This paper identifies some common and specific pitfalls in the development of sign language technologies targeted at deaf communities, with a specific focus on signing avatars. It makes the call to urgently interrogate some of the ideologies behind those technologies, including issues of ethical and responsible development. The paper addresses four separate and interlinked issues: ideologies about deaf people and mediated communication, bias in data sets and learning, user feedback, and applications of the technologies. The paper ends with several take away points for both technology developers and deaf NGOs. Technology developers should give more consideration to diversifying their team and working interdisciplinary, and be mindful of the biases that inevitably creep into data sets. There should also be a consideration of the technologies’ end users. Sign language interpreters are not the end users nor should they be seen as the benchmark for language use. Technology developers and deaf NGOs can engage in a dialogue about how to prioritize application domains and prioritize within application domains. Finally, deaf NGOs policy statements will need to take a longer view, and use avatars to think of a significantly better system compared to what sign language interpreting services can provide.
LINK
Growing research in sign language recognition, generation, and translation AI has been accompanied by calls for ethical development of such technologies. While these works are crucial to helping individual researchers do better, there is a notable lack of discussion of systemic biases or analysis of rhetoric that shape the research questions and methods in the field, especially as it remains dominated by hearing non-signing researchers. Therefore, we conduct a systematic review of 101 recent papers in sign language AI. Our analysis identifies significant biases in the current state of sign language AI research, including an overfocus on addressing perceived communication barriers, a lack of use of representative datasets, use of annotations lacking linguistic foundations, and development of methods that build on flawed models. We take the position that the field lacks meaningful input from Deaf stakeholders, and is instead driven by what decisions are the most convenient or perceived as important to hearing researchers. We end with a call to action: the field must make space for Deaf researchers to lead the conversation in sign language AI.
LINK
This research report contains the findings of an international study consisting of three online ‘living’ surveys. The surveys focused on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted sign language interpreters’ working practices, how this was experienced by them, and how digital disruption caused by the pandemic is impacting and innovating the sign language interpreting profession. The study was carried out between April 2020 and July 2020; the largest contingent of respondents over all three surveys were from the U.S., followed by the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and Belgium. Respondents commented that the crisis will probably accelerate the need for remote interpreting training in interpreter training programs. Another resurfacing issue was the perceived need for sign language interpreting students to have face-to-face practice and live mentoring. Respondents commented on what benefits they thought remote interpreting might bring to the table, both for themselves and for deaf people. In general, the most significant benefits that were mentioned were flexibility and the possibility to improve efficiency and availability of sign language interpreting services. Notwithstanding these benefits, a significant number of respondents claimed that remote interpreting is more stressful than face-to-face interpreting and requires a heavier cognitive load.
DOCUMENT
Psychosocial problems related to social isolation are a growing issue for wellbeing and health and have become a significant societal problem. This is especially relevant for children and adults with chronic illnesses and disabilities, and those spending extended periods in hospitals or permanently living in assisted living facilities. A lack of social relationships, social connectivity, and the inability to travel freely leads to feelings of isolation and loneliness. Loneliness interventions often use mediated environments to improve the feeling of connectedness. It has been proven that the utilization of haptic technologies enhances realism and the sense of presence in both virtual environments and telepresence in physical places by allowing the user to experience interaction through the sense of touch. However, the technology application is mostly limited to the experiences of serious games in professional environments and for-entertainment-gaming. This project aims to explore how haptic technologies can support the storytelling of semi-scripted experiences in VR to improve participants’ sense of presence and, therefore, the feeling of connectedness. By designing and prototyping the experience, the project aims to obtain insights and offer a better understanding of designing haptic-technology-supported storytelling and its potential to improve connectedness and become a useful tool in isolation interventions. The project will be conducted through the process of participants’ co-creation.
Digital technologies in public spaces have become more prescient, capable, and invisible. As a result, the need to explain and mediate these technologies has become more urgent. Current processes for designing digital trust interaction protocols, visual languages, and interfaces for the urban environment have been dominated by governing actors: policing, government, and tech-companies. When communities are involved in the design process, their participation is limited to formats these organisations prescribe. By default, these designs exclude the lived technological experiences of communities that use the built environment. The outcome is a lopsided appraisal of digital trust, and designs that are insufficiently transparent and equitable– and as a result, not understood and embraced by the communities who must use them. This design-research aims to develop prototypes that include how urban interactive technologies are ‘lived’ in the spaces where they are implemented. These experiences will be teased-out through site-specific aesthetic and performative actions, which in turn inform the design process. The envisioned contribution includes ways of ’doing’ to the field of situated design, and concrete prototypes for alternative digital trust protocols, visual languages, and interfaces. By flipping the current approach on its head, this research argues that the practical and ethical departure points for addressing digital ‘trust deficits’ are already within the diverse communities who use the built environment.
