## 4 Experimental Results
### Results of Step 1 by Type
#### 4.1.2 Panel Discussion  
As shown in Figure 13, in the panel discussion type, 12 subjects selected clip no. 1 and 8 subjects selected clip no. 2 for the first question (\"On which screen were the information delivery elements arranged most efficiently?\"). For the second question, (\"On which screen were the information delivery elements arranged most properly and harmoniously?\"), 11 subjects selected clip no. 2 and 8 selected clip no. 1. For the third question, (\"On which screen is the sign language interpreter most clearly visible?\"), 10 subjects each selected clip no. 1 and no. 2, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{42.7 pt} p{284.5 pt}} \hline \hline
**Size of the** **Interpreter** & The size of the sign language interpreter for clip no. 1 (news with an accident piece), which was similar to the current sign language interpretation service, was too small to see. Clip no. 3 and no. 4, however, had a larger size of interpreter, making it easier to recognize the sign language. \\ \hline
**Presence of** **Presence of** **Background** & There was no background behind the sign language interpreter in clip no. 2 and no. 4, making it cleaner and much easier to see because it does not give this feeling of being trapped in a space. As in news clips no. 1 and no. 3, there always is a background to the sign language interpreter, so I felt kind of stuffy because the sign language interpreter seemed to be confined to a small space. \\ \hline
**Other** & News clip no. 1, which is similar to existing sign language services, had a small-sized sign language interpreter and was difficult to see along with the video footage because the interpreter was placed in a corner. The blue chroma key background, which is mainly used as the background color, was so intense that it was difficult for my eyes to see the sign language against it. (There were opinions that the colors used in the experiment were too intense as well, which made their eyes tired.) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Subjects’ opinions on the news clips. Figure 11: Results of preferences evaluation with news cases. For the fourth question (\"Which screen do you want to continue to use?\"), 11 subjects selected clip no. 1, and 8 subjects selected clip no. 2. For the fifth question, (\"Which screen was the most difficult to understand the content?\"), clip no. 3 was selected the most, where the sign language screens were provided for each speaker and arranged vertically. A total of 14 subjects chose clip no. 3, and 5 selected clip no. 5. When looking at the average value of preference in the panel discussion type, as shown in Figure 14, basic type 1 and type 2 showed a similar level of preferences with 11.2 and 11.0, respectively. In an interview after the experiment, some subjects commented that there is a shortage of sign language interpreters in reality, and it is wasteful and not economical to have multiple interpreters on the same screen all at once. Clip no. 3, in which multiple sign language interpreters were vertically arranged separately, got a low score because it was difficult and confusing to match the speaker and the interpreter. Figure 12: Results of eye tracker experiments with news cases. Figure 13: Results of experiments in panel discussion cases. In an individual interview after the preferences survey, as presented in Table 7, the subjects presented the following opinions on the screen components of panel discussion cases and the proposed screen layout. Figure 15 shows examples of the gaze-tracking hit map for the panel discussion case. In the most preferred layouts, subjects fairly focused on the interpreter, however, in the worst layouts, the gaze was scattered and there was much transition between speakers and the corresponding interpreters to figure out who is speaking.