Creating questionnaires that align with ASL linguistic principles and cultural practices within the Deaf community
Rachel Boll, Shruti Mahajan, Jeanne Reis, Erin T. Solovey · 2020 · ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/3373625.3418071
Summary
This poster paper from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and The Learning Center for the Deaf addresses a fundamental gap in HCI research methodology: most interactive computing tools, including survey and questionnaire platforms, are designed exclusively for text and written languages, creating barriers for ASL-signing Deaf individuals whose primary language is visual and spatial rather than written. The authors describe their experience developing a demographic questionnaire delivered entirely in ASL through video clips, where both questions and answer options are presented by ASL content signers rather than in written English. The work is motivated by the recognition that requiring English fluency to participate in research effectively excludes many Deaf individuals or forces them to operate in a second language, compromising data quality and research equity. The team — which includes native ASL-signing Deaf members, hearing members, and hearing members learning ASL — is engaged in an iterative cycle of studying technology perceptions among deaf and hard of hearing people and prototyping new interface paradigms optimized for ASL users. The questionnaire was designed for broad distribution across the Deaf community, including deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, and late-deafened individuals.
Key findings
The paper identifies several unique challenges that arise when creating questionnaires in a signed language, with practical recommendations for each. On authorship: unlike written text where authors are invisible, the signer in an ASL video is continuously visible and may be perceived as the sole author, raising questions about how to credit multiple contributors. The team recommends depicting all co-authors and collaborators at the beginning of each video. On representation: because signers are visually present, their gender, race, and identity become salient factors that may affect participant comfort and responses — a consideration absent from written questionnaires where authors can remain anonymous. On privacy: signers cannot be anonymized the way written authors can, and video materials could be edited or shared in ways that misrepresent the signer. On community-specific questions: identity terms must align with what the Deaf community considers acceptable (Deaf, Hard of hearing, Late Deafened, DeafBlind), and questions about personal experiences like educational placement must be carefully worded to avoid pathologizing or triggering participants. On platforms: existing survey tools like Qualtrics, Google Forms, and SurveyMonkey lack native support for video-based questions and signed-language responses, forcing the team to limit responses to multiple choice to avoid switching participants to English. On remote collaboration: video conferencing tools like Zoom have audio-centric features (auto-spotlighting English speakers, unmute alerts) that interfere with signed-language communication.
Relevance
This paper highlights a significant blind spot in accessibility research methodology itself. While much attention is paid to making digital products accessible, the research tools used to study accessibility are often inaccessible to the communities being studied. For HCI researchers and accessibility practitioners, the practical recommendations around ASL questionnaire development are immediately actionable: involve native ASL signers throughout development, recruit content signers carefully for representation, use video-based delivery, and limit response formats to avoid requiring English. More broadly, the paper reinforces that Deaf culture represents a distinct linguistic and cultural community, not simply a disability category. The emphasis on conducting research "by, with, and for" the Deaf community — with Deaf researchers in lead roles — models how accessibility research should center the communities it aims to serve. The challenges documented with video conferencing platforms also expose how supposedly accessible tools remain audio-centric in their design assumptions, a relevant concern for any organization conducting remote meetings or research with Deaf participants.
Tags: deaf · American Sign Language · questionnaire design · research methods · Deaf culture · linguistic accessibility · culturally responsive design