Transcript Videophone Features Needed for Deaf Users

Norman Williams
Christian Vogler
Technology Access Program
Gallaudet University
TDI 2011
Purpose of this Presentation
Explain how current videophones for
deaf people work.
 Understand why off-the-shelf
videophones are of interest to us and
the FCC.
 How we could best use off-the-shelf
videophones with VRS.
 Get feedback from an audience like you.

Current Videophones for the Deaf

Adapted to specific needs of the deaf:
 Passing voice numbers to VRS.
 External flashers on some VPs.
 Strong visual alerts on some VPs.
 Good low light image quality and smooth
movements on most VPs.
 The H.323 standard is used between VRS
companies. Works very well.
Issues with Current Videophones
for the Deaf

Not all features are supported between
videophones. Examples:
 VP200 does not display phone number from some
non-Sorenson devices.
 Video mail recordings get instantly disconnected
from some devices.



Many VPs require a technician to install them
at home or work.
Using a VRS company other than the default
requires fingerspelling voice numbers.
Many VPs can’t reach generic SIP
videophones used by hearing people and by
deaf people outside of the US.
Why is the FCC Interested?
Many of us have multiple VRS-supplied
phones, but use only one or two. This costs
a lot of money.
 FCC wants to reduce VRS R&D and VP
development costs.
 VRS companies want to keep features
proprietary to keep the users there. Such
as:

 Caller id name not shared with different devices.
 Contacts list are not exportable to other devices.

Allow standard workplace videophones
(e.g., Cisco) to be used.
Why is the FCC Interested?
May reduce technical support for
installing at home or work if SIP
videophones have firewall support (plug
and play). Usually do not need to fiddle
with firewall or home router. Cost
savings.
 Allow signing hearing people to make
video calls to deaf users to reduce VRS
usage, also saves on costs.

Why Should We Be Interested?
The biggest advantage of interoperable
off-the-shelf technology: Deaf people
could make and receive VRS calls from
anywhere to anywhere, at any time, with
any equipment.
 Hearing people do this all the time –
e.g., when they borrow a phone on-site.

Deaf Needs
We now discuss specific needs of deaf
videophone users that may be required
in off-the-shelf phones.
 If we missed something, please raise
the topic at the end of the presentation,
and discuss.

Incoming Call Alerts

House-wide flashing signal via RJ11 jack
on device, which effectively alerts a deaf
person anywhere in their home, along
with their doorbell and fire alarm alerting
device:
 Sorenson VP200
 Purple MVP
 Viable VPAD

Functionally equivalent to what hearing
people have available
Incoming Call Alerts

Local flashing via USB or audio output, but
not integrated with house-wide alerting:
 ZVRS Z340
 Software based computer such as Purple P3
 Works only if the user sees the device, not in other
room
 Not functionally equivalent. Hearing people can hear
ringing in a different room, while deaf users cannot.

Sound based alerting devices are not
recommended, due to false alarms, such as
TV sounds nearby, or other noises that are
difficult to find and eliminate by deaf users.
Passing Voice Numbers
Many VRS-provided VPs offer quick
passing of voice numbers that the CA
should dial, via a remote or keypad
 We need this to be interoperable with
generic videophones. Otherwise, deaf
users need to fingerspell voice phone
numbers to CAs, and cannot use their
phone directory.

Passing Voice Numbers
Users’ phone directories are not
interoperable with other VRS, but they
are an important tool.
 If we use SIP technology on generic
videophones, a standard way of passing
voice number to VRS could be like this
in the generic phone book:

 [email protected]

However, H.323 is still the VRS provided
videophone protocol standard.
Bypassing Firewalls
Some VRS products do work well with
firewalls but require using the VRS
provider’s servers.
 With a generic videophone solution, we
need an outside server to assist with
firewall workarounds. Who will host the
server?

Camera Quality
Some generic videophones provide low
frames per second when used at night
with no ceiling lights, due to camera
limitations. This will cause ineffective
communication. VRS users have to
carefully select their camera.
 We need easy ways to identify what
cameras are good for VRS use.

Non-Traditional VRS Calls



Convo Anywhere is a nice way to access VRS
on most computers that have a webcam and
Flash player. It is similar to borrowing
someone’s cellphone for a call. But it is not
functionally equivalent: It does not allow
incoming calls, and also does not support
direct calls to videophones yet.
iChat based (such as Purple and Convo) work
well on Mac computers without needing to
install software. Does not support direct calls
to videophones.
Neither can alert users to incoming calls if they
are not in front of the computer.
Recommend a New Video Call
Standard
The SIP protocol should be used for better
interoperability. Most VRS companies
already use SIP between their custom
devices and their servers.
 SIP would allow many off-the-shelf
videophones and software products to call
each other, as stated before, similar to:
[email protected]
 SIP allows multiple videophones to ring at
the same time. Much needed in homes one number supports multiple videophones
similar to cordless phones at home.

FCC Rulings May Impact Us


VPs are surprisingly expensive – they have
been subsidized by interpreting minutes so far
Most of us will use software instead of VP
devices if:
 The FCC does not permit VRS companies to offer or
sell VPs at deep discounts to deaf users. Then many
of us may have to buy from local stores or online.
 The FCC does not establish voucher programs to
pay $600 or more devices.

The quality of calls can become degraded on
cheaper devices, yet even these are still much
more expensive than hearing users’ cordless
phones.
FCC Actions Needed





Define one minimum standard for interoperability, such as
the SIP protocol, and all other parameters such as video
codecs, resolution, etc. Without this, devices will not
connect to one another.
Establish vendor certification that meets deaf needs (i.e.
low light camera, external flashing, etc).
If videophones or webcams are sold at stores, either the
store must allow testing on-site, or offer a full refund after
testing at home. Many stores currently charge a
restocking fee.
Arrange purchase vouchers for videophones, so that
costs to deaf users are similar to cordless phones ($30),
for fairness and functional equivalence.
Resolve issue of who hosts servers for bypassing
firewalls.
Acknowledgment

The contents of this presentation were
developed with funding from the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research, U.S. Department of Education,
grant number H133E090001 (RERC on
Telecommunications Access). However,
those contents do not necessarily
represent the policy of the Department of
Education, and you should not assume
endorsement by the Federal Government.
Questions?

Feel free to discuss.