skip to main content
article

Designing a portal for older users: A case study of an industrial/academic collaboration

Published:01 September 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A multidisciplinary team from industry, government, and academia developed prototype email, Web search, and navigation systems for users over 60 years old who were inexperienced in using computers and had never used the Internet. The academics encountered problems in persuading other team members of the specific challenges of designing for and working with older people. A number of ways of overcoming such challenges were implemented, and the final “radically simple” systems evaluated by a team of older people. The collaboration highlighted the conflicting pressures of the commercial world and the time and patience needed to design for older users.

References

  1. Age Concern. 2002. IT, Internet and older people. Conducted by ICM C. (July).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnott, J. L., Khairulla, Z., Dickinson, A., Syme, A., Alm, N., Eisma, R., and Gregor, P. 2004. Email interfaces for older people. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. The Hague, The Netherlands (Oct.). 111--117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnum, C., Bevan, N., Cockton, G. Nielsen, J., Spool, J., and Wixon, D. 2003. The “magic number 5”: Is it enough for Web testing? CHI2003, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Billipp, S. H. 2001. The psychosocial impact of interactive computer use within a vulnerable elderly population: A report on a randomized prospective trial in a home health care setting. Public Health Nursing 18, 138--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Blyth, G. 2002. Optimising uptake of usability recommendations. In Proceedings of the 1st European Usability Professionals Association Conference. (Sept.), M. Maguire and K. Adeboye, Eds. London, UK, 13--16. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmichael, A. 1999. Style Guide for the Design of Interactive Television Services for Elderly Viewers. Independent Television Commission, Kings Worthy Court, Winchester, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmichael, A., Newell, A. F., Dickinson, A., and Morgan, M. 2005. Using theatre and film to represent user requirements In Proceedings of INCLUDE (April). London, UK, 100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Chadwick-Dias, A., McNulty, M., and Tulllis, T. 2003. Web usability and age: How design changes can improve performance. In Conference on Universal Usability. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaparro, A., Bohan, M., Fernandez, J., Choi, S. D., and Kattel, B. 1999. The impact of age on computer input device use: Psychophysical and physiological measures. Int. J. Industri. Ergonomics 24, 503--513.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Coyne, K. P., and Nielsen, J. 2002. Web Usability for Senior Citizens. Nielsen Norman Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Czaja, S. J., Guerrier, J. H., Nair, S. N., and Landauer, T. K. 1993. Computer communication as an aid to independence for older adults. Behav. Inform. Technol. 12, 4, 197--207.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Czaja, S. and Lee, C. C. 2003. Designing computer systems for older adults. In J. A. Jacko and A. Sears, Eds. The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 413--427. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Syme, A., Eisma, R., Tiwari, L., Mival, O., and Newell, A. F. 2003. Domesticating technology in-home requirements gathering with frail older people. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human---Computer Interaction. Crete, Greece (June), C. Stephanidis, Ed. 827--831.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickinson, A., Newell, A. F., Smith, M., and Hill, R. L. To appear. Introducing the Internet to the over-60s: Developing an email system for older novice computer users, Interact. Comput. (Special issue on HCI and the Older Population). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Digital Media Access Group. http://www.dmag.org.uk.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Disabilty Rights Commission. 2004. The Web---Access and Inclusion for Disabled People. (A formal investigation conducted by the Disability Rights Commission) http://www.drc-gb.org/publicationsandreports/report.asp (Accessed May 2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dix, A. 1998. Hands across the screen---Why scrollbars are on the right and other stories. Interfaces 37, 19--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisma, R., Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Syme, A., Tiwari, L. and Newell, A. F. 2004. Early user involvement in the development of information technology-related products for older people, Univers. Access Inform. Society 3, 2, 131--140. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., and Sharit, J. 2004. Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox, S. 2004. Older Americans and the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Research Report. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/117/report_display.asp. (Accessed Feb. 2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Gregor, P., and Newell, A. F. 2001. Designing for dynamic diversity---Making accessible interfaces for older people. In Proceedings of EC/NSF Workshop on Universal Accessibility of Ubiquitous Computing: Providing for the Elderly (May). Portugal, A. C. M. J. Jorge, R. Heller and R. Guedj, Eds. 90--92. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawthorn, D. 2000. Possible implications of aging for interface designers. Interact. Comput. 12, 5, 507--528.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawthorn, D. 2003. How universal is good design for older users? In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Universal Usability (Nov.). Vancouver, Canada, 38--47. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Janicki, K. 2002. A hindrance to communication: The use of difficult and incomprehensible language. Int. J. Appl. Linguist. 12, 2, 94--217.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, P. A. and Phillips, D. 2003. What use is research anyway? Industry and academe's differing views. Int. J. Contemp. Hospitality Manag. 15, 5, 290--293.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps L., Petrie, H., and Hamilton, F. 2005. Forcing standardization or accommodating diversity? A framework for applying the WCAG in the real world. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A) (May). ACM Press, New York, NY, 46--54. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Knight, J. and Jefsioutine, M. 2002. Relating usability to design practice. In Proceedings of 1st European Usability Professionals Association Conference (Sept.), M. Maguire and K. Adeboye, Eds. London, UK, 2--7. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Lustig, C., Hasher, L., and Tonev, S. T. 2001. Inhibitory control over the present and past. European J. Cognitive Psych. 13, 107--122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Marchionini, G. and Levi, M. 2003. Digital information service interactions, the digital muse (July/August) x4. 18--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Market Research UK Ltd. 2002. Digital Glasgow: Glasgow Household Survey, Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. May, C. P., Hasher, L., and Kane, M. J. 1999. The role of interference in memory span. Memory Cognition 27, 759--767.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. McKenna, S. J., Marquis-Faulkes, F., Newell, A. F., and Gregor, P. 2003. Scenario-based drama as a tool for investigating user requirements with application to home monitoring for elderly people. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human---Computer Interaction, Crete, Greece (June), D. Harris, V. Duffy, M. Smith and C. Stephanidis, Eds. 3, 512--516.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Medlock, M. C., Wixon, D., Terrano, M., Romero, R. L., Fulton, W. 2002. Using the RITE method to improve products; a definition and a case study. In Proceedings of Usability Professionals Association, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Morrell, R. W., Dailey, S. R., Stoltz-Loike, M., Feldman, C., Mayhorn, C. B., Echt, K. V., and Podany, K. I. 2004. Older Adults and Information Technology: A Compendium of Scientific Research and Web Site Accessibility Guidelines, The National Institute on Aging.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Newell, A. F. 1993. Ordinary and extraordinary human computer interaction. In Proceedings of the International Computer Human Interface Conference (April). Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Newell, A. F. and Gregor, P. 1997. Human computer interfaces for people with disabilities. In Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, M. Helander, T. Landauer, and P. Prabhu, Eds. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 813--824.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Newell, A. F. and Gregor, P. 2000. User sensitive inclusive design in search of a new paradigm. In Proceedings of 1st ACM Conference on Universal Usability, J. Scholtz and J. Thomas, Eds. ACM, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Newell, A. F. and Gregor, P. 2002. Design for older and disabled people---Where do we go from here? Universal Access Inform. Society 2, 1, 3--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Newell, A. F., Carmichael, A., Gregor, P., and Alm, N. 2002. Information technology for cognitive support. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, J. A. Jacko and A. Sears, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwan, NJ, 464--481. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Office of The E-Envoy. 2002. Guidelines for UK government websites: Framework for local government (Aug.), (http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/sections/webguidelines-handbook-top/$file/handbookindex.htm).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Office of the E-Envoy. 2002. e-Government Metadata Standard (April) (http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/sections/guidelines-metadata/$file/index.htm).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Office of the E-Envoy. 2002. Guidelines for UK government websites: Illustrated handbook for web management teams (May) (http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/sections/webguidelines-handbook-top/$file/handbookindex.htm).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Ranganathan, V. K., Siemionow, V. Sahgal, V., and Yue, G. H. 2001. Effects of aging on hand function. J. Amer. Geriatrics Society 49, 1478--1484.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Robey, D. and Markus, M. L. 1998. Beyond rigor and relevance: Producing consumable research about information systems. Inform. Resour. Manage. J. 11, 1, 7--15. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenzweig, E. and Ziff, J. D. 2003. Managing interdisciplinary relationships: Lessons learnt from the field. Interactions x.6, 20--27. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Salthouse, T. A. 1996. The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psycholog. Rev. 103, 403--428.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Salthouse, T. A. and Babcock, R. L. 1991. Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Development. Pyc. 27, 763--776.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Seniornet. 1996. Research about older adults and computers. Report of a national survey. http://www.seniornet.org/php/default.php?PageID=5476&Version=0&Font=0;&Font=0; 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Seniornet. 2002. Japan-US Comparison Survey. http://www.seniornet.org/php/default.php?PageID=6633&Version=0&Font=0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Seniornet. 2002. Survey on Internet Use. http://www.seniornet.org/php/default.php?PageID=6880&Version=0&Font=0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Siegel, D. A. and Dray, S. 2003. Living on the edge learning the ropes---New methods for teaching human-centered design, Interactions x5, 19--27Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Sloan D., Gregor P., Rowan, M., and Booth, P. 2000. Accessible accessibility. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Universal Usability. J. Scholtz and J. Thomas, Eds. ACM, New York, NY. 96--102 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Thatcher, J. 2003. Web Accessibility---What not to do, http://www.jimthatcher.com/whatnotp.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Wixon, D. 2003. Evaluating usability methods interactions. Digital Muse x4, 29--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Worden, A., Walker, N., Bharat, K., and Hudson, S. 1997. Making computers easier for older adults to use: Area cursors and sticky icons. CHI97. Atlanta, GA, New York, NY, ACM. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. World Wide Web Consortium. 1999. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. (May) (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. World Wide Web Consortium. 1998. Cascading Style Sheets, level 2, (revised May), World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Zajicek, M. 2004. Successful and available: Interface design exemplars for older users. Interact. Compute. 16, 411--430.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Designing a portal for older users: A case study of an industrial/academic collaboration

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader