The Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies is sponsored by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education under grant number H133E060061.  The opinions contained in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or NIDRR.

NTID Tech Symposium 2010

Mobile Alerting for Persons Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Helena Mitchell, PhDGeorgia Institute of Technology

Wireless Emergency Alerting

American Red Cross responded to more than 70,000 disasters in 2008

91% of the U.S. population use wireless services or products

54 million people have some type of disability Why Wireless? Wireless devices that can receive

accessible emergency alerts can increase independence and save lives of people with disabilities

Next generation warning systems must provide equal access to emergency alerts – Federal government agrees

Wireless Use Among People with Disabilities

Survey of User Needs 2009:

85% use wireless products 77% state access to wireless important 65% state a wireless device was

important for its role in emergencies

RERC Consumer Advisory Network1600 plus people with disabilities

Recruitment & Demographics

Over 100 participants. 12 field trials. Pre and post-test questionnaires. Reported findings and recommendations.

48%46%

6%Type of Disability

Difficulty Hearing

Difficulty Seeing

Deaf-Blind

42%

58%

Gender

Male

Female

5%

28%

49%

18%

Age Range

18-24

25-43

44-62

63+

The Testing Begins

Level of experience with wireless devices varied

Some testers used mobile phones with custom software, others used standard Blackberry devices

51%34%

15%

Technically Savvy Some Knowledge Infrequent User

Testing Formats

Standard SMS text messages and Web pages

Essential information in SMS body

Link to web page with full alert details

Custom software with enhanced accessibility features

Distinctive attention signals using audio and vibration

Synthesized speech to read alerts

Ability to override phone settings that may interfere with the notification of a critical alert

Some Pre-Test 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 usyour mobile phone?

Everyday

3-6 times/week

1-2 tims/wek

Never

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

How do you currentlyreceive emergency

alerts?

TV

Radio

Weather Radio

E-mail

Telephone

Mobile Phone

Frnds/Fam

Sirens

Alerting Device

Other

01020304050607080

Have you eversent a textmessage?

Have you everreceived a text

message?

Yes

No

Emergency Alert System Trials

EAS Trials (Nine groups at three sites): Site 1: 94% majority blind, low vision. Site 3: 92 % persons with sensory limitations.

Site 2: 81% of deaf and hard-of-hearing and deaf-blind stated the wireless emergency alerting system client software they evaluated was an improvement over other methods they currently use for receiving emergency alerts.

EAS Post-field tests: 83% of all participants stated receiving emergency alerts via wireless devices was highly desirable.

Findings of CMAS Trials

Commercial Mobile Alerting System Followed 2008 FCC rulemaking CMAS parameters

reduction in number of characters, no URL’s, varied vibrating cadences. included improvements from previous trials

Of those who participated in previous tests 77% stated the accessible CMAS was an improvement

70% of persons with hearing limitations found alerts to be an improvement 83% of persons with visual limitations

Profile of Deaf/Hard of Hearing Participants

Currently receive alerts via: 92% TV 58% Friends & family 44% E-mail

50%38%

10%

Technically Savvy Some Knowledge

Infrequent User Unchecked

Overarching Themes for Deaf/Hard of Hearing

76% Who participated in ALL tests stated alerts over mobile devices was improvement

78% Found WEC Method an Improvement70% Found CMAS Method and Improvement

Prevailing themes for improving the systems

Message features (font size)Handset features (vibration strength)Customization

Participant Comments - Positive

Very convenient way to get message alerts.

Being alerted by cell phone was great because I always have it with me.

I would have had to rely on my husband contacting me on my cell or wait until I watched television at home. When the 9/11 bombing occurred I was clueless and my cousin was killed so it was a very traumatic experience.

I didn't have to run upstairs to check the NOAA radio.

Participant Comments - Constructive

24% stated it was not an improvement

Vibrate is working, however, we need special code light on pager.

Text messages would alert me to check conditions, unless holding phone or BlackBerry wouldn't know it was vibrating and there was a message.

Need stronger vibrations - several times.

I felt the alert but couldn't get to the messages.

Participant Recommendations

I suggest it needs to vibrate 5 or more times.

Have a sound - I don't hear it, but my service dog would, make sure it is persistent.

Attachment light that would catch my eyes - Buzz ok, but I carry the pager in my purse.

Since I am a cochlear implant user I am only totally deaf when I am sleeping. Linking mobile to home alerting system with bed shaker

would help.

ASL Focus Group Demographics

Feedback from Deaf and Hard of Hearing participants suggested need to investigate use of ASL. Focus groups explore this question:

“Do video alerts in ASL enhance understanding of public emergency alerts - above and beyond the text alerts?”

Deafness: people who are deaf and who are conversant in ASL 10 of the 13 participants were born deaf 2 onset since childhood 1 late deafened

Age: All participants were in the 25 to 62 year age range 6 were 25-43 7 were 44-62

ASL Video Alerts

3 Types of alerts evaluated:

Text message (SMS) onlyThe National Weather Service has issued a Flood Warning for your area (Atlanta) until 4:00 PM EST. Avoid low areas. 

The National Weather Service has issued a Tornado Warning for your area (Atlanta) until 3:00 PM EST. Take shelter.

Text message plus video alert in ASL (recorded as a complete message)

Text message plus video alert in ASL (assembled from short video clips)

ASL Focus Groups

All participants felt that ASL was an improvement over text alone

Most preferred the continuous video – for intelligibility

NWS phrases “low lying areas”, “take cover”, “seek shelter” and “go to safe place” did not translate well into Deaf English

Use symbols (tornado swirl, flood wave, flame, etc)

Conclusions

Mobile devices can offer accessible solutions

Include people with disabilities in R&D and field testing to better inform development efforts

Customizable features increase accessibility

More robust alerting would accommodate differing levels of hearing impairment

Equal access benefits everyone; 20% of population by 2030 will have some disability

Contact Us to Learn More about WEC

Wireless Emergency Communications Project Team• *Helena Mitchell, Co-project Director helena.mitchell@cacp.gatech.edu• Frank Lucia, Co-project Director• Ed Price, Technical Director• *Jeremy Johnson, Research Scientist• *Salimah LaForce, Information Analyst• Ben Lippincott, Industry Liaison• Laurel Yancey, Chief Policy Officer

http://www.wirelessrerc.org/about-us/projects/development-projects

Special thanks to the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education for its sponsorship under grant number H133E060061.  The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or NIDRR