Helena Mitchell, Ph.D. Executive Director Planning for Accessible Emergency Communications: Mobile Technology and Social Media AEGIS conference Brussels, Belgium 2011

Statistics in Perspective American Red Cross responded to more than 60,000 disasters in million people have some type of disability; by 2030 it will equal 20% of the population 96% of the U.S. population use wireless services or products

Wireless Use Among People with Disabilities 85% use wireless products and services 77% state access to wireless important 65% wireless device important in emergencies 70% have contacted 911, of those, 85% used a wireless device RERC Consumer Advisory Network Survey of User Needs 1600 plus people with disabilities

Challenges for People with Disabilities Access to emergency information Receiving the message Ability to take action Technological transitions and incompatibility issues Access to emergency alerts Broadcasting, computers, laptops, car radios, wireless devices, captioned tele- phony (TTY), relay and interpreting services (ASL, S-S)

Considerations for Accessible EC “One of the challenges we face as a nation is ensuring not only that our technological prowess empowers ALL Americans to lead better and more productive lives, but also that we harness these tools to preserve and protect the lives, property, and public safety of ALL citizens by making them universally accessible and usable.” ~David Furth, FCC

Wireless RERC Mission Research and develop accessible wireless technologies and products to improve the lives of people with disabilities. Emergency Lifelines on Wireless Platforms Provide alternative and accessible emergency communication "lifelines" over wireless platforms to assist people with disabilities in managing the transition from legacy alerting systems (e.g. broadcasts over TV and radio) to next-generation versions of alerting systems (e.g. mobile broadband alerting).

Methodology Research and develop prototypes to deliver alerts in accessible formats over wireless devices Administered 12 field trials and 2 focus groups Administered a pre-test and post-test questionnaire Tabulated quantitative and qualitative data Reported findings and recommendations on feasible approaches to accessible wireless alerts

Testing Begins Over 100 participants Blind and/or low vision and/or deaf or hard-of-hearing Levels of experience with wireless devices Technology savvy Mixed ability Infrequent users Some testers used mobile phones with custom software, others used standard BlackBerry devices

Some Pre-Field Trial Questions

Findings from EAS Trials Field trials (Nine groups at three sites): Site 1: 94% of blind, low vision participants stated wireless emergency alerting system they evaluated was an improvement over other methods they currently use for receiving emergency alerts. Site 2: 81% of deaf and hard-of-hearing and deaf-blind found the alerts to be an improvement. Site 3: 92% of deaf and hard-of-hearing and visually impaired found devices an improvement. Post-field trials: 83% of people with sensory limitations said receiving emergency alerts via wireless devices was highly desirable.

Commercial Mobile Alerting System Included CMAS parameters plus improvements from previous trials. Reduction in number of characters, no URL’s, varied vibrating cadences. Of those who participated in previous tests 77% stated it was an improvement. 70% of persons with hearing limitations found the CMAS alerts to be an improvement. 83% of persons with visual limitations found the accessible CMAS system to be an improvement.

Focus Groups “American Sign Language (ASL) is the fourth most common language used in America; it has all the essential features a language requires to operate: rules for grammar, punctuation, and sentence order. Earlier feedback from Deaf participants suggested need to discuss ASL alerts All participants felt that ASL was an improvement over text Some participants felt combination of text and ASL gave them fuller understanding of alert versus text or ASL alone Anecdotal evidence suggests some common terminology such as “take cover” or “low-lying area”; do not translate well into Deaf English and perhaps should be avoided.

IN THE MEANTIME…

 Nationwide survey of people with disabilities  November-January Contacting 911 emergency services 2. Using social media during public emergencies Respondent Profile Total number of respondents1343 Number of respondents with disability1115 Age range18-91 Age average51.6 Consumer Advisory NetworkConsumer Advisory Network

USING SOCIAL MEDIA DURING PUBLIC EMERGENCIES

“Rather than trying to convince the public to adjust to the way we at FEMA communicate, we must adapt to the way the public communicates... We must use social media tools to more fully engage the public as a critical partner in our efforts.” ~ Craig Fugate, FEMA Image courtesy of Patrice Cloutier, Blogger

Official Use of Social MediaOfficial Use of Social Media 74% of states use SM to disseminate emergency information Twitter 36% Facebook 29% YouTube 13% 45% of cities use SM to disseminate emergency information Twitter: 35% Facebook: 34% YouTube: 11% Sets Precedent. Sets Expectations.

Do you access social media on the following devices? Percent Desktop only23% Laptop only12% Cell phone only3% Desktop and laptop6% Desktop and cell phone7% Laptop and cell phone7% Desktop, laptop, cell5% TOTAL63% 25% of respondents with disabilities use more than one type of device (e.g., desktop and cell phone) to access social media.

Social media outlets used by respondents Number of social media outlets used Received alertVerified alert 0 (by other means) Social media are used by people with disabilities. 22% have received public alerts via social media 16% have verified public alerts using social media

Social media outlets used by respondents to receive and verify public alerts Received alertVerified alert Facebook11.6%8.6% Twitter4.6%2.5% Listservs4.2%2.1% Yahoo3.8%2.3% YouTube1.3%1.0% MySpace1.3%0.7% Google Buzz1.2%0.8% LinkedIn0.0%0.6% Foursquare0.3%

Conclusions Use of wireless devices and social media increasing among people with disabilities. Receipt and verification of alerts most often through TV TV has accessibility barriers. Accessible formats need to be available to a variety of media devices. Social Media increasing among people with disabilities. Facebook currently most popular. Twitter predominately used by state and local emergency response agencies.

Recommendations Disconnect between where citizens seek information and where agencies disseminate information, this needs to be fixed. Redundancies and alternative sources needed to create accessible alerts and links to additional information. Agency links to social media need to be in prominent location on the homepage. Incorporating SM outlets into the planning of emergency services sites makes strategic sense.

How to Meet the Challenges Government, researchers, and industry working together can create change we can all live with.

Contact Us: Helena Mitchell, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, Wireless RERC Emergency Lifelines on Wireless Networks Project: Helena Mitchell, Co-project Director Frank Lucia, Co-project Director Salimah LaForce, Research Analyst Ed Price, Technical Director Jeremy Johnson, Research Engineer Ben Lippincott, Industry Liaison The Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Department of Education under grant number H133E The opinions contained in this presentation are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education.