Encouraging the learning of written language by deaf users: Web recommendations and practices
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), ISSN: 1611-3349, Vol: 9739, Page: 3-15
2016
- 3Citations
- 14Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Conference Paper Description
There are still various access barriers for deaf users on the Web. Previous studies and accessibility guidelines recommend that text should be written in a simple and clear mode. However, this recommendation is not always possible or applicable, and it does not include deaf users as content producers as well. Instead of trying to simplify or translate all the web content to sign language or simple text language, in this paper we explore how images, avatars and simple text explanations could be used to encourage the learning of written language. This article presents a set of recommendations, prototypes and practices with 15 deaf students and 2 teachers aiming to evaluate design alternatives related to deaf literacy using web resources. The objective is to include the deaf users as text producers and facilitate the communication between hearing and deaf users on synchronous and asynchronous artifacts. Results point out the potentiality, advantages and limitations of the proposed design alternatives and prototypes.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84978898787&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40238-3_1; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-40238-3_1; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-40238-3_1; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40238-3_1; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-40238-3_1
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know