Advertisement

Ambient Assisted Living – A Multi-method Data Collection Approach to Evaluate the Usability of AAL Solutions

  • Ana Isabel MartinsEmail author
  • Margarida Cerqueira
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

Most systems are intended to be used by the layperson, and the acceptance of the AAL paradigm is closely related to the quality of the available systems, namely, in terms of intelligent functions for the user interaction. In that context, usability evaluation is an important issue of the development of solutions based on information technologies, becoming a demanding process due to its complexity.

Usability evaluation must be understood holistically within a particular project context and cannot be performed disaggregated from the functions that are intended to be supported.

In can be also pointed that using several procedures allows to complement the users’ perspective with the evaluators’ perspective. This is important because users

References

  1. Afonso AP, Lima JR, Cota MP (2013) Usability assessment of web interfaces: user testing. In: Proceedings of information systems and technologies (CISTI). IEEE, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  2. Alvarelhão J, Silva A, Martins A, Queirós A, Amaro A, Rocha N, Laíns J (2012) Comparing the content of instruments assessing environmental factors using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med 44(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Astell A, Alm N, Gowans G, Ellis M, Dye R, Vaughan P (2009) Involving older people with dementia and their carers in designing computer based support systems: some methodological considerations. Univ Access Inf Soc 8(1):49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belsky J (2001) Psicología del Envejecimento (The psychology of aging). International Thompson Editores Spain, MadridGoogle Scholar
  5. Bevan N (1998) European usability support centres: support for a more usable information society. In: Proceedings of TAP annual concertation meeting. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  6. Bevan N, Bruval P (2003) Usability net: tools & methods. Retrieved July 14, 2013, from http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/list.htm
  7. Bevan N, Claridge N, Petrie H (2005) Tenuta: simplified guidance for usability and accessibility. In: Proceedings of HCI international. Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandt J, Weiss N, Klemmer SR (2007) txt 4 l8r: lowering the burden for diary studies under mobile conditions. In: Proceedings of CHI’07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2303–2308Google Scholar
  9. Brooke J (1996) SUS – a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind 18(194):4–7Google Scholar
  10. Carroll JM (2013) Human computer interaction. In: Soegaard M, Dam RF (eds) The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction Design Foundation, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  11. Cockton G (2013) Usability evaluation. In: Soegaard M, Dam RF (eds) The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction Design Foundation, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2006) The build-for-all reference manual. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman-Deane J, Keith S, Whitney G (2009) HCI and the older population. Univ Access Inf Soc 8(1):1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gualtieri M, Manning H, Gilpin M, Rymer JR, D’Silva D, Wallis Y (2009) Best practices in user experience (UX) design. Forrester Research, Inc., CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO (2010) ISO 9241-210: ergonomics of human system interaction – part 210: human centred design for interactive systems. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO (2011) ISO 25010: systems and software engineering – systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – system and software quality models. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  17. Ivory MY, Hearst MA (2001) The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Comput Surv 33(4):470–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lewis JR (2002) Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. Int J Human–Comput Interact 14(34):463–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahatody T, Kolski C, Sagar M (2009) CWE: assistance environment for the evaluation operating a set of variations of the cognitive walkthrough ergonomic inspection method. In: Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics. Springer, Berlin, pp 52–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marques S, Nunes I (2012) Usability of interfaces. In: Marques S, Nunes I (eds) Industrial engineering and management: ergonomics – a systems approach. InTech, pp 155–171Google Scholar
  21. Martin B, Hanington B, Hanington BM (2012) Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport PublishersGoogle Scholar
  22. Martins AI, Queirós A, Rocha NP, Santos BS (2013) Usability evaluation: a systematic literature review [Avaliação de usabilidade: Uma revisão sistemática da literatura]. RISTI – Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação 11(1):31–44Google Scholar
  23. Martins AI, Rosa AF, Queirós A, Silva A, Rocha NP (2015a) A European Portuguese validation of the System Usability Scale (SUS). Procedia Comput Sci 67:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martins AI, Queirós A, Silva A, Rocha NP (2015b) Usability evaluation methods: a systematic review. In: Saeed S, Bajwa IS, Mahmood Z (eds) Human factors in software development and design. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 250–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martins AI, Queirós A, Silva A, Rocha NP (2016) Usability evaluation of ambient assisted living systems using a multi-method approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on software development and technologies for enhancing accessibility and fighting info-exclusion, pp 261–268Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell PP (2007) A step-by-step guide to usability testing. iUniverse, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Moumtzi V, Wills C (2009) Utilizing living labs approach for the validation of services for the assisting living of elderly people. In 3rd IEEE international conference on digital ecosystems and technologiesGoogle Scholar
  28. Newell A, Gregor P, Morgan M, Pullin G, Macaulay C (2011) User-sensitive inclusive design. Univ Access Inf Soc 10(3):235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nielsen J (1995a) How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. Retrieved November 18, 2013 from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-toconduct-a-heuristic-evaluation/
  30. Nielsen J (1995b) Summary of usability inspection methods. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/summary-ofusability-inspection-methods/
  31. Nielsen, J., & Norman, D. (2013). .The Definition of User Experience. Retrieved December 16, 2013 from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/definitionuser-experience/
  32. Queirós A, Alvarelhão J, Silva A, Teixeira A, Rocha NP (2013) A conceptual framework for the design and development of AAL services. In: Cruz-Cunha M, Miranda I, Gonçalves P (eds) Handbook of research on ICTs for human-centered healthcare and social care services: developments and applications. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 568–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Queirós A, Silva A, Alvarelhão J, Rocha NP, Teixeira A (2015) Usability, accessibility and ambient-assisted living: a systematic literature review. Univ Access Inf Soc 14:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosa F, Martins AI, Queirós A, Silva A, Rocha NP (2015) European Portuguese validation of the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) [Validação para Português Europeu do Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ)]. In 2015 10th Iberian conference on information systems and technologies, CISTI 2015, art n° 7170431Google Scholar
  35. Rubin J, Chisnell D (2008) Handbook of usability testing: how to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. Wiley, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  36. Salthouse TA (1996) General and specific speed mediation of adult age differences in memory. J Gerontol Psychol Sci 51B(1):30–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sauro J, Lewis JR (2011) When designing usability questionnaires, does it hurt to be positive? Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI’11, 2011Google Scholar
  38. Schaffer E (2009) Beyond usability: designing web sites for persuasion, emotion, and trust. UX matters. Retrieved September 22, 2013 from http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2009/01/beyond-usability-designing-web-sites-for-persuasion-emotion-and-trust.php
  39. Schaie KW, Hofer AM (2001) Longitudinal studies in aging research. In: Birren JE, Schaie KW (eds) Handbook of the psychology of aging. Elsevier Science, San Diego, pp 53–77Google Scholar
  40. Shneiderman B (1992) Designing the user interface. In: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction, vol 2. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  41. Tomitsch M, Singh N, Javadian G (2010) Using diaries for evaluating interactive products: the relevance of form and context. In: Proceedings of the 22nd conference of the computer human interaction special interest group of Australia on computer-human interaction. ACMGoogle Scholar
  42. Wegge KP, Zimmermann D (2007) Accessibility, usability, safety, ergonomics: concepts, models, and differences. In: Universal access in human computer interaction. Coping with diversity. Springer, Berlin, pp 294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. WHO – World Health Organization (2002) Active ageing: a policy framework. A contribution of the World Health Organization to the second United Nations World Assembly on Aging. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilkinson S (2003) Focus groups in qualitative psychology – a practical guide to research methods. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Zajicek M (2004) Successful and available: interface design exemplars for older users. Interact Comput 16:411–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics (DETI)University of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.Institute of Electronics and Telematics Engineering of Aveiro (IEETA)University of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  3. 3.Health Sciences SchoolUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  4. 4.Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS)University of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations