Slashdot Mirror
Sign Language Via Cell Phone
QuatumCrypto writes "A project is underway at the University of Washington to enable real-time sign language communication via cell phone. Because of the low-bandwidth wireless cell phone network, a new compression scheme is necessary to capture only the bare essential components of signing to minimize data transfer. Although text messaging is a viable alternative for everyone, signing — like speech — is a much faster and more convenient form of communication."
I've already seen sign language being used over video calls. Then again, as one who volunteers with autistic children, I've seen a lot of super-use of technology and hands...
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
But there's another problem with using sign language via cell phone. Look at the screen mock-up on that page - it shows the signers from the waist up. If your phone is far enough away that it can capture your whole body, how are you going to see the screen?
Also, they claim "The current wireless telephone network has inadvertently excluded over one million deaf or hard of hearing Americans", but it's easy to get a cell phone that supports TDD, just like a wired phone.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
The technology for this is very cool and all, but I don't see it as very applicable to use with cell-phones. As far as I know requires the use of both hands, so you would have to put down your phone in a way that you can be seen and you can see the screen and lastly without holding it. This seems like an impossible proposition. But the technology in its own right could be very interesting, at least for desktop video-conferencing units.
Nothing is impossible. We just haven't quite worked out how to do it yet.
I hope this compression scheme won't be tied to the semantics of a single sign language like ASL. There are plenty of other sign languages in the world, so hopefully this tech will be "language-agnostic", so to speak.
.: Max Romantschuk
I often use sign language to people using cell phones while they're driving.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I still think deaf people should communicate by getting to kick non-deaf people in the crouch. It works similiar to morse code, but with "crunches" and "squishes" instead of "dots" and "lines".
But I'm one for giving handicapped people excuses to hurt the rest of us. It just seems fair. And I wear a cup.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Not all deaf can just use text. Some know only sign and don't know any English. It is impossible for them to use TTY's or other text. And even if it is possible, it can be slow and painful. Learning English text when you can't hear is a very very difficult thing to master. Especially literacy in a second language when you're illiterate in your first language. Stefan Wöhrmann in Germany has had great success teaching German text to deaf, but he uses written sign language for teaching.
Sign language is much faster obviously, and sign language is based alot on the user's emotions and how they use a certain sign or signs.
But to answer the parent's question, none of the cell phone carriers offer a price break for deaf/hard of hearing users.
BUT the deaf community is fond of using the t-mobile sidekick, all versions, because of the relatively cheap unlimited txt/data plan that comes with it. Sidekicks are almost dominant among deaf people. Some deaf tech sites and companies offer the sidekicks significantly cheaper to deaf users since it is so popular among them.
The deaf texts a lot as well - one swedish article had a couple of deaf teenagers commenting on 3G phones and they used to send 500-1000 SMS per month. But a quick email exchange isn't the same thing as a actual live conversation (at least not for most of us)... just consider how the time gaps with texting/email makes it harder to judge the other persons mental state.
Another interesting trial project going on now in Sweden is "Translator in a pocket". It allows a deaf person to call a sign language translator who translates using the phone. Very useful for anything where you need a direct conversation with a hearing person and you couldn't plan ahead to get a translator and don't want passing notes (or what they'd use). Btw, 3G phones are very popular here in Sweden with the deaf and especially with the teenagers. I've heard numbers that something like 80% of all deaf teenagers have videophones.
When you send text messages back and forth, there's a delay with every delivery. For the equivalent of speech, this would be like calling the moon. Plus, you have to go into the inbox and open new messages all the time -- not very conversation-like or, for that matter, IM-like.
"Good news, everyone!"
No, what you need is a pair of wiimote-like gloves that you wear which are connected to a tiny robot monkey on the recipients cellphone that mimics your movements. The recipient, in turn, wears another pair of gloves which are connected to the robot monkey on your phone.
OK, so instead of a robot monkey you could have a little animated monkey on your display, but a robot monkey would be better. Tiny robot monkeys is how Apple will implement it on the iPhone while the rest of the industry just has animated monkeys. Either way, watch for "signing monkeys" on Google Trends.
They are flocking to the Sorenson VP-100 system.
:P
I cannot, for the life of me understand this, when there
are so many video based chat sites on the net.
All the deaf people I know have PC's. I met my first
deaf friend on the old BBS's. In the text messages on
FIDOnet.
I would not want a deaf user signing while driving
Well it seems the same effect can be achieved through a video conference...
And that's essentially what this article is about. Rather than using full-bandwidth video communication, they're trying to develop a compression algorithm that is better suited to signing (ie, capturing only the primary hand motions).
This guy's the limit!
Another big chance for Nintindo. Can they hack the Wiimote to translate sign language to text?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
When you send text messages back and forth, there's a delay with every delivery. For the equivalent of speech, this would be like calling the moon. Plus, you have to go into the inbox and open new messages all the time -- not very conversation-like or, for that matter, IM-like.
I agree with the delay... but with T-mobile is it rather IM like on my nokia 6800 and 6010. In fact there is IM support. Again, speaking only for T-mobile... there seems to be two systems for IM... one is via a relay. It's rather transparent but for example on my 6800 which was geared for AT&T you have to plop in the correct relay number, or if not using the IM login you can receive texts and respond to them.
On good days it seems as efficent as IM services, on others there is a massive delay. There is also GPRS based IM software which is well, as IM like as you can get, because it is.
The big issue with TTD/TTY IMHO is a lack of compatability with, well, standard modems which come shipped with every PC, at least the last time I looked at it. Also there is a big issue with cost. I don't have contact with any deaf people who I don't know the current state of the deaf community, but the last I heard IM services and e-mail were gaining popularity over terminals since... well... your average PC is cheaper. If what I suspect is true, deaf uses already use IM for their basic communication needs, and does a great job of bridging the gap between the hearing and deaf world.
Now if they were going to propose... let's say... ASL data entry... i'd be hip to that jive. I might even learn it my self just for laughs.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
At least in Finland, in cooperation with a Finnish hearing-impaired association, there's been some projects with 3G video-phones. Yes - selling a phone to deaf people opens up a nice new market :). Anyway, as far as I know the experiences have been overall positive - and no fancy sign-language-specific codecs or anything, just a normal 64kbps video phone call and a camera phone.
Either you talk too slow or you've broken some land-speed records for typing on handheld devices. Typical English conversation is roughly 200 words per minute. Most of the population can't type faster than about 60 words per minute on a standard keyboard, let alone a cell phone-sized thumbpad.
Even if you type at double that (120wpm), you're still typing slower than you speak. As for the input device, how would you go about making a pocket-sized keyboard as efficient as a desktop version (which you can put down and use all fingers to type--no such possibility with a cell phone)? Having to have the physical input device AT ALL *is* the problem to be fixed here.
There is nothing new about this story. Sign language over mobile (cell) networks already works with regular 3G (UMTS) phones in Europe. Take a trip to Örebro in Sweden, which has a high concentration of hearing impaired due to a specialist education cent(e)r(e), and you'll see loads of teenagers using their 3G phones to talk using sign language. In the streets, on the bus, in cafes, everywhere. This article http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=37482&a=5369 32 (in Swedish) from February 2006 even talks of the local social security services offering customer service to hearing impaired using 3G phones and sign language.
The benifit is that sign language is the first language for a lot of people.
English is their second language.