NTID Tech Symposium 2010 Mobile Alerting for Persons Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing

1. Helena Mitchell, PhD Georgia Institute of Technology NTID Tech Symposium 2010 Mobile Alerting for Persons Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing 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.

2. 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

3. Wireless Use Among People with Disabilities RERC Consumer Advisory Network 1600 plus 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

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

5. The Testing Begins • Level of experience with wireless devices varied • Some testers used mobile phones with custom software, others used standard Blackberry devices

6. 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

7. Some Pre-Test Questions

8. 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.

9. 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

10. Profile of Deaf/Hard of Hearing Participants • Currently receive alerts via: • 92% TV • 58% Friends & family • 44% E-mail

11. 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 Improvement 70% Found CMAS Method and Improvement Prevailing themes for improving the systems Message features (font size) Handset features (vibration strength) Customization

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

16. ASL Video Alerts 3 Types of alerts evaluated: Text message (SMS) only The 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)

17. 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)

18. 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

19. 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