Workshop:
Defining the Architecture for Next Generation Inclusive Television
Notes from the workshop
The objectives of the workshop were intended to be:
1. To collate and summarise the issues that inclusive design raises for digital and interactive television.
2. To explore new methods for inclusiveness in the design process.
3. To further establish a multi-disciplinary community with the aim of influencing research, development and policy relevant to inclusive and accessible DTV.
Each objective was re-presented as a question. Some priming points had previously been sent to the participants. In the notes below, these are presented in italics to distinguish them from points made at the workshop.
Topic 1: With regard to inclusivity, is there something special about TV vis-à-vis other information and communication technology (ICT)?
1.
Maximum
diversity in the user population.
This is an ICT (perhaps
the only one) that is used by everyone from infants to pensioners, with and
without disabilities. It is the main
medium of cultural involvement (all be it passively) for large parts of the
population. It has in recent history
been the main channel for information and news dissemination and in some
populations and segments still is.
Perhaps that will be its abiding distinguishing characteristic vis-à-vis
the web: its widespread availability and inherent accessibility. As ‘television’ transforms and mutates, the
notion of universal access to culturally significant resources may become its
only vestigial characteristic remaining in whatever replaces it.
2.
Used
in an informal, domestic, ‘relaxation oriented’ setting that may make some
adaptation possibilities inappropriate.
Of course this isn’t as true as it was; the arrival of computer games
and particularly development like the Wii has introduced physical activity into
the screen experience, and will have prompted rearrangements of the furniture.
The introduction of interaction devices such as the Wii-mote into the
domestic environment presents interesting possibilities for accessibility
adaptations. The domestic context in
which television is consumed has changed over the last 20 years or so, as
additional receivers have appeared in bedrooms (particularly kids’) and
kitchens. Television’s availability on
mobile devices will further erode the primacy of the ‘electronic hearth’. On occasions where shared viewing is desired,
this may well be accomplished by people sharing the same room, but not the same
screen (or even the same channel).
Thus the technical possibilities for adaptation to support inclusivity
may be opening up, however the extent to which they support or frustrate shared
‘viewing’ will be important.
3.
Synchronised
multimodal output (audio, video) together with text, challenges sensory
disability. Changing the modality of presentation (e.g., visual to ‘audio
description’) is technically difficult, or results in significant loss of
information.
The possibilities for enhancing accessibility in this area are however
increasing. The availability of greater
bandwidth supports features such as audio description in broadcast programming. New developments in internet enabled TV
(e.g., the Yahoo Connected TV development reported at EuroITV) open up the
possibility to create innovative applications to support inclusion. This sort of development was very much in
line with the title of our workshop. It
will be interesting to see just what functionality Connected TV supports,
particularly with regard to accessing and manipulating the received broadcast
TV content.
4.
Typically
supplied with a sub-optimal input device that challenges both sensory and motor
disability.
As mentioned previously,
games technology presents interesting possibilities here. The Xbox 360 gesture recognition system looks
particularly promising. Development of
voice control that runs in the TV set, or a games box is also feasible.
5.
Largely
closed proprietary system environment that makes independent third party
initiatives difficult.
The developments mentioned in 1, 2 & 3 above go some way to ameliorate this, but the proliferation of proprietary operating systems may mean that economic development of accessibility applications may be frustrated.
There have been a number
of initiatives to create a standard platform for ‘television’. Examples include the long running Kendra
Initiative, the BBC lead Kangaroo and Canvas projects. The European Commission appears to be moving
towards mandating a standard for broadcast transmission (H.264/MPEG4), whilst
the standard Multimedia Home Platform (MHP) has had mixed success in
It may well be that TV
sets and set-top boxes are designed to handle a multitude of different
transmission standards, received from terrestrial, satellite, cable (IPTV) and
internet (download and streaming). The
unifying factor will be the built-in interface that presents the media assets
available in some sort of integrated fashion.
This may be as variably better or worse as proprietary implementations
of Freeview in the UK.
6.
Used
by multiple simultaneous ‘viewers’, whose accessibility requirements may
conflict.
Other games technologies such as immersive VR headsets may be useful to
support shared viewing by people requiring extremely close proximity to the
screen image. As discussed in 1 above,
the proliferation of ‘viewing’ devices may ameliorate this problem.
Support for different varieties of audio received by individual viewers
(different volume and frequency spread, or augmentation of the audio to provide
descriptions for visually impaired viewers) utilising wireless head-sets, or
interfacing with hearing-aids, are technically possible at realistic cost.
7.
Deeply
culturally embedded.
The way that different generations use and consume television is
different. In older generations habitual
patterns of television viewing, set during a period of resource scarcity (one
TV set per household, limited channels available to be viewed in real-time
only) may be maintained, but may not be well supported in the new television
environment.
8.
Currently
subject to enforced upgrading (digital switchover) that challenges cognitive
disability.
There remains a good deal
of confusion amongst viewers as to what is changing and what options are
available. Understanding the enhanced
functionality and new business models presented by DTV already challenges many
viewers, i.e., those who have voluntarily acquired digital sets. Examples I have seen include; people buying
an expensive digital set but not understanding how to enable reception of
digital broadcasts, so continuing to watch in lower quality analogue; viewers
not understanding how to set contrast, colour saturation and brightness, so
despite buying a high quality LCD screen, their viewing was considerably
degraded. The problem here is that
viewers will not know what they don’t know – and may not complain about a
degraded experience (who to?).
9.
Subject
to evolving regulation and legislation that in part pursues an inclusivity
agenda.
However this is largely focused on the incumbent ‘broadcasters’. The new Web television, streamed or
downloaded, is largely unregulated.
Whilst some sites have attempted to acknowledge inclusivity aims, these
are limited. There is a danger that
inclusivity support may be largely confined to the dying ‘old television’.
Current standards and
guidelines tend to be too general and abstract to be truly useful to
designers. Furthermore TV has a number of nuances that distinguish it
from the PC on which many established guidelines are based. Therefore we
need to develop TV-specific guidelines and standards.
10. Under extreme commercial pressure that may
make stakeholders wary of the cost of inclusivity innovations.
11.
TV is
'disappearing', as a distinct technology by merging with PC and other
multimedia devices.
Younger people use more technology, but typically only have superficial
'how to do it' knowledge relevant to their immediate goals rather than
developing deep models of how the devices work.
12.
Measurement
of TV usability is much harder than for PC.
It is much more complex given its two device (screen and remote
control) nature and the social factors involved. Acceptability may predominate over usability
per say.
13.
There
are vast differences in how people want to watch and interact with the TV.
We need better modelling, not just of user capabilities, but of habits,
preferences and goals.
Topic 2: Are there particular TV-centric methods for inclusivity in the design process?
·
Test
panels drawn from disability groups.
·
Advocacy
in the standards setting process from disability organisations.
· Expert opinion
Use of interdisciplinary experts, e.g. occupational therapists.
· User models
o Modelling slips and repair
o Model driven approach (accessible UML)
· Development of new testing methods for quality of service
· Participation
o Video scenario presentation
o Simulation of disability
· Development of a repository of research
o Matching cases
· Measurement of accessibility
o The effectiveness of what the user does related to what they want to do.
Topic 3: How might inclusivity issues best be promoted in the digital / interactive television industry?
·
Involvement
in standards setting bodies
·
Involvement
with regulating bodies
·
Involvement
with broadcasters
·
Pressure
groups and viewers associations
· Promote technical advantage
· Legacy accessibility vs. new developments
· Create a W3C 2.0 gloss
o With case studies
The standards already developed for the web could be examined, modified or extended, for application to television (particularly interactive television).
· Encouraging legal regulation (except Italy!)
· Promote added value
Supporting inclusivity may make other applications or uses of TV technology possible. E.g., captioning makes public display television (e.g., in railway stations) useable.
· Develop a consortium to apply for EU funding to promote research in this area
o Bid for a ‘Network of Excellence’ or ‘Coordination Actions’
It would appear that we have missed the boat for FP7 funding (Call 4, deadline 1st April 09).
Other possibilities
might be:
o Marie
Curie Initial Training Networks under the People Programme. This would involve distinct but linked work
on several sites and integrated training on partner sites. So, for example, each participating
university would each have one or more funded PhD students with a common theme,
presumably related to TV or domestic technologies. We would also host training weeks which all
students funded by the network would attend.
They also fund some post-doc work.
o Under the
Research Capacities Programme there is a reference to research infrastructures,
expanded in this old but still current document ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/infrastructures/docs/rifp7_workingdoc_291004_en.pdf . The infrastructure in our case may be a
network of innovation for domestic ‘TV related’ developments, maybe with
support for independent living as a theme.
o Development
of standards is another suggestion that we discussed. However it is not obvious where that could
get funding, or whether it could be a thread in one of the possibilities
suggested.
Any other
suggestions are welcome.
Contact
Richard Griffiths
r.n.griffiths@brighton.ac.uk phone: +44 1273 642477