensuring not only that our technological prowess empowers ALL Americans to lead better and more productive lives, but also that we harness these tools to preserve and protect the lives, property, and public safety of ALL citizens by making them universally accessible and usable.”
~David Furth, FCC
Wireless RERC Mission
Research and develop accessible wireless technologies and products to improve the lives of people with disabilities.
Emergency Lifelines on Wireless Platforms
Provide alternative and accessible emergency communication "lifelines" over wireless platforms to assist people with disabilities in managing the transition from legacy alerting systems (e.g. broadcasts over TV and radio) to next-generation versions of alerting systems (e.g. mobile broadband alerting).
Methodology Research and develop prototypes to deliver alerts in
accessible formats over wireless devices
Administered 12 field trials and 2 focus groups
Administered a pre-test and post-test questionnaire
Tabulated quantitative and qualitative data
Reported findings and recommendations on feasible approaches to accessible wireless alerts
Testing Begins
Over 100 participants
Blind and/or low vision and/or deaf or hard-of-hearing
Levels of experience with wireless devices
Technology savvy Mixed ability Infrequent users
Some testers used mobile phones with custom software, others used standard BlackBerry devices
Some Pre-Field Trial Questions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
How often do you carry a mobile phone?
Sometimes
Always
n/a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
How often do you useyour mobile phone?
Everyday
3-6 times/week
1-2 tims/wek
Never0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
How do you currentlyreceive emergency alerts?
TV
Radio
Weather Radio
Telephone
Mobile Phone
Frnds/Fam
Sirens
Alerting Device
Other
Findings from EAS Trials
Field trials (Nine groups at three sites): Site 1: 94% of blind, low vision participants stated wireless
emergency alerting system they evaluated was an improvement over other methods they currently use for receiving emergency alerts.
Site 2: 81% of deaf and hard-of-hearing and deaf-blind found the alerts to be an improvement.
Site 3: 92% of deaf and hard-of-hearing and visually impaired found devices an improvement.
Post-field trials: 83% of people with sensory limitations said receiving emergency alerts via wireless devices was highly desirable.
Commercial Mobile Alerting System
Included CMAS parameters plus improvements from previous trials.
Reduction in number of characters, no URL’s, varied vibrating cadences. Of those who participated in previous tests 77% stated it was an improvement.
70% of persons with hearing limitations found the CMAS alerts to be an improvement.
83% of persons with visual limitations found the accessible CMAS system to be an improvement.
Focus Groups
“American Sign Language (ASL) is the fourth most common language used in America; it has all the essential features a language requires to operate: rules for grammar, punctuation, and sentence order.
Earlier feedback from Deaf participants suggested need to discuss ASL alerts
All participants felt that ASL was an improvement over text
Some participants felt combination of text and ASL gave them fuller understanding of alert versus text or ASL alone
Anecdotal evidence suggests some common terminology such as “take cover” or “low-lying area”; do not translate well into Deaf English and perhaps should be avoided.
IN THE MEANTIME…
Nationwide survey of people with disabilities November-January 2010-2011 1. Contacting 911 emergency services 2. Using social media during public emergencies
Respondent Profile
Total number of respondents 1343
Number of respondents with disability 1115
Age range 18-91
Age average 51.6
Consumer Advisory Network
USING SOCIAL MEDIA DURING PUBLIC EMERGENCIES
“Rather than trying to convince the public to adjust to the way we at FEMA communicate, we must adapt to the way the public communicates ... We must use social media tools to more fully engage the public as a critical partner in our efforts.” ~ Craig Fugate, FEMA
Image courtesy of Patrice Cloutier, Blogger
Official Use of Social Media
74% of states use SM to disseminate emergency information
Twitter 36% Facebook 29% YouTube 13%
45% of cities use SM to disseminate emergency information
Twitter: 35% Facebook: 34% YouTube: 11%
Sets Precedent. Sets Expectations.
Do you access social media on the following devices?
PercentDesktop only 23%Laptop only 12%Cell phone only 3%Desktop and laptop 6%Desktop and cell phone 7%Laptop and cell phone 7%Desktop, laptop, cell 5% TOTAL 63%
25% of respondents with disabilities use more than one type of device (e.g., desktop and cell phone) to access social media.
Social media outlets used by respondents
Number of social media outlets used
Received alert Verified alert
0 (by other means) 77.4 84.3 1 15.7 11.8 2 4.6 2.6 3 1.4 0.7
Social media are used by people with disabilities. 22% have received public alerts via social media 16% have verified public alerts using social media
Social media outlets used by respondents to receive and verify public alerts
Received alert Verified alert
Facebook 11.6% 8.6%
Twitter 4.6% 2.5%
Listservs 4.2% 2.1%
Yahoo 3.8% 2.3%
YouTube 1.3% 1.0%
MySpace 1.3% 0.7%
Google Buzz 1.2% 0.8%
LinkedIn 0.0% 0.6%
Foursquare 0.3% 0.3%
Conclusions
Use of wireless devices and social media increasing among people with disabilities.
Receipt and verification of alerts most often through TV TV has accessibility barriers. Accessible formats need to be available to a variety of media
devices.
Social Media increasing among people with disabilities. Facebook currently most popular. Twitter predominately used by state and local emergency
response agencies.
Recommendations
Disconnect between where citizens seek information and where agencies disseminate information, this needs to be fixed.
Redundancies and alternative sources needed to create accessible alerts and links to additional information.
Agency links to social media need to be in prominent location on the homepage.
Incorporating SM outlets into the planning of emergency services sites makes strategic sense.
How to Meet the Challenges
Government, researchers, and industry working together can create change we can all live with.
Contact Us: www.wirelessrerc.org
Helena Mitchell, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, Wireless RERC
Emergency Lifelines on Wireless Networks Project: Helena Mitchell, Co-project Director Frank Lucia, Co-project Director Salimah LaForce, Research Analyst Ed Price, Technical Director Jeremy Johnson, Research Engineer Ben Lippincott, Industry Liaison
The Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Department of Education under grant number H133E110002. The opinions contained in this presentation are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education.