Advertisement

Meaningful Age-Friendly Design. Case Studies on Enabling Assistive Technology

  • Matteo ZallioEmail author
  • Damon Berry
  • Larry J. Leifer
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 972)

Abstract

The world population is steadily aging and the World Health Organization recently stated that 8.5% of people worldwide are aged 65 and over. This cohort is projected to account for 1.6 billion people by 2050.

Assistive Technology has been developed over previous decades with a particular aim to support people with disabilities.

With the evolution of the market and the introduction of wearable technologies and IoT-based (Internet of Things) appliances, Assistive Technology has been influenced by the discipline of Age-Friendly Design, which has been applied to meaningfully improve the autonomy of a larger segment of the population, including older people.

In order to discuss how Age-Friendly Design can influence the response of the market, and how users can better engage and benefit from Assistive Technology, this work aims to critically review, through a case study research methodology, a series of recently developed devices that have the potential to change user perception around Assistive Technology.

As a conclusion, the reported case studies represent a preliminary validation of how Age-Friendly Design can represent a meaningful solution for enabling a wider group of people with different ages and abilities. Findings show that user experience, satisfaction and Emotional Design are the key drivers for developing marketable solutions in the area of Assistive Technology.

Keywords

Assistive Technology Design thinking Usability Emotional Design Age-Friendly Design Inclusive design Neurodesign 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been possible through the Fulbright-Schuman Fellowship, administered by the Commission for Educational Exchange between the United States of America, Belgium and Luxembourg and jointly financed by the U.S. State Department and the Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the European Commission. A joint team from Stanford University (USA) and the Technological University Dublin (Ireland) has been working under the internationally cooperation and cross-cultural principles.

References

  1. 1.
    Safiliou-Rotschild, C.: Are older people responsible for high healthcare costs. In: CESifo Forum - Institute for Economic Research, Munich, 1/2009, pp. 58–64 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Zigante, V.: Informal care in Europe. Exploring formalisation, availability and quality. In: Employment and Social Governance Unit A.4—Thematic Analysis London School of Economics and Political Science. European Commission Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Directorate (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Morrar, R., Arman, H., Mousa, S.: The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0): a social innovation perspective. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 7(11), 12–20 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rose, D.H., Hasselbring, T.S., Stahl, S., Zabala, J.: Assistive technology and universal design for learning: two sides of the same coin. In: Edyburn, D., Higgins, K., Boone, R. (eds.) Handbook of Special Education Technology Research and Practice, pp. 507–511. Knowledge by Design, Inc., White Bay (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duff, P., Dolphin, C.: Cost-benefit analysis of assistive technology to support independence for people with dementia – part 2. Technol. Disabil. 19, 79–90 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miskelly, F.G.: Assistive technology in elderly care age and ageing. Br. Geriatr. Soc. 30, 455–458 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norman, D.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books Inc., New York (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogers, W.A., Stronge, A.J., Fisk, A.D.: Technology and aging. Rev. Hum. Factors Ergon. 1(1), 130–171 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schneider, B.A., Pichora-Fuller, M.: Implications of perceptual deterioration for cognitive aging research. In: Craik, F.I.M., Salthouse, T.A. (eds.) Handbook of Aging and Cognition, 2nd edn, pp. 155–219. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuru, H., Kuru, A.: Exploring possibilities of designing virtual personal health coach in relation to gender differences. In: Design, User Experience and Usability. User Experience Design for Everyday Life Applications and Services, DUXU 2014, pp. 63–71. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    WHO (World Health Organization). A Glossary of Terms for Community Health Care and Services for Older Persons. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/wkc/2004/WHO_WKC_Tech.Ser._04.2.pdf
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    GATE. Global Cooperation on Assistive Technology (GATE). http://www.who.int/phi/implementation/assistive_technology/phi_gate/en/
  16. 16.
    ISO 9999:2016 Assistive Products for Persons with Disability—Classification and Terminology, 6th edn. CEN, Brussels (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, R.O.: Technology and occupation: past, present, and the next 100 years of theory and practice. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 71, 7106150010p1–7106150010p15 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Federici, S., Scherer, M.J.: Assistive Technology Assessment Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Tobi, H., Kampen, J.K.: Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 52(3), 1209–1225 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blessig, L.: What is this thing called design research? In: Proceedings of 2002 International CIRP Design Seminar, Hong Kong, 16–18 May 2002, pp. 1–6 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teegavarapu, S., Summers, J., Mocko, G.: Case study method for design research: a justification. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, p. 4 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2008-49980
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Parette, P., Scherer, M.: Assistive technology use and stigma. Educ. Training Dev. Disabil. 39(3), 217–226 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lewrick, M., Link, P., Leifer, L.J.: The Design Thinking Playbook: Mindful Digital Transformation of Teams, Products, Services, Businesses and Ecosystems. Wiley, Hoboken (2018)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vistoe, The power of Good Design. https://www.vitsoe.com/us/about/good-design
  28. 28.
    Kelly, P., Zallio, M., Duarte, B., Berry, D.: Design for enabling technologies. A framework to empower multi-level user engagement. In: Di Bucchianico, G. (ed.) International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Advances in Design for Inclusion, AHFE 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Orlando, Florida, USA, July 2018, vol. 776. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kirkland, L.: Using Neuroscience to Inform Your UX Strategy and Design, 9 July 2012. https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/07/using-neuroscience-to-inform-your-ux-strategy-and-design.php

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Design Research, Mechanical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.School of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringTechnological University DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations