Swedish 3G Phone Test- Video for Deaf Users.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mobile videotelephony Test of 3G telephones © Hjälpmedelsinstitutet (HI) / The Swedish Handicap Institute (SHI), 2007 Project Coordinator: Andreas Richter, SHI Information Officer: Camilla Axelsson, SHI Photo: Björn Lestell, SHI URN-NBN:se:hi-2007-07335-pdf Order no: 07335-pdf This publication has only been published in an electronic format and can be downloaded in PDF format from SHI's website, www.hi.se/publicerat. It can also be ordered from SHI in alternative formats. Mobile videotelephony Test of 3G telephones Andreas Richter Foreword The launch of the first 3G telephones a few years ago involved a revo- lution for many deaf sign language users. Users that had previously had to use SMS were now able to make video calls using mobile tele- phones. Mobile video calls have not had the same impact for hard of hearing and late-deafened people who have Swedish as a first lan- guage. Some conceivable reasons for this are that these people can cope with mobile voice calls to a larger extent and that the quality of video calls is too low. The Swedish Handicap Institute, the National Post and Telecom Agency (PTS) and the Swedish Consumer Agency (KOV) have tested how well video calls using modern 3G telephones function for deaf, hard of hearing and deafblind people. The results of these tests are published in this report, comprising both measurements of telephone performance for video calls and an examination of particular functions. Several of the parameters that were tested are crucial for the opportu- nity of deaf people to use telephones. Others are crucial for whether hard of hearing, late-deafened or deafblind persons can use these tele- phones. The tests show that there are significant differences in per- formance and function between the different 3G telephones. This report may hopefully provide a rough indication of the develop- ments required to improve mobile videotelephony and help those con- sumers who intend to buy a 3G telephone. Stockholm, February 2007 The Swedish Handicap Institute Ulrika Brändström Head of Testing Unit 5 Contents Background and aim............................................................................................................ 7 Test parameters .................................................................................................................. 9 Telephones tested............................................................................................................. 12 Selection of test telephones............................................................................12 Reference telephone .......................................................................................12 Test methods..................................................................................................................... 13 Frame rate frequency.....................................................................................13 Delay ...............................................................................................................15 Synchronisation..............................................................................................15 Signing space (camera angle) ........................................................................15 Possibility of connecting a neckloop ..............................................................16 Resolution .......................................................................................................16 Screen brightness and contrast .....................................................................17 Call period.......................................................................................................17 Result ................................................................................................................................17 Other results...................................................................................................19 Other factors...................................................................................................19 Discussion and conclusions .............................................................................................. 20 Further work ...................................................................................................................... 22 References........................................................................................................................ 23 Internet ...........................................................................................................23 6 Background and aim The possibility of using sign language in video calls using 3G telephony affords deaf people a completely new opportunity for mobile communi- cation. Previously, deaf people had to use SMS, a form of communica- tion that is both time-consuming and unreliable. When the mobile telephone operator 3 started to sell 3G telephones, many deaf people took out subscriptions for 3G telephony. The Swedish National Association of the Deaf (SDR) had already raised the issue of conducting quality tests with the National Post and Telecom Agency in 2005, in respect of 3G telephones orientated to- wards the needs of deaf users.1 The Swedish National Association of the Deaf also contacted the Swedish Handicap Institute to enquire about carrying out tests. This resulted in collaboration between the Swedish Handicap Institute, the National Post and Telecom Agency and the Swedish Consumer Agency to discuss the possibilities of con- ducting comparative tests of 3G telephones. Trials were commenced quite soon afterwards with interpretation via 3G by the Communications Service for Videotelephony. This trial was given the name 'The Pocket Interpreter', which is a play on the possi- bility of getting the assistance of an interpreter at any time or place. Since 1 September 2006, the interpretation of 3G calls forms part of the assignment of the Communications Service for Videotelephony. This service is run by Interpretation Centre within Örebro County Council (the Örebro County Council Interpreter Centre), but other in- terpreter centres are used as sub-contractors. There are two types of interpretation of 3G calls: first the relay of telephone calls between two people who are located in different places, second distance interpreta- tion between two persons who are located at the same place. For dis- tance interpretation, the 3G telephone is used both to sign and speak into. Comments were made on the quality of the video calls using 3G tele- phones in the course of the pocket interpreter trial period. The Örebro Interpretation Centre predicted that the quality of the calls would en- tail a trying working situation for the interpreters. It subsequently transpired that the interpreters were able to work under the conditions that prevailed, but that they considered 3G interpretation to be signifi- cantly more demanding than the interpretation of calls from stationary videos. The calls that are communicated from 3G telephone are nor- 1 PTS-ER-2005:14 (2005). Mobil videokommunikation för döva [Mobile video communication for people who are deaf]. 7 mally shorter than calls from stationary videophones, but the service is perceived to be important owing to mobility.2 At the same time as 3G telephony has brought a new opportunity for deaf people to communicate at a distance, there are limitations to the technology and the desire to pursue further developments. The differ- ences between 'live' sign language and sign language in video calls are, among other things, that the users must adapt the language to a small area, the signing space,3 and the frame rate frequency of the telephone. The limited signing space means that that the size of the signs must be confined, while other factors require sentences to be shortened and signs to be made in an abundantly clear way and at a reduced speed.4 The aim of this project is to conduct a trial and provide a simple over- view of the opportunities afforded by modern 3G telephones. This over- view may be of benefit through, among other things, • providing deaf people with guidance when choosing a telephone, • providing manufacturers of 3G telephones with an indication of how well their products are adapted for deaf people and to some extent for hard of hearing and deafblind people, • highlighting the parameters that are important for sign language communication using 3G telephones. Examples of important issues that should be answered are: – What frame rate frequency do the telephones have? – Are there any telephones that are designed for the target group of deaf people? – Are modern 3G telephones better for deaf people than the earlier 3G telephones? Letters were sent to all of the major operators and manufacturers in order to establish a dialogue regarding the tests. Those contacted were Tele2 Sverige AB, TeliaSonera Sverige AB, 3 (HI3G Access AB), Telenor Sverige AB, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Nokia Mobile Phones, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Motorola AB, LG Electronics Nordic AB and Siemens AB. Unfortunately, we did not re- ceive responses from any of the businesses written to. 2 Projekt IP-Access och Tolken i fickan – Slutrapport 2006 [IP Access and Pocket Interpreter Project – Final Report 2006] (2006). 3 The area where signing can take place at a certain distance from the camera. 4 Björk, Jenny (2006). Jag ser inte vad du säger – En studie av dövas subjektiva upplevelse av kvaliteten på kommunikation via 3G-telefoner [I can't see what you are saying: A study of the subjective experience