Cited by 82Subtitles and Audiovisual MediaHearing Impairment and CommunicationAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Improving Real-Time Captioning Experiences for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students

Kawas, Saba, Karalis, George, Wen, Tzu, Ladner, Richard E.·2016·Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Abstract

We take a qualitative approach to understanding deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students' experiences with real-time captioning as an access technology in mainstream university classrooms. We consider both existing human-based captioning as well as new machine-based solutions that use automatic speech recognition (ASR). We employed a variety of qualitative research methods to gather data about students' captioning experiences including in-class observations, interviews, diary studies, and usability evaluations. We also conducted a co-design workshop with 8 stakeholders after our initial research findings. Our results show that accuracy and reliability of the technology are still the most important issues across captioning solutions. However, we additionally found that current captioning solutions tend to limit students' autonomy in the classroom and present a variety of user experience shortcomings, such as complex setups, poor feedback and limited control over caption presentation. Based on these findings, we propose design requirements and recommend features for real-time captioning in mainstream classrooms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2982142.2982164

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a mismatch between reports of AI research and the lived experience of the DHH community.

    “There seems to be a mismatch between reports of AI research and the lived experience of the DHH community [Butler 2019;Kale and Huenerfauth 2016;Kawas et al. 2016;National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes 2020].”

    From Measuring the Accuracy of Automatic Speech Recognition Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as Kawas et al. 2016

  • Insufficient accuracy of ASR is the main issue reported by DHH individuals in related studies and by the DHH community.

    “However, insuicient accuracy of ASR is the main issue reported by DHH individuals in related studies [Butler 2019;Kawas et al. 2016] and by the DHH community [Blake 2019;National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes 2020].”

    From Measuring the Accuracy of Automatic Speech Recognition Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as Kawas et al. 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kawas, S., Karalis, G., Wen, T., & Ladner, R. E.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-10-23
Pages
15-23
OpenAlex
W2533816498
Cited by
82
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5
FWCI
55.54
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
real-time captioning, deaf and hard of hearing students, speech recognition, accessibility in higher education, mainstream classrooms, student independence, user experience, co-design, design requirements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review