A Comparative Framework for Formal Representation Strategies in Sign Language Avatar Systems

Technologies, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/technologies14050303
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This paper proposes a unified methodological framework for evaluating heterogeneous approaches to avatar-based sign language visualization. The study introduces a four-dimensional analytical framework based on four independent criteria: (A1) pipeline architecture and degree of automation, (A2) data and annotation requirements, (A3) portability across sign languages and domains, and (A4) integration and accessibility. The framework is applied to a comparative analysis of three dominant paradigms: (P1) notation → animation (e.g., HamNoSys), (P2) writing-based representation → animation (e.g., SignWriting), and (P3) keypoint-based animation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods. The comparative assessment shows that the differences between the paradigms are structural and reflect trade-offs among linguistic accuracy, automation level, scalability, and user accessibility, rather than the superiority of any one technology. Overall, the structured comparative framework (A1–A4) is applied for analyzing three paradigms of sign language avatar generation. It enables a systematic evaluation of architectural, data-related, and practical characteristics, highlighting key trade-offs between linguistic accuracy, scalability, and accessibility.