arXiv subjects

Christian Vogler

Publications and source records attributed to Christian Vogler.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Are Caption Metrics Broken? Latency, Deaf and Hard of Hearing User Ratings, and Bias across Technologies

Live captions on TV often contain errors and timing issues, making it hard for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) viewers to follow dialog. It is essential that caption quality metrics reflect the lived DHH TV viewing experience. To this end, we describe a U.S.-based large-scale online survey with 216 validated participants, who provided 302 responses containing a cumulative 4,832 data points. Participants viewed videos drawn from a pool of 70 clips recorded from live TV, and were asked to rate the caption quality and subjective understanding of the content across four conditions: TV captions as originally recorded with up to 7-12 seconds delay, TV captions synchronized with audio, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR)-generated captions synchronized with audio, and ASR captions with an average two-second delay. All captions were evaluated against the Word Error Rate (WER), Automated Caption Evaluation (ACE2) and Number, Edition and Recognition (NER) metrics. Results show that TV and ASR captions were rated similarly. For TV captions, all three metrics were moderately-to-highly correlated with viewer ratings, but far less so for ASR captions, making them far from technology-neutral. Additionally, caption latencies significantly impact the viewer experience, especially typical 7-12-second TV delays. We discuss the implications for the adoption of caption quality metrics.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Bigger than the EAR BOX: A Theory-Grounded Review of XR Accessibility Research for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communities

Extended Reality (XR) technologies have received growing attention in accessibility research involving Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) communities. Yet less attention has been given to the assumptions shaping this work. We present a theory-grounded review of XR research involving DHH users. Drawing on Disability Studies, Deaf Studies, and DeafSpace, we develop a theoretical framework with four analytical dimensions: orientation toward access, distribution of responsibility, conceptualization of DHH communities, and spatial and perceptual assumptions. We apply this framework to 53 XR studies involving DHH users, identified through a search and screening of ACM publications from 2015 to 2025. Our analysis shows that XR accessibility is frequently framed as supporting communication within hearing-default environments, while overlooking the diversity of DHH communities. We identify directions for redistributing accessibility labor and reconfiguring space, and offer our framework as a tool for future XR research involving DHH communities.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Seeing the Voice, Preserving the Self: A Participatory Design Approach to Deaf-Centric Text-to-Speech

We describe a participatory design approach toward developing Deaf-centric text-to-speech (TTS) technologies. While TTS is growing rapidly in the mainstream, it has received little attention to date in the deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) technology space. Critical problems have remained unaddressed for DHH users, including the ability to manipulate tone, emotions and delivery via non-auditory means. Verifying that the generated speech matches intent and is appropriate for a given situation without having to listen to it is another challenge. Respecting cultural and identity factors in the generated speech is also important. This work explores the design space with DHH participants through two focus groups, three co-design sessions, and four one-on-one early-stage design evaluation sessions. Participants included people both familiar and unfamiliar with TTS, as well as DHH content creators. We describe key findings, design ideas, results, and implications for future Deaf-centric TTS development. We also identify unmet technology requirements that pose barriers to adoption of Deaf-centric TTS technology.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Deaf and Hard of Hearing Access to Intelligent Personal Assistants: Comparison of Voice-Based Options with an LLM-Powered Touch Interface

We investigate intelligent personal assistants (IPAs) accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) people who can use their voice in everyday communication. The inability of IPAs to understand diverse accents including deaf speech renders them largely inaccessible to non-signing and speaking DHH individuals. Using an Echo Show, we compare the usability of natural language input via spoken English; with Alexa's automatic speech recognition and a Wizard-of-Oz setting with a trained facilitator re-speaking commands against that of a large language model (LLM)-assisted touch interface in a mixed-methods study. The touch method was navigated through an LLM-powered "task prompter," which integrated the user's history and smart environment to suggest contextually-appropriate commands. Quantitative results showed no significant differences across both spoken English conditions vs LLM-assisted touch. Qualitative results showed variability in opinions on the usability of each method. Ultimately, it will be necessary to have robust deaf-accented speech recognized natively by IPAs.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Accessibility Considerations in the Development of an AI Action Plan

We argue that there is a need for Accessibility to be represented in several important domains: - Capitalize on the new capabilities AI provides - Support for open source development of AI, which can allow disabled and disability focused professionals to contribute, including - Development of Accessibility Apps which help realise the promise of AI in accessibility domains - Open Source Model Development and Validation to ensure that accessibility concerns are addressed in these algorithms - Data Augmentation to include accessibility in data sets used to train models - Accessible Interfaces that allow disabled people to use any AI app, and to validate its outputs - Dedicated Functionality and Libraries that can make it easy to integrate AI support into a variety of settings and apps. - Data security and privacy and privacy risks including data collected by AI based accessibility technologies; and the possibility of disability disclosure. - Disability-specific AI risks and biases including both direct bias (during AI use by the disabled person) and indirect bias (when AI is used by someone else on data relating to a disabled person).

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Assessment of Sign Language-Based versus Touch-Based Input for Deaf Users Interacting with Intelligent Personal Assistants

With the recent advancements in intelligent personal assistants (IPAs), their popularity is rapidly increasing when it comes to utilizing Automatic Speech Recognition within households. In this study, we used a Wizard-of-Oz methodology to evaluate and compare the usability of American Sign Language (ASL), Tap to Alexa, and smart home apps among 23 deaf participants within a limited-domain smart home environment. Results indicate a slight usability preference for ASL. Linguistic analysis of the participants' signing reveals a diverse range of expressions and vocabulary as they interacted with IPAs in the context of a restricted-domain application. On average, deaf participants exhibited a vocabulary of 47 +/- 17 signs with an additional 10 +/- 7 fingerspelled words, for a total of 246 different signs and 93 different fingerspelled words across all participants. We discuss the implications for the design of limited-vocabulary applications as a stepping-stone toward general-purpose ASL recognition in the future.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Sign Language-Based versus Touch-Based Input for Deaf Users with Interactive Personal Assistants in Simulated Kitchen Environments

In this study, we assess the usability of interactive personal assistants (IPAs), such as Amazon Alexa, in a simulated kitchen smart home environment, with deaf and hard of hearing users. Participants engage in activities in a way that causes their hands to get dirty. With these dirty hands, they are tasked with two different input methods for IPAs: American Sign Language (ASL) in a Wizard-of-Oz design, and smart home apps with a touchscreen. Usability ratings show that participants significantly preferred ASL over touch-based apps with dirty hands, although not to a larger extent than in comparable previous work with clean hands. Participants also expressed significant enthusiasm for ASL-based IPA interaction in Netpromoter scores and in questions about their overall preferences. Preliminary observations further suggest that having dirty hands may affect the way people sign, which may pose challenges for building IPAs that natively support sign language input.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

How Users Experience Closed Captions on Live Television: Quality Metrics Remain a Challenge

This paper presents a mixed methods study on how deaf, hard of hearing and hearing viewers perceive live TV caption quality with captioned video stimuli designed to mirror TV captioning experiences. To assess caption quality, we used four commonly-used quality metrics focusing on accuracy: word error rate, weighted word error rate, automated caption evaluation (ACE), and its successor ACE2. We calculated the correlation between the four quality metrics and viewer ratings for subjective quality and found that the correlation was weak, revealing that other factors besides accuracy affect user ratings. Additionally, even high-quality captions are perceived to have problems, despite controlling for confounding factors. Qualitative analysis of viewer comments revealed three major factors affecting their experience: Errors within captions, difficulty in following captions, and caption appearance. The findings raise questions as to how objective caption quality metrics can be reconciled with the user experience across a diverse spectrum of viewers.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Live Captions in Virtual Reality (VR)

Few VR applications and games implement captioning of speech and audio cues, which either inhibits or prevents access of their application by deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) users, new language learners, and other caption users. Additionally, little to no guidelines exist on how to implement live captioning on VR headsets and how it may differ from traditional television captioning. To help fill the void of information behind user preferences of different VR captioning styles, we conducted a study with eight DHH participants to test three caption movement behaviors (headlocked, lag, and appear) while watching live-captioned, single-speaker presentations in VR. Participants answered a series of Likert scale and open-ended questions about their experience. Participant preferences were split, but the majority of participants reported feeling comfortable with using live captions in VR and enjoyed the experience. When participants ranked the caption behaviors, there was almost an equal divide between the three types tested. IPQ results indicated each behavior had similar immersion ratings, however participants found headlocked and lag captions more user-friendly than appear captions. We suggest that participants may vary in caption preference depending on how they use captions, and that providing opportunities for caption customization is best.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2019

Sign Language Recognition, Generation, and Translation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

Developing successful sign language recognition, generation, and translation systems requires expertise in a wide range of fields, including computer vision, computer graphics, natural language processing, human-computer interaction, linguistics, and Deaf culture. Despite the need for deep interdisciplinary knowledge, existing research occurs in separate disciplinary silos, and tackles separate portions of the sign language processing pipeline. This leads to three key questions: 1) What does an interdisciplinary view of the current landscape reveal? 2) What are the biggest challenges facing the field? and 3) What are the calls to action for people working in the field? To help answer these questions, we brought together a diverse group of experts for a two-day workshop. This paper presents the results of that interdisciplinary workshop, providing key background that is often overlooked by computer scientists, a review of the state-of-the-art, a set of pressing challenges, and a call to action for the research community.

cs.CV↗