Search results

With the start of a new decade in 1980, the public witnessed the arrival of a significant new technology, closed‐captioned television. The culmination of nearly a decade of research and development, closed‐captioned television opened up a new world for the hearing‐impaired. Closed captioning provides a line of on‐screen, written messages co‐ordinated with the sound of the television program. These captions are “closed” in that they are visible only to viewers who have specially designed adapters, known as decoders, to make the words appear on the screen. More than just subtitles, captioning transcribes narration and sound effects as well as dialog. At last, over sixteen million hearing‐impaired individuals in the United States can read what they cannot hear on television.

To explore the historical construction of the US broadcast television closed‐captioning system as a case study of debates over “public service broadcasting” during the late twentieth century.

Historical.

Neither the corporate voluntarism promoted by the FCC in the 1970s nor the “public‐private partnership” of the National Captioning Institute (NCI) in the 1980s proved able to sustain a closed‐captioning system; instead, a progressive round of re‐regulation on both the demand side (universal decoder distribution) and the supply side (mandatory program captioning) was necessary to bring the promise of broadcast equality to all deaf and hard‐of‐hearing (D/HOH) citizens.

The decades‐long legal, technological, and institutional battle to define the “public interest” responsibilities of broadcasters toward non‐hearing viewers was fraught with contradiction and compromise.

This study aims to investigate and propose guidelines to enhance the accessibility of virtual reality (VR) interfaces for all users within professional learning environments. Motivated by a lack of comprehensive accessibility guidelines for VR learning, the study delves into a case study of Edstutia’s VR campus.

This case study examines the intersection of VR platform development and learning experience design through the lens of accessibility in human-computer interaction. It elaborates on how user experience feedback from differently-abled learners who were unable to fully participate in the VR experience due to disability shaped the 2.0 version development of a VR platform.

The outcomes of this case study are (1) a description of an inclusive and empathetic design application to increase multi-learner VR platform accessibility, (2) a sample actionable path from a design/development perspective in ensuring the accessibility design of a VR learning platform, and recommendations to facilitate the design process.

This case is a foundation for further research on improving accessibility in VR. In future work on VR campuses, we recommend scholars undertake research with an inclusive approach that actively involves users with different abilities in shaping guidelines, particularly on how individuals with different abilities should be approached for their input during the design and development process in a sensitive manner.

The authors summarize the steps taken to enhance the accessible interplay between the end users and the interface of VR technology in the emergence of VR accessibility standards. Central to this case’s exploration is the integration of accessibility as a pivotal element into an academic VR campus, i.e. multilearner education platform.

Increasing access to VR has strong social implications in a world where 17% of people report a disability.

This case contributes to the limited research available on increasing access to VR on campuses.

Investigates ways in which computer technology can enable people with a hearing and/or speech impairment to communicate. These range from telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDDs) to software designed to teach deaf children how to read and write in English (often their second language!). Other new technology includes software that converts English into American Sign Language vocabulary, and under development is a system which will facilitate communication between a hearing person and a person with a combination of hearing/visual or hearing/speech impairment.

This chapter explores a set of principles that underpin ensuring that the learning needs of all students are addressed in next generation learning spaces. With increasingly diverse higher education environments and populations, higher education needs to move from seeing student diversity as problematic and deficit-based, to welcoming, celebrating and recognising diversity for the contributions it makes to enhancing the experience and learning outcomes for all students. The principles of Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2011) provide a framework for high-quality university teaching and learning, as well as guidance on the multiple methods and means by which all students can be engaged and learn in ways that best suit their individual styles and needs. An inclusive approach is important pedagogically and applies to both the physical and virtual environments and spaces inhabited by students. When the design of physical environments does not incorporate universal design principles, the result is that some students can be locked out of participating in campus or university life or, for some, the energy required to participate can be substantial. With the digital education frontier expanding at an exponential rate, there is also a need to ensure that online and virtual environments are accessible for all. This chapter draws on the relevant research and the combined experience of the authors to explore an approach to inclusive practices in higher education next generation learning spaces and beyond.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate one library’s role in the development of a new collaborative captioning service to provide accessible media for classroom use. This pilot project created a new workflow for on-demand captioning of videos.

Through collaboration and iteration, university and library personnel addressed the challenges involved in building new and improved services related to accessible media resources. Circulation and acquisition data were collected via Alma Analytics.

Working collaboratively enabled the expansion and improvement of specialized services to the deaf and hard of hearing community on campus.

While many libraries provide captioning for their communities, little is found in the literature to help others establish a similar service. This study demonstrates how collaborative planning can efficiently and effectively use resources and expertise to create a sustainable service, and it may provide an example that could be followed by other institutions with limited budgets.

This paper aims to review existing literature on distance library services for individuals with disabilities with a specific focus on deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) users and provide strategies for creating an online library that is accessible to this community.

The authors reviewed articles covering distance library services for D/HH users and then identified specific parts of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 that are applicable to the D/HH community. By using the literature, strategies for developing and purchasing accessible electronic library resources are presented.

While there is a breadth of literature focused on creating accessible resources for online libraries, there is a gap when it comes to D/HH users. Libraries can cater to this community by providing text-based alternatives for all library instructional materials and working closely with vendors to ensure that library databases are accessible.

The authors present strategies for creating and converting electronic resources and services that are accessible to D/HH users.

This paper fills a gap in literature by addressing fully online library services for users with disabilities with a particular focus on meeting the needs of D/HH users in a distance-learning environment.

Beck discusses the need to improve library and information services for the deaf community. The technological support available to libraries to serve the deaf is identified and described. Turnkey systems are found to be lacking in applications devoted to those who cannot hear or who are hard of hearing. Other technologies, like captioned videos, TDDs, and assistive listening systems, are examined for levels of service and excellence as well as cost. Examples of technology in transition and for the future are offered, along with experiments on speech and sound. These include inner ear implants, the “data glove” experiments, and tactile translators. Technological conflicts that may arise due to one person having multiple disabilities are presented with a discussion on the prevention of dangerous or difficult situations. Possible difficulties and ways to handle opposing technologies are examined briefly. Appropriate sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Guidelines are grouped with the technologies that aid compliance. Additional laws are mentioned where their inclusion is appropriate. Suggested guidelines for serving the deaf/disabled community are offered for librarians working in all library types.