Designing a Deaf

culture specific web site

Participatory design research for knack.fi

Suvi Kitunen, MA Thesis

University of Art and Design Helsinki, Media Lab

i
Designing a Deaf culture
specific web site
Participatory design research for knack.fi

Suvi Kitunen
MA Thesis 2009 / Media Lab
University of Art & Design
Helsinki

Kouvola, Finland 2009

Kymenlaakson
Ammattikorkeakoulu,
University of Applied Sciences
Publications,
Series A. No. 25

Helsinki, Finland 2009

The Finnish Association
of the Deaf
Publications. No. 53
© Suvi Kitunen,
the Finnish Association of the
Deaf, and Kymenlaakson
Ammattikorkeakoulu,
University of Applied Sciences
Sciences, 2009

Published by
the Finnish Association of the
Deaf, Osata/KnacK Project
with the support of RAY, and
Kymenlaakson
Ammattikorkeakoulu,
University of Applied Sciences
Sciences, 2009

Design and photos by

Suvi Kitunen

Printing by
Kopijyvä Oy, Jyväskylä

ISBN: 978-952-5681-53-6
ISSN: 1239-9086
ISSN: 1457-1099

2nd Edition
 Abstract

The design research by Suvi Kitunen aims to

provide design recommendations for Deaf culture
specific web sites taking into consideration the
implications of Deaf culture and sign language as a
first language on web user experience. So far web
sites localised for sign language users have been
merely concerned with providing signed alternatives
to written and auditory content but have failed to
take into consideration the cultural aspects of signed
communication. The knowledge was gathered
through participatory design methods and applied
in the development of Knack.fi web site, aiming to
serve dyslexic Deaf children and their families.

Overall, this thesis made two contributions. Firstly,

it demonstrated that the unduly narrow focus on
accessibility and usability has undermined the
impact of culture upon user experience. Secondly,
drawing together ideas on the literature and
supported by the findings of the user research, it
developed a preliminary list of design recommen-
dations for future developments.

Keywords
Deaf and hard of hearing, participatory design, user
experience, interface design, cross-cultural design,
accessibility, dyslexia

iii
iv

There are a number of people who have
contributed to this study, and without their
input this thesis would have been impossible. I
would like to thank RAY (Finland’s Slot Machine
Association) for financial support and the Finnish
Association of the Deaf for giving me the
opportunity for this design research.
I owe my greatest gratitude to my Principal
supervisor Dr Päivi Rainò for her support, guidance,
and enthusiasm in helping me to develop my thesis.
You provided me with your expert knowledge
on Deaf culture that was the foundation of this
design research. Our fruitful conversations greatly
advanced my work. A special thanks to my Associate
supervisor Dr Antti Raike for sharing his knowledge
about Design for All -thinking and constructive
comments that helped to develop a convincing work.
I am also thankful for people sharing their views
and expertise. A special thanks to my peer students
Keri Knowles, Margaret Plaisted, and Riia Celen for
Acknowledgements
their thoughtful comments. I am also thankful for
the experts of Deaf rhythmics: Terttu Martola, Russ
Palmer, and Elina Kivelä-Taskinen.
Most importantly, I owe special thanks to the
members of the Deaf community who were willing
to participate in the design process and accepted
me, a hearing, to work with them. For me it has
been a journey to a land, totally unknown to me
– yet so fascinating and exiting. The more I spent
time with you, the more I listened to you, the more
I realised the richness of your traditions, customs,
and beliefs – and especially stricken by their
strength. Without your helpfulness, enthusiasm,
and kindness would I not understood the bigger
picture but forced my own ideas and ideals to a
world that I did not fully understand – yet, never
can I do it fully. Thanks to Hanna Paulanto, Jari
Nyberg, Kalle Juusti, Johan Pallari, Päivi Majava,
Pia Taalas, Mikko Palo, Maarit Widberg-Palo, Anja
Hurtamo, Jukka Hurtamo, and Senni Virkkunen.
v
 Contents

Abstract iii
Acknowledgements v
Contents vi

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 Cultural inquiry 3
2.1 Layers of Deaf culture – from values to artefacts 3
2.1.1 Prominence of deafness 3
2.1.2 From oppression towards recognition 4
2.1.3 Culture – shared conceptual map 4
2.1.4 Sign language: Visuo-gestural world 7
2.2 Digital communication tools in Deaf culture 8
2.2.1 Innovation within Deaf Communities 8
2.2.2 Digital texts for hearing impaired 9
2.2.3 From accessibility to people-centred design approach 12
2.3 Case studies: A normative comparison of six web sites 16
2.3.1 By Deaf designers 16
2.3.2 By Deaf organisations 18
2.3.3 By hearing to offer sign language content 18
2.4 Summary 20

3 INTERFACE INQUIRY 22
3.1 Values an interface brings forth to its users 22
3.1.1 Instrumental value 22
3.1.2 Emotional value 23
3.1.3 Cultural value 23
3.2 Layers of culture oriented interface design 24
3.2.1 Visceral design 25
3.2.2 Behavioural design 26
3.2.3 Reflective design 27
3.3 Summary 28

4 Design research 29
4.1 Design purpose and challenges 29
4.2 Participatory design methods and cultural framework 31
4.3 Participants 33
4.4 Four phases of culture-specific participatory design 33
4.5 Measure of successful process 35

5 Design PROCESS 36
5.1 Contextual inquiry 36
5.1.1 Observations 36
5.1.2 Stakeholder meetings 37

vi
 5.2 Identification of Deaf culture specific features 38
5.2.1 Focus group 38
5.2.2 Card sorting 41
5.2.3 Interviews 46
5.3 Integration of Deaf culture specific features 47
5.3.1 Brainstorming session 47
5.3.2 Workshops 49
5.3.3 Co-designing prototypes 52
5.4 Summary 52

6 REVIEW of Knack.fi 53

7 RECOMMENDATIONS 57
7.1 Physio-pleasures 57
7.1.1 Access to sound – visually 57
7.1.2 Scannable content 58
7.1.3 Content on demand 58
7.1.4 Balance between content, foreground and background 58
7.1.5 Visual support for a signer 58
7.1.6 Colours 58
7.1.7 Symbols and icons 58
7.1.8 Signing guide 58
7.2 Socio-pleasures 59
7.2.1 Global friends 59
7.2.2 Video applications 59
7.3 Psycho-pleasures 59
7.3.1 Visual feedback 59
7.3.2 Presentation of Deaf people 59
7.4. Ideo-pleasures 59
7.4.1 Fluent signers 59
7.4.2 Faces 60
7.4.3 Dominant signing 60

8 DISCUSSION 61
8.1 Satisfaction 61
8.2 Contribution of the study 62
8.3 Limitations of the study 63
8.4 Future work 63

References 65
Appendix 1: Focus group 74
Appendix II: Thematic interview 75
Appendix III: Concent form 76

vii
viii

INTRODUCTION
This study aims to provide design recommendations
for Deaf culture specific web sites taking into
consideration the implications of Deaf culture
and sign language as a first language on web user
experience. The participatory design research was
conducted in the course of designing a pilot web site
for Osata (KnacK) project in 2008–2009. Finally,
the findings of the design activities were concluded
into general design recommendations. Despite an
extensive body of research on usability, accessibility,
and user experience, web sites localised for sign
language users have been merely concerned with
providing signed alternatives to written and auditory
content. Simultaneously, however, they have failed
to take into consideration the cultural aspects of
signed communication that ultimately affect user
experience. Consequently, web sites localised for sign
language tend to only provide access to the content
but rarely offer a web browsing experience that Deaf
users would enjoy and be comfortable with.
This study is grounded on previous studies that
claim: if an interface meets one’s cultural needs, it
enhances one’s browsing experience. This realisation
of the importance of culture is the newest turn in user
experience studies. This means that the value of an
interface does not only lie in its material form such
as aesthetics or functions but in the meanings that
it brings forth to its users. Thus, more effort should
be put on culturally sensitive design elements, which
are preferred within a particular cultural group.
In the context of this study, this means looking
beyond accessibility, functionality, and usability of
an interface, and considering the impact of Deaf
culture on design features. Thus, it is important
to start the interface design process by analysing
the design context including cultural, historical,
Chapter 1
and organisational constraints. In other words, the
designer needs to understand both the social and
cultural contexts of use as well as the meanings the
stakeholders give to the interface.
This leads to the adaptation of participatory design
methods that engage with the community. The
purpose of this design research is not to search for
quantitative or objective research ‘truth’ but rather
to look for inspirational and actionable insights
on how the cultural practices affect the way web
sites should be designed to meet the real needs of
Deaf users. In this participatory design approach,
the course of designing forms the actual research.
The goal is not just to empirically understand how
Deaf users currently experience web sites, but also
to identify how they would like to experience them;
that is, to simultaneously envision, shape, and
transcend it in the ways participants find buoyant.
The design research focussing on user preferences
in the Deaf culture was carried out during the
winter of 2007 until the end of spring 2009. In
order to develop a user focussed design project,
eleven members of the Deaf culture (all who are
sign language users) were invited to participate
for the duration of the study. These participants
included Deaf and hard of hearing grass-root
users, designers, academics, and researchers. Their
experience and opinions were recorded and fed
back into the next design stage. The design process
involved three main phases: (1) contextual inquiry
through observation and stakeholder meetings;
(2) identification of Deaf culture specific design
features through a focus group session, card
sorting method, and thematic interviews; and (3)
integration of the identified design features by
 way of a brainstorming session, two collaborative
workshops, and development of prototypes in
collaboration with deaf designers. Results from the
participatory study were applied in the process of
designing a pilot web site for the KnacK project.
The web site is part of a larger project being
run by the Finnish Association of the Deaf in
which the primary aim is to raise awareness of
learning disabilities in Deaf and hard of hearing
children. The KnacK/Osata initiative is based
on studies that have proven that disorders in
perception of rhythm are linked with difficulties
in learning. This highlighted a need for deaf and
hard of hearing children to practice rhythm – a
step forward in the process of relieving learning
disorders of these children. The web site has
been designed to inspire, encourage, and inform
deaf and hard of hearing children and their
stakeholders. In order to reach them, three
primary target audiences have been defined:
children, parents, and professionals, all of which
may be hearing, deaf or dyslexic. This variety
of users brings about a challenge to create a
boundary object – an interface between the
different communities of practice. Although digital
technologies allow localisation and modification
of interfaces to meet the needs of diverse sets of
people, solutions that would satisfy both parties
are non-existent.
Overall, within the limitations and confines
of this design study, this thesis makes two
contributions. First, it identifies and demonstrates
that the unduly narrow focus on accessibility has
undermined user experience. There is a need
to consider the full range of issues involved in
designing pleasurable interfaces. The findings
are consistent with previous cultural studies;
but importantly, they have not been the focus in
the previous web interfaces designed for Deaf
users. Secondly, drawing together ideas from the
literature, an overview of design implications has
been established and developed into a set of design
recommendations that is supported by findings
from the user research carried out.
2
Document overview
Chapter 2 provides cultural context for this design
research. The first part is devoted to define the
concepts relating to Deaf Culture, history, and sign
language. The second part discusses the design
climate in relation to communication tools and web
sites targeted to Deaf users.
Chapter 3 investigates how interfaces become
adapted, valued, and appreciated. The first part
defines three different levels – instrumental,
emotional, and cultural – by which an interface
becomes valued by its users. The second part
studies three different phases – recognition,
exploration, and reflection – of interface usage that
are influenced by one’s culture.
Chapter 4 first discusses the design challenges
of this study and defines them through Jordan’s
Four-Pleasures framework. Then, it explains
participatory design methods and Moalasi’s
socio-cultural framework that are employed in this
study. Finally, it describes the participants chosen for
this study and the schedule of the design process.
Chapter 5 reviews the entire participatory design
process. It reviews the methods and outcomes of
each design phase. There are three of these phases:
(1) contextual inquiry, (2) identification, and (3)
integration of Deaf culture specific features.
Chapter 6 reviews design solutions including the
aesthetic, interaction, and technical choices made.
Chapter 7 develops the findings of participatory
research into general design recommendations.
Utilising Jordan’s Four-Pleasure framework it
explains the physical, social, psychological, and
ideological features of an interface that are engaging
for Deaf users. These recommendations are to assist
the designing of sign language web sites in future.
Chapter 8 discusses the contribution of the study,
its application to Deaf culture specific web sites, and
the future research areas.

Cultural inquiry
Culture and language affect one’s attitudes,
behaviours, ways of thinking, and even
remembering; and thus, also fundamentally
influences the way interfaces should be designed for
specific cultural groups. This chapter examines this
cultural context. In the first part, it reviews different
layers of Deaf experience, and the role of sign
language within Deaf culture. In the second part,
it discusses how digital communication tools have
influenced Deaf culture, and reviews how web sites
are designed for sign language users today.
2.1 Layers of Deaf culture – from
values to artefacts
Different layers of Deaf culture have formed over
centuries as Deaf people developed communities,
enabling them to live in the world that is designed
for the average. To better understand these different
layers, this section first discusses the prominence
and history of deafness. Then it defines four
different layers of Deaf culture that form the
mindset in which Deaf people operate. Finally,
it looks at one fundamental component of Deaf
culture, that is, sign language.
2.1.1 Prominence of deafness
Statistics for the number of deaf people depends
on the definition, and of interpreting the resulting
figures (Benderly, 1980; Johnston & Schembri,
2007). Nevertheless, it has been estimated that
deafness, from moderate to profound hearing loss,
affects one person in a thousand in developed
countries (Ladd 2003; Johnston & Schembri, 2007).
According to WHO (2006), deafness has been
estimated to affect 278 million people worldwide.
In Finland, there are approximately 8000 people
with a hearing loss (Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö,
Chapter 2
2001) out of which 5000 have sign language as
their first language (Report of the Government on
the application of language legislation 2009). The
remaining 3000 are people who have lost their
hearing later in life, traditionally referred to as hard
of hearing. A much smaller number who suffer total
or near total hearing loss as an adult are described as
deafened. From the Deaf cultural perspective, both
of these groups are hearing people who have lost
some of their hearing. There are also those who have
lost their hearing during early childhood and are
described as severely deaf. For them, as for hard of
hearing, hearing may be possible with sophisticated
hearing aids. Only 0.1 percent of the population are
congenitally deaf. They are described as profoundly
deaf as they are incapable of hearing speech with the
aid of normal hearing aids. (Ladd 2003; Sacks, 1991)
Before the era of cochlear implant, Deaf people
without any hearing experienced fundamental
language barriers in their early childhood. This
affected the development of meaningful relationships
with their hearing peers. As a consequence, they
formed close relationships with other Deaf children
with whom they could comfortably communicate
through sign language. Moreover, they often
attended the same Deaf schools or activities arranged
by Deaf clubs, and a high percentage of them (90%)
married another Deaf person. In no time they were
completely integrated into the Deaf community,
sharing and participating in the culture: a language,
experiences, values, and ways of interacting with each
other. (Ladd, 2003)
The Deaf culture still affects all the areas of Deaf
life: both the explicit forms of culture, which consists
of artefacts such as Deaf art; as well as the implicit
3
 forms of culture consisting of patterns of thinking
(Ladd, 2003; Sacks, 1991). Thus, the reality of
severe and profoundly deaf is totally different from
hard of hearing, and deafened who have spent
their childhood with hearing peers. To distinguish
between the terms physically deaf and culturally Deaf,
a small ‘d’ is used when referring to people from a
medical perspective, and a capital ‘D’ is used when
referring to culturally Deaf (Woodward, 1972).
In Finland, there are around 20-30 deaf born
annually, and 95% of them are hard of hearing,
wearing cochlear implants (Kentala & Jero,
2007; Lonka & Hasan, 2006). This means that
the number of totally deaf is on the decrease.
Moreover, as the implant allows hard of hearing
children to hear – in varying degrees – most of
them are now able to communicate with their
hearing parents without the aid of sign language.
As 90% of deaf children are born to hearing
parents, the implants no longer necessitate the
use of sign language. As a result, these children do
not become full members of the Deaf community
as before, and do not posses the feeling of shared
experience (Ladd, 2003). Thus, the future of the
Deaf society and culture is uncertain, but the
considerations that arise from Deaf communities
are of the deepest importance, despite the
population being small, as Sacks (1991) points out.
2.1.2 From oppression towards recognition
The society designed for hearing starts to recognise
and understand the needs of Deaf people. This
results of Deaf communities’ centuries-long struggle
against mainstream culture. Throughout time Deaf
people have formed communities and supported
each other. This togetherness has brought forth
a unique Deaf way of life: patterns of behaviour,
beliefs, attitudes, and values referred to in English as
Deaf world, Deaf community, and only more recently
as Deaf culture. (Ladd, 2003) However, Deaf have
struggled to survive under a set of policies and
discourses that have prevented them from fostering
their culture and using their mother tongue. This
oppression reached its peak in the mid-19th century
– referred to as oralism – when signing was seen
only as a primitive form of language and the inability
to speak as an inability to think. As a result, deaf
students – for whom speaking was extremely difficult
– were forced to speak, even violently. This tradition
of oralism spread across schools around the globe. It
was officially exercised in Finland up until the 1970s
(Salmi & Laakso, 2005).
4
During the past 20 years, the repression of sign
language has slowed, even halted. The 1980s
marked a paradigm shift for Deaf people. The
old medical model – which saw deafness only as
a disability – shifted into a social model, which
insisted fundamental equality for all human beings.
This inclusive approach meant that society should
be designed for all. Consequently, accessibility
legislation was implemented. It was concerned
with ensuring that technological solutions meet
the needs arising out of hearing impairments, such
as text telephones, TV subtitles, and videophones
for deaf people. Despite the urge to recognise deaf
people as full members of society, the legislation did
not meet the requisites of Deaf culture nor did they
address the sincere needs of the Deaf community.
(Ladd, 2003) Moreover, it was not until 1995 that
sign language was recognised as an official language
in Finland, and not until 1999 that Deaf were
entitled to have instructions in sign language at
school (Salmi & Laakso, 2005)1.
Frankly, there is still a demand for the recognition
of Deaf cultural issues that lie outside of the hearing
impairment (Salmi & Laakso, 2005; Ladd, 2003);
that is, to see deafness from a linguistic and cultural
perspective. Rather than seeing themselves as
disabled, Deaf consider themselves as a language
minority, similar to other oppressed cultural
minorities and indigenous populations such as Sami
people: both have fought for their rights to use their
language, preserve their heritage, and follow their
customs that have formed around shared experiences,
values, and history. Within the Deaf community,
Deaf are the ones that are trusted and it is import to
share the same cultural heritage. This forms the basis
of Deaf experience in which the inability to hear is
seen as a secondary. Ladd (2003) hence proposes that
Deaf should be seen as dual-category members: some
of the issues might relate to issues of non-hearing
whilst others to language and culture.
2.1.3 Culture – shared conceptual map
The way people perceive sensory experiences is not
universal: the values and meanings that are given to
1 In Finland, the Basic Right Reform in 1998 (§ 14.3 of
the Constitution) entitled Deaf to develop and maintain their own
language and culture. The reform of the school legislation (§ 1 of
the Act on Basic Education [628/1998]) extended the rights to
have instructions in sign language (§ 10) as well as to be taught sign
language as the mother tongue (§ 12). (Basic Education Act, 2008)
people, objects, and events are strongly influenced
by one’s culture (Hofstede, 1991). Culture is a result
of enculturing and an unconscious learning process
(Hall, 1997). Yet, the way Deaf experience the
world combines both biological and social factors
that are fundamentally linked with each other
(Ladd, 2003; Mindess, 2006). Thus, in this study
the Deaf way of being – including sign language,
shared collective consciousness, and issues related
to different sensory order – are all encompassed
under the same term culture. It includes both
unconscious and conscious levels: there are aspects
that people think of as external to themselves and
are able to verbalise; and there are aspects that
are so embedded to the everyday that they have
become invisible, implicit, and unrecognised (Ladd,
2003; Hall, 1997).
Varying authors have been defined culture in many
different ways. Among them Hofstede (1991, p.5)
defined culture as “the collective programming
of the mind which distinguishes the member of
one group or category of people from another”.
According to Hofstede (1991, 2001), culture can be
defined through five different dimensions: power
distance, individualism, toughness/masculinity,
uncertainty avoidance, and long term orientation.
Though Hostede’s definition and theory has
been often used in cross-cultural web design
studies (i.e. Marcus & Guild, 2000; Würtz, 2005;
Callahan, 2005; Evers, 1997), research based on
these models have been criticised for simplifying
the complexity of real-world interaction processes
(i.e. Ess & Sudweeks, 2005; Barnett & Sung, 2005;
and Hewling, 2005). Faiola and Matei (2003) have
criticised this approach most dramatically. They
argue that these models neglect cognitive style of
users focusing solely on surface design elements
such as aesthetics. Faiola and Matei (2003) stress
that both cognition and behaviour are dependent
on one’s socio-cultural context: people with
different cultural backgrounds not only behave but
also think, feel and perceive the world differently.
They develop a cultural cognitive theory that
stresses the importance of culture specific cognitive
styles and their impact on speed and easiness of
finding information.
Despite the fact that the study by Faiola and Matei
(2003) aims to take a step further in cross-cultural
web design research, it fails to recognise culture
specific meanings that users give to the system.
This view is supported by Lee (2004) who argues
that designers are mainly concerned with the outer
layers of culture, and tend to overlook the inner
core layers. Thus, this study uses Spencer-Oatey’s
(2000) cultural model as it provides tools to look
at both the inner and outer layers of culture.
Its onion structure illustrates how culture is
manifested in four different layers: it consists of
four rings moving from the most invisible aspects
of culture to the most visible ones. As illustrated in
Figure 1 these layers form the cultural context of
Deaf people, that is, the mindset within which the
members of Deaf culture operate.
1. Basic assumptions and values. The innermost
circle holds the core ideas and values held by the
society. For people outside the cultural group, this
proves the most difficult to recognise. In contrast
to individualistic Western culture, Deaf culture is
filled with collectivist values: Deaf people value
sharing information, strong in-group ties, group
decision making, and strong identification with
the group (Mindess, 2006; Hall, 1997). This means
that the analytical, objective, and individualistic
approach of the West is foreign to the Deaf
people who prefer personal and collective means.
The members of Deaf culture also use more
symbolic, indirect, and non-verbal cues in which
most meanings are embedded in the context of
interaction. (Mindess, 2006)
2. Beliefs, attitudes, and conventions. The second
layer carries the steps or the accepted norms of
doing things. These cultural meanings organise and
regulate the second layer; that is, shared knowledge,
goals and beliefs, and a common way of talking. For
example, a dialogue in a first time meeting of two
Deaf Americans is totally different compared to
an encounter of two hearing Americans: the Deaf
people would ask about schools they attended and to
whom they are related; whereas hearing Americans
would most commonly ask what one does for a
living. (Mindess, 2006)
3. Systems and institutions. The third layer refers
to the cultural aspects that are shown through
education, political, family units, and social
and legal systems. In the case of Deaf culture it
consists of organisations, schools, clubs, libraries,
and museums that the members of Deaf culture
have created in order to ease their lives and to
bring Deaf people together (Ladd, 2003). Frankly,
Deaf community is formed around these artistic,
leisure, and sporting activities: these organised
5
 Figure 1.  The layers of Deaf experience in four rings based on Spencer-Oatey’s (2000) cultural model and
Mindess’ (2006) and Ladd’s (2003) work on Deaf culture.
events allowed Deaf people to meet up with their
friends as well as to share and receive information.
These activities have been a powerful resource
in the struggle to gain equal positioning with the
hearing. (Ladd, 2003)
4. Visible artefacts and customs. The fourth layer
carries the most visible aspects of culture:
tangible artefacts such as words, gestures, and
pictures, which carry a particular meaning
within the cultural group; and intangible rituals
6
and behaviours such as norms of greetings,
communicating, and paying respect to others.
The most visible aspects of Deaf culture include
sign language and a set of discourses such as Deaf
arts, folklore, sense of humour, and even Deaf
Olympics – things Deaf people are proud of and
wish to pass on to future generations. These
artefacts and practices symbolically manifest the
shared experiences concerning Deaf history as well
as political, economical, and social contexts that
frame their lives. (Ladd, 2003)
2.1.4 Sign language: Visuo-gestural world
Around the world wherever communities of Deaf
people have formed, sign languages have developed.
As sign languages are born as a result of natural
interaction in Deaf communities, they are closely
related to Deaf people’s cultural values and social
behaviour (Padden & Humpries, 1988). As the
meanings of sounds are cut off, Deaf people have
generated a language system that relies on vision.
Even if numerous sign languages around the world
have developed separately from each other, they
are strikingly similar in terms of grammar and
vocabulary (i.e. Zeshan, 2003; Rathmann, 2005). In
contrast to spoken languages, which consist of vocal
articulators, sign languages consist of sequences of
movements and configurations of hands and arms,
face, and upper torso. Sign languages differ from
spoken languages in two significant ways: their (1)
modality of production that is gestural instead of
oral; and (2) perception that is visual instead of aural
channel. (Zeshan, 2003)
Not only do sign languages encode meanings in
gestures opposed to words but also represent these
meanings differently compared to spoken languages.
In other words, sign language users understand,
observe, and make sense of the world in a visual
way (Sacks, 1991). Even though sign languages and
spoken languages can convey the same information,
sign languages exploit visual imagery, space, and
movement in a way that is not available to spoken
languages (MacSweeney, 2008; Rainò, 2006). In
contrast to linear, one dimensional spoken languages,
sign languages use multiple layers: a signer is able
to provide several visual attributes at the same
time using hand shapes, movement, gestures, and
expressions. An essential feature of sign languages
are polysynthetic signs. They describe a location of
an object and a manner of an action in a such a detail
that in English would require a whole sentence to be
translated (Jantunen, 2003). For instance, in just a
few seconds, a signer is able to explain the form, size,
and consistency of an object; the three dimensional
location in which the action takes place in relation
to the actor; the manner in which the action takes
place; as well as the intensity and characteristics
of the process (Rainò, 2006). As these non-verbal
features are atypical for Western languages, they are
easily forgotten when designing for sign language
users (Rainò, 2006). These differences are also
identified by Shelley Lawrence (1996 in Mindess,
2006) who distinguishes seven characteristics of
native American Sign Language (ASL):
1. Contrasting. Opposites are used to describe what
something is and is not.
2. Descriptive personal accounts. Information is given
through empirical stories rather than through
hard facts or figures.
3. Examples. Explanations are given through a
specimen rather than by a definition.
4. Nesting. Objects and phenomena are identified
by description, analogy, or function instead of
by label.
5. Reiteration. The same thing is repeated side by
side or at the beginning and end of the remark.
6. Multiple perspectives. Different point of views are
given to describe an object or a scene.
7. Role shifting. Signer takes different characters to
describe the way in which an action was done.
Nevertheless, even if spoken and sign languages
may seem so contrary at first, several linguisticians
have recognised that sign languages resemble
language in communal cultures – among them
several Asian and African languages as illustrated
in the following three examples. Firstly, the use of
expressive ideophones (carriers of iconic meanings)
highly resembles Kammu, a language spoken in
Laos (Bergman and Dahl, 1994). Secondly, the
use of manual gestures – instead of paraphrases
– is similar to Igbo, a language found in Nigeria
(Rathmann, 2005). Thirdly, the topic-comment
structure of sign language can be found in Chinese –
a stark contrast to Aristotelean rhetoric of Western
languages which follow from main to subordinate
information (Zhu, 2005). Yet, the similarities are
not only found in grammar but also the manner
in which communication takes place: both are
characterised by non-linguistic communication in
which the meanings of a message rely heavily on
the context of the communication and gestures of
the communicator. In these high context cultures
communication refers to shared experiences, and
evokes affective responses (Levine, 1985).
Not only the cross-cultural comparison but also the
connection between language use and perception has
intrigued researches for decades (i.e. Whorf, 1956;
McLuhan 1962; Classen, 1993). In its strongest form
linguistic relativists claim that speakers of different
languages think and behave differently because of
it. This view is supported by cross-cultural studies
on colour perception; for instance, studies by Berlin
et al. (1997), and most recently by Drivonikou et
al. (2007), have demonstrated a clear correlation
between the colour terms available in a language
7
 and the colours that its speakers can conceptually
handle. Moreover, it can be argued that it is not only
the language that affects thought and perception
but also the communication style that is determined
by one’s culture. Building up on McLuhan’s (1962)
theory on the impact of the printing press invention
on Western culture, Classen (1993) states that the
dominance of written communication changed
mainstream culture: it lead to an analytical and
fragmented mode of thought, depersonalisation,
and individualism; whereas before, society was based
on oral tradition. As sign language does not have a
written or printed format, which would be used in
day to day communications, the Deaf culture still
relies on oral tradition. In contrast to analytical and
individualistic Western mode of though, Deaf people
think holistically and their communication relies on
human contact and interplay (Mindess, 2006).
2.2 Digital communication tools in
Deaf culture
Deaf culture has been influenced by technological
innovations especially so by communication devices
(Mindess, 2000). Firstly, this chapter reviews the
ways digital communication tools have enhanced the
lives of Deaf people, and how they have developed
these tools to fit into their life experience. Secondly,
it reviews how web sites have been developed to fit
into this experience by giving an overview of the Deaf
specific web design practice. Thirdly, it questions
the traditional definition of web accessibility and
compares it to people-centred design approach.
Finally, it represents a few case studies.
2.2.1 Innovation within Deaf Communities
The US has been a forerunner of introducing
communication tools for Deaf people. These tools
have been the foundation for major initiatives in
innovation, design, and policy development for
today’s accessible products and services (Lang, 2000).
In the late 1960s, the American deaf community
made history by introducing teletypewriters (TTY),
a text messaging system before the era of mobile
phones. It became significant in empowering,
bonding, and enlightening Deaf people as it enabled
them to communicate over long distances, schedule
appointments with their hearing friends, or to book
a time for a doctor without the help of a translator.
It was a forerunner of today’s social media in which
Deaf people were able to post news items from their
private homes. (Lang, 2000) Decades later, in 1990s,
interactive palm-sized devices called text pagers
were introduced to and adopted by the American
8
Deaf community. It surpassed mobile phones with a
complete keyboard and a screen that showed more
detail than that of a standard mobile. With the new
technology people with a hearing loss could surf
the Internet or send email on the go, wirelessly.
(Mindess, 2006) In Finland, it was not until in the
beginning of the 1980s that the text phones offered
new possibilities for Deaf to deal with their day
to day communication (Salmi & Laakso, 2005).
In Finland, as well as in the rest of the Europe,
Deaf communities have been heavy users of text
messaging (SMS) rather than pagers as in these
countries no such services or devices have been
developed for deaf users.
Today, the Internet has became an important
communication tool especially for the young Deaf
people around the world who use numerous blogs,
bulletin boards, forums, and web sites to facilitate
communication and to build vast communities
across national boundaries. Most of these
technologies, however, are text based. This means
that Deaf people and hard of hearing must express
themselves in writing if they want to participate.
Even if the possibility to send SMS or e-mail has
given Deaf people an access to public services and
communication, for some Deaf people writing is a
real struggle. This is especially so due to the fact that
there is no visual feedback from facial expression
or body language. (Lang, 2000) This is against the
widely held misconception that since deaf people see,
they can easily and comprehensively access written
material (Israelite et al., 1992). Even if most Deaf
people are bilingual, acquiring fluent writing and
reading skills may be a daunting task: sign language
users must learn to manipulate a language structure
and grammar which is foreign to them (Ladd, 2003).
By far, to use video is the only possibility to offer
content for sign language users in their mother
tongue. Consequently, Deaf have striven to produce
new tools and appliances based on sign language
that would better meet their communication
and recreational needs. In the UK, Deaf people
repeatedly insisted that the BBC develop a system
to provide text based content for hearing impaired.
This then spread across Europe for mainstream
use as a form of teletext. (Thomson, 1992 in Rainò,
1997) In Finland, during the 1990s, one of the key
drives has been the development of signed video
production that spread rapidly (Salmi & Laakso,
2005). Today, several web sites have been launched
for Deaf users in order to support the need for
signed videos. Many features of these sites resemble
mainstream online TV and video sharing sites
such as YouTube or Vimeo as seen in Figure 2 and
Figure 3. Similarly, the rise of video-sharing web
sites like YouTube, has lead to a golden age for deaf
documentaries, home-made clips, video blogs, signed
music videos, and short films such as a British comedy
sketch Four Deaf Yorkshiremen (Swinbourne, 2007)
which has reached over 100,000 views. Deaf have also
launched sites of their own to distribute signed video
such as D-PAN for Deaf performing artists in the US
and a video sharing site Sign Tube in the UK.
Today’s better broadband connections have also
enabled sign language users to communicate in
their mother tongue using web cams and video
relay (Mindess, 2006). In Greece, as a part of
EU funded eGOV accessibility project, a group
of researchers have worked on a Greek Sign
Language terminology glossary to be used with a
virtual finger-spelling and digit keyboard (Fotinea
& Efthimiou, 2008). A group of researchers from
Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the UK worked
together on project called WISDOM (Wireless
Information Services for Deaf People on the Move)
in 2000–2004. One of the resulting applications
of the project was a real time conversation service
allowing person-to-person live communication; that
is, a possibility for Deaf users to show emotions,
tone, and meaning through expressions – impossible
on text based services. Of the needs expressed
by Deaf users, the project also resulted a service
called Deaf Station (see Fig. 4), providing an online
access to sign language information services. These
include details about employment, sports, and arts,
and most importantly, sign language news that are
updated daily. (Deaf Studies Trust, 2000)
The web site discourse within Deaf communities
entails a tension between reusing established forms
of traditional web design in combination with
new ways to embed sign languages. Many official
authorities and public services such as Tate Gallery
offer sign language content on their web sites to
offer Deaf people access in their mother tongue. In
addition to translational content, several web sites
have been designed especially with Deaf users in
mind. One of the most recent initiatives has been an
EU funded project DEAFVOC (Sign Languages and
European Written Languages in Virtual Vocational
Education for the Deaf) that lasted from 2003 till
2006. It aimed to provide bilingual teaching material
online in English, Czech, Finnish, and Greek.
This included sign language for these respective
countries. Another recent educational initiative in
Finland is VIIVI – a web portal that offers learning
material in sign language (see Fig. 5).
Nevertheless, web sites are not systematically
produced in sign language due to difficulties in
embedding sign language; restricting standards and
legislation; lack of resources and suitable formats;
and shortage of technical skills and appropriate
content management. Sign videos on the Internet
has long been a challenge for three main reasons.
Firstly, the quality of the video needs to be high
so that the gestures and hand shapes are clearly
visible. Secondly, long video clips are difficult
to navigate: it is much harder to find the right
piece of information on a video compared to text.
(WWW-sivut ja viittomakieli, 2003) Thirdly, the
process of translating text into sign is costly and
time consuming. To solve this problem, there have
been attempts to create 3D models, i.e. Vcom 3D,
ViSiCAST, and DePaul University American Sign
Language Project that would automatically translate
text into signing. Yet, there have been no satisfactory
systems capable of understanding meanings and
context of subtle non-verbal cues in sign language
(i.e. Rainò, 2006; Koskela et al., 2008).
2.2.2 Digital texts for hearing impaired
Researchers and educators have examined the
effectiveness of embedding a variety of other
supports in digital text to make instructional
materials more accessible to deaf or hard of hearing
users. In Finland, already in 1997, Raike explored
possibilities for distributing sign language content
over the Internet for Deaf children in Ateneum’s
(Finnish National Gallery) Discoveries project. Raike
(1997) concludes that the hypermedia for Deaf users
could benefit from using the combination of text,
sign language, images, animation, and graphics. This
view is inline with studies by Anderson-Inman and
Horney (1998 in Anderson-Inman & Horney, 2007).
They found that students with hearing impairments
use multimedia resources differently compared to
hearing students: hearing impaired relied more on
graphics and video signing than on text. Similar
findings by Gentry et al. (2004, 2005) suggest that
not only video but also images and other illustrative
methods could greatly enhance the reading and
understanding of the text by deaf and hard of
hearing. The difficulty, however, lays in getting the
combination of elements right for a particular person
and particular tasks (Nelson & Camaratan, 1996).
9
 Figure 2.  Deaf TV that offers videos produced in British sign language.

Figure 3.  Sign Language TV that holds a collection of videos in Finnish sign language.

10
Figure 4.  Deaf Station in Britain offers news in sign language.

Figure 5.  Finnish VIIVI web site that offers learning material in sign language.

11
 In addition to the studies on how sign language users
use multimedia resources, few studies conducted
on web usability of Deaf users have focussed on
linking accessibility to cognitive abilities of deaf
users and their speed of information retrieval. In
Spain, Fajardo et al. (2004, 2006, 2008a, 2008b,
2008c, 2009) conducted several studies aiming at
finding ways to improve web accessibility for deaf
people in a research program called Cogniweb. Their
studies have shown that reading literacy of Deaf
users slows down their ability to search information
and increases their possibility of getting disoriented
on hierarchical text based web sites. Fajardo et al.
(2008a) showed that Deaf people were slower in
forming verbal categories compared to hearing. They
concluded that verbal navigation on web sites is not
appropriate for deaf users. In their later studies,
they also argued that wide structures of verbal
information, though overloading Deaf users (2008b),
may also facilitate the visual search and match
process of Deaf users (2009). These findings are
supported by Japanese usability study by Namatame
and Kitajima (2005) which showed that hard of
hearing users faced more difficulties in finding
appropriate links and hidden semantic structures.
They concluded that the text processing and visual
scanning of Deaf users was more intuitive and less
structured compared to that of hearing users.
As the studies have shown the inadequacy of
text-based links for Deaf users, researchers have
investigated alternative methods. Fajardo et al.
(2008a) found that Deaf people utilise visual-
matching strategy more often than a semantic
approach to navigate compared to hearing. In a later
study, Fajardo et al. (2008c) concluded that Deaf
users were faster in graphical web search compared
to hearing if the information was not located in
deep structures of hypertext. Fajardo et al. (2008c)
recommend the use of graphical hyperlinks for
very frequent and familiar concepts, and the use
of sign language to support textual hyperlinks.
Similarly, Namatame and Kitajima (2008) showed
that labelled-icon has an advantage over text for sign
language users as they require less eye fixation both
in terms of frequency and number. They conclude
that icons help in recognising what is represented
quickly, and labelling helps to clarify the meaning of
previously unfamiliar icons.
Despite the fact that there are no completely
satisfactory interfaces developed to date, in
theory, web sites have a huge potential to become
12
meaningful and useful for Deaf people; that is,
organised in the way that reflects the world as they
perceive it. The Internet and sign language are
connected in one important dimension: the Internet
is a visual information highway and sign language
a highly visual language (see Muir and Richardson,
2005). In theory, Deaf people have more visuospatial
capacity to maintain and manipulate visual and
spatial information derived from the sign language
usage. Technological advances such as flash videos
and javascript libraries have made it possible to
create customised viewing experiences on web
sites: to add interactive elements and pointers that
allow more precise navigation within the clips; to
provide on-demand content that is initiated by the
time code; and to create modifiable players that
can be used to allow each individual user to tailor
the interface that best suites their needs. In the
following the policies and discourses that frame
the design paradigm of sign language web site are
discussed and then a few examples of web sites
targeted or localised to Deaf users are reviewed.
2.2.3 From accessibility to people-centred
design approach
Usability and accessibility are essential parts of
interface design today. Especially so for sites targeted
towards Deaf users: these sites need to find the
right balance between the needs of Deaf users while
ensuring it is accessible to others. This Design for
All – linked with the terms inclusive design widely
used in Britain and universal design used in the US
and Japan – is a political term used especially in
Europe that calls for designing for human diversity,
social inclusion, and equality (Design for All Europe,
2009). It describes two processes simultaneously:
firstly, the ability of the user to access information;
and secondly, the design effort to enable a page to
function with the assistive devices used by individuals
with disabilities (Nielsen & Pernice, 2001; Foley
& Regan, 2002). According to Design for All
e-Accessibility Network EDeAN (n.d.), the discourse
aims at providing equal opportunities for everyone
to participate in the society and to include the true
diversity of users including those who are currently
marginalised by mainstream design practices.
This discourse has strongly affected the web design
policies of many government and educational
institutions. Among these is the web discourse by
the Finnish Association of the Deaf that requires
that all their official web sites must meet accessibility
criteria. Official guidelines set by the World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C) provide a list of
instructions that web sites need to meet in order to
be usable and accessible to people with a wide range
of disabilities. The Web Accessibility Initiative
(WAI) has recently launched an improved version of
the standards WCAG 2.0 that calls for the following
four web site qualities: Firstly, web sites should
be perceivable, that is, to provide text alternatives
for images, captions for audio, adaptability of
presentation, and colour contrast. Secondly, they
should be operable by providing keyboard access,
strong colour contrast, timing of input, and
navigability, and also they should avoid seisure.
Thirdly, web sites should be understandable, that is,
readable, predictable, and assistive. Fourthly, they
should be compatible with assistive technologies
such as screen readers. (Caldwell, 2008)
The most obvious group to encounter accessibility
barriers are the visually impaired who are not able
to access the information if the font size is too
small, there is not enough contrast, or they are
unable to use screen readers on a site. As sound is
Figure 6.  Accessibility in this study does not only refer to physical access but takes into consideration also
social and culture-linguistic levels of accessibility that are not part of traditional guidelines such as WAI.
used sparingly on web sites and most of the content
is visual, Deaf or hard of hearing users rarely face
physical barriers in accessing functions or content
on a web site. Though W3C does not yet provide
official guidelines for Deaf people, The Royal
National Institute for Deaf People emphases the
importance of plain language, short paragraphs,
balanced colours, alt tags in images, clear links, large
font, captions or text for multimedia content, and
diagrams or photos to visualise content (RNID, n.d.).
The limitation of these guidelines for Deaf people
has been noticed i.e. by Namatame and Kitajima
(2005). Their argument is that these guideline
do not deal at all with behavioural characteristics
of Deaf people such as the different interaction
methods compared to that of hearing. The problem
with the accessibility standards is that they focus
merely on functionality, underestimating the
importance of user experience. The standards assure
that a web site has all the inevitable qualities that
allow everyone to perform a function, and access
information and content on it, but they do not
13
 guarantee that the users are able to do it fluently
nor enjoy using them (Fig. 6). Jordan (2000) has
even claimed that the joy of use and meaningfulness
of the interface is a more important aspects of user
experience than the functionality itself.
Lack of the user-centred design approach has also
been also recognised by others. Regan (2004), an
Accessibility Product Manager at Macromedia,
emphasises that web sites should not be designed by
principles or standards but they should be designed
for people. He claims that today accessibility on
the web lacks imagination. This view is shared
by Piggott (2002), a regional director of a British
disability charity called MENCAP. She argues in
an article called eAccessibility for all for Ability –
ICT Magazine about Disability Issues – that the
guidelines by W3C give a direction for designers,
but in reality they are too far from people with
cognitive disabilities to produce people-centred
designs (Piggott, 2002). Piggott challenges learning
technologists to involve disabled students in the
design of accessible web sites so that they would
become more satisfactory for their users. Even if
the WAI guidelines addresses the importance of
images, the MENCAP (see Fig. 7) is a rare example
in its field, employing a visual approach to increase
accessibility. It utilises the power of icons, videos,
and colours to visualise information. The approach
taken by MENCAP is in contrast, for instance,
to the Finnish equivalent papunet.net (see Fig.
8) that offers information and material to people
with difficulties in speech. Though being clean and
simple, it is much plainer in its design. Papunet
does not utilise the power of visual medium. Its
presentation lacks creativity and style: the site is
heavily text based; it uses hardly any images, colour,
or imagery; nor does its navigation provide any
visual cues for the user. Papunet reflects Regan’s
(2004) claim that there is a misconception of
accessibility representing restriction on creativity.
The misconception that accessibility equals
uninteresting design has been also identified by
Petrie et al. (2004) who argues that web designers
have misunderstood the term accessibility as if the
sites for disabled need to be uninspiring and plain.
Their user evaluation based study encompassed 100
web sites and involved 51 disabled users including
Deaf, hearing impaired, dyslexic, blind, partially
sighted, and physically disabled. Participants faced
585 different problems with web sites from which
45% were not presented on any WAI checklist
14
such as cluttered and complex page layouts; and
confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms.
In the study, the most accessible web sites – in most
cases – were the ones with appealing look and feel,
encompassing graphics, and photos. They conclude
that sites can be visually appealing and sophisticated
and still being fully accessible. Consequently, they
argue that accessibility should not be viewed as a
constrain but rather as a challenge and a prerequisite
for a successful design.
Meares-Irlen Syndrome (MIS) is one of the issues
that is missing in the guidelines. According to Irlen
(1997 in Evans, 2005), it troubles 12–14% of the
general population, and 46% of those with dyslexia2.
The syndrome is characterised with symptoms of
visual stress and visual perceptual distortions that
can be alleviated by using individually prescribed
coloured filters. (Evans, 2005) This is in contrast
with WAI recommendation that suggest using high
contrast. Several web sites such as Barclays and the
BBC have solved the contradiction by offering the
opportunity to change the background colour and
contrast levels to meet individual needs.
In short, we have demonstrated that the WAI
guidelines are incapable of addressing all needs.
The question then is what is accessibility, how
it should be defined, and can it be narrowed
down into a checklist. Compared to WAI; British
Museum, Library and Archive (MLA) offers a
much more holistic definition of accessibility in
regards of museum spaces. In addition to physical
and sensorial barriers that are addressed by the
WAI standards, it also recognises several other
barriers that may prevent participation: these are
intellectual, attitudinal, cultural, social, financial, or
technological. As this approach acknowledges the
multidimensional aspect of accessibility, calling for
sensitivity towards varieties of human experience,
perception, thought and values, it is used a basis for
this study to understand accessibility. This means
that accessibility is not used as a checklist but as a
mental construction to guide the design process; that
is, an attitude towards the act of designing to listen
to people and their various needs.
2 Dyslexia is a low reading ability, which cannot be
explained by lack of education or emotional stress (American
Psychiatric Association, 1994). It is a highly individual condition
that can undertake several different forms with varying degrees
(Al-Wabil et al., 2007).
Figure 7.  British Mencap web site takes a people-centred design approach.

Figure 8.  Papunet web site focuses on meeting WAI accessibility standards.

15
 2.3 CASE STUDIES: a normative
comparison of six web sites
To get an understanding of the contemporary
state of web sites targeted for Deaf audiences an
normative comparison was conducted. This chapter
reviews altogether six different web sites which take
different approaches to designing for sign language
users. This section defines three different genres
of Deaf specific web sites: ones designed by small
groups of Deaf people, by Deaf organisations, and
by national institutions. These authoring bodies
have different interests, guidelines, and goals. Thus,
the approach they take towards the designing for
sign language users varies greatly.
2.3.1 By Deaf designers
Web sites in this category are targeted to Deaf
users and designed by Deaf designers. These sites
usually take an experimental approach to design
as they are not bound to existing platforms nor
regulations such as accessibility guidelines. Instead,
they take experimental approaches to offer sign
language content, focusing solely on the needs
of Deaf audiences.
Characteristics
• Aesthetics are vivid and colourful. Lots of
images and other visual elements are used to
illustrate the content.
• Signing guide tells the user what one can do on
the site by pointing to different parts of the page
while signing. There may also be more than one
signer in a video. The style of signing is informal,
storytelling style. Sign videos are big in size and
take up most of the screen estate.
• Navigation utilises icons or signed videos in
combination with text links.
Case 1:
Deaf Video Production
This site is developed by a group of Finnish Deaf
filmmakers to offer information about signed
video production.
As the Figure 9 illustrates, a background image
showing camera lights and a camera take most
of the screen estate to illustrate theme of the site
visually for the user. Within the image there are two
small paragraphs of text that welcome the visitor
to the site and inform about the content of the
site. Below the text there is an image link, a signed
introduction video. The video begins by the signer
walking in and switching the light on. Once on
16
the stage he welcomes the visitor to the site, and
then presents the content of the site by pointing at
different navigational items while explaining. The
camera and lights stay on the signer’s background to
give the context to what is being signed. Similarly,
navigation utilises images and colours to visualise
and categorise the content. Main navigation is
formed of text-based buttons placed on the top of
the screen. Sub-navigation is placed on the right.
It utilises colour-coded links with images attached
to them. In addition to the home page, there are
six sections on the site: general, ordering videos,
archive, contact details, gallery, and feedback.
Only one of the sections, that is, general, has a
sign language alternative to text. However, this is
the only page with a long passage of text within
the whole site. The rest of the articles – except
contact and feedback – utilise images to visualise
the content. For example, the video descriptions are
accompanied with a screen shot of the film.
Case 2:
Deaf Free Camp Europe 4
The site is developed in Belgium by a Deaf
designer. It provides information about an
international camp for Deaf people, created purely
in International Sign Language.
The site has three main sections (program,
subscribe, and baggage), and four additional
information pages (guestbook, image gallery,
participants, and credits). Navigation of the site
relies on signed words and symbols such as a pen to
illustrate the guestbook and a camera to illustrate
the image gallery. There are only two text labels:
subtitling for video guestbook, and contact details
on the top of the page. There are several signed
videos moving at the same time that make the
site restless, but the look and feel is highly visual.
An introduction video welcomes the user to the
site in which two signers explains the history of
DFCE camps and what one can do on the site.
All signed videos on the site are built around
narratives. For instance, the camp program section
– instead of giving a schedule of camp activities
– parades a story in which events are explained in
a chronological order to draw a picture of what
one can experience on the camp. Throughout the
video, background images are used to illustrate
the activities as they are mentioned; for example,
a photo of a bonfire appears behind the signer
while she describes an evening to be enjoyed by a
campfire (see Fig. 10).
Figure 9.  Case 1: Introduction video on the home page of the Finnish Deaf video production web site.

Figure 10.  Case 2: A sign video on the program section of the international Deaf camp Europe web site.

17
 2.3.2 By Deaf organisations
The sites that belong to this category belong
to organisations or institutions that represent
Deaf communities. These sites are restricted by
organisational policies and rules of their funding
bodies. Targeted for hearing and Deaf audiences,
the goal of these sites is to spread organisational
information such as news and events.
Characteristics
• Aesthetics relies on corporate look and feel. They
are text heavy with few images.
• Sign videos are placed inside a box against a
clean and simple background. Usually there
is one signed video on the home page to sign
the main content of the site. The style of the
signing is formal.
• Navigation is often placed in a banner or
presented as a list of text-based links.
Case 3:
The Finnish Association of the Deaf
The Finnish Association of the Deaf is the central
Deaf organisation in Finland. The organisation
has an obligation to produce sign language online
content within the WAI guidelines, that is, the design
priority is to design inclusive sites.
On the top, there is a header with a main navigation
banner, search box, and a photo displaying two people
signing. The content is divided into three columns:
in the middle there is one signed video that signs the
main news item; on the right there are abstracts to
further news; and on the left there is a list of shortcuts
to different sections of the page. Below those, there
are further advertisements and shortcuts to events and
services. The site has seven subsections: services, news,
culture, sign language, organisation, communicaton,
and contact details. In the subsections, the articles are
text heavy. All the pages have a small blue toned image
showing faces of Deaf people, always placed on the
right below contextual navigation. Though the images
illustrate a range of Deaf community members, they
do not communicate the content of the page. Only
articles within the organisation section have signed
alternative to the text.
Case 4:
British Deaf Association
The British Deaf Association is the largest Deaf
organisation in the UK that presents the British Sign
Language (BSL) community and campaigns for the
legislation of BSL.
18
On the top, there is a header that has a logo, search
bar, and links to members login, contact us, and
home page. There are three columns on the page:
on the left, there is a main navigation; in the middle,
there is some welcome text and a RSS feed of six
most recent news items; and on the right, there is a
signer that welcomes the user. The signer introduces
the user to the news items below the fold. In the
relevant sections, the signer is consistently placed
in the same position on screen and guides the user
through the content of those pages. Within the
subsections of the site, six of the twenty items have
a signer explaining the content of that section.
Though look and feel remains the same, the
signer in each section is a different one. If the text
equivalent of the site is a list of links, the signer
points to those sections to describe them. Three
of the remaining items without a signer presents a
list to further subsections of the site utilising clipart
images to illustrate the content of those sections.
Otherwise, hardly any images are used to illustrate
the articles; only news items have an image attached
to them. Rest of the text items benefit from using
bullet points to brake down the text. It makes the
text easier to scan not only for sign language users
but also for hearing visitors that want to grasp the
content of these articles quickly.
2.3.3 By hearing to offer sign language content
Sites in this category are national organisations
such as art galleries, broadcasting companies,
and museums – mostly owned and funded by a
government. They have the resources to localise
their sites for sign language users. These sites
are bound to governmental guidelines to follow
Design for All principles. On these sites sign
language videos are used as an alternative to
written content. This is to provide more equally
accessible site for everyone, even if most of the
users of these sites are hearing.
Characteristics
• Aesthetics follows corporate look and feel. The
sites are often text heavy with few images.
• Sign videos are not shown by default but can be
found in subsections of the site that are targeted
for sign language users. The videos function as
replacements for text, they are usually small in
size, and are filmed against a plain background.
• Navigation on these sites is most often text-
based. The main navigation is placed on a
banner on the top of the page and contextual
links are within a left or right hand side column.
Figure 11.  Case 3: Home page of the web site of the Finnish Association of the Deaf.

Figure 12.  Case 4: Home page of the British Deaf Association’s web site.

19
 Case 5:
Tate – British and international modern and
contemporary art
Tate is a British institution of modern art that
consists of four art museums.
The Tate web site provides information about the
museums themselves, their collections, and research
activites. If the user clicks BSL icon on the home
page, the user is taken to a page that shows a list of
Tate information provided in BSL. However, the
site lacks consistency: it also provides glossary terms
in BSL that are not listed on this page. There is
no way to know this: in order to benefit from the
feature, the visitor has to know the right navigational
path to find it or to discover it by accident. On the
glossary terms page one can switch between BSL
and text definition mode by clicking an icon next
to the alphabetical list of terms. Only 21 of the 300
items are signed and if one clicks any other alphabet
to explore further definitions, the signed content is
lost. To get back to the signed content one has to go
to the glossary main page and scroll down to find a
link to the list of signed items.
Case 6:
YLE – Sign Language news by the Finnish
Broadcasting Company
YLE is a Finnish Broadcasting Company that
provides news in sign language.
The link to sign language items is on news section
placed on the left hand side column. The link is
placed in the same box with links to other news
categories targeted to minorities such as those in
Swedish and Sámi language. The main page of sign
language news section is divided into two parts: (1)
content area with articles and (2) a column with
links to most recent TV news in sign language. All
the articles are combined with an image and some
of them have a signed alternative. On the bottom of
the page there is a tab which one can use to switch
between text and video mode to search items related
to sign language.
2.4 Summary
The cultural inquiry in this study has explored
the mindset in which sign language users
operate. This includes sign language, shared
collective consciousness, and issues related to
different sensory orders. In this study these are
all encompassed under the same term culture.
Building on the cultural model by Spencer-Oatey
20
(2000) and Mindess’ (2006) study on Deaf culture,
this chapter has distinguished four layers of Deaf
culture: (1) basic assumptions and values that are
the core ideas and values held by the community;
(2) beliefs, attitudes, and conventions; (3) systems
and institutions; and (4) visible artefacts and
customs.
This chapter has also identified that Deaf culture
has been influenced by digital technology, and
especially so by communication devices. It has
reviewed how they have enhanced the lives of
Deaf people, and how Deaf have developed these
tools to fit into their life experience. These tools,
with their signed narratives and sign guides, are
in contrast with the ways hearing are used to
find information on the web. This chapter has
also illustrated how the unduly narrow focus on
accessibility has undermined the user experience
on most of these sites.
Finally, this chapter has given six case studies that
reveal different approaches towards designing
web sites for sign language users. These examples
have illustrated differences between sign language
sites designed by hearing and Deaf designers:
the more freedom and the more Deaf designers
involved in the project; then, the less text there is
and more visual devices are used to illustrate the
content. Furthermore, the sites designed by Deaf
designers use sign language more dominantly and
creatively than sites designed by hearing: sign
videos are not used purely as alternatives to text,
but as pieces of art that utilise the power of stories
and images within the signed video to engage the
user with what is being communicated.
Figure 13.  Case 5: The sign language videos on the TATE art gallery web site are found
when one enters glossary terms section.

Figure 14.  Case 6: On the web site of the Finnish Broadcasting Company, there is no sign
language shown by default but it provides links to sign language videos such as TV news.

21

INTERFACE INQUIRY
This chapter first examines instrumental, emotional,
and cultural value of an interface. Then it studies
cross-cultural interface design, identifies three
different layers of an interface, and reviews how they
can be mapped into cultural features.
3.1 Values an interface bringS forth
to its users
This section studies different aspects of user
experience. It builds up a notion that the traditional
terms connected to user experience, as with
accessibility, are unduly narrow. This leads looking
beyond accessibility, functionality, and usability of
an interface and considering how user experience
is affected by the values that users bring with them
while interacting with a system.
The term user experience refers to the quality
of experience gained from interacting with a
system. Traditionally it has been used to stress
functionality and usability, that is, biological
and physiological factors of design. Originally
user-centred design originates from industrial
needs to transform professional technologies
for non-experts. It applied theories of cognitive
science and psychology to shape interfaces.
(Keinonen, 2008) The research on the area has
focused almost exclusively on instrumental aspects
of interaction, although the term aims at describing
the experience of human-technology interaction
holistically (Djajadiningrat, et al., 2002).
However, user experience is not only an
instrumental quality of a system but it is the
holistic feeling that one gains as a result of this
interaction. The way one makes sense of this
22
Chapter 3
interaction process does not exist in a vacuum: it
is influenced by previous experiences. It is a result
of a continual engagement with one’s culture, self,
and others that creates collective meanings to these
interactions. These meanings provide a description
of the values that people bring with them when
they act with technology such as web sites.
(Djajadiningrat, et al., 2002; McCarthy & Wrigth,
2004; Jordan, 2000; Margolin, 1997)
In the following, the concept of user experience is
divided into three different layers of values in order
to review a holistic understanding of the concept.
It moves from the traditional focus of usability
research to current notion of usability that includes
emotional (i.e. Jordan, 2000) and cultural (i.e.
Krippendorf, 2006) aspects of an interface. This
means considering how the user experience is born
out of different values that users bring with them
while interacting with the system. These values are
instrumental, behavioural, and reflective.
3.1.1 Instrumental value
Instrumental value consists of functional benefits and
ergonomic usability that an interface brings forth
to its users. Usability is a term used to emphasise
the importance of effectiveness, intuitiveness,
and ease-of-use (Nielsen,1993; Norman, 2004)
as well as to minimise the cognitive and physical
demands placed on users (Jordan, 2000). The most
referred definitions of usability are given by Nielsen
(1993) and international Ergonomic requirement
standard (ISO). Nielsen (1993) defines usability
in terms of learnability, efficiency, memorability,
errors, and satisfaction. ISO 9241-11 (International
Organization for Standardization, 1998) sets a more
technical core definition as a set of measurements:
“The extent to which a product can be used by
specified users to achieve specified goals with
effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified
context of use.” All of these are measured on
subjective or objective rating scales that emphasise
issues such as the users ability to handle errors,
learn easily, frequency of the product use, and
physiological responses of the user.
Though, usability can be seen as a key component
of pleasurability, usable products are not necessarily
enjoyable to use. Even though usability is concerned
with satisfaction, it is traditionally used to refer
to avoidance of physical and cognitive discomfort
forgetting psychological and emotional context
of use (Jordan, 2000). Jordan (2000) even argues
that usability approaches are dehumanising: they
promote a view of a user as a cognitive and physical
component that uses products only as tools to
complete tasks. He calls for understanding users
holistically in which the quality of a design should
be valued on the basis of wider relationship between
a product and the people it is designed for. This
means that physically accessible and functional
design is not enough: the users are not going to use
the product if it does not reflect their personal and
social values (Buchanan, 1996; Sanders, 2004).
3.1.2 Emotional value
Recently, the attention of usability studies has
changed towards a wider range of interests aiming
at matching new interactive technologies with
human-to-human communications, organisational
requirements, and social and emotional perspectives.
A number of researchers have contended that the
overall user experience is affected by emotions. This
importance of emotion and non-instrumental needs
without clear and precise goals has been referred
to by a number of terms including pleasure-based
approach (Jordan, 2000), joy-of-use (Nielsen, 2002),
empathic design (Battarbee, Koskinen &Mattelmäki,
2003), and emotional design (Norman, 2004).
Already in the early nineties Brenda Laurel (1993)
argued that engagement in computer mediated
activity is as much about emotional and aesthetic
relations as it is about rational and intellectual ones.
Years later several authors such as Dant (1999),
Blythe and Hassenzahl (2003), and Norman (2003)
have argued: in order to become enticed, acquired or
desired, a product needs to offer different kinds of
benefits associated with the product use.
Similarly Jordan (2000) calls for understanding
users holistically in which the quality of a design
should be valued on the basis of wider relationship
between a product and the people it is designed
for. Jordan (1999) defined pleasurability as
the emotional, hedonic, and practical benefits
associated with products. Practical benefits,
according to Jordan, are the outcomes that
result from using the product. Hedonic benefits
are those relating to the sensory and aesthetic
pleasure associated with the products. Emotional
benefits are those that correlate with a user’s
mood, such as enhancing user’s satisfaction,
excitement, or happiness.
This insight is at the core of the emerging turn
towards user experience. Motivations to use
interfaces are not only rational or goal driven but
also ones that bring sheer pleasure: people play
games, buy fancy clothes, and decorate their homes
without direct functional benefits (Krippendorf,
2006). Krippendorf (2006) argues that these intrinsic
motivations enhance usability immensely as they
bring life to technology. Davis et al. (1992) proved in
their study on extrinsic and intrinsic motivations that
the more useful and the more enjoyable programs
are the more easily they are accepted by their
potential users. Similarly Norman (2003) claims
that emotions may be the most critical element in
ensuring product success.
3.1.3 Cultural value
The newest turn on user experience studies is the
realisation of the importance of culture. This means
that design should connect not only emotionally
but also culturally with users; consequently, they all
can use the same systems each in their own way as
naturally and effortlessly as possible (Krippendorf,
2006). Numerous studies have shown that people
from various cultures experience, understand, and
perceive things differently (i.e. Hall 1976, 1983;
Hofstede, 1991, 2001; Nisbett, 2003; Trompenaars,
1997). Therefore, it is through better understanding
of the users’ sensorial perception and cultural
values that design is capable to meet users’ real
needs and make their experiences more meaningful.
Krippendorf (2006) calls this as a semantic turn in
design in which diverse cultural meanings generate
a need for new design practices that connect culture,
cognition, and design. He acknowledges that the
sole purpose of interfaces are to be meaningful,
remain useful, and enable members of the
community to feel at home with them. Thus, the
23
 value of an interface to its users does not only lie in
its functional benefits but in the meanings and values
that it brings forth to its users (Rafaeli & Pratt,
2006; Krippendorf, 2006; Sengers, 2003).
To become successful, an interface needs to embed
the ways members of a society make sense of the
world: people are not going to use the system
if it undercuts their cultural values and needs
(Buchanan, 1996; Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1998;
Sanders, 2004; Krippendorf, 2006). Barber and
Barber (1998) conducted a term culturability to
link culture and usability as well as to emphasise
the importance of one’s cultural background on
user experience. They argue that it is important
that usability is redefined in terms of a cultural
context: what is user friendly for one culture can be
vastly different for another. Moalasi (2007) takes
a similar approach claiming that no matter how
innovative and beautiful a product is, if it fails to
gain user’s acceptance, it will be a wasted design
effort. This means that where identity matters
conformity follows – one size does not fit all.
People use objects that serve and strengthen their
identity, the ones they like to be associated with.
Moalasi (2007) suggests that if culture is integrated
into design features it will become meaningful
for its users and facilitate product acceptance. He
argues that this can be accomplished by employing
metaphor, allusion, and historical and cultural
references that form a product language – the
shape and form of the interface.
3.2 Layers of culture oriented
interface design
Numerous studies have suggested that differences
in language, thinking, and communication style
affect web use, satisfaction, and usability. These
differences influence the way one recognises,
interacts, and values web sites. Multiple studies
in behavioural and cognitive psychology have
uncovered significant differences in the way
people behave, think, assign value, and engage
others in different cultures (i.e. Evers & Day,
1997; Evers, 1998; Faiola, 2002; Faiola & Matei,
2005; Jhangiani & Smith-Jackson, 2007). The key
notion here is that the collection of experiences
constructed over history becomes part of one’s
identity and affects how one learns and creates
meanings. This is why our cultural environment
determines what we are able to see, how we
construct meanings of what we have seen, and also
how we process this information. These culture
24
specific styles are embedded in the values held by
the members of that culture and their patterned
ways of thinking, interacting, and responding.
These differences in communication styles pose
challenges to the ways in which web sites should
communicate their messages. The research on
cultural differences has slowly also begun to
shed light on cross-cultural web design. Web
sites communicate on multiple levels: how the
information is categorised, how the sentences are
constructed, what types of images and colours
are used, and through which mediums messages
are being delivered (text, images, video, audio,
animation). All of these elements send a distinctive
message to the visitor.
Most commonly cross-cultural web design studies
(e.q. Barber & Barber, 1998; Marcus & Guild,
2000; Callahan, 2005) have examined visual
elements on web sites through Edward T. Hall’s
culture specific communication styles1 (1976, 1983)
or Hofstede’s (1991, 2001) cultural dimensions2.
One of these studies is by Elisabeth Würtz (2005)
who analyses graphical design features on high
and low context web sites. She proposes that high
context cultures are likely to use more imagery,
less text, and develop strategies for mimicking
human presence and communal values more than
low contest cultures. Her finding suggests that web
site designers seeking to make sites accessible to
specific cultural groups will likely profit from
1 Hall (1976, 1983) claims that meaning and context
are tied together and in order to understand communication one
should address them concurrently with the words themselves.
According to Hall, in some cultures, like in most Asian cultures, the
message relies heavily on non-verbal and para-verbal communi-
cation in which the time, situation of the communication, and
relationship between the interlocutors is important. Whereas
in many Western countries, including Scandinavia and the US,
communication is low-context, that is, direct, explicit, issue ori-
ented, and less personal.
2 Hoftede (1991, 2001) proposes an alternative to
the Hall’s high-context (HC) and low-context (LC) dimension.
He observed that HC cultures tend to be collectivistic while LC
cultures tend to be individualistic. In individualist societies ties
between individuals are loose and individual decision-making is
encouraged. On the contrary, in collective societies in-group ties
are strong, following societal norms is valued, and group decision-
making is encouraged.
using specific parameters addressed in high and low
context cultures as a starting point for developing
culturally-aware web sites.
However, research based on these models has
been criticised for simplifying the complexity of
real-world interaction processes and cultures (e.q.
Ess & Sudweeks, 2005; Barnett & Sung, 2005;
Hewling, 2005). Most strongly so by Faiola and
Matei (2003), who argue that these models neglect
the cognitive style of users, focusing solely on
surface design elements such as aesthetics. They
develop a cultural cognitive theory that stresses
the importance of culture specific cognitive styles
and their impact on speed and easiness of finding
information. Despite the fact that their study aims
to take a step further in cross-cultural web design
research, it fails to recognise culture specific
meanings and emotions – the betweenness of
users and technology in which interfaces evolve
and become meaningful to its users. This view is
supported by Lee (2004) who argues that designers
tend to overlook the inner core layers of culture,
being based mainly on the outer layers.
There have been few studies exploring the linkage
between culture and emotional operators (Tsai et
al., 2008), or memory strategies of users (Norman,
2004; Scherer, 1997). One of these is Lin’s (2007)
framework for designing cultural objects. Lin
distinguishes three levels of culture that can be
incorporated into cultural design: (1) the inner
level, containing special content such as stories,
emotions, and cultural features; (2) the mid level,
dealing with function, operational concerns,
usability, and safety; and (3) the outer level, dealing
with colour, texture, form, decoration, surface
pattern, line quality, and detail. This division of
culture into outer and inner layers is similar to
several other cultural models such as Spencer-
Oatey’s onion models (discussed on p. 6). Lin
(2007) maps these three levels of cultural objects
into three levels of design features. The model is
based on Norman’s (2004) three levels of meanings
of artefacts in use; that is, visceral, behavioural,
and reflective levels of cognition and emotional
processing. This model resembles several other
representations of artefacts with entities of
three such as the one proposed by Krippendorf
(2006). In his model the phases of interaction are
recognition, exploration, and reflection phase.
Together, all of these levels of user experience
determine the user’s overall appraisal of an
interface. In the following these different layers
of meaning – that users give to an interface from
initial recognition to evaluation – are discussed
more in detail.
3.2.1 Visceral design
Designing for immediacy is what Norman (2004)
calls visceral design and Krippendorf (2006) as
recognition by sense. This dimension refers to the
immediate, unconscious, and intuitive sensation
evoked by colours, movement, proximity, or
similarity before significant interaction occurs
(Norman, 2004). In other words, the visceral design
features form the first impression. In the context of
web sites this means that users will usually first scan
the page for visually interesting content; only after
something grabs their attention, will they actually
start to read. In other words, these affordances
(actionable properties) are the perceived experience
and understanding evoked by the surface design
elements. These elements include the way items
or functions are grouped; links, buttons and menu
items are labelled; colours and images are used; and
the page is laid-out.
Both Norman (2004) and Krippendorf (2006) agree
that this level of user experience is subjective and
culturally conditioned. According to Krippendorf
(2006), cultures differ in the respect of what is
perceived foreign and what is not. He argues that
this first level of recognition reflects one’s personal
history of perceived similarities and differences.
Thus, it is not only one’s physical abilities but also
language, communication style, and mode of thought
that affect how one perceives an interface. Similarly,
Norman (2004) argues that something which appears
as an affordance to a member of one culture might
pass unnoticed to a member of another.
A number of studies have explored differences in the
way different cultures perceive their environment.
For instance Classen (1993) demonstrates the
inadequacy of Western perceptual models for
understanding non-Western cultures; for instance,
in the case of fire: the Tzotzil emphasise its heat;
the Ongee its smoke; and the Desana its colours.
Several other researchers have focused on studying
the differences in perception between low and high
context cultures. According to Mindess (2006), Deaf
culture belongs to high context cultures which are
characterised with a holistic mode of thought that
is linked with oral communication style. Members
of these cultures have a tendency to perceive
25

Figure 15.  Three layers of culture mapped into
three layers of design features moving from outer,
visible, and tangible levels towards inner, invisible,
and intangible (adapted from Lin, 2007).
scenes globally; that is, the context and the field as
belonging together (Nisbett et al., 2001; Nisbett &
Norensayan, 2002). Western cultures, on the other
hand, as a result of written tradition (McLuhan,
1962), have a tendency to perceive objects
separately from the scene and assign them into
categories and separate them from the field (Nisbett
& Norenzayan, 2002). The study by Dong and Lee
(2008) proposes that holistically-minded people – a
category in which Deaf also fallen into (Mindess,
2006) – tend to scan a web page as a whole. They
suggest that in order to cater to people from holistic
cultures: (1) the context of the web site should be
shown clearly to provide an overall picture of the
page; and (2) attention should be placed on the
harmony between foreground, background, and
content.
Another well research area of visceral design is
aesthetics. Several studies have pointed out that
the aesthetic perceptions and conception of beauty
are culturally dependent (Kurosu & Kashimura,
1995; Travinsky, 1997; Prabhu & Harel, 1999;
Cho et al., 1999). This means that the conception
of beauty is shared within a culture: it is informed
26
by dispositions, needs, expectations and use of
language that do rely on universal laws. In practise
this means that interface aesthetics must fit the
taste and lifestyle of the target audience in order
to be engaging and enjoyable to use. Beauty then
is not a property of an interface, but a property
of perception that is heavily influenced by one’s
culture (Krippendorf, 2006). This means that in
order to design a web site that is appreciated by Deaf
audience, their social context needs to be understood.
What is more, a number of studies (Tractinsky,
1997; Lavie & Travinsky, 2004; Lindgaard &
Dudek, 2003; Norman, 2004; Hartmann et al.,
2008) have suggested that the immediate sensorial
impact is linked with the overall perception of
an artefact. This means that positively perceived
aesthetics override users’ poor usability experience
– often referred to as an assimilation or halo effect.
This is extremely important in regards of the Deaf
community: as previously discussed, it is a strongly
visually oriented culture in which anything that is
visual is open for comment (Ladd, 2003). However,
if an interface looks pleasing at first sight but
frustrates during the interaction, the appeal does
not pay off (Overbeeke et al., 2003). As observed
by Lee (2004), cross-cultural design research is
still limited to visceral design such as identifying
aesthetic stereotypes of a culture. More design
effort should be placed on the behaviour and
exploration phase of interface use. This phase is
discussed in the following section.
3.2.2 Behavioural design
The behavioural level processes the sensorial
information from the visceral level. It determines
the usability and usefulness of an interface. This
level is exploration “by cognition and action”,
as defined by Krippendorf (2006, p.105). The
behavioural level determines how the sensed data
– such as relationships between interface elements –
are interpreted and defines the implicit assumptions
about the interface. This understanding moves
users through tasks and determines what is being
explored. Of the three levels, as Norman states
(2003), this is the most commonly researched
aspect of design: performance, effectiveness, user-
friendliness, and controllability are the focus of
traditional usability research.
There are only few studies on Deaf people’s search
strategies and usability. As discussed in the previous
section, Fajardo et al. (2008) identifies three
cognitive factors that affect Deaf people’s efficiency
when searching the Internet for information:
reading skills, verbal categorisation abilities, and
visuospatial span. In Japan, Natamame et al. (2006)
research showed that the types of links hearing
and hard of hearing participants selected were
significantly different in terms of the amount of
semantic information contained in the links as
illustrated in Figure 16. Their findings suggest
that Deaf users apply a visual-matching approach
rather than semantic strategy to navigate on the
Internet. To meet this visual need, their study
recommends two things: (1) visual support to help
to grasp information structures easily; and (2) use
of easily comprehensible representations instead
of complex labels. One of the rare examples to
support this notion is an online learning portal
targeted toward Deaf users called CinemaSense:
it visualises the relations between terms regarding
film production to facilitate learning and
understanding (Honkela et al., 2000; Raike, 2005).
Inline with these findings, studies have shown that
in general representation of verbal and non-verbal
materials simultaneously result in faster learning
and improved recollection (Presno, 1997).
The differences in understanding information
differently is not solely due to the differences in
sensory order but also due to one’s culture: it has
been proven that different cultures categorise
items (Lucy, 1992)3 and search information in
fundamentally different ways (Choong & Salvendy,
1999)4. Though, the representation of categories
within the semantic memories of Deaf people is
still unclear, Marschark and Everhart’s (1997) study
suggests that category labels may be less important
for Deaf people than for hearing. Several authors
have also argued that the perception of user-friend-
liness varies across cultures (i.e. Krippendorf, 2006;
Dong & Lee, 2008). This can be presumed true for
Deaf people as well, as they have shown
3 Lucy’s study (1992) showed that Yucatec Maya and
English speakers process in formation of concrete objects
differently: Yucatec preferred material-based classification,
whereas English preferred shape-based classification.
4 Choong and Salvendy (1999) showed that different
cultures often focus on different attributes of the same items of
object. For an example, Americans tend to focus on functional
attributes, whereas Chinese focus on thematic attributes, that is,
according to where they are used – not what they are used for.
Figure 16.  Differences between the types of
links that the hearing and the hard of hearing
participants selected that were identified in the study
by Namatame et al. (2006).
to use somewhat different problems solving skills
compared to hearing (Rainò, 1997; Marschark &
Everhart, 1997). As sign language is a visual-spatial
language, it can also be assumed that the differences
in encoding and recalling environment are not only
medical but culture-linguistically based (Gentry et
al., 2004, 2005). This view is supported by recent
studies which suggest that sensory compensation
among the Deaf people does not lead to enhanced
visuospatial skills; though, an early acquisition of
sign language leads to above average performance
on face recognition, block design, movement
detection, and spatial memory (Mayberry, 2002;
Marschark & Hauser, 2008).
3.2.3 Reflective design
Reflection considers the rationalisation and intel-
lectualisation of an interface including the feelings,
emotions, and cognition involved in experiencing
a web site. This level of design is concerned with
the message and meaning of a product as well as
its use. According to Lin (2007), this is the aspect
that varies the most between individuals as it is
a result of several factors such as one’s culture,
experience, education, and personality. Yet, it is the
least considered level of design and hardly touched
upon by research. This level deals with cognitive
processing and is accessible only via memory.
(Krippendorf, 2006) Interpretations of aesthetics
are not only based on material, form, and function;
they are also dependent upon the people’s interests,
27
 lifestyles, and culture in which they exist. Beyond
the initial impact, a product can evoke positive
memories, emotion, and images (Hummels & Van
der Helm, 2004). Following this line of thought,
Blythe and Hassenzhal (2003) argue that engaging
activities and objects are relevant and personally
meaningful. Similarly, MacDonald (2002) suggests
that the meanings and values that we give to
perceived information is influenced by the way
our brains and senses are evolved biologically in a
particular cultural context. This means that people
will respond to an interface positively if it employes
references to cultural meanings that open deeper
content, evoking interest and inspiring the user
to apply this new knowledge to aspects of his or
her own life. A perceived interface only becomes
interesting and important when the observer is able
to understand it and relate to it.

3.3 Summary
The literature reviewed has demonstrated that
interfaces become valuable to its users through
different layers – instrumental, emotional,
and cultural. To meet these layers, interaction
design can be divided into three layers: visceral,
behavioural, and reflective from which the
reflective design is the least researched aspect.
Through these layers, interfaces become
meaningful to their users. To sum up: in addition
to functionality and usability, emotional and
cultural factors affect the overall user experience.

In short, in order to enhance web user experience,

it is important to identify the features that are likely
to facilitate product acceptance such as identity,
meaning, traditional aesthetics, and bonding, as well
as to understand how to design interfaces that are
compatible with users’ cognitive patterns. Designing
for user experience then, is to pay attention to users
and their relationship with the system. This includes
respecting the users; commitment to the user needs
and desires; and a holistic understanding of the
interaction that is influenced by one’s culture.

28

Design research
Chapter Four first examines the purpose and
challenges of this research and development
(R&D) project. It then discusses the participatory
design methods and participants involved in
the development process. Finally, it reviews the
structure and schedule of the design process. It also
looks at the validity of the research and set measures
for the project’s success.
4.1 Design purpose and challenges
This R&D project gathers ideas for improvements
in a normative case study in which the end
deliverable is a pilot web site for KnacK project.
This study aims to understand the ways in which
interfaces could become meaningful for Deaf users
by considering the implications of Deaf culture
and sign language as a first language on web user
experience. The design process includes three main
phases: (1) contextual study; (2) identification of
Deaf culture specific features; and (3) integration of
the identified features so that Deaf people will be
comfortable using them. Finally, it aims to provide
design recommendations for future developments,
considering the effect of Deaf culture on web user
experience. It takes ideas from participatory design
research, and collates them into design recommen-
dations by using Jordan’s Four-Pleasure framework
that can be applied to future designs.
Due to the importance of tacit knowledge in this
context, the purpose of this design research is not
to search for quantitative or an objective research
‘truth’ in its traditional terms, but rather to look
for inspiration and actionable insights on culturally
rooted conventions that influence user experience
including functional and aesthetic design choices
Chapter 4
that Deaf people make. In order to pinpoint these
intangible aspects of an interface, this research is
qualitative in nature.
The main driving force of this applied research was
to tackle the problem of Deaf users being unsatisfied
with sites that are designed for them. Even web sites
that meet the accessibility criteria – and sometimes
them especially – do not seem to attract Deaf users.
When interviewed during the preliminary research,
a group of Deaf people stated that they are unable
to engage with most web sites for three reasons:
firstly, because they were not in their own language,
secondly, because accessible sites look boring and
ugly, and thirdly, because they did not feel at home
when using them. Similar results have been found for
example in Britain (Skelton and Maruyama, 2006).
This study aims to understand the ways interfaces
could become meaningful for Deaf users. This
means that the interfaces should carry affordances,
which reflect the visions of the Deaf community
and its social reality. If we can identify these
affordances that bring pleasure to sign language
users, we could change the way interfaces are
designed for them and by them. Thereby, the
challenge of this study is to identify how web sites
can be designed to meet the real needs of Deaf
users – a successful culture-oriented product design
is greatly affected by the enjoyment it affords (i.e.
Moalasi, 2007). Essentially, this means translating
the Deaf way of doing, seeing, and representing
into interface design features; that is, features
which enable Deaf users to feel engaged and
comfortable. In this study we adopt Jordan’s (2000)
Four-Pleasures framework to categorise these
29
 pleasures as the structure provides a way to look
beyond product functionality and usability. Jordan
(2000) stresses – whilst not disagreeing with the
advantages of usability design – that usability and
functionality focused design approaches tend to
take a limited stance on people. They only focus on
physical and cognitive user needs, not taking into
consideration emotional, social, and cultural ones.
Jordan (2000) claims that well-designed products
are those that understand people’s needs and bring
joy to their lives.

The pleasurability framework provides a way to

categorise people’s needs and to gain insights into
what different kinds of pleasures a web interface
could provide for Deaf users. Not only does it so
from a physiological perspective but also from a
social, psychological, and ideological perspective
as illustrated in Figure 17. The framework has
been used in several interface studies (i.e. Harrison,
2004; Jhangiani & Smith-Jackson, 2007) to identify
needs of user groups which differ somewhat
from mainstream users, as well as referred to in
cultural studies to identify culture specific needs in
designing pleasurable products (i.e. Moalasi, 2007).
The framework consists of the following categories:

Physiological pleasures. These are derived from

sensory organs such as smell, touch, and vision
as well as physical fit with the user. Thereby,
psychological pleasures stem from complete
physical access to a product. This is the aspect
of traditional accessibility research which
identifies that Deaf people, for instance, face
disadvantages with auditory content compared to
the mainstream population.

Social pleasures. These are derived from relationships

with others, that is, from the role of the product
in interpersonal relationships. These pleasures can
be also derived from the status which the product
confers. This includes the culture which user
belongs to and the values and customs associated
with it. As identified in the cultural inquiry section,
a sense of normalcy is important for Deaf people
as they do not want to be categorised as disabled.
Due to the history of oppression, the feeling of
togetherness is important to Deaf community and
artefacts that enable the community members to
interact socially with each other are important. This
category also includes the aesthetics of the product
that can send either a negative or positive message
of the targeted culture.
Figure 17.  Interface features mapped into Jordan’s
(2000) Four-Pleasures framework.
Psychological pleasures. These are derived from
cognitive and emotional reactions. This deals with
things like how easy the product is to use, and
the emotions it triggers during its use. It includes
characteristics of intelligence, skill, and creativity.
It includes the perceived ease-of-use and the ability
to learn, memorise, and tolerate errors. This is the
area of traditional usability research. As discussed in
Chapter Three, there are cross-cultural differences
in what is considered user friendly and what is
not. The way people understand, memorise, and
categorise information varies depending on people’s

30
cultural context. If an interface fits psychologically
with the user, it will provide enjoyment; on the
contrary, if it does not, it will cause frustration.
Ideological pleasures. These are derived from people’s
values and personal aspirations. This category is
about whether or not the product is consistent
with its users’ identity, values, and ideology. The
cultural onion model (Fig. 1, p. 6) illustrated that
there are value structures distinctive to Deaf culture.
This category also includes the look and feel of
an interface: the interface brings pleasures if its
reinforces one’s self-identity.
Based on Jordan’s framework this design research
focuses on identifying the following interface
features that could enhance its possibility to become
appreciated by Deaf users:
Physio-pleasures
• Ergonomics: What features allow sign language
users to work effectively on a web site?
• Accessibility: What features are required to
make an interface accessible to Deaf users?
Socio-pleasures
• Social interaction: What features make social
interaction more satisfactory to Deaf users?
• Information access: What features are needed
to give sign language users full access to
information, that is, being able to be heard
and informed?
Psycho-pleasures
• Usability: What features make a site easy to use
for Deaf users?
• Aesthetics: What aesthetic qualities enhance the
appreciation of an interface by Deaf users?
Ideo-pleasures
• Self-identity properties: What interface features
reinforce the feeling of being part of the Deaf
community?
• Look and feel: How web sites should look and
feel to deliver values, tastes, and aspirations of
Deaf communities?
4.2 Participatory design methods and
cultural frameworK
This study follows the participatory design
ideology that puts stakeholders at the centre of
design process and appraises their concerns, values,
and perceptions. In the course of this research,
participatory methods are used iteratively to
construct the emerging design. These methods
follow a cultural framework that distinguishes two
design phases: identification and integration of
socio-cultural features.
As Buchanan suggests (2001, p. 9), “Design is
the human power of conceiving, planning, and
making products that serve human beings in the
accomplishment of any individual or collective
purpose”. Participatory design research helps
in understanding this ‘native’ point-of-view. It
utilises an ethnographic approach that seeks to
develop an understanding of what the phenomena
is about – instead of asking why something is as
it is (Anttila, 2005). While the ethnographer is
interested in understanding human behaviour as
it is reflected in the life of diverse communities
of people, the designer is interested in designing
artefacts that will support the activities of these
communities. Nevertheless, the ethnographic
method provides a unique perspective: it allows to
bear on understanding the way sign language users
appreciate web sites. As the web site is to become
part of Deaf community, it must follow the patterns
of Deaf users in order to become successful,
accepted, and used by the community.
Ethnography has the potential of providing a
context wherein mutual understanding between
users and designers can evolve. Deaf people are
often sceptical about hearing people designing
for them as they feel that hearing cannot know
how it feels to be a Deaf person – a hearing
cannot know what suits them best (Ladd, 2003).
In Deaf culture, as in any oppressed culture
striving to maintain its values, many everyday
acts and beliefs become fundamentally political
or oppositional. Consequently, even if a product
is perfect from the outset, it will not be so within
the community without a Deaf person involved
in the development process. If we are able to
recognise this, according to Ladd (2003), it
enables us to go beneath surface readings of a
culture. Due to this, it is important to empower,
engage, and involve the community in the design
process from start to finish (Von Hippel, 2005):
that is, one must regard Deaf users as innovators,
and not as targets objects for user research.
This leads the adaptation of design strategies,
methods, and strategies that both engage the
community, and in which openness is the key.
Thereby, this study follows the human-centred
31
 design ideology that puts stakeholders at the centre
of design process and appraises their concerns,
values, and perceptions (Rouse, 2007; Norman
1988; Buchanan, 2001). According to Rouse (2007),
there are three primary objectives of human-centred
design. These are (1) to identify, understand, and
cultivate human abilities so that they could be
enhanced; (2) to identify human limitation so that
they could be overcome; and (3) to dictate user
preferences and concerns to foster user acceptance.
Similarly, following the tradition of human-centred
design practice, Moalasi (2007) identified two
components of the design process that allows the
finished product to become cherished by its users:
(1) the designer needs to understand the diverse set
of stakeholders and their needs by giving a voice to
them, and (2) he needs to be skilled in translating
that information into design features.
It is important to note here the distinction between
what people do and what they say. People are
often unable to express our day-to-day activities
through language as they are so embedded into our
lives (Blomberg et al., 1993; Krippendorf, 2006).
For this study it means that even members of the
Deaf community are not fully aware of web design
practices and conventions that they themselves
have developed, nor are they able to express them
completely through language. This requires one
to gain an understanding of Deaf people’s tacit
knowledge1 regarding web design, that is, their shared
conventions and practices of how to design web sites.
According to Anttila (2005), tacit knowledge can be
divided into two dimensions: Firstly, the technical
dimension with shared expertise and know-how
that makes group knowledge identifiable and
accessible for a specific communities of practice.
Secondly, the cognitive dimension with mental
models and paradigms that permit tacit knowledge
to be applied unreflectively. Participatory design
methods help in allowing to capture this tacit
knowledge. Not only does it make the outcome
of the design accessible to all stakeholders, but
– through designing with the members of the
community – enables one to understand the issues
concerning the design process. This can achieved
1 Tacit knowledge is gained in the course of socialisation. It
is deeply rooted in one’s ideals, values, and emotions and embedded
in practices that are gained through one’s own experiences, senso-
rial perception, and engagement in action. (Anttila, 2005)
32
through documenting the design activities by
recording and photographing as well as writing
notes during the sessions that can be analysed at the
later date (i.e. Leinonen et al., 2008).
The design methods are used iteratively to construct
the emerging design, which itself simultaneously
constitutes and elicits the research results as
co-interpreted by the designer and participants.
Participatory design is a type of research in which
the course of designing forms the actual research.
Utilising several methods ensures that participants’
interpretations are taken into account in the research
throughout the design project. The goal is not
just to empirically understand the activity, but to
simultaneously envision, shape, and transcend it
in ways participants find buoyant. The power of
participatory design research lies in its ability to
bridge participants’ tacit knowledge and researchers’
more abstract, analytical knowledge (Anttila, 2005).
Yet, despite the huge interest in human-centred and
emotional design, hardly any design methods have
been developed to tackle culture-specific charac-
teristics. There is a lack of in-depth research and
appropriate methods when it comes to assisting
designers with how culture should be integrated in
product design (Moalasi, 2007). Even recent design
books (i.e. Cooper et al., 2007; Garrett, 2004) neglect
the social and cultural contexts primarily focusing
on psychological and biological factors of users
such as interests, experience, learning pace, reading
skills, age, and education. Thus, the design process
of this study is influenced by a culture-oriented
framework developed by Moalasi (2007). In his
doctoral theses in which he studies the relationship
between culture and human-centred design, Moalasi
(2007) argues that so far designers are not been able
to encode culture into the design to the same extend
as cognitive and physical human factors. He specifies
two distinctive phases of the culture specific design
process: (1) identification to specify, analyse and
integrate socio-cultural factors and (2) integration to
transform these factors into design features.
Due to the constraints of this thesis, this design
study does not go in depth in the visual and textual
content analysis that Moalasi develops. However, it
adopts the conscious identification and integration
of culture in the participatory design process by
following these two major phases of this framework.
According to the framework different data collection
methods can be used to gather information on users;
such methods include conducting interviews, focus
groups, user observation, and ethnographic methods.
Integration then is the designer’s domain in which
he/she needs to interact with the users to draw
from their experiences in order to translate culture
specific features into the design. This triangulation
of theories and methods allows us to gather several
point of views for the project and to recognise
reoccurring Deaf culture specific design patterns.
4.3 PARTICIPANTS
Participants were selected through purposive
sampling. All participants were chosen based on
the following objectives: they are stakeholders of
the KnacK Project; have an interest in the design
or its consequences; and are willing to support and
constructively criticise the development. Those
candidates best fitting these criteria were selected.
Altogether 16 sign language users were chosen.
Selected participants presented a wide range of Deaf
community members. From these two were hard of
hearing and fourteen were Deaf of which four were
dyslexic2. Participants were all sign language users
from 20 to 60 years of age and included researchers
working at the association, web designers,
translators, camera men, and academics. For the
identification and integration phase of this study,
participants are represented by letters A through
to J. When representing independent comments,
no coding is used. The coding is not used to draw
linkage between the comments of individuals in
different parts of this study but to make dialogues
easier to follow; thus, no correlation in the coding
exists between the different methods.
The involvement of stakeholders from varying
fields is an asset to the project. Despite the shared
cultural background, several authors, such as Ladd
(2003) and Leigh (2009), have pointed out that
there is no single Deaf experience: Deaf people
are individuals with personal opinions, tastes,
personalities, preferences, and learning styles –
Deaf community is far from being homogeneous.
It contains a paradox that each person is unique
despite sharing the same culture. For example,
though Deaf people are visually oriented, not all of
them are visual learners (Marschark & Hauser, 2008).
2 Dyslexia (a learning disability) manifests itself as a
difficulty in learning to read and interpreting words and letters.
This difficulty does not result from neurological deficiency with
hearing nor general intelligence.
This learning style affects the ways in which
they prefer to have information displayed.
Consequently, during the design process it
is important to distinguish between personal
opinions, and cultural influences in order to
provide culture specific recommendations.
Dyslexic participants included in this study belong
to the stakeholder group of the KnacK project,
diagnosed with dyslexia before or after they
commenced school. Dyslexic Deaf people are one
of the minority groups within Deaf community.
They are included in this study for three reasons:
firstly, due to the thematic needs that arise from
the KnacK project; secondly, due to the fact that
among the Deaf approximately 8% are diagnosed
with learning disorders (Saar et al., 2004)3; and
thirdly, because they are a special needs group
that question the needs of the mainstream, and
thus, capable of providing alternative viewpoints
supporting from the minority to mainstream
design thinking. It has been proven that dyslexic
have visual processing problems (Livingstone
et al., 1991; Skottun, 2004) as well as sensitivity
to high luminance contrast (Bednarek, 2002).
Consequently, those with dyslexia are easily
distracted by visual noise and strong contrast. The
latter especially is in contradiction with accessibility
standards, which recommend the use of strong
contrast. Dyslexic users have been totally neglected
in this regard.
4.4 Four phases of culture-specific
participatory design
The process of this design research can be seen as
having three main phases that are used iteratively
throughout the design process. These are (1)
contextual inquiry; (2) identification of cultural
factors; and (3) integration of cultural factors in
design. During these phases of design the designer
interacts with the stakeholders in varying degrees.
The design research was conducted between winter
2007 and summer 2009. As discussed in the previous
chapter, the stages chosen for this design process
are based both on participatory design methods
and Moalasi’s (2007) culture-oriented framework.
Whereas participatory design methods aim at
3 In general, 5-20% of school children are diagnosed with
learning disorders (Lyytinen, 2005), among them dyslexia. Even if
the amount of Deaf with dyslexia falls between these figures, it is
still a considerable portion of the Deaf community.
33
 involving stakeholders during each phase of
the design process, the socio-cultural design
framework aims to ensure culture-specific features
are incorporated in the design.
The ethnographic research approach required
spending a long period of time with the Deaf
culture. Hence, the entire design process took over
a year and half to finish (see Fig. 18). This is the
result of involving everyone from the beginning
till the end – a design process open for everyone.
Feedback from users was incorporated at each phase
of the developing process to help to ensure that
the concept maintains a focus on real user needs
throughout the design study. Figure 18 illustrates
this iterative process which consisted of three
main phases (contextual inquiry, identification, and
integration). These phases not only informed each
other but also occasionally overlapped and took
place simultaneously; that is, only the time and
effort spent on them varied within the design cycle.
These phases were:
1. Contextual inquiry: In November 2007, the entire
design process started with contextual inquiry.
This took eight months during which the project
Figure 18.  Schedule and three main phases of the iterative design process including design activities and
their deliverables.
34
endeavoured to understand the cultural context;
to define the preliminary design challenges; and
to gain a holistic understanding of stakeholders’
thoughts and behaviours.
2. Identification: In autumn 2008, as the awareness
of the context had increased, work commenced on
planning and animating participatory design methods
to meet user needs and the design context. In order
to involve as many Deaf participants as possible,
several participatory design sessions were arranged.
During these activities users planned and worked
together to define preliminary design concepts.
3. Integration: During spring and summer 2009,
the actual product design began. This included
integration of the identified cultural features to
form basic user interaction. Through user feedback,
prototypes were polished and perfected. This phase
lasted till the prototype satisfied all participants.
In order to analyse these sessions later, all meetings
were recorded on video, and a professional translator
was employed at all meetings to translate speech to
sign and sign to speech. The methods used in each
design phase are outlined in the following:
1. Contextual inquiry
• Stakeholder meetings: To define goals, mission,
vision, and target audience.
• Observations: To gain an understanding of the
cultural design context.
2. Identification
• Focus group: To evaluate existing web sites.
• Card sorting: To identify Deaf culture specific
themes and ways of categorising information.
• Interviews: To identify Deaf culture specific
concerns regarding web sites.
3. Integration
• Brainstorming: To develop design concepts.
• Workshops: To sketched out and test screen
layouts and interactive mock-ups.
• Co-design: To develop a prototype that is
enjoyable and meaningful for participants.
4.5 Measure of successful process
In the design process there are countless paths
to take and no theories, methods, techniques,
or tools that can envision the future or the final
outcome (Nelson and Stolterman, 2003). In design
discourse this phenomena of unknown problems
and paradoxical possibilities is referred to as a wicked
problem (Rittel and Weber, 1973). Thus, the design
process is a trial and error procedure that aims
to find new sets of methods that are triangulated
during the process. This section evaluates the
validity and reliability of this design study and sets
measures for a successful project.
with the entire design process and outcomes of the
research project. Satisfaction involves acceptance
of less than ideal circumstances, and even an
extensive compromise. The success of research
relies on methods and tools that help in reaching
a solution that is ‘good enough’ (Simon, 1969).
Satisfaction will emerge if the design research has
included stakeholders to the extent that they want to
participate. As future is unknown, outcomes of the
design research needs to be seen as a hypotheses for
the kind of web site that could satisfy Deaf users (see
Leinonen et al., 2008). This hypothesis is formed in
collaboration with Deaf participants and combined
with the designer’s intuition about the context of use.
The success of this study is not only measured by
the production of generalisable knowledge, but also
by its cultural validity: its relevance and consistency
within the cultural framework in which research is
conducted. The research is successful if all parties
are satisfied with the utility of the process and its
outcomes. (Comstock, 1993)

Participatory research strengthens the reliability

of the study by triangulating both data sources
and design methods. Moreover, the validity of
the outcome is enhanced by taking into account
contextual factors. Different stakeholders may
have different understandings of a problem as
well as acceptable solutions. There is no right or
wrong: evaluation of design is always subjective
depending on the stakeholders’ individual values
and goals. According to Rittel and Webber (1973),
there is no such a thing as a final design. The
problem solving ends when the project ends, and
the design process finishes when a solution is
satisfies the criteria (Simon, 1969).

All solutions expose new problems which require

further design and development. Yet, one cannot
learn about the problem without trying solutions.
The measure of success is the level of satisfaction

35

Design PROCESS
Chapter Five reviews the entire participatory
design process. The chapter is divided into three
parts according to the main design phases of the
study; that is, contextual inquiry, identification,
and integration of culture specific features. Within
each section respective design methods and their
outcomes are reviewed.
5.1 CONTEXTUAL INQUIRY
Contextual inquiry fosters the ideology of
participatory design: it entails meeting the target
audience, talking to them, and observing them
(Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998). The technique helps
in providing an understanding of the nature of
user tasks, as well as in forming an understanding
of project goals, stakeholder needs, and design
environments (Bennett et al., 1989). In this study,
these preliminary steps involved observing and
spending time with Deaf people. These observations
were important in forming an understanding of
the cultural context. In addition to these activities,
stakeholder meetings were arranged to form a goal,
mission, and vision for the project web site. The
phase lasted from the late winter 2007 until the end
of spring 2008.
5.1.1 Observations
Before any design steps could be made, an
understanding needed to be reached of the way
Deaf people communicate, behave, and think.
These preliminary steps involved spending time
with Deaf people; attending a sign language course;
seeing Deaf theatre plays; talking to Deaf people
at clubs; attending seminars; as well as meeting
students and their parents.
36
Chapter 5
One of the first observation milestones was an
attendance to two seminars of Satakieli program in
Helsinki and in Mikkeli. The focus of these seminars
was Deaf children with cochlear implants. The first
of the seminars reviewed the recent studies about
Deaf and hard of hearing music education, and the
second, about their education and rehabilitation in
general. The seminars were important in forming an
understanding of Deaf education as well as getting a
grasp of how Deaf experience rhythm.
The second integral part of the contextual study
was a discussion with parents of Deaf and hard of
hearing children at a Junior Program. It was an
event arranged by the Service Foundation for the
Deaf at a Deaf school in Jyväskylä. Of those who
attended, three fathers and five mothers were invited
to take part in a free-flowing discussion through
voluntary sampling. The aim of the discussion was to
gain knowledge of their and their children’s Internet
use and attitudes towards the project. The discussion
revealed that parents were using the Internet mostly
for informational purposes whereas their children
were using the Internet to play games on sites such
as papunet.net. Children as young as three were
already using the mouse and playing independently
on the Internet. Parents grasped theme of the
project, that is, visual / kinesthetic / haptic1 rhythm,
easily, even if the concept itself was new to them.
They were inspired to hear more.
1 Visual refers to the perception through sight; kines-
thetic refers to the movement of the body; and haptic refers to
the sense of touch.
The third important activity in this phase was
attending a sign language course that provided basic
information regarding the structure of the language.
It helped in communicating with the Deaf at the
future sessions as well as forming an understanding
of how the language functions. This was crucial
during the analysing stage, as stakeholders referred
to visual features of sign language.
In short, these observational activities were
important in forming an understanding of the
community members, their attitudes, and prejudices.
These observations in combination with field notes
formed the basis for creating later design methods
and activities that would suit with the community.
5.1.2 Stakeholder meetings
In order to create meaningful content for the web
site, an understanding of its theme was required:
How do Deaf people perceive the concept of
rhythm? How do they learn rhythm? And, how
would they like to experience and learn it? To
answer to these questions, four stakeholder meetings
were arranged. There were ten participants in each
meeting from which two were hard of hearing, six
were deaf, and three were hearing.
Figure 19.  Identified stakeholders of the KnacK project that may benefit from using the site.
The first meeting followed a free-flowing
discussion in which the participants got to know
each other and formed an understanding of
the rhythm project. In the meeting two music
therapeutists, Russ Palmer who is blind and hard of
hearing and Terttu Martola who is deaf, reviewed
the ideology behind their methods. Russ Palmer
focused on reviewing his methods of visualising
and interpreting music in order to allow sensory
impaired people to feel music through vibrations
instead of auditory impulses. Terttu Martola on
the other hand focused on illustrating rhythmical
gymnastics in which rhythm is exercised through
kinetics. In addition, the methods of a hearing
composer and choreographer Elina Kivelä-
Taskinen, who is experienced in teaching body
percussion to deaf people, were reviewed.
During the second meeting the concept of body
rhythmics was acted out so that all participants
were introduced to different ways to experience
rhythm. These two meetings resulted an
understanding of project goals and how to reach
them. In the final meeting stakeholders (Fig. 19),
goals, a mission and vision for the KnacK web site
were specified. The rhythm web site was to set to
37
 help deaf and hard of hearing children to acquire
a better sense of rhythm, and thus, relieve the
severity of their learning disorders.
In order to encourage children to do rhythmic
exercises, parents and other stakeholders – who
are the facilitators of these children – need to be
aware of the importance of rhythm and inspired
by it. In the best case scenario, all Finnish parents,
teachers and other stakeholders of these children –
who all may be Deaf, hearing or dyslexic – would
acknowledge the importance of visual and kinestic-
haptical rhythm. To meet this scenario, the web site
was targeted towards a network of stakeholders that
include parents, children, and professionals, all of
which may be hearing, deaf or dyslexic:
For parents: the web site provides tips on how to
promote the enjoyment of rhythm into everyday
life. It enables them to gain knowledge of how they
can better facilitate their child to enjoy the world of
rhythm. This is important as the parents may not
always be aware of the importance of the kinesthetic-
haptic rhythm since 90% of Deaf children are born
to hearing parents.
For children: even if parents are too busy to play
with their child, the web site provides a fun
playground that is always available for practising
and learning rhythm.
For professionals: the web site provides information
about the project as well as the visual and kinestic-
haptical theory of rhythm for teachers, researchers,
and music therapists.
In short, the goals, mission, vision, and target
audience were set as follows:
Goal: encourage and inform the stakeholders of deaf
and hard of hearing children about deaf rhythmics.
Mission: address the sensitive issue of rhythm in
Deaf culture and increase the awareness of the topic
that has not yet been openly talked about.
Vision: rhythmic exercises would become part of day
to day life of Deaf and hard of hearing children.
Target audience: parents, children, and professionals
all of whom may be hearing, deaf, or dyslexic.
38
5.2 Identification of Deaf culture
specific features
Identification involves collecting information about
users, their tasks, and their environment. These
material, social, emotional, and technological
factors are used to shed light on Deaf people’s habits
and values. These are important aspects as they
contribute to product acceptance and overall user
experience. Since there are often major differences
between what people say and what they do, direct
observation and hands on card sorting exercises were
used as a supplement to focus groups sessions and
interviews. All the activities were held at the Finnish
Association of the Deaf in autumn 2008.
5.2.1 Focus group
A focus group is an informal technique in which a
group of people who have something in common
are asked about their attitude towards an artefact
(Krueger & Casey, 2008). The method was used
in assessing the needs and feelings of the Deaf
community towards sign language web sites before
working on the actual design. All participants sat
around a computer screen to discuss, explore, and
investigate different web sites. For this reason – in
contrast to a normal focus group session which
involves from six to eight stakeholders (Krueger
& Casey, 2008) – only three people were invited.
As a consequence, the findings of the focus group
session were confirmed through interviewing
eleven community members at a later stage. As
limited number is incapable to truly represent
the whole Deaf community, participants were
carefully chosen through purposive sampling to
represent as wide a range as possible. The group
consisted of one hard of hearing web designer, one
deaf dyslexic who is a regular Internet user, and a
Children of Deaf Adults (CODA)2 who has been
actively following web design practice within the
community. Participants are hence forth referred to
as A, B, and C respectively.
For participants, the focus group session was
free-flowing and relatively unstructured, but in
reality, it followed a list of issues to be discussed
to met above two goals. This technique stimulates
discussion that provokes elaboration and brings out
users’ spontaneous reactions and ideas (Nelson,
2 A Child Of Deaf Adults (CODA) is a hearing person
who was raised by a Deaf parent or guardian. Many CODAs iden-
tify with both Deaf and hearing cultures. (Singleton, 2002)
1997; Krippendorf, 2006). The session was recorded
on video for subsequent data analysis. In interactive
systems development, the proper role of focus
groups is not to assess interaction styles or design
usability, but to discover what users want from the
system (Nielsen, 1997). The idea of the focus group
discussion was to identify their likes and dislikes of
existing web interfaces, especially those targeted
to sign language users. The aim of the session was
to provide grounds for planning improvements to
Deaf specific web design practices with two main
purposes in mind:
1) To identify design challenges by
recognising Deaf people’s concerns related
to already existing web interfaces.
2) To understand the current state of Deaf
web sites by identifying the kind of web sites
that are designed for sign language users
as well as discussing sites that are used and
appreciated by the community.
In order to ignite conversation about sign language
web sites, a set-of-exemplars method was used.
Providing visual objects to be discussed, they helped
review the current state of web design practices
within the community. As Deaf culture is highly
visual, discussion through examples was important for
exploring visual and functional aspects of an interface
that cannot be recorded through verbal accounts. The
exemplars were chosen by asking participants about
the sites they regularly visit as well as by researching
existing web sites targeted to sign language users
before the session. None of the exemplars used were
perfect but each of them included elements that
appealed to Deaf users which could be combined and
further developed. All together 17 different web sites
were viewed (see appendix I).
To make a distinction between participants’ favourite
sites and the ones they used in practice, participants
were asked to show examples of sites they used daily
as well as ones that were their favourites. It became
evident that the most used sites were news portals,
designed for hearing users such as the web presence
of Finnish tabloids Iltasanomat and Iltalehti.
However, when asked about sites that brought them
enjoyment, paradoxically, they showed examples of
sites targeted towards Deaf users.
A. I like the French site (Fig. 20). Let me see if I can
find it. Here it is. You see. The signer is engaging
and funny, interesting to follow. I also like the
symbols they use for navigation (Fig. 21). It’s easy
to explore even if I don’t know any French. The
way the signer is placed on the site is also different
than normally seen on a web site. Mew... I don’t
like the way it’s inside that box though.
B. Yeah, I don’t like that either. You know the site…
wait a moment. Here it is. This is a Finnish site
(Fig. 23). I like that the man is standing there
freely. Though he is too small in size. It’s hard to
follow. But somehow it feels like it belongs there.
It tells you what is on the site. I like that. But
otherwise there is too much text on the site, and I
don’t like the colours. They are boring.
The statements above illustrate how participants
favoured sites in which the signer was engaging and
full of character. This type of signer is illustrated in
Figure 21. Participants favoured sites in which the
signer was integrated with the rest of the interface
elements and interacting with the users like in
Figures 22 and 23; they did not like the signer being
isolated in a box as in Figure 24. It became evident
that, for participants, a signer on a web site did not
bring functional value as such but it brought cultural
value by giving access to their mother tongue.
When it came down to actual web usage, the clarity
and easy-of-use were the most deciding factors for
favourite sites of participants. They told that they
became inpatient if a site was slow or too complex,
both in terms of structure and layout. Secondly,
they valued sites that offered interesting content
which they could understand and use instantly.
For example, participants brought up the VIA
Cooperative web site as an example of a good piece
of design (Fig. 25). Participants reasoned that the
cause for liking the site was its visual simplicity: it
has a nice colour palette and a peacefully animated
top banner that catches one’s attention but at the
same time is restful on the eye.
The state of current web development practices
within the Association was also discussed. It became
clear that the current platform used for official
sites ensures that web sites meet accessibility
standards. At the same time it prevents experimental
approaches to try out new design solutions that
would satisfy the real needs of sign language users.
Moreover, the modification of these sites was stated
to be costly as the platform is outsourced. The
dissatisfaction for current web design practices
among the Deaf community was acknowledged,
but the obligation to meet accessibility standards
39
 Figure 20.  A signer of a French sign language web Figure 21.  Navigation of a French sign language
site WebSourd that is presented on every page. web site WebSourd utilises symbols.

Figure 22.  A signer and a post-it note navigation Figure 23.  A signer on the home page of Finnish
on a personal web site of Markku Jokinen. translation service Signline welcomes the user.

Figure 24.  A signer on the home page of the Figure 25.  Home page of the Finnish Via Sign
Finnish Association of the Deaf. Language Sector Cooperative.

40
was seen as the barrier in overcoming these issues.
Participants clearly expressed that the current sites
targeted towards Deaf users do not cater to their
genuine needs. This is the reason that the most used
sites were designed for hearing users. They claimed
that if there was a site designed to meet the real
needs of Deaf people, they would definitely use it.
For the purpose of analysing the focus group
session, a long-table approach was followed in
which transcripts are cut into pieces of colour-coded
cards and arranged according to identified themes
and categories (Krueger & Casey, 2008). The
statements of the participants were listed to sum up
the prevailing mood for the group. The following
summary of the focus group findings is based upon
seven recurring themes: (1) simplicity and clarity; (2)
visual guidance; (3) vividness and engagement; (4)
charismatic signer; (5) non-isolated signer; (6) clarity
of the signing; and (7) speed.
Simplicity and clarity. Participants felt that most web
sites targeted towards them were ugly and cluttered.
The amount of visual noise that was tolerated
varied between participants with dyslexia and those
without, but they agreed that they were unable to
focus if there was more that one element moving
on the screen at any one time. Following this line
of thought, participants felt that bright and vivid
colours were good but should be limited.
Visual guidance. Participants appreciated it if they
were able to view and grasp the content of the
site visually – in one glance. They felt that too
often web sites have too much text on a single
page, and as a consequence, pages are hard to
follow. All participants agreed that symbols, text,
and images should go hand in hand supporting
each other. Especially when it came to navigation,
they felt that visual clues such as symbols helped
in surfing through content.
Vividness and engagement. Participants felt that they
were unable to engage with sites using a corporate
look. They described them as uninviting, dull, and
static. Participants yearned for images or other
visual elements that would draw their attentions
and encourage to exploration. In addition, they
emphasised the ability of images to tell stories much
better than words. They felt that images should offer
something to be explored – “a window to another
world,” as one of the participants described.
Charismatic signer. Participants always preferred
having a signer welcoming the user on the home
page. If the signer varied in character at different
sections of a web site, the participants felt that
the sites became more engaging. The participants
even considered that a well thought clothing
brought added value.
Non-isolated signer. Participants felt that too often
the signer was isolated inside a box as if it would be
a separate element from the rest of the page. They
explained they would rather have it as part of the
page, interacting with its surroundings. This would
help them to relate the signing with other content
areas on the page. In addition, the participants said
that separate signed translations was not enough: the
signed video should be placed equally with the text
on the page.
Clarity of signing. All participants emphasised the
importance of clear signing. They stated that the
size of the signer should be big enough so that hand
movements and facial expressions are clear. One
of the participants compared that to unreadable
text: “to follow signing that is too small is as if to
read text that is written with a tiny font against
a cluttered background.” When it came to the
movements of the signer, the dyslexic user felt that
it was distracting if the signer was moving while
signing; whereas the participant without dyslexia
felt it made signing more natural.
Speed. Due to heavy use of video and often flash, the
participants felt that many attempts to do web sites
for sign language users failed, because they were
too slow to use. They emphasised the importance of
being able to navigate and view content quickly.
As these themes are based on concerns of only three
participant, no reliable generalisation concerning the
whole community can be made. Thus, the identified
themes here were reassessed in the interviewing
phase with eleven participants (see section 5.2.3).
5.2.2 Card sorting
The card sorting task aimed to identify Deaf culture
specific content categories around theme of the
KnacK project, that is, rhythm and parenting. Thus,
the card sorting task was organised with two main
goals in mind: firstly, to identify the way Deaf users
categorise topics that relate to rhythm learning; and
secondly, to identify the kinds of topics and images
41
 that Deaf users can easily relate to. For the activity,
eleven participants were selected all together to
represent as wide a range of the community as
possible. They were between 20-60 years old age,
nine Deaf and two hard of hearing, six females
and five males, and four with and ten without
dyslexia. All of them were working at the Finnish
Association of the Deaf but presented a wide range
of professions including designers, camera men,
academics, administrators and translators. Each
session took around 20 minutes in which each
participant attended individually.
Traditionally, the purpose of the card sorting
technique is to explore how people group
items. This enables researchers to gain a better
understanding of how users categorise information,
so that their expectations and priorities about the
intended functions can be developed. In the classic
card sorting method, possible features, functions,
or design attributes are named on separate cards
and participants are asked to organise them spatially
in a way that makes sense to them (Morville
& Rosenfield, 2006; Moggridge, 2007). These
interactions enable one to learn about needs and
wants that users cannot express explicitly.
For the purpose of this study, the classic card sorting
method was slightly modified to better fit with the
purpose of this study. In addition to traditional
word cards, the participants received a set of image
cards3. This was done for three reasons: Firstly,
Deaf culture is highly visual and thus image cards
are more suitable. Secondly, four out of the eleven
participants were dyslexic: they may have faced
difficulties with categorising the cards containing
words written in their second language. This means
that use of wordy cards would have limited their
contribution and complicated their participation.
Thirdly, my intention at this phase was not to get
exact labels but instead to bring about themes that
participants were concerned with by allowing them
to impose their own interpretation.
In the beginning of each session a participant
received two packs of shuffled cards with 50 cards in
each (one pack with images and another one with
3 The use of image cards draws the method close to
collages developed by Sanders and William (2002) in which people
are given a set of picture and word stickers and a space on which
to arrange them according to instructions.
42
words written on them), one stack of blank cards,
and a pen. The card sorting task included three main
phases: selecting, grouping, and ranking. In the first
phase, participants were asked to go through the
image and word cards intuitively and remove cards
they were not interested in. In the second phase,
participants were asked to organise the remaining
cards in to groups (see Fig. 26) and name these
groups based on the pictures and words (Fig. 27). In
the last phase, the participants were asked to select
their favourite theme from those they had created as
well as their favourite card.
Then, participants were asked to articulate the
choices they had made with three objectives in
mind. Firstly, to find which cards and themes
were most important to them and why. Secondly,
to discover their reasons for discarding particular
images; that is, gaining insight into why they
relate to some topics and not others. Thirdly, to
illuminate the choice of image: why the chosen
ones were considered attractive and what was
interesting about them. This discussion was the
most important: their explanation gave a deeper
understanding of their ideas and visions.
There was a difference in the way participants
handled the cards, especially so between the
participants with learning disorders and the ones
without. All the dyslexic participants refused to use
the word cards or at least found them demanding
to organise them. The majority, however,
categorised the cards according to descriptions,
analogy, or function of the groups rather than
exact labels, falling in line with the Lawrence
findings of the nesting feature of sign language
(discussed on p. 7).
After the sessions the results were analysed in
two different ways: (1) by ranking the cards
according to their popularity to discover which
topics and images they were interested in; and (2)
by grouping the labels that emerged during the
activity through semantic mapping (see Fig. 28).
The analysis of the images showed that there were
huge differences in the ways beauty and attraction
is valued within the community; but yet, there
are common themes that could be identified:
importance of stories, nature, beauty, visual clarity,
people playing together, and images of hands. The
latter especially was considered important as it
reminded the participants of sign language, as one
of the participants explained:
Figure 26.  One of the participants organising cards.
It’s definitely related to hands and sign language –
and Deaf people. We use hands. We could not live
without them.
The participants also felt that stories are important
in images. The participants were especially
interested in images that they could relate to their
own life stories. These three comments illustrate
the fact that the participants valued images that had
something to say:
If there is nothing to say. I don’t like if an image is
somehow empty. If its wrongly shot. Carelessly. It
needs to have an idea.
The idea of an image is important. I like when an
image takes you to another world and when it gets
your imagination flowing – hungry to know more
about the story behind it.
This image is my favourite. It reminds me of the
moment when my first child was born. It’s decades
ago but I remember that moment so vividly. Like
we’d made a connection when I took him into my
arms for the very first time.
Although the interests of the participants varied
depending on their personality, age, and gender,
five main themes emerged: (1) visual culture,
(2) sports and playing, (3) experiences, (4) eager
to know more, and (5) emotions. These themes
were analysed through grouping the occurred
labels and colour coding the reoccurring words.
The resulting semantic map is illustrated in
Figure 28. The emerged themes reflect charac-
teristics of Deaf culture: the importance of
emotions, being together, personal experiences,
and doing together as well as the traditional
activities held by Deaf clubs.
43
 Figure 27.  The pile of cards with notes after the card sorting tasks.

44
Figure 28.  Semantic mapping of the categories that the participants produced in the card sorting task.
Every word represents a category label and the size of that word correlates with its frequency. The smallest
word on the graph occurred only once and with every additional occurrence the size of that word is increased
by two points. The colours of the words correlate with the meta themes (capitalised words) that emerged from
the labels. The size of the background circles represent the overall popularity of a meta theme.

45
 5.2.3 Interviews
In combination with the card sorting exercise a
short thematic interview was conducted with all the
eleven participants. This was for two main reasons:
firstly, to draw a bridge between the findings and
web site preferences; and secondly, to confirm the
findings of the focus group discussion with a wider
range of participants. There was a list of issues to
be discussed during the interview (see appendix II)
but the order and flow of conversation was open in
order to facilitate discussion of unanticipated issues.
During the interview the participants were asked
to relate their favourite web sites, surfing patterns,
and problems they face with existing systems. This
is because problems and solutions are conceptual
pairs: people are better at remembering the problems
they encounter than envisioning non-existent ones
(Krippendorf, 2006). The discussion confirmed
earlier results: Deaf participants were unsatisfied
with systems developed for sign language users this
far. The participants emphasised their frustration
with long paragraphs of text, lack of images, slow
uploading times, and overly textual navigation. This
was also the reason why one of the participants had
been studying online communications:
I’ve been developing web sites for years. Last year,
however, I decided to have a degree on online
communication. I want to learn more how to
create visual information. I want to share more
visual information … Most of professionals in
the field are hearing. If there would be more
sign language users, they’d know what they are
yearning for and what are their genuine needs for
this type of communication.
The interviewed also highlighted the lack of
interesting content as an issue. This was one of
the reasons why the following participant hardly
ever used web sites targeted towards Deaf people:
Meh… I hardly ever visit web sites for sign
language users. Sometimes I follow events
but only a little. These sites offer so little
valuable content. The briefing is poor. The
whole chunk of information is just blasted
carelessly onto one page.
Most participants, however, said that they would
visit sign language web sites if they were better
designed and offered content that interested
them. The only sign language web sites they
followed was news offered in sign language by the
46
Finnish Broadcasting Company YLE (see Case
Study 6 on p. 20). This is in line with the focus
group discussion in which participants valued
clarity and informativeness, as the following
interviewee illustrates:
The most important thing is that it is clear. The
image and the content. And that it is interesting
and engaging. It should not be preaching – nothing
like that. It should offer profound information.
Participants also confirmed the findings of
the focus group session: there should not be
too much content on one page. For instance,
participants were asked for their thoughts on the
current state of web interfaces, one responded:
I’m disturbed by all of it being mixed. Text and all
– like a rathole… I mean too much text or images.
I don’t know where to look or where to click on…
It puts me off if the page is full of text and it’s
all there at once. If there’s text, I’d like to have a
choice to go to read it if I want to, but it’s too much
if it’s there all at once.
Even if the interviewees were overwhelmed by
text, some participants stated that they preferred
to read text than to watch sign videos. One has to
wait for videos to stream; text on the other hand
can be scanned and read quickly, as one of the
participants explained:
It may be that I haven’t got the patience to sit
in front of the computer for long periods of time.
Maybe I’m more text oriented. Reading is so much
faster. I think I’d rather read the text.
Most of participants, however, preferred visual
and signed communication to text if it was
available. All the participants used both mediums
and expressed that the one they used varied from
one day to another:
I’ve got a learning disorder. I belong to that group
of people. That’s why I’ve always been so fond of
visuality. But the disorder has eased a bit since I
was a little. I’ve worked hard in order to be able
live with it. And now I know how to overcome it.
Today I even like reading news online.
If there is signing I do watch it. If there is not,
then I read the text. But I always watch if the
signer has something interesting to say.
To sum up, the interviews confirmed the results of
the focus group, finding that the speed and content
of sites override the medium. The interviewees
discovered that the most important factor in the
interface was the easiness of comprehending.
5.3 Integration of Deaf culture
specific features
During the integration phase, the results from
the identification phase were implemented. This
means that the designer needs to interact with
stakeholders and explore artefacts together with
them in order to transform socio-cultural factors
into acceptable product features. In this study
one brainstorming session and two hands-on
collaborative workshops were arranged to
conceive possible interface features. Ideas and
experiences from every session were fed back
into the following workshops and finally into
the development of prototypes. All the sessions
were held at the Finnish Association of the Deaf
during spring 2009.
5.3.1 Brainstorming session
Participants: Two deaf designers who are marked
as D and E.
The brainstorming method was chosen for this
design research as it provides an environment that
is conducive to generating novel ideas through
open conversation. This means that issues are
allowed to emerge spontaneously and no opinion is
wrong. During the session each participant should
be allowed to contribute, and each one’s opinion is
respected and listened to. (Krippendorf, 2006)
The purpose of the brainstorming session was to
explore different strategies, and how to integrate
the identified socio-cultural features into the
interface. The two most important themes that
participants brought up in the identification phase
were highlighted; that is, (1) what is the right
balance between text and signing; and (2) what
does visual clarity mean in terms interface design.
The session aimed to brainstorm ideas on how such
factors should be translated into interface features.
There were two Deaf participants and a translator
invited to the session. Both of the participants were
web developers who were familiar with web design
practices within the Deaf community and had
experience in sign video production. Both of them
had also taken part in the identification phase, and
thus, were familiar with the project.
The brainstorming session ran for two hours and
it consisted of three separate parts: introduction,
discussion, and conclusion. In the beginning, findings
from the previous research activities were introduced
and the purpose of the session was explained. After
the introduction, a paper (A3), pencils, and sticky
notes were placed on a table. Participants were
advised to use them during the session to illustrate
their ideas and concepts. At the end of the session
results of the discussion were summed up. Similar
topics were grouped together and ideas that did not
fit into the concept were eliminated. The remaining
ideas were discussed once more and those for further
development were decided upon.
As the previous research activities had shown,
some sign language users preferred text to sign,
the brainstorming session started with a discussion
of the importance of sign language on web sites.
Even if participants agreed that they were happy to
read text on pages they stressed that signed content
should be place equally with text on a web site:
D. It needs to be multiple channel. Which one I’ll
use is irrelevant.
E. I watch the one that is showed first.
D. It’s same for me as well. The web site kind of sets
which one I’ll use first. But I think it‘s important
that both options are there.
E. But if there will be a video clip and a paragraph of
text on the screen which one you will pick up?
D. I watch the video first. The text comes second.
E. For me it purely depends on which one will catch
my eye first. And normally it is the text because
videos are so slow. You must wait for them. By
that time you’ve already read the text. But the
sign language needs to be there anyhow. There are
many aspects to accessibility, and one of them is an
access to one’s own first language.
Slow web sites were addressed and a possible
solution was suggested: display a short introduction
that downloads quickly yet attracts one’s interest
and catches one’s eye. From the introduction, one
could then click for more information. The problem
that the participant noted with introduction videos,
however, was that it gets boring if the same clip
appears every time you visit the site:
E. I like that the video screen is there already. Or
at least there should be some sort of movement
on the screen.
D. If I need to first watch a video. I do watch it. It
47
 catches my eye. But if I visit the site again and I
know the story – and the video is still there. That’s
pointless. The interface needs to give an option
what I want to watch and what not.
E. You’re right. It’s enough to have the guidance
video only for the first visit.
D. That means that front page doesn’t necessarily need
to have a signed video that I need to watch over
and over again. Rather it should clearly show me
themes for the videos that I can choose from.
When discussing solutions for refreshing the web
site, the idea of discussion forums was dismissed.
The participants felt that Deaf were disadvantaged
on the text based discussion forums as many of them
were not confident in writing:
D. If we’ll develop a discussion forum then it’s
targeted to hearing users. Deaf people won’t take
part into such a conversation. Some Deaf simply
have such a bad knowledge of Finnish that they
wouldn’t take part … The knowledge of Finnish is
just so poor. People don’t know how to spell it. If one
should write freely on a computer. For example, the
word computer [tietokone in Finnish]. There are
Deaf who write it tetokone or tetokane.
As participants agreed that writing would not work
for Deaf users, another solution was a ready made
list of answers that one could choose from, such as:
yes, no, maybe, and absolutely yes. The participants
also saw video commenting problematic as one
cannot present him/herself anonymously as one
normally would on forums that are text based.
Another problem participants faced with signed
videos was navigation:
E. There needs to be a way to navigate through the
videos easily. It’s easier with a text. If you want to
find a specific point in time on a video you need to
drag the bar back and forth: no it wasn’t here it
was ten seconds earlier. It’s always difficult to find
the right piece of information on a video.
As the participant was signing he came up with a
solution in which a visual navigation would appear
next to the signer as he/she signs. This navigation
would present themes of the clip:
D. When video starts it will sign the issues to be
discussed: these five topics are to be discussed. And
then I sign that this topic is related to cars, and
this one deals with airplanes and this topic … and
48
at the same time as I sign something would appear
that gives you the possibility to click on and jump
straight to that entity or point in time. Even if it
all would be kind of related to the same theme, a
navigation would appear – for example an image
of a car or airplane – as I sign.
E. But what the navigation would be like? What
would be the language? Would there be an image
or some text. Mew… you can imagine that there
would be images that you can click on. The videos
would be behind them. It would make it more
appealing for the kids as well.
D. If you think about the front page. There could be a
person or persons. That person would hold a picture,
logo, or symbol in his hand. It may be accompanied
with a tiny passage of text or a word that tells
something about the content. Then there could be
another person that would hold a piece of paper or
some kind of a board. It could be quite perky and nice
looking. Firstly, the page would have people on it;
and secondly, they’d hold something on their hands.
The conversation shifted into a discussion about
how information should be communicated in signed
videos. Participants were strongly of the opinion that
the signer needs to have some character, and the way
information is presented is of extreme importance.
Moreover, the style of signing determined if they
found information useful, and were able to engage
with what was being said:
D. If there’s some information that needs to be
explained such as ‘this is what the sign language
is about’, this kind of normal things, which can be
a bit boring. Like sign language users in Finland:
‘There are around 5000 sign language users in
Finland, bloah, blah, blah... and a people who uses
sign language may be a Deaf, a translator or a
next of kin.’ That is so boring! It is important yes.
But it should be somehow changed to something of
this sort: ‘Hi, I’m a Deaf person! Did you know
that I use sign language? Don’t think that I’m
the only one in Finland. There are around 5000
people like me in this country. And it is not only the
Deaf people that sign to each other. I have friends
that I sign with and my hearing sister signs to me
as well.’ I mean that the way it’s presented needs
to be totally different. It’s all about how the issue
is brought up and expressed. This way it would be
much more useful.
E. You’re right. Expressive. The signer needs to be
lively, creative. Humour is always good. Not too
serious. Some kind of liveliness.
Then the conversation shifted into a discussion on
the way a signer should be filmed:
D. And when filming the video the background
is extremely important. Purely white or blue
are not really good. I think it is better that if
the background dissolves – goes with the colour
scheme or suites with the images on the page.
I mean that it would not appear in a separate
window.
D. You can play a bit with the background but the
signer needs to be shown clearly and naturally.
I like the idea of different people with different
coloured clothes which are connected to the theme
being discussed.
The discussion of themes and colour coding then
shifted towards navigation. Participants felt that
textual navigation is not clear or visual enough.
Neither did they find signed links easy to use: it
takes time to follow the movement to decipher them.
They agreed that symbols would be the best solution
for this purpose:
E. I hate when you need to explore all the hands to
find out what they are for.
D. Yeah. Hands are not good for navigation. It
needs a face as well. Sign language doesn’t exist
without a face.
E. I like pictures the most or symbols if one can find
a suitable one. If symbols, text, and signing are
balanced, the site works. It works for both hearing
and sign language users.
D. What if the navigation would be like a carousel
that the user can control and roll over. There
would be images or people that the user could click
on. And behind them there would be always a new
topic or new story. If new topics need to be added,
the navigation would be easy to expand on as well.
To sum up, the brainstorming session raised the
importance of providing reactive content that
responds to the users actions instantly. The option
of developing a discussion forum was abandoned
as Deaf users would be disadvantaged in using
a text-based systems, especially on KnacK web
site whose target audience includes a number of
dyslexic users. The participants felt that videos were
problematic as they were hard to navigate, although
sign videos were a necessity for Deaf users. A
solution suggested was an icon based navigation that
would illustrate different sections within a video.
5.3.2 Workshops
Two workshops were arranged to enable both
designer and non-designers, giving the members
of the Deaf community a voice and allowing them
to be part of the design process. The workshops
always included one Deaf project representative,
and altogether six members of the Deaf culture
that were not associated with the KnacK project.
In order to distinguish preferential differences
between dyslexic and non-dyslexic Deaf users,
the workshops were conducted separately for
both groups. The first one was held for two Deaf
participants and one hard of hearing, and the
second for two Deaf participants with difficulties
in reading. Both workshops lasted for an hour
and a half. The outcomes of the first workshop
were fed into the development of the second one.
In order to illustrate the findings of the previous
research activities, a set of possible screen layouts
were prepared for each workshop with differences
in colours, symbols, and the placement of the
signer. These layouts were hypotheses, examples
of solutions that might meet the needs of sign
language users. During the workshops, the
stakeholders amended them until they were satisfied
with the outcome.
All the five participants were invited through email
in which the agenda of the workshop was explained.
There were pens, paper, sticky notes, and scissors
placed on a table. A laptop was also made available,
allowing direct modification of the pre-made
solution, as each workshop involved one Deaf
designer. During the workshop the participants
tested, evaluated, and refined different screen
layouts, and interaction models: they drew, cut,
pasted, and shifted different features around screen
layouts to build a shared vision. The agenda for
both workshops was the same:
1. Explanation. The purpose of the session,
the research results so far, and the session
outcome was explained.
2. Exploration. Participants explored different
solutions in pairs by modifying the pre-
made screen layout, cutting and drawing
different sections, forming a design that they
were satisfied with.
1. Documentation. The designs generated during
the workshop were discussed once more. A final
screen layout that all the participants agreed on
was documented.
49
 Figure 29.  Printed paper models of the interface prototype with cut and pasted parts and drawn
amendments made during the workshop.

50
Workshop 1
Participants: One hard of hearing and two deaf
persons. They are coded as F, G, and H in the
respective order.
The first workshop was devoted to finalising screen
designs, that is, to amend paper models of the
interface. Ideas from the brainstorming session were
illustrated in the form of seven different screen
layouts. This was to share work-in-progress with
participants and to allow participants to cut and
paste elements to and from interface templates in
order to explore new alternatives. There were three
noted issues to be explored: the placement of the
signer, colours, and use of symbols.
When participants considered the placement of
the signer on screen, they started by discussing the
background. They liked a solution in which there
was an image on signer’s background:
F. The signed videos with plain backgrounds do not
invite to follow what is being signed.
G. Blank backgrounds does not even arouse my
interest to follow the signing,
F. The background can’t be too dark however.
It’s tiresome to follow a signer against a dark
background. It is like watching TV in a dim room.
It makes your eyes tired.
G. Nor can the image be directly behind the signer. It
makes the signing hard to follow.
F. I think it would be better if the image could
somehow dissolve on the background. You can do it
easily with Photoshop. Can I show you? [He then
takes the laptop and draws an example onto
a computer screen.]
One of the first issues the participants addressed
was how to place signing and text on the page. One
of them signed:
H. Which one is the default language? Signing or
text? I think they should be egalitarian. The text
cannot come before signing.
G. I think signing should be there always. If you
want, you can close it down and then read the text.
H. Or there could be an option. When you
hover-over, two symbols would appear that would
let you to choose which one you want to use [text
or sign video].
F. Mew … maybe there could be subtitles.
H. What if you only want to read the text?
G. There could be an option in the control bar that
goes on and off as you hover-over. I mean that
you can have the option there to read the text if
you want to.
As we discussed the designs from the workshop, the
following issues were identified as most important:
1. Symbols and colours should be used to visualise
and categorise information.
2. Images should be used to provide the context
for information being communicated so that
one can get a holistic understanding of what
is being signed.
3. A signer should be clearly placed so there is no
disturbance with the background, but still it
should dissolve seamlessly with the rest of the
interface elements, naturally with its settings.
Workshop 2
Participants: Two deaf persons with dyslexia who are
referred to as I and J.
The second workshop was held with two dyslexic
Deaf participants. The purpose was to test the
results of the first workshop with dyslexic users as
well as to prototype basic interaction design for
the web site. Dyslexic participants felt that the
results of the first workshop were too colourful
and restless. They also wished for less elements
on the page making it easier to concentrate on the
task at hand:
I. Too strong colours and those elements at the bottom
make the page restless. Otherwise I like it. it is
simple but the same time inviting and interesting.
Different colour schemes were tested to find a
palette pleasing for participants; one that was
restful, that is, allowing one to concentrate on the
content. The participants felt that text next to the
signer was distracting:
J. If there’s text next to a signer it shouldn’t be too
dominating. If it is, it distracts. The font size
should be small. Otherwise I like big font sizes. It
makes it easier to read.
I. Yeah. I like those pages where I can enlarge the
font size to a good size. My fluency to read varies
from one day to another. Some days I like to read
small fonts where as some days big text sizes
work the best.
51
 It is apparent from the comments above that text
sections next to a signer were distracting. This
creates a paradox: the text should be on the screen
in a manner that it is related to the signer, and at
the same time the text should not disturb signing.
Participants expressed that even if one would be
able to switch off the text box it is still no good:
the site should be pleasant to follow from the very
beginning. The solution was to place the signer on
the centre of the screen, and place a symbol next
to the signer from which one could click for text
to appear. Alternatively, the text should be placed
below the signer so that it does not compete with
ones attention. Participants also thought that
subtitling of the sign video was a possible solution.
After the workshop the dyslexic participants were
emailed with two sets of amended screen layouts.
When these participants were happy with the
result, a rough prototype of the interface was
created and tested with participants from both
workshops. The participants also expressed that
there should be only one primary image, and the
remaining images and text could be relatively
small; that is, not drawing one’s attention, and
distracting one from following the sign video.
The second issue of the interaction design was the
role of visual aids. The designer proposed the use of
diagrams and icons – such like power point slides –
which would enhance the understanding of the sign
video and make it more engaging. The would give
context and meaning for the topic being discussed.
The prototype was modified until both the Deaf
designer and the workshop participants were happy
with the interface and found it easy to use.
5.4 Summary
In this chapter, the participatory design phase
has been reviewed. The three main stages in the
process were contextual inquiry, identification, and
integration phase. The whole participatory design
process took a year and a half, and involved eleven
members of the Deaf community. All of them took
part in the card sorting exercise and interviews,
and seven of them attended the activities at the
integration phase. The prototype that resulted from
these sessions is illustrated in the next chapter.

5.3.3 Co-designing prototypes

Designing is the phase where a designer steps
back to actual design work. A working prototype
was created based on drafts resulting from the
workshops. To ensure the solutions would fit
with Deaf culture, real-time feedback was given
from a Deaf web designer over two weeks. The
conversation was arranged through email and
instant messaging in which design ideas and
working prototypes developed for Wordpress
publishing platform were shared. This made
it possible to experiment with already existing
plugins and open source tools that are available for
everyone for future web developments.

The biggest concerned raised during the

interaction design was how the signer should
appear and how the navigation of sign videos
could be enhanced. The Deaf designer was given
a day to film different approaches and styles. The
question was how the signer should be introduced:
should it be there already, should it fade in, or
walk into the screen? In other words, what feels
the most natural in starting conversation with the
user in a particular context.

52

REVIEW of Knack.fi
This chapter reviews the prototype of Knack.fi
web site in terms of content, functionality, and
look and feel – the result from the participatory
design process. Recommendations for future web
site developments are discussed in the next chapter.
Therefore, this chapter will not go into details
of culture specific features but rather it will give
an overall description of the resulting design to
draw a better picture of the design outcome of the
participatory research. The prototype presented here
is a hypothesis of the kind of interface that brings
enjoyment to members of Deaf community based on
their ideas developed in workshops. The prototype
is a design outcome that the participants found
engaging as well as easy to use and understand.
Though some of the features described here are still
to be implemented, all of them have been tested.
Technology. The site was designed in php and jQuery
for Wordpress publishing platform. The project
also utilised jQuery based videoplayer, Flowplayer
and related jQueryTools as they provided the tools
needed to meet the requirements of participants:
(1) the tools are designed to present content to
the reader in an easy and visually pleasing manner,
improving usability and responsiveness of a site
without compromising accessibility; and (2) they
are relatively light and can be used without huge
comprises in terms of site performance.
Information hierarchy. In addition to the home page,
the information hierarchy of the site consists of
three main sections: play [leikkiä], learn [oppia], and
feel [tuntea] as illustrated in Figure 30 that shows the
front page of the site. These simple but descriptive
labels were the most common words to appear in the
Chapter 6
card sorting task in which users were free to label
the categories they had formed from piles of images
and words (Fig. 28, p. 45) . Under these categories
there will be videos filmed by groups of Deaf people
that show ways to learn rhythm through mimicking
animal movements, plays for children to practice
rhythm, and situations in which Deaf tell how they
feel rhythm in their day to day life. The front page
provides links to a rhythm game and documentary
that were also developed for the project.
Navigation. There are four navigational systems
within the site. The navigational systems surround
the signer, making it easier for him/her to point
at different sections of the site as each of the
navigational items has a unique spatial direction
in relation to the signer (i.e. top left or bottom
middle). All the navigational elements respond to
user’s mouse movements: they are animated when
one hovers over them.
1. Main navigation is placed on the top of the
page so that it will be easily recognised.
It displays an icon for each category item
and label attached to it. A feature that Deaf
participants mentioned and yearned for
repeatedly during the participatory design
process was a visual clue to immediately draw
one’s attention to main navigation. Therefore,
when a user enters the web site, all four
navigational items slide down from the very
top of the screen.
2. Sub-navigation to content videos is placed
below the signer. Once one clicks a
content video icons, an overlay playing the
corresponding video appears (see Fig. 31).
53
 Figure 30.  Home page of Knack.fi web site.
3. Sign video navigation helps users to follow what
is being signed. As the signer signs, a visual
presentation appears next to him/her which
helps the user to navigate within the video clip
to different cue points within the clip.
4. Information navigation includes icons to contact
us page, sitemap, and project info. They are
placed on the top right so that they can be
accessed on all content areas within the site. All
the pages are overlaid so that users can easily
return to the page or section they were on.
Signer. On every category page there is a signer that
guides the user through that section. These sections
start with a short sign video: a signer asks a “Did
you know” -question about the topic at hand. The
video clip is randomly drawn from a pool of five
different clips. Once the clip is over, a navigational
menu appears next to the signer. It links to the
remaining videos, helping the user to navigate
through the signed clips. These include the rest
of the “Did you know” -questions, and a guidance
video on which the signer explains what one can do
on the site. Every time a new video is launched, the
navigation shrinks to the top so not disturb the sign
video visually. If the user wants to watch another
video while the signer is still signing, the user can
expand the navigation back to its full-size. The
space on the left is also used to support the signed
message by showing images, diagrams, and item lists
of what is being signed.
54
Look and feel. The visual style of the site aims to
be clear and calm but yet visually interesting. The
participants did not feel at home with sites using
a white background, but rather longed for nature
like, tranquil atmosphere. The background colours
are muted so they would not visually compete with
the content items such as the signer. To visually
distinguish the different category sections from each
other, they are colour-coded (as seen in Figures 30,
32, 33, and 34). All the categories will also have a
different signer to give them a distinctive personality,
and consequently, make different sections distinctive
and memorable. Behind the signer there is a category
image that portrays different people in rhythmic
activities to further enhance the visual distinction
and to create a mental image of each category.
However, this image changes if the space is needed
for additional visual guidance such as a diagram or an
other image during a sign video.
Settings. The participants were sensitive regarding
font size: it should not be too big to disturb signing
nor too small if they wished to read the text. The
dyslexic participants particularly expressed that the
optimal font size varies from day to day: when they
are tired for example, they wish for a bigger text size
but sometimes a small one is better. Moreover, the
colour and contrast of the text and background made
a huge difference in their ability to read. Therefore,
a customisation option was designed to allow users to
select the settings that fit their personal needs.
Figure 31.  Overlaid content video.

Figure 32.  To feel section.

55
 Figure 34.  To play section.

Figure 33.  To learn section.

56

RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Seven develops design recommendations
for future web developments targeted for Deaf
users. The recommendations are developed on the
basis of the user research and confirmed by earlier
studies on Deaf culture and cross-cultural interface
design. Both the user research and literature has
illustrated that not everyone in the Deaf community
fits the cultural pattern precisely, but there is enough
regularity to identify preferences. Presented are
some of these identified tendencies to enhance
Deaf people’s user experience. They are collided
into design recommendations using Jordan’s (2000)
Four-Pleasures framework.
Some of the recommendations may also apply to
hearing people; thus, the recommendations should
not be treated as a list of differences but rather as
a list of issues to be considered when designing
for the Deaf community. This from-minority-to-
mainstream-thinking also implies that Deaf people
– whose language is based on visual gestures and
movements – are more sensitive to visual elements.
Consequently, they have a smaller tolerance for
clutter and discontinuity in design. This may also
bring a new perspective in designing for other user
groups such as for elderly and dyslexic users who are
visually oriented due to short term verbal memory.
Even if many of the recommendations are in line with
general usability guidelines, it is important to realise
that the needs of Deaf users differs somewhat from
mainstream users. Even though Deaf people do not
face as strong physical barriers in accessing content as
blind and weak-sighted people do, there are mental
barriers that may be as limiting. For example, a
written replacement for audio content is not enough:
Chapter 7
the lack of confidence in writing skills may prevent
taking part in text-based discussion forums, inability
to use one’s mother tongue may cause frustration,
and unclear guidance may prevent using the site.
Additionally, this study has demonstrated that the
style in which information is told was important to
Deaf users: it determined if they were engaged and
willing to explore content of the site.
What is more, there are countless design solutions
and features needed in each project varies depending
the goal of the site and its content. The recom-
mendations listed here do not cover all the possible
needs but the ones encountered during the users
research. Neither do they function as a checklist as
no design can cover all pleasures. However, they act
as a list of issues to be thought of when designing
web sites for Deaf culture so that Deaf users would
enjoy using them. As a result of the participatory
design research analysis – confirmed by knowledge
drawn from earlier research and literature – the
following pleasures were identified specific to the
community of Deaf users:
7.1 Physio-pleasures
This refers to the ability to work effectively on a
web site and to access its content; that is, the ability
to use a system completely. For Deaf users too long
passages of text, unclear navigation, and lack of
visual cues cause frustration.
7.1.1 Access to sound – visually
For Deaf people, the most obvious accessibility
issues is access to audio content. However, a pure
transcription of the sound does not give the same
experience as the original format. One should think
57
 of visual presentations of sound, such as sound waves
or illustration, to produce equal access to auditory
content. These could function as ideophones in sign
language that describe sensations.
7.1.2 Scannable content
Deaf people face difficulties using deep information
structures. Use of images and symbols help in
interpreting information and creating a holistic view
of the site and its content i.e. through displaying all
content items in the form of icons or images rather
than deep verbal structures. If text is used, carefully
planned layout helps the visual reader: headers,
bullet lists, margins, and indentation can be used
to make text more interesting and scannable. The
visual distinction between different categories within
the site can be reinforced through the use of colours,
images, and icons.
7.1.3 Content on demand
The participant yearned for engaging but
simple designs, and an interaction model that
is responsive to mouse movements. Light box
application, or other ajax technologies, capable
of creating layered content can be used to create
a visual information architecture in which one
cannot get easily lost. This interaction model
helps in creating content that interacts with users
and is displayed on demand.
7.1.4 Balance between content, foreground,
and background
Compared to low context cultures such as most
Western cultures, high context cultures – including
Deaf culture – have a higher sensitivity to a balance
between different elements. Similarly, this study
has implied that surrounding elements inform Deaf
users as much as the message itself. Thus, special
care should be taken to produce a harmony and
wholeness of the site: background and content
should support each other. Guidelines should be
created for all elements and photos to guarantee
unity of the design.
7.1.5 Visual support for a signer
Participants expressed that a background image
behind a signer invites one to follow what the
signer has to say. Today, more and more sign videos
on web sites are filmed against natural settings
rather than plain studio backgrounds. This may
result from the increase in home made sign videos;
or the increase of bandwidth, which allows sites
to include more movement and details on the
58
screen without compensating in video quality.
Regardless, the background gives more contextual
information to users than plain colour. If the
background is to interact with the sign video, it
can be done through the use of chroma-keying
and cue points. In addition to videos, other visual
elements such as still images and diagrams can
be used to add contextual information. However,
participants found that the image should not make
signing harder to follow: the background behind
hand movements needs to be clean and simple,
preferable monocolour and limited contrast. They
found the background image pleasant when it
seamlessly blended with the rest of the background,
not visually competing with the signer but still
being big enough to be easily seen. As an interface
restricts communication to two-dimensional plane,
it is more difficult to follow signing shown on a
screen than in natural space.
7.1.6 Colours
The participators abhorred white, corporate
looking sites. They enjoyed seeing colours. This
is partly do to the fact that a signer against white
looks pale and does not provide enough contrast
between the background and the skin colour in
northern latitudes. However, in contrast to general
accessibility guidelines, there should not be too
much contrast between text and the background as
it makes reading harder especially so for dyslexic
people. Alternative style sheets can be used to cater
people with different visual capabilities such as to
increase contrast for people with low vision.
7.1.7 Symbols and icons
Previous studies have shown that the combination
of icons and text is the most effective navigation
method for Deaf users. Similarly, participants in
this study found icons the most enjoyable means
of navigating if they were aesthetically pleasing
and intuitively understood. Moreover, if used
consistently, icons can enhance the recognition of
different sections of the site from each other and
help in scanning content within a page. However,
they should be used only for the most important
content elements on a page so that they do not
create unnecessary visual clutter that slows down
the scanning of a page.
7.1.8 Signing guide
Deaf people are more interested if information
is relayed by another Deaf person than if it is
told by other means such as writing. The design
research illustrated the need for a person to provide
information about what one can do on a site. That
said, the signer should not make platitudinous
remarks but to invite to explore more. While
signing, the guide should point to different content
parts on that page. An engaging signer that guides
users throughout the site may not improve usability
in its traditional terms as a good interface should
be intuitive to use. However, one needs to keep
in mind that Deaf people are used to face-to-face
communication. The guide helps in bringing
cultural value to Deaf users, and thus makes it more
attractive to them.
7.2 Socio-pleasures
This refers to pleasures gained from social
interaction as well as to pleasures gained from the
possibility of being heard and informed.
7.2.1 Global friends
Deaf gain huge pleasures from being able to contact
their friends across the globe. The Internet creates
an alternative social space where Deaf users can
access and exchange information instantly as well
as stay in touch with their peer groups. In terms
of information exchange, the web allows Deaf
people to break from the constrains of their local
social environment in which one has to travel
long distances to meet the other members of the
community. Before Deaf exchanged and gained
information solely by attending Deaf clubs, but
today the ability to read, write, and sign by using
digital devices is reducing the need of clubs as
information channels. Thus, systems that facilitate
this interaction on the Internet, would bring
pleasures for Deaf users.
7.2.2 Video applications
Social media sites such as Facebook are becoming
adopted by Deaf users. Though text-based systems
have been liberating for the Deaf community,
writing does not give the freedom of expression
in one’s mother tongue for sign language
users. Participants felt that open source video
commenting system such as Seesmic and Kaltura
available for Wordpress were not good enough:
(1) they did not offer Finnish translations, and
(2) the blogging interface was clumsy to use.
Though, developing new tools was out of scope
for this design project, these tools would be worth
experimenting for future development. They would
offer the Deaf people the possibility to take part in
online discussion in their mother tongue.
7.3 Psycho-pleasures
This refers to psychological pleasures that
an interface offers. These pleasures include
the satisfaction felt when a task is successfully
completed and the emotional responses towards
aesthetics of an interface.
7.3.1 Visual feedback
Instant visual feedback helps Deaf users to
understand information and navigate on the site.
However, constantly moving animations or scrolling
text should be avoided. Deaf users find it difficult to
focus when distracting movement cannot be turned
off. If scrollable and animated content is used, there
should also be an option to stop it. No more than
one moving element should be used at a time.
7.3.2 Presentation of Deaf people
Deaf users are naturally keen observers of physical
traits, and thus, the way people are presented should
be well planned. Even if the presentation depends
on a genre, goal, and target audience of the web site,
one should consider the following:
• Emergence. How the signer appears on the
screen and disappears from it? Is the signer
already presented or does he/she walk into
the screen? What style delivers the right
atmosphere?
• Clothes and accessories. What is the signer
wearing? Do the clothes and accessories
match with the colour scheme of the site? Can
different accessories be used to distinguish
different types of content from each other?
• Actors. Who is signing? Different persons
can be used to present different types of
information to visually and stylistically
distinguish different sections of the site.
• Signing style. How is the information being
signed? Is the signing in a storytelling or
matter-of-fact style? On the basis of this
study, Deaf users seem to appreciate highly
personal, vivid, and joyful signing. This
reflects the natural communication style in
Deaf culture which relies on face-to-face
encounters and interpersonal style.
7.4. Ideo-pleasures
This refers to the way people see and would like
to see themselves including the values the product
embeds. In the case of the Deaf community, an
interface brings pleasures if it provides Deaf users
with a feeling of being part of the culture and an
ability to be proud of their heritage.
59
 7.4.1 Fluent signers
Deaf feel more confident if information comes in
the form of stories told by another Deaf person.
Thus, the pleasure gained from watching sign videos
depends both on the way stories are told as well as
the position of the signer in the Deaf community.
Signers clearly needs to have sign language as their
mother tongue; signers should not be representatives
of main stream culture to whom sign language is a
second language – signing skills not being as fluent
as that of Deaf people.

7.4.2 Faces
Deaf gain pleasures from being able to recognise
other member’s of the community: it reinforces the
feeling of Deaf identity. One of the important aspects
of Deaf culture is the importance of people’s faces.
Even signed names are based on one’s visual traits
(Rainò, 2004). When a person is presented on a web
site, whether as part of text or signing, the name
should be accompanied with an image of that person.

7.4.3 Dominant signing

The lack of alternatives to audio content causes
frustration but so does the inability access one’s
mother tongue annoy Deaf users. Being proud
of sign language is one of the biggest pleasures
for signers. Yet, the participatory research
demonstrated a paradox: the participants stressed
the importance of having a signed video even if one
does not necessarily watch it. Participants repeatedly
expressed the need to have access to one’s mother
tongue as it signifies recognition of sign language
that has been downplayed and unrecognised for
decades. This has two implications:

• Signed video should not be used only as a

substitute for text. It should be celebrated, and
placed equally with written content.
• Signing should be clearly visible on the home
page not only because large video size is easier
to follow but as it signals that sign language has
been fully recognised.

60

This thesis has reported a research and development
process of KnacK project’s pilot web site Knack.fi for
people with a hearing loss. A challenge was set to
design an interface that would meet the real needs
of Deaf users. This is because the web sites that
fully met accessibility criteria – and sometimes them
especially – did not attract Deaf users. The purpose
of this design study was firstly to identify affordances
which convey the Deaf way of doing, seeing, and
representing; and secondly, embed these into design
features that Deaf find buoyant. In order to develop
recommendations for future web developments
for Deaf users Jordan’s (2000) Four-Pleasures
framework was used to categorise these features.
The preliminary work reported in this thesis is a
first step in that direction.
The design process showed that even if visually
engaging content was the key for liking an interface,
ease-of-use and speed were as important factors for
Deaf participants. It became evident that participants
yearned for visual guidance, but not at the cost
of clarity of an interface. They did not appreciate
highly experimental web sites such as the ones which
utilised 3D space or landscapes for information
space: the participants found them confusing and
cluttered. Instead, they favoured and used sites which
they found easy to navigate and understand, and that
responded instantly to their actions. Even if visuality,
usability and responsiveness may seem separate
entities, they are strongly linked: Firstly, participant
repeatedly expressed their desire for instant visual
feedback such as icons that animate once they hover
over. Secondly, participants stated that the use of
signing guide helped them to navigate on the site and
to understand the structure of the site better.
Chapter 8
DISCUSSION
The literature review described the characteristics of
sign language to draw spaces and processes in a detail.
The language itself functions in a three dimensional
space that allows one to exploit and mimic real
world settings. On the basis of the visuo-spatial
features of sign language, visual processing may be
even more dominant for sign language users than
for mainstream culture – even if visual thinking
is embedded in every culture. Visual languages
have predated the development of textual ones. In
combination with textual descriptions, visualisations
are used to make information more accessible to
human intuition: textual presentations are frequently
accompanied with pictures that exemplify the ideas
contained in text allowing the viewer to discover
relations and characteristics that are hidden in the
textual descriptions (Marriott & Meyer, 1998).
On the Internet people expect to find information
quickly, effortlessly, and concisely. Thus, in the
context of designing an interface, one should
think of ways to enhance the effectiveness of
communication so that it can be delivered naturally,
but at the same time powerfully. For Deaf users this
means features that support their visuo-gestural
language in a two dimensional plane i.e. use of icons
on navigation; photos to illustrate the context of
signing; colours to visually differentiate different
sections of the site; and visual responses to mouse
movements to clarify functionality.
8.1 Satisfaction
Three main objectives were presented for the
participatory research: (1) to identify culture specific
needs of Deaf people that an interface needs to
meet; (2) to integrate the identified needs into a web
61
 interface; (3) to develop design recommendations
that extend traditional accessibility guidelines to
include not only physical but also social, ideological,
and psychological needs of Deaf users. In the
following section the fulfillment of each of these
goals is addressed.
1. Identification of culture specific needs. The
acknowledgement of reflective level required in
understanding historical context of Deaf culture.
It also helped one to understand why it was so
important for Deaf participants to have sign
language on a web site: even if most Deaf are
able to read perfectly, the history of oralism and
century long struggles surrounding the right to
use sign language, has ensured this issue to remain
sensitive. The participants strongly expressed
that the term accessibility heavily depends on the
person who defines it. For them it not only mean
access to content and functions, but also access
to their mother tongue. Therefore, it should
not be secondary to text on a site: the use of
sign language as a dominant feature signifies the
acknowledgement and acceptance of Deaf people
as full members of society.
2. Integration of culture specific needs. This research
has gone beyond surface design elements to study
which features are meaningful for Deaf people. It
addressed the substantial limitations of previous
work, targeting high-level goals and real needs of
Deaf individuals. No hypotheses were set in the
study goals to limit this design research, but rather
it was set open to themes to be raised by participants
during the design process.
3. Recommendations. Jordan’s (2000) framework
provides a way to look beyond physical and
cognitive needs of Deaf users to include sociological,
ideological, and emotional needs. This reflection
of people’s values and tastes is a perquisite for a
meaningful interface as discussed earlier in this
study. As noted in Chapter Two, the Deaf experience
consists of both sociological and biological factors:
some of the issues may be related to sign language;
some to difficulties in hearing; and some to shared
history and values.
8.2 Contribution of the study
This participatory design study confirmed the
findings of earlier work on user experience of Deaf
people. It also suggest that Deaf people’s interface
preferences resembles the ones found in high
62
context cultures in general. Inline with studies
conducted in Japan (Natamame et al., 2006) and
in Spain Fajardo et al. (2008a), the participatory
design activities and interviews showed clearly that
Deaf users long for visual cues rather than semantic
information to navigate on the Internet. Similar
to the stereotypical members of low context and
holistic cultures (see Würtz, 2005; Barber & Badre,
1998; Marcus, 2001), the Deaf participants were
likely to use more images and less text as well as
favoured approaches that mimicked human presence
and communal values. There were also similarities
to findings by Dong and Lee (2008) and Nisbett
and Norensayan (2002) on holistic cultures. Firstly,
Deaf participants longed for the visual display of
all content items, which indicated that they scan
a page as a whole. Secondly, participants were
sensitive to even tiny changes on the visual layout
of screen space and colour palette, demonstrating
their sensitivity to the balance between foreground,
background, and content.
Previous studies on user experience with Deaf
people have examined how effectively Deaf users
are able to navigate and find information on web
sites, or how intuitively they understand individual
elements such as icons, text, or signing on a web
site. This study is inline with the findings of earlier
studies conducted in Japan (Namatame & Kitajina,
2005; Namatame & Kitajina, 2008) and in Spain
(Fajardo et al., 2006, 2007, 2008c): (1) fancy design
ideas are not easily captured by the hard of hearing,
and (2) for navigation the use of icons accompanied
with labels is the most effective means for helping
Deaf people navigate on the Internet. Pervious
research on Deaf interface design, however, has
only touched the outer levels of design without
investigating the deeper structures involved
including the ideological role of sign language
and its role in guiding the user. This study has
demonstrated that material elements of an interface
do not bring value on their own. Rather, it is
the meanings an interface bring forth to users –
through visceral, behavioural, and reflective levels
of interaction – that are worthy. They form the
overall user experience. Yet, no research on Deaf
user experience on the reflective level – which is
the most deepest level of interface design – has
been conducted before.
The recommendations of this study are to guide
future web developments. One of these is the
redesign of the Finnish Association of Deaf’s web
site, which will commence in the near future.
The findings from this research can inform the
development process as Deaf participants found
it “hearing”, not engaging, and unpleasant to use.
Even minor design changes could enhance the user
experience for Deaf people. This includes making
interfaces more engaging and more intuitive to use.
Based on this design study, this study recommends
the following three things:
• Informative images to illustrate written content
that now is heavily text driven. The images
should tell stories, and bring about issues that
are important to people with hearing loss.
These issues include sign language, Deaf
people’s cultural history, and being and doing
together with other Deaf people.
• Dominant signer that is large in size to engage
a Deaf visitor.
• Clearer visual distinction between different
sections of the site; for example, through use
of colours and icons.
Overall, this study has made two contributions.
Firstly, it has demonstrated that the unduly
narrow focus on accessibility has undermined
user experience. The narrow focus of accessibility
standards and usability-based approaches have
tended to take a limited view of human needs
underestimating cultural factors. This thesis has
shown that social, ideological, and psychological
issues rising from Deaf culture are as important
aspects for user experience as physiological ones.
The results of this study are consistent with
previous cultural studies, but they have not been
implemented in previous web interfaces targeted
towards Deaf users. Secondly, an overview of
design implications was developed into recommen-
dations that were supported by the findings from
the design research as well as previous studies.
8.3 Limitations of the study
The result of the participatory research is closely
tied to the opinions of Deaf users and their
experiences with web sites. Still, the involvement
of users does not guarantee the development
of meaningful artefacts. There are two major
drawbacks of the open participatory method. Firstly,
the limited scope of this thesis makes it incapable to
examine each individual feature in-depth. Secondly,
there may be several issues that the study has not
touched upon: the participatory design methods
relies solely on participants to bring about the issues
they are concerned with. Nevertheless, agendas
given by members of the culture are ones that they
are concerned with, and thus, important to them.
Thereby, it can be assumed that these are the issues
which contribute to an interface becoming cherished
by Deaf users.
The participatory design approach was suited for
this type of research. It made the whole design
process accessible to community members enabling
the study to transcend it in ways the participant
found buoyant. As opinions were part of the design
process, the participants’ viewpoints were not left
at theoretical level but put into practice. That is,
the design outcome provided a visual example of
how the cultural features should be implemented
to meet the needs of Deaf users. In addition,
the observations and knowledge gained as well
as the research methods developed in this study
are utilised in in-house training for the Finnish
Association of the Deaf.
However, more in-depth research should be
conducted for individual features in order to gain
more reliable research results. That said, one should
keep in mind that overall user-experience is always
a result of components that rely on each other,
and thus, the modification of one may alter the
perception of the other. This is the case especially
for Deaf people who are holistically minded: they
have the tendency to see foreground and background
together, contrasting to the analytical mainstream
Western culture that tends to separate individual
elements from each other.
8.4 Future work
This design research has been the first step in
identifying Deaf culture specific design elements.
Future research should be conducted to amend, test,
and specify the findings both in theory and practice.
In addition, a few interesting issues – that were out
of the scope of this design study – were raised, and
that warrants further research.
• The positioning of the signer within a sign video.
The workshops indicated that occasionally
the signed communication feels more natural
if more than one signer is used, allowing a
more natural flow of signing. This was also a
feature used in sites that were produced by Deaf
designers on experimental sites. More research
should be conducted on cases in which the use
of more than one signer is more effective.
63
 • Cross-cultural study on user experience in Deaf
culture compared to other collective cultures.
The literature review on cross-cultural web
design as well as the structure of sign language
showed connections between sign language and
collective cultures. This is in terms of language
structures as well as preferences on visual
styles and interface features. Among others
these included preference on soft information
over hard facts, images over text, and holistic
perception over analytic thinking. Thus, more
in-depth research should be conducted on the
similarity of user experience in these cultures
in order to be able transfer design ideas from
one domain to another. The cross-cultural
comparison might lead one to identify design
features that are yet undiscovered on interfaces
designed for Deaf communities.

64

Al-Wabil, A., Zaphiris, P. & Wilson, S. (2008).
Examining visual attention of dyslexics on web
navigation structures with eye tracking. Proceed-
ings of Innovations in Information Technology,
2008. IIT 2008, Al Ain, UAEU, 717–721.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994).
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Association.
Anderson-Inman, L. & Horney, M. A. (2007).
Supported e-text: Assistive technology
through text transformations. Reading Research
Quarterly, 42(1), 153–160.
Anttila, P. (2005). Tutkiva toiminta ja ilmaisu, teos,
tekeminen. Hamina: Akatiimi.
Barber, W. & Badre, A. (1998). Culturability: The
merging of culture and usability. Retrieved from
http://research.microsoft.com/users/marycz/
hfweb98/barber/index.htm
Barnett, G. A. & Sung, E. J. (2005). Culture and
the structure of international communication.
Journal of International Communication,
11(2), 75–88.
Battarbee, K., Koskinen. I., & Mattelmäki, T. (2003).
Empathic design: User experience in product design.
Helsinki: IT Press.
Benderly, B. L. (1980). Dancing without music:
Deafness in America. Garden City: Anchor
Press/Doubleday.
References
Bergman, B. & Dahl. Ö. (1994). Ideophones in
Sign Language?: The place of reduplica-
tion in the tense-aspect system of Swedish
Sign Language. In C. Bache, H. Basbøll
& C.-E. Lindberg (Eds.), Tense, aspect and
action: Empirical and theoretical contributions
to language typology. Proceedings of seminars
on verbal semantics at Odense University
in 1986 and 1987 (pp. 397–422). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Berlin, P., Kay, P., Maffi, L., & Merrifield, W.
(1997). Color naming across languages. In
C.L. Hardin & L. Maffi (Eds.), Color Catego-
ries in Thought and Language (pp. 21–58).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual
design: Defining customer-centred systems.
San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers.
Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., &
Swenton-Wall, P. (1993). Ethnographic
field methods and their relation to design.
In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.),
Participatory design: Principles and practices
(pp. 123–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Blythe, M. & Hassenzahl, M. (2003). The
semantics of fun: Differentiating enjoyable
experiences. In M. Blythe, A. Monk, K.F.
Overbeeke & P. Wright (Eds.), Funology:
From usability to enjoyment (pp. 91–100).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
65
 Buchanan, R. (1996). Wicked problems in design
thinking. In V. Margolin & R. Buchanan
(Eds.), The Idea of Design. CA: The MIT Press.
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new
learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.
Callahan, E. (2005). Cultural similarities and differ-
ences in the design of university web sites.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communi-
cation, 11(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.
indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/callahan.html
Cho, B., Kwon, U., Gentry, J. W., Jun, S. & Kropp,
F. (1999). Cultural values reflected in theme
and execution: A comparative study of US
and Korean television commercials. Journal
of Advertising, 28(4), 59–74.
Choong, Y., Plocher, T., & Rau, P. (2005).
Cross-cultural web design. In R.W. Proctor
& L. Kim-Phuong (Eds.), Handbook of
human factors in web design (pp. 284–200).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Choong, Y., & Salvendy, G. (1999). Implications
for design of computer interfaces for
Chinese users in mainland China.
International Journal of Human-computer
Interaction, 11(1), 29–46.
Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L. G., & Vander-
heiden, G. (2008). Web content accessibil-
ity guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved
from http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/
REC-WCAG20-20081211/
Classen, C. (1993). Worlds of sense: Exploring
the senses in history and across cultures.
London: Routledge.
Comstock, D.E. & Fox, R. (1993). Participa-
tory research as critical theory: The North
Bonneville, USA, experience. In P. Park, M.
Brydon-Miller, B. Hall & T. Jackson (Eds.),
Voices of change: Participatory research in the
United States and Canada (pp. 103–124).
Toronto: OISE Press.
Cooper, A., Reimann, R. & Cronin, D. (2007).
About face 3: The essentials of interaction design.
(3rd ed.). Indianapolis: Wiley publishing.
66
Dant, T. (1999). Material culture in the social world.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. & Warshaw, P. R.
(1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to
use computers in the workplace. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
Deaf Studies Trust (2000). WISDOM final summary.
Bristol: Centre for Deaf Studies. Retrieved
from http://www.deafstudiestrust.org/files/
pdf/wisdom/WISDOM_final_summary.pdf
Djadjadiningrat, K. O., Hummels, C. & Swensveen
(2002). Beauty in usability: Forget the ease-of-
use. In P.W. Jordan & W.S. Green (Eds.),
Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability. NY:
Taylor & Francis.
Dong, Y. & Lee, K. P. (2008). A cross-cultural
comparative study of users’ perceptions of a
webpage: With a focus on the cognitive styles
of Chinese, Koreans, and Americans. Interna-
tional Journal of Design, 2(2),19–30.
Drivonikou, G. V., Davies, I. R. L., Franklin, A. &
Taylor, C. (2007). Lateralisation of colour
categorical perception: A cross-cultural study.
Proceedings of European Conference on Visual
Perception, Arezzo.
Ess, C. & Sudweeks, F. (2005). Culture and computer-
mediated communication: Toward new
understandings. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11(1). Retrieved from http://
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/ess.html
Evans, B. J. W. & Kriss, I. (2005). The relationship
between dyslexia and Meares-Irlen syndrome.
Journal of Research in Reading, 28(3), 350–364.
Evers, V. (1998). Cross-cultural understanding of
metaphors in interface design. In C. Ess &
F. Sudweeks (Eds.), Proceedings of Cultural
Attitudes towards Technology and Communication
(pp. 217–218). Sydney: University of Sydney.
Evers, V. & Day, D. (1997). The role of culture
in interface acceptance. In S. Howard, J.
Hammond, and G. Lindegaard (Eds.),
Proceedings of Human Computer Interaction
INTERACT’97 (pp. 260–267). London:
Chapman and Hall.
Faiola, A. (2002). A visualization pilot study for
hyper-media: Developing cross-cultural user
profiles for new media interfaces. The Journal
of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
11(1), 51–71.
Faiola, A. & Matei, S. A. (2005). Cultural cognitive
style and web design: Beyond a behavioral
inquiry into computer-mediated communi-
cation. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11(1). Retrieved from http://
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/faiola.html
Fajardo. I., Abascal, J. & Cañas, J. J. (2008b).
Bridging the digital divide for Deaf signer
users. Proceedings of the 15th European
conference on Cognitive ergonomics: The
ergonomics of cool interaction. ACM Interna-
tinal Conference Series, 369, Article 37.
Fajardo, I., Arfé, B., Benedetti, P. & Altoé, G. M.
(2008a). Hyperlink format, categorization
abilities and memory span as contributors to
Deaf users Hypertext. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 13(2), 241–256.
Fajardo, I., Cañas, J .J. & Abascal, J. (2004). The role
of working memory and long term memory
in deaf’ users hypertext navigation: Review of
guidelines for web accesibility. In C. Stary &
C. Stephanidis (Eds.), UI4A11 2004, LNCS
3196, 320-325. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag.
Fajardo, I., Cañas, J. J., Salmerán, L. & Abascal, J.
(2006). Improving Deaf users’ accessibility in
hypertext information retrieval: Are graphi-
cal interfaces useful for them? Behaviour and
Information Technology, 25(6), 455–467.
Fajardo, I., Parra, E., Cañas, J. J., Abascal, J.,
López J.M. & Gea, M. (2008c). Web
textual hyperlinks supported with sign
language videos. Proceedings of Workshop
on Cognition and the Web: Information
Processing, Comprehension and Learning.
WCW2008. University of Granada.
Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/infabra/
WCW%202008_Extended.pdf
Basic Education Act (2004). The Constitution of Finland
628/1998. Retrieved from http://www.finlex.fi/
en/laki/kaannokset/1998/en19980628.pdf
Foley, A. & Regan, B. (2002). Web design for accessi-
bility: Policies and practice. AACE Journal,
10(1), 62–80. Norfolk, VA: AACE.
Fotinea, S.-E. & Efthimiou, E. (2008). Tools
for Deaf accessibility to an eGOV
environment. Computers Helping People
with Special Needs, 5105, 446–453. Berlin/
Heidelberg: Springer.
Garrett, J. J. (2002). The Elements of user experience:
User-centred design for the web. Berkeley, CA:
New Riders Publishing.
Gentry, M. M., Chinn, K. M., & Moulton, R. D.
(2004/2005). Effectiveness of multimedia
reading materials when used with children
who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf,
149(5), 394–403.
Green, B. (2002). Introduction with products:
Beyond usability ‘human factors and design’.
In P.W. Jordan & W.S. Green (Eds.),
Pleasure with products: Beyond usability. NY:
Taylor & Francis.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City,
NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life, the other dimension
of time. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/
Doubleday.
Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations
and signifying practices. London: SAGE/
Open University.
Hartmann, J., Sutcliffe, A. G. & De Angeli, A.
(2008). Towards a theory of user judgement
of aesthetics and user interface quality. ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction,
15(4), 15.
Harrison, C. M. (2004). Low-vision reading aids:
Reading as a pleasurable experience. Personal
and ubiquitous computing, 8(3–4), 213–220.
Hassenzahl, M. (2004). The thing and I: Under-
standing the relationship between user
and product. In M. Blythe, A. Monk, K.F.
Overbeeke & P. Wright (Eds.), Funology:
From usability to enjoyment (pp. 31–42).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
67
 Hewling, A. (2005). Culture in the online class:
Using message analysis to look beyond
nationality-based frames of reference.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-
tion, 11(1), Article 16. Retrieved from http://
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/hewling.html
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences:
Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions
and Organisations across Nations (2nd ed.).
London: Sage Publications.
Honkela, T., Leinonen, T., Lonka, K. & Raike, A
(2000). Self-Organizing Maps and Construc-
tive Learning. Proceedings of ICEUT’2000,
International Conference on Educational
Uses of Communication and Information
Technologies, Beijing, 339–343.
Hummels, C. C. M. & Helm, van der A. (2004).
ISH and the search for resonant tangible
interaction. Personal and Ubiquitous Comput-
ing, 8(5), 385–388.
International Organization for Standardiza-
tion (1998). ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic
Requirements for Office Work with Visual
Display Terminals (VDTs) — Part 11:
Guidance on Usability. Retrieved from
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.
htm?csnumber=16883
Israelite, N., Ewoldt, C. & Hoffmeister, R. S.
(1992). Bilingual-bicultural education for deaf
and hard of hearing students. Toronto: MGS
Publications Services.
Jantunen, T. (2003). Viittomien historiallinen
muutos ja deikonisaatio suomalaisessa viitto-
makielessä. Puhe ja kieli, 23, 43–60.
Jhangiani, I. & Smith-Jackson T. (2007).
Comparison of mobile phone user interface
design preferences: perspectives from nation-
ality and disability culture. Proceedings of
the 4th international conference on mobile
technology, applications, and systems and the
1st international symposium on Computer
human interaction in mobile technology,
Singapore, 512–519.
68
Johnston,T. & Schembri, A. C. (2007). Australian
Sign Language (Auslan): An introduction to sign
language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jordan, P. W. (1999). Pleasure with Products: Human
factors for body, mind and soul. In P.W. Jordan
& W.S. Green (Eds.), Human Factors in Product
Design: Current Practice and Future Trends (pp.
179–188). London: Taylor & Francis.
Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing Pleasurable Products.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Keinonen, T. (2008). User-centred design and
fundamental need. Proceedings of the 5th
Nordic Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction 2008, Lund. ACM International
Conference Proceeding Series, 358, 211–219.
Kentala, E, & Jero, J. (2007). Lasten sisäkorvaistut-
teet. [Children and the cochlear implantation].
Duodecim, 123(16), 2014–2018.
Koskela, M. et al. (2008). Content-based video
analysis and access for Finnish Sign language –
A multidisciplinary research project. Proceed-
ings of the 3rd Workshop on the Representa-
tion and Processing of Sign anguages. 6th
international conference on language resources
and evaluation, Marrakech, 101–104.
Krippendorf, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new
foundation for design. NY: CRC Press Taylor &
Francis Group.
Krueger, R.A, & Casey, M. A. (2008). Focus Groups.
A Practical Guide for Applied Research (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Kurosu, M. & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent
usability vs. inherent usability: Experimental
analysis on the determinants of the apparent
usability. Proceedings of Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Denver, Colorado, 292–293.
Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding Deaf culture – In search
of deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lang, H. G. (2000). Phone of our own: The Deaf
insurrection against Ma Bell. Washington:
Gallaudet University Press.
Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as theatre. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lavie, T. & Travinsky, S. (2004). Assessing dimensions
of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
60(3), 269–298.
Lawson, B. (2005) How designers think – the design
process demystified. London: The Architectural
Press.
Lee, K. P. (2004). Design methods for a cross-cultural
collaborative design project. In J. Redmond, D.
Durling, A. de Bono (Eds.), Proceedings of Design
Research Society International Conference – Future-
ground. Melbourne: Monash University.
Leigh, I. (2009). A lense on Deaf identities. Oxford,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Leinonen, T., Toikkanen, T., & Silfvast, K. (2008).
Software as hypothesis: Research-based design
methodology. Proceedings of Participatory
Design Conference 2008. ACM International
Conference series. 
Levine, D. (1985). The flight from ambiguity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lin, R. T. (2007). Transforming Taiwan aboriginal
cultural features into modern product design:
A case study of a cross-cultural product design
model. International Journal of Design, 1(2), 45–53.
Lingaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2003). What is this
evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Inter-
acting with Computers, 15(3), 429–452.
Livingston, M. S., Rosen, G. D., Drislane, F. W., &
Galaburda, A. M. (1991). Physiological and
anatomical evidence for a magnocellular defect
in developmental dyslexia. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 88(18).
Lonka, E. & Hasan, M. (2006). Sisäkorvaistutetta
käyttävien lasten kommunikaatio-, koulu- ja
päivähoitotilanne Suomessa. [Communica-
tional, educational and child care choices
on children with cochlear implantation in
Finland]. In E. Lehto, M. Hasan & R. Parkas
(Eds.), Satakieliseminaari 2006 (pp. 73–9).
Helsinki: Satakieliohjelma.
Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical Categories and
Cognition. Glasgow. Scotland: Cambridge
University Press.
Lyytinen, H. (2005). Neurokognitiivisten häiriöiden
tutkimus. In Lyytinen, H., Ahonen, T.,
Korhonen, T. , Korkman, M. & Riita, T. (Eds.),
Oppimisvaikeudet. Neuropsykologinen näkökulma
(2nd–3rd ed.). Helsinki: WSOY, 10–19.
Macdonald, A. S. (2002). The Scenario of Sensory
Encounter: Cultural Factor in Sensory-Aesthtic
Experience. In P.W. Jordan & W.S. Green
(Eds.), Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability.
NY: Taylor & Francis.
MacSweeney, M., Capek, C. M., Campbell, R. &
Woll, B. (2008). The signing brain the neurobi-
ology of sign language. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 12(11), 432–440.
Malm, A. & Östman J.-O. (2000). Viittomakieliset ja
heidän kielensä. In A. Malm (Ed.), Viittomakie-
liset Suomessa [Sign Language users in Finland]
(pp. 9–32). Helsinki: Finn Lectura.
Marcus, A. & Gould, E. W. (2000). Crosscur-
rents: cultural dimensions and global web
user-interface design. Interactions, 7(4), 32–46. 
Marschark, M. & Everhart, V. S. (1997). Relations
of language and cognition: What do Deaf
children tell us? In Marschark, M., Siple,
P., Lillo-Martin, D. & Everhart, V. (Eds.),
Relations of language and thought: The view from
sign language and Deaf children (pp 3–23). NY:
Oxford University Press.
Marschark, M. & Hauser, P. C. (2008). Cognitive
underpinnings of learning by Deaf and hard
of hearing students: Differences, diversity, and
directions. In M. Marschark & P.C. Hauser
(Eds.), Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes
(pp. 3–23). NY: Oxford Universtiy Press.
Margolin, V. (1997) Getting to know the user. Design
Studies, 18, 227–236.
Marriott, K. & Meyer, K. (1998). Visual language
theory. NY: Springer-Verlag.
McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experi-
ence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
69
 McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The
Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: Univer-
sity of Toronto Press.
Mindess, A. with Holcomb, T. K., Langholtz, D.
& Moyers, P. (2006). Reading between the
signs: intercultural communication for sign
language interpreters (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
Intercultural Press.
Moalasi, R. (2007). The impact of socio-cultural
factors upon human-centred design in Botswana.
Ph.D. Thesis. Brisbane: Queensland
University of Technology.
Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing interactions.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Morville, P. & Rosenfield, L. (2006). Information
architecture for the world wide web (2nd ed.).
Sebastapol, CA: O’Reilly.
Muir, J. M. & Richardson, I. E. G. (2005).
Perception of sign language and its applica-
tion to visual communications for Deaf
people. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 10(4), 390–401. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Muller, M. J. (2002). Participatory design: the
third space in HCI. In J.A. Jacko & A.
Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction
handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies
and emerging applications (pp. 1051–1068).
Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Namatame, M., Kirajima, M., Nishioka, T., &
Fukamauchi, F. (2004). A preparatory study
for designing web-based educational materials
for the hearing-impaired. Proceedings of the
9th International Conference on Comput-
ers Helping People with Special Needs,
ICCHP2004, 1144–1151.
Namatame, M. & Kitajima, M. (2005). Differ-
ences in web interaction styles of hard of
hearing and hearing persons. Proceedings
of the HCI International 2005, 136–143.
Namatame, M. & Kitajima, M. (2008). Compari-
son of alternative representational formats
for hyperlinks: Pictogram, labelled-
pictogram, and text. Proceedings of the
70
workshop on cognition and the web:
Information processing, comprehension
and learning. WCW2008, 115–118.
Namatame, M., Nishioka, T. & Kitajima, M.
(2006). Designing a web page considering
the interaction characteristics of the hard of
hearing. Proceedings of the 10th Interna-
tional Conference on Computers Helping
People with Special Needs, 136–143.
Nelson, H. G. & Stolterman, E. (2003). The
design way. Intentional change in an unpredict-
able world. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Educational Technology Publications.
Nelson, K. E. & Camarata, S. M. (1996). Improv-
ing English literacy and speech-acquisition
learning conditions for children with severe to
profound hearing impairments. Volta Review,
98(2), 17–41.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Boston:
Academic Press.
Nielsen, J. (1997). The use and misuse of focus groups.
Retrieved from http://www.useit.com/papers/
focusgroups.html
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The
practice of simplicity. Indianapolis: New Riders
Publishing.
Nielsen, J. (2002). User empowerment and the fun
factor. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. Retrieved from
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020707.html
Nielsen J & Pernice K (2001). Beyond ALT text:
Making the web easy touse for users with
disabilities. Design guidelines for web sites and
intranets based on usability studies with people
using assistive technology. Nielsen Norman
Group. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.
com/reports/accessibility
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How
Asians and Westerners think differently and why.
NY: The Free Press.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I. & Norenzayan,
A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought:
Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological
Review, 8, 291–310.
Nisbett, R. E. & Norenzayan, A. (2002). Culture and
cognition. In H. Pashler & D.L. Medin (Eds.),
Stevens Handbook of Experimental Psychology: Cog-
nition (3rd ed.), 561–597. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Norman, D. A. (1998). The psychology of everyday
Things. NY: Basic Books.
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we Love
(or hate) everyday things. NY: Basic Books.
Overbeeke, K. et al. (2003). Let’s make things engaging.
In M. Blythe, A. Monk, K.F. Overbeeke & P.
Wright (Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment
(pp. 7–18). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America:
Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Petrie, H., Hamilton, F., & King, N. (2004). Tension,
what tension?: Website accessibility and visual
design. Proceedings of the 2004 international
Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessi-
bility (W4A). ACM International Conference
Proceeding Series, 63, 13–18.
Piggott, M. (2002). eAccessibility for All. Ability,
43, 22–23.
Prabhu, G. & Harel, D. (1999). GUI design
preference validation for Japan and China – A
case for KANSEI engineering? Proceedings
of HCI International (the 8th International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction)
on Human-Computer Interaction: Ergonomics
and User Interfaces, 1, 521–525.
Presno, C. (1997). Bruner’s three forms of represen-
tation revisited: Action, pictires, and words
for effective computer interaction. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 224, 112–118.
Rafaeli, A. & Pratt, M. G. (2006). Artifacts and organi-
zations: Beyond mere symbolism. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Raike, A. (1997). Linkkejä, ankkureita, ja videoleikkeitä:
Hajautettu hypermedia kuurojen tiedonsaannissa.
[Links, anchors, and video clips. Distributed
hypermedia in information retrieval of Deaf
people]. MA thesis, University of Art and
Design Helsinki.
Raike, A. (2005). Löytäjät Elokuvantajua rakentamassa:
yhteisöllinen www-palvelun tuotanto. [Cinema-
Sense, a collaborative web-based learning tool]
Ph.D. Thesis. Helsinki: University of Art and
Design Helsinki.
Rainò, P. (1997). Selkosuomesta puheen kuvailuun.
[From plain Finnish to description of speech].
Virittäjä, 4, 609–618.
Rainò, P (2004). Henkilöviittomien synty ja kehitys
suomalaisessa viittomakieliyhteisössä [The
emergence and development of personal name
signs among sign language users in Finland].
Deaf Studies in Finland 2 [CD]. Ph.D. Thesis.
Helsinki: The Finnish Association of the Deaf.
Rainò, P. (2006). Viittomien leksikaalisesta kuvauk-
sesta. [The lexical description of sign
language]. In Suominen, M. et al. (Eds.), A
man of measure. Festschrift in honour of Fred
Karlsson on his 60th birthday. Special supplement
to SKY Journal of Linguistics (pp. 236–242),
19. Turku: Linguistic Association of Finland.
Retrieved from http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/
julkaisut/sky2006special.shtml
Rathmann, C. (2005). Event structure in American Sign
Language. Ph.D. Thesis. Texas: Austin Univer-
sity of Texas.
Regan, B. (2004). Design: Accessibility and design: a
failure of the imagination. Proceedings of the
International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on
Web Accessibility. ACM International Confer-
ence Proceeding Series, 63, 29–37.
Report of the Government on the application of
language legislation 2009. [Helsinki]: Ministry
of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.
om.fi/en/Etusivu/Julkaisut/Muutjulkai-
sut/1236880953561
Rittel, H.W.J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas
in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,
4, 155–169.
RNID. (n.d.). Producing information for Deaf and hard
of hearing people. London: The Royal National
Institute for Deaf People [factsheet]. Retrieved
from http://www.rnid.org.uk/information_
resources/factsheets/deaf_awareness/factsheets_
leaflets/producing_info_4_deaf_people.htm
71
 Rouse, W. B. (2007). People and organizations:
Explorations of human-centred design. New
Jersey: Wiley-Interscience.
Saar, V., Mansikka-aho, K. & Mäki, O. (2004).
Kuulovammaisuus. In Ahonen et al. (Eds.),
Aivot ja oppiminen. Kliinistä lasten neuropsykolo-
giaa (pp. 246–262), (2nd ed.). Jyväskylä: Atena.
Sacks, O. (1991). Seeing voices: Journey into the world
of the Deaf. London: Picador.
Salmi, E. & Laakso, M. (2005). Maahan lämpimään
– Suomen viittomakielisten historia. Helsinki:
Kuurojen Liitto ry.
Sanders, E. B.-N. (2004). Ethnography and the
empowerment of everyday people. White paper
for Microsoft Corporation. Ohio: The Ohio
State University.
Sanders, E. B.-N. & William, C. T. (2003).
Harnessing people’s creativity: Ideation and
expression through visual communication. In
J.D. Langford & D. McDonagh (Eds.), Focus
groups: Supporting effective product development
(pp. 147–156). London: Taylor & Francis.
Scherer, K. R. (1997). The role of culture in
emotion-antecedent appraisal. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 902–922.
Sengers, P. (2003). The engineering of experience.
In M. Blythe, A. Monk, K.F. Overbeeke &
P. Wright (Eds.), Funology: from usability to
enjoyment (pp. 19–29). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Singleton, J. L. (2002). Understanding families:
Hearing students with Deaf parents. Coda
International. Retrieved from http://www.
coda-international.org/infopacket.html
Skelton, M. & Maruyama, T. (2006). The role of
the Internet in D/deaf People’s inclusion
in the information society. Walsall Deaf
People’s Centre (WDPC). Proceedings of
Deafskills06 Conference. Wolverhampton:
University of Wolverhampton.
Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö. (2001). Kuulovam-
maiset. Retrieved from http://pre20031103.
stm.fi/suomi/tao/julkaisut/omakieli/kuulo.htm
72
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culturally speaking:
managing rapport through talk across cultures.
London: Continuum.
Swindbourne, C. (Writer/director). (2007).
Four Deaf Yorkshiremen [short film].
Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=2upAsFzO9AU
Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent
usability: Empirically assessing cultural and
methodological issues. Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on Human factors in
computing systems, 115–122.
Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997)
Riding the waves of culture: Understanding
cultural diversity in business (2nd ed.). London:
Nicholas Brealey.
Tsai, T. W., Chang, T. C., Chuang, M. C., & Wang,
D. M. (2008). Exploration in emotion and
visual information uncertainty of web sites
in culture relations. International Journal of
Design, 2(2), 55–66.
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. NY:
Oxford University Press.
WHO (2006). Deafness and hearing impair-
ment. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/
mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/index.html
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality:
Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Carrol,
J.B. (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Woodward, J. (1972). Implications for socio-
linguistics research among the deaf. Sign
Language Studies, 1, 1–7.
Würtz E (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of web
sites from high-context cultures
and low-context cultures. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1).
Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/
vol11/issue1/wuertz.html
WWW-sivut ja viittomakieli. (2003). Kuurojen lehti
108(1), 23–32.
Zeshan, U. (2003). Towards a notion of ‘word’
in sign languages. In Dixon, R. M. W.
& Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Eds.), Word: a cross-
linguistic typology (pp. 153–179). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zhu, T. (2005). Written Communication across
cultures. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
WEb sites
Barclays Accessible Services
(http://www.barclays.co.uk)
BBC – My Web My Way
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility)
British Deaf Association (http://bda.org.uk)
CinemaSense (http://elokuvantaju.uiah.fi)
Deaf Free Camp Europe 4
(http://dfce.signfuse.com)
Deafstation: Information resource and news
servise in BSL (http://www.deafstation.org)
Deaf Video Production [Kuurojen video]
(www.kuurojenvideo.fi)
Deaf Video TV: Deaf Videos and Vlogs
(http://www.deafvideo.tv)
DEAFVOC – a Leonardo da Vi language
competence project (http://www.deafvoc.fi)
D-PAN: Deaf Performing Artists Network
(http://www.d-pan.com)
DePaul University American Sign Language
Project (http://asl.cs.depaul.edu)
Facebook (http://www.facebook.com)
The Finnish Association of the Deaf
(http://www.kl-deaf.fi)
Finnish Sign Language TV [Viittomakielinen TV]
(http://www.kl-deaf.fi/nettitv)
Flowplayer – Flash Video for the Web
(http://flowplayer.org)
jQuery: The Write Less, Do More, JavaScript
Library (http://jquery.com)
Kaltura – Open Source Video Community (http://
www.kaltura.org )
Markku Jokinen (http://www.markkujokinen.org)
Mencap (http://www.mencap.org.uk)
Papunet (http://www.papunet.net)
Seesmic (http://seesmic.com)
Signline (http://www.signline.fi)
Sign-tube (http://www.sign-tube.com)
Tate (http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/
bsl-list.js)
Tate (http://www.tate.org.uk/home/bsl.htm)
Vcom3D (http://www.vcom3d.com)
Viittomakilialan osuuskunta Via
(http://www.via-ok.net)
VIIVI – Viittomakielisen opetuksen portti
(http://www.viivi.fi)
Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com)
Visicast (http://www.visicast.cmp.uea.ac.uk)
Websourd – Toute l’information en Langue
des Signes Française – LSF (http://www.
websourd.org) [Retrieved version not
available since May, 2009]
Wordpress › Blog Tool and Publishing Platform
(http://wordpress.org)
YLE – Sign Language news by the Finnish
Broadcasting Company (http://www.yle.fi/
uutiset/viittomakieliset_uutiset/
Youtube (http://www.youtube.com)
73
 Appendix 1

Focus Group
The following 17 web sites were evaluated and
discussed during the focus group session. All of these
sites were accessed on January 13, 2009. They are
listed in an alphabetical order.

Barbican Markku Jokinen

(http://www.barbican.org.uk) (http://www.markkujokinen.org)

Deaf Nation Shouth Creative

(http://www.deafnation.org) (http://shouthcreeative.com.au)

Elisa Sign Planet

(http://www.elisa.fi) (http://www.signplanet.cm)

The Finnish Associatio of the Deaf Signfuse

(http://www.kl-deaf.fi) (http://www.signfuse.com)

Globaloneness Signline
(http://www.globaloneness.org) (http://www.signline.fi)

Headlines corporate news Viittomakilialan osuuskunta Via

(http://www.corpnews.co.uk) (http://www.via-ok.net)

Iltalehti Viivi
(http://www.iltalehti.fi) (http://www.viivi.fi)

Iltasanomat Websourd
(http://www.iltasanomat.fi) (http://www.websourd.fr)
[Retrieved version not available after May, 2009]
Kuurojen Palvelusaatio
(http://www.kuurojenpalvelusaatio.fi)

74
 Appendix II

Thematic interview

The following themes were used as a basis for

thematic interview used to capture information
which included participants’ Internet usage,
experience, and interface preferences.

1. Internet usage
a) Most commonly visited web sites
b) Favourite web sites
c) Sign language web sites visited
d) Favourite sign language web sites

2. Experience
a) Frustration on the web
b) Engagement on the web

3. Wishes for improvements

a) In terms of functionality and navigation
b) In terms of layout
c) In terms of content

75
 Appendix III

Concent form

In Finnish: In English:

SUOSTUMUS CONCENT FORM

Annan tutkija Suvi Kituselle luvan tallentaa I give researcher Suvi Kitunen a permission to
työskentelyäni. Lisäksi lupaan tutkimuksen aikana record my working. In addition, I promise to give
pitämäni muistiinpanot, valokuvat ja videotallenteet the notes, photos, and video recordings that I have
hänen käyttöönsä. produced during the research to her disposal.

Videotallenteet ja muu materiaali tulee vain
tutkimuksen käyttöön eikä niitä saa esittää muussa
yhteydessä ilman eri sopimusta. Annan luvan
materiaalin julkaisuun tutkimukseen liittyvissä
julkaisuissa.
Video recordings and other material is only to be
used for the purpose of the study and they are not
permitted to be shown in any other context without
a separate agreement. I give a permission to publish
this material in publications related to this research.

Helsingissä __ /___ 2009 __ /___ 2009, Helsinki

______________________ ______________________
Allekirjoitus Signature

______________________ ______________________
Nimen selvennys Print name

76
77
 The design research by Suvi
Kitunen aims to provide
design recommendations
for Deaf culture specific web
sites taking into consideration
the implications of Deaf
culture and sign language as
a first language on web user
experience. So far web
sites localised for sign language
users have been merely
concerned with providing
signed alternatives to written
and auditory content but have
failed to take into consideration
the cultural aspects of
signed communication.The
knowledge was gathered
through participatory design
78
methods and applied in the
development of Knack.fi
web site, aiming to serve
dyslexic Deaf children and
their families.
Overall, this thesis made
two contributions. Firstly, it
demonstrated that the unduly
narrow focus on accessibility
and usability has undermined
the impact of culture upon
user experience. Secondly,
drawing together ideas on the
literature and supported by the
findings of the user research, it
developed a preliminary list of
design recommendations for
future developments.