Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 19, Issue 5–6, pp 853–880 | Cite as

Build me a Ubicomp: bespoke ubiquitous accessibility in live television production environments

  • Reuben Kirkham
  • Tom Bartindale
  • Michael Evans
  • Patrick Olivier
Original Article

Abstract

Live television production remains driven by platforms which are modelled on systems developed before digitised technology, with specialised components and systems which were designed and developed entirely for a non-disabled plurality. The effect of this is that skilled production staff who become disabled are unable to continue within their roles, in many cases becoming forced into leaving the television industry entirely. This investigation explores the possibility of using bespoke ubiquitous computing systems to circumvent existing practical and strategic restrictions upon reasonable adjustments in production roles. To make our findings, we draw upon twelve criticality-informed interviews with both production specialists and assistive technology experts, and an ethnographic study conducted in a television production environment. This investigation had a particular emphasis upon what practices are (legally) reasonable to adjust in a production environment, and thus allow the realistic targeting of adjustments to particular combinations of roles and disabilities. Through doing so, we describe a space for re-configuring existing user interfaces, practices and workflows in the production environment, introducing a new paradigm of bespoke assistive technologies. We also discuss the novel implications for both disability discrimination law and ubiquitous computing that arise from our investigation.

Keywords

Accessibility Assistive technology Bespoke assistive technology Disability Production environments Television Ubiquitous computing Wearable computing Video editing 

References

  1. 1.
    Perry M, Juhlin O, Esbjörnsson M, Engström A (2009) Lean collaboration through video gestures. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ’09. ACM Press, New York, USA, pp 2279–2288Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zettl H (2011) Television production handbook. Cengage Learning, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verna T (1987) Live TV: an inside look at directing and producing. Focal Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caldwell JT (2008) Production culture: industrial reflexivity and critical practice in film and television. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fletcher J, Kirby DG, Cunningham S (2006) Tapeless and paperless: automating the workflow in tv studio production. BBC Res White Pap 141Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Merrill D, Kalanithi J, Maes P (2007) Siftables: towards sensor network user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction (TEI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 75–78. doi:10.1145/1226969.1226984
  7. 7.
    Zigelbaum J, Horn MS, Shaer O, Jacob RJK (2007) The tangible video editor. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction—TEI ’07. ACM Press, New York, USA, p 43Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marilly E, Gonguet A, Martinot O, Pain F (2013) Gesture interactions with video: from algorithms to user evaluation. Bell Labs Tech J 17:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yamamoto M, Osaki K, Watanabe T (2009) Video content production support system with speech-driven embodied entrainment character by speech and hand motion inputs. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramos G, Balakrishnan R (2003) Fluid interaction techniques for the control and annotation of digital video. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (UIST ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 105–114. doi:10.1145/964696.964708
  11. 11.
    Vonolfen W (1999) Virtual studios for TV productions limits and chances. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 8th international workshops on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprises, 1999. (WET ICE ’99), pp 267–270. doi:10.1109/ENABL.1999.805211
  12. 12.
    Doughty M, Rowland D, Lawson S (2012) Who is on your sofa?: TV audience communities and second screening social networks. EuroITV 79–86Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jenkins H (2006) Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. NYU Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirk D, Sellen A, Harper R, Wood K (2007) Understanding videowork. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 61–70. doi:10.1145/1240624.1240634
  15. 15.
    Schofield G, Bartindale T, Wright P (2015) Bootlegger: turning fans into film crew. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 767–776. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702229
  16. 16.
    Juhlin O, Engström A, Önnevall E (2014) Long tail TV revisited. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ’14. ACM Press, New York, USA, pp 1325–1334Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bartindale T, Hook J, Olivier P (2009) Media Crate: tangible live media production interface. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on tangible and embedded interaction. ACM Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 255–262 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bartindale T, Valentine E, Glancy M, Kirk D, Wright P, Olivier P (2013) Facilitating TV production using StoryCrate. In: Do J-LE, Dow S, Ox J, Smith S, Nishimoto K, Tan TC (eds) Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on creativity & cognition (C&C '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 193–202. doi:10.1145/2466627.2466628
  19. 19.
    Engström A, Zoric G, Juhlin O (2012) The mobile vision mixer: a mobile network based live video broadcasting system in your mobile phone. MUM 2012:3–6Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deal M (2003) Disabled people’s attitudes toward other impairment groups: a hierarchy of impairments. Disabil Soc 18:897–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldsmith S (1963) Designing for the disabled: a manual of technical information. Architectural Association (Great Britain). School of Architecture Royal Institute of British Architects, Technical Information ServiceGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, W3C World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/)
  23. 23.
    Lazar J, Hochheiser H (2013) Legal aspects of interface accessibility in the US. Commun ACM 56:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blanck P (2014) eQuality: the struggle for web accessibility by persons with cognitive disabilities. http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/law/socio-legal-studies/equalitystruggle-web-accessibility-persons-cognitive-disabilities
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Matthews T, Carter S, Pai C, Fong J, Mankoff J (2006) Scribe4Me: evaluating a mobile sound transcription tool for the deaf. Ubicomp 2005:159–176Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hodges S, Williams L, Berry E, Izadi S, Srinivasan J, Butler A, Smyth G, Kapur N, Wood K (2006) SenseCam: a retrospective memory aid. Ubicomp 2006:177–193Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ringland KE, Zalapa R, Neal M, Escobedo L, Tentori M, Hayes GR (2014) SensoryPaint: a multimodal sensory intervention for children with neurodevelopmental disorders. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing (UbiComp ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 873–884. doi:10.1145/2632048.2632065
  29. 29.
    Kirkham R, Greenhalgh C (2015) Social access vs. privacy in wearable computing: a case study of autism. IEEE Pervas Comput 14(1):26–33Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beckwith R (2003) Designing for ubiquity: the perception of privacy. IEEE Pervas Comput 2:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hook J, Verbaan S, Durrant A, Olivier P, Wright P, Hague T (2014) A study of the challenges related to DIY assistive technology in the context of children with disabilities. DIS 2014:597–606Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hurst A, Tobias J (2011) Empowering individuals with do-it-yourself assistive technology. In: The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 11–18. doi:10.1145/2049536.2049541
  33. 33.
    Shinohara K, Wobbrock JO (2011) In the shadow of misperception: assistive technology use and social interactions. CHI 2011:705–714Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    United Nations (2006) United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (UN CRPD)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kirkham R (2015) Can disability discrimination law expand the availability of wearable computers? Comput 48(6):25–33Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hutchinson H, Mackay W, Westerlund B, Bederson BB, Druin A, Plaisant C, Beaudouin-Lafon M, Conversy S, Evans H, Hansen H, Roussel N, Eiderbäck B (2003) Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 17–24. doi:10.1145/642611.642616
  37. 37.
    Crabtree A, Rouncefield M, Tolmie P (2012) Doing design ethnography. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Iachello G, Abowd GD (2005) Privacy and proportionality: adapting legal evaluation techniques to inform design in ubiquitous computing. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 91–100. doi:10.1145/1054972.1054986
  39. 39.
    Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsh D (2000) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans Comput Interact 7:174–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hutchins E, Klausen T (1996) Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. Cogn Commun Work 15–34Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Broth M (2004) The production of a live TV-interview through mediated interaction. Proc Log MethodolGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Endsley MR et al (2000) Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: A critical review. Situat Aware Anal Meas 3–32Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Meyerson MI, Meyerson W (2010) Significant statistics: the unwitting policy making of mathematically ignorant judges, 37. Pepp L Rev Iss 3. Available at: Available at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol37/iss3/1
  45. 45.
    Lawson A (2008) Disability and equality law in Britain: the role of reasonable adjustment. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Friedman B, Kahn PH, Borning A (2003) Value sensitive design and information systems 1–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reuben Kirkham
    • 1
  • Tom Bartindale
    • 1
  • Michael Evans
    • 2
  • Patrick Olivier
    • 1
  1. 1.Open LabNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.BBC R&DMediaCity UKSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations