arXiv subjects

Leah Findlater

Publications and source records attributed to Leah Findlater.

24 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2021

Social, Environmental, and Technical: Factors at Play in the Current Use and Future Design of Small-Group Captioning

Real-time captioning is a critical accessibility tool for many d/Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) people. While the vast majority of captioning work has focused on formal settings and technical innovations, in contrast, we investigate captioning for informal, interactive small-group conversations, which have a high degree of spontaneity and foster dynamic social interactions. This paper reports on semi-structured interviews and design probe activities we conducted with 15 DHH participants to understand their use of existing real-time captioning services and future design preferences for both in-person and remote small-group communication. We found that our participants' experiences of captioned small-group conversations are shaped by social, environmental, and technical considerations (e.g., interlocutors' pre-established relationships, the type of captioning displays available, and how far captions lag behind speech). When considering future captioning tools, participants were interested in greater feedback on non-speech elements of conversation (e.g., speaker identity, speech rate, volume) both for their personal use and to guide hearing interlocutors toward more accessible communication. We contribute a qualitative account of DHH people's real-time captioning experiences during small-group conversation and future design considerations to better support the groups being captioned, both in person and online.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Interactive Refinement of Cross-Lingual Word Embeddings

Cross-lingual word embeddings transfer knowledge between languages: models trained on high-resource languages can predict in low-resource languages. We introduce CLIME, an interactive system to quickly refine cross-lingual word embeddings for a given classification problem. First, CLIME ranks words by their salience to the downstream task. Then, users mark similarity between keywords and their nearest neighbors in the embedding space. Finally, CLIME updates the embeddings using the annotations. We evaluate CLIME on identifying health-related text in four low-resource languages: Ilocano, Sinhalese, Tigrinya, and Uyghur. Embeddings refined by CLIME capture more nuanced word semantics and have higher test accuracy than the original embeddings. CLIME often improves accuracy faster than an active learning baseline and can be easily combined with active learning to improve results.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2021

A bibliometric analysis of citation diversity in accessibility and HCI research

Accessibility research sits at the junction of several disciplines, drawing influence from HCI, disability studies, psychology, education, and more. To characterize the influences and extensions of accessibility research, we undertake a study of citation trends for accessibility and related HCI communities. We assess the diversity of venues and fields of study represented among the referenced and citing papers of 836 accessibility research papers from ASSETS and CHI, finding that though publications in computer science dominate these citation relationships, the relative proportion of citations from papers on psychology and medicine has grown over time. Though ASSETS is a more niche venue than CHI in terms of citational diversity, both conferences display standard levels of diversity among their incoming and outgoing citations when analyzed in the context of 53K papers from 13 accessibility and HCI conference venues.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

What Do We Mean by "Accessibility Research"? A Literature Survey of Accessibility Papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019

Accessibility research has grown substantially in the past few decades, yet there has been no literature review of the field. To understand current and historical trends, we created and analyzed a dataset of accessibility papers appearing at CHI and ASSETS since ASSETS' founding in 1994. We qualitatively coded areas of focus and methodological decisions for the past 10 years (2010-2019, N=506 papers), and analyzed paper counts and keywords over the full 26 years (N=836 papers). Our findings highlight areas that have received disproportionate attention and those that are underserved--for example, over 43% of papers in the past 10 years are on accessibility for blind and low vision people. We also capture common study characteristics, such as the roles of disabled and nondisabled participants as well as sample sizes (e.g., a median of 13 for participant groups with disabilities and older adults). We close by critically reflecting on gaps in the literature and offering guidance for future work in the field.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2019

Fairness Issues in AI Systems that Augment Sensory Abilities

Systems that augment sensory abilities are increasingly employing AI and machine learning (ML) approaches, with applications ranging from object recognition and scene description tools for blind users to sound awareness tools for d/Deaf users. However, unlike many other AI-enabled technologies, these systems provide information that is already available to non-disabled people. In this paper, we discuss unique AI fairness challenges that arise in this context, including accessibility issues with data and models, ethical implications in deciding what sensory information to convey to the user, and privacy concerns both for the primary user and for others.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2019

Why Didn't You Listen to Me? Comparing User Control of Human-in-the-Loop Topic Models

To address the lack of comparative evaluation of Human-in-the-Loop Topic Modeling (HLTM) systems, we implement and evaluate three contrasting HLTM modeling approaches using simulation experiments. These approaches extend previously proposed frameworks, including constraints and informed prior-based methods. Users should have a sense of control in HLTM systems, so we propose a control metric to measure whether refinement operations' results match users' expectations. Informed prior-based methods provide better control than constraints, but constraints yield higher quality topics.

cs.CL↗