Cited by 54Subtitles and Audiovisual MediaAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityHearing Impairment and Communication

Social, Environmental, and Technical: Factors at Play in the Current Use and Future Design of Small-Group Captioning

Open access
McDonnell, Emma J., Liu, Ping, Goodman, Steven M., Kushalnagar, Raja, Froehlich, Jon E., Findlater, Leah·2021·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract

Real-time captioning is a critical accessibility tool for many d/Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) people. While the vast majority of captioning work has focused on formal settings and technical innovations, in contrast, we investigate captioning for informal, interactive small-group conversations, which have a high degree of spontaneity and foster dynamic social interactions. This paper reports on semi-structured interviews and design probe activities we conducted with 15 DHH participants to understand their use of existing real-time captioning services and future design preferences for both in-person and remote small-group communication. We found that our participants' experiences of captioned small-group conversations are shaped by social, environmental, and technical considerations (e.g., interlocutors' pre-established relationships, the type of captioning displays available, and how far captions lag behind speech). When considering future captioning tools, participants were interested in greater feedback on non-speech elements of conversation (e.g., speaker identity, speech rate, volume) both for their personal use and to guide hearing interlocutors toward more accessible communication. We contribute a qualitative account of DHH people's real-time captioning experiences during small-group conversation and future design considerations to better support the groups being captioned, both in person and online.?

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3479578

Cites

59 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Human involvement, e.g. by correcting or monitoring ASR, can potentially increase the acceptability of ASR independent of its actual accuracy.

    “Human involvement, e.g. by correcting or monitoring ASR [McDonnell et al. 2021;Seita et al. 2022], can potentially increase the acceptability of ASR independent of its actual accuracy.”

    From Measuring the Accuracy of Automatic Speech Recognition Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as McDonnell et al. 2021

    Section 4.2.2 (p. 15) reports that ten of thirteen participants were interested in having conversation partners correct ASR caption errors. This supports interest in human involvement, but the paper does not show that it increases ASR acceptability independently of actual accuracy; the proposed corrections were intended to address inaccuracies. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Our findings demonstrate that the process of being a student itself constitutes a form of access work, requiring significant cognitive, emotional, and administrative effort.

    “While higher education is often framed as a pathway to professional work, our findings demonstrate that the process of being a student itself constitutes a form of access work, requiring significant cognitive, emotional, and administrative effort [15, 53, 58, 75, 78].”

    From Burnout by Design: How Digital Systems Overburden Neurodivergent Students in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [53]

    The paper documents access work in educational settings: students combine captions with other strategies, and one participant describes leaving a discussion class when overlapping speech makes it inaccessible (Concurrent access strategies; §4.1.1). Section 5.2 also describes frustration with repeatedly teaching hearing people accessible communication practices. These passages support cognitive and emotional effort, but the paper does not establish the broader claim that being a student itself entails administrative access work. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • User studies can identify additional issues with ASR, such as the readability of ASR-generated text or the impact of latency in interactive conversations.

    “User studies can identify additional issues with ASR, such as the readability of ASR-generated text [Butler 2019] or the impact of latency in interactive conversations [McDonnell et al. 2021].”

    From Measuring the Accuracy of Automatic Speech Recognition Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as McDonnell et al. 2021

  • The micro-interventions center values and approaches that are missing in practice: access intimacy, an emphasis on research-based methods for accessible teaching, new ways of experimenting with remote access and multimodality, spoon theory, activating new connections and knowledge sharing across siloed units, and anti-stigma literacy.

    “The micro-interventions center values and approaches that are missing in practice: access intimacy [56], an emphasis on research-based methods for accessible teaching, new ways of experimenting with remote access and multimodality, spoon theory, activating new connections and knowledge sharing across siloed units, and anti-stigma literacy.”

    From Neurodiversity and the Accessible University: Exploring Organizational Barriers, Access Labor and Opportunities for Change (2024) · cites this paper as [56]

    The citation is attached specifically to “access intimacy.” The paper’s References list Mingus’s *Access Intimacy, Interdependence and Disability Justice*, but the passages reviewed do not discuss access intimacy as an approach; Section 2.3 discusses related ideas of interdependence and relational access instead. Searching our copy for “access intimacy” found no discussion beyond the reference title. (LLM, conf=0.68)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Cynthia L. Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design. In Proceedings of the 20th I nternational ACM SIGACCESS PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 5, No. CSCW2, Article 434, Publication date: October 2021.
  2. Raja Kushalnagar and Poorna Kushalnagar. 2014. Collaborative Gaze Cues and Replay for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. In Computers Helping People with Special Needs (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 415-422. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08599-9_63 · DOI
  3. National Court Reporters Association. 2014. Captioning around the world. The Journal of Court Reporting. Retrieved September 16, 2020 from https://www.thejcr.com/2014/06/30/captioning- around-the-world/
  4. Máté Ákos Tündik, György Szaszák, G. Gosztolya, and A. Beke. 2018. User-centric Evaluation of Automatic Punctuation in ASR Closed Captioning. In INTERSPEECH. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1352 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McDonnell, E. J., Liu, P., Goodman, S. M., Kushalnagar, R., Froehlich, J. E., & Findlater, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Gallaudet University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2021-10-13
Volume
5
Issue
CSCW2
Pages
1-25
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3201382849
Cited by
54
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 6
FWCI
31.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (DGE-1762114)
  • National Science Foundation (IIS-1763199)
  • University of Washington CREATE
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
Keywords
real-time captioning, small group conversation, deaf and hard of hearing, accessibility, remote communication, social interaction

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