Title: Introductions
1Introductions
- Jon Schull, IT, RIT, jis_at_it.rit.edu
- Larry Quinsland, NTID
- Enough about us what about you?
2from Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side
Education is moving from Sage on the Stage to
Guide on the Side. Student discussion
promotes active learning. But all-Deaf and
mixed Deaf-Hearing discussions in the classroom
pose special challenges.
3Discussion Scenarios
Interpreter
?
Our project, supported by RIT Compare
interpreters vs chatOptimize chat for
face-to-face communication
4Our Experiences (and yours)
- Project Groups
- In class
- outside
- Discussion Groups
- Small groups
- All-class Discussions
5Mixed Group Experiment
- Wed like your help cataloging
- Situations in which deaf and hearing students
interact - Anecdotes
- Challenges and Issues that arise
6Results
- Every system works-- sort of
- Intepreter regulates discussion
- Fewer interactions
- More orderly
- Dependent upon interpeter
- Chat is more informal
- Parallel communication
- Written record
- Can get confusing
- Loss of face to face interaction
7Results
- Every system works --sort of, for some
Far more discrete utterances with Chat
8Optimizing Chat for Face to Face Communication
- Key considerations, based on our participants
observations and our own - Space and allocation of visual attention
- Availability of technology
- Tempo and mode of communication
- Visualization of conversation
- Document sharing and collaboration
9Space and Allocation of Visual Attention
Small groups of people sit in a circle and
converse. Face to face, moment-to-moment
interaction facilitates turn- taking and
collaboration.
But this doesnt work for deaf and mixed deaf /
hearing groups.
10Space and Allocation of Visual Attention
This doesnt work for mixed deaf hearing groups.
Computer table arrangements are wrong
or attention is split between speaker and
interpreter.
11Space and Allocation of visual attention
12Space and Allocation of Visual Attention
Cut table to put hands below table height while
screens are high enough for easy eye-contact.
Better!
13Or This
You see what you are typing here and what this
person is typing here.
A spinning wand built into the table could let
you read while maintaining eye contact. (A
safety railing or dome (not shown) keeps you from
getting clipped!) 5 keyboards _at_ 20, 1 PC at
200, and a spinning LED wand.
14Or this
Or we put the subtitles on a heads-up display.
15Availability of Technology
- But for now, the web browser is the common
denominator. - Is it up to the task?
- What is the task?
16Tempo and Mode of Communication
- Type and then send dampens conversation
- Text as you type is more natural, less
constraining could allow corrections. - Unix talk
- Ichat under bonjour
- Original ICQ
17Visualization of Conversations
- and the dominance of the verbose
18Com Group 426-02
19Features 1
20Features 2
21Future Features?
iSight compositing for video streams
Drag Files into shared or common spaces
Tap into VRS for interpreting
22All this and document sharing in a browser?
23Next eliminate screens to maximize
face2face. Replace screens with levitating
subtitles!
24We can adapt this technology a rapidly
oscillating column of synchronized LEDs writes in
the air.
25Omnimonitor
This assembly spins within a protective cylinder.
A tri-column of LEDs spins around the edge of
the cylinder. Each person sees the cylinder but
the image he sees is individualized because each
LED can be seen by only one person at a time.
Each person sees LED2 straight on, LED1 in the
right visual field and LED 3 in the left visual
field. Each LED projects an image appropriate to
the person who can see it and appropriate to the
location of the LED at that moment.
26Reflecting surfaces
Table top
Up-facing screen
An optical prism might work too, giving each
participant a view of a region of a single shared
monitor.
27Or we might adapt Fernanda Viegas Visiphone (our
optics would have to be more precise).
28Or perhaps we create a wearable LCD display.
Heres an attractive form factor.
29Omnimonitor