Advertisement

A Review of Age-Related Characteristics for Touch-Based Performance and Experience

  • Jing Liao
  • Jianan Lou
  • Qifei Wu
  • Min Zou
  • Linfeng Zheng
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10926)

Abstract

Touchscreens are considered as a friendly interface for elderly people. However, a gap between young users and older users was still observed in either interaction performance or user experience. Although previous studies have identified the gap is associated with age-related characteristics, most researches are focused on specific input or output elements. This heterogeneity of research subjects makes it difficult to understand, compare and to recommend proper techniques for a specific design. Accordingly, we provided a review, thoroughly describing the efforts on the touch-based system and the elderly population in the past decade and answering the following questions: (1) How to identify characteristics that sensitive to performance and experience? (2) How to accommodate for elderly’s special interests? We also summarized the relevant design guidance, and provides novel perspectives of inclusive technical design for the elderly. Our work may enlighten those who is interested in the design of both hardware and software elements for the elderly.

Keywords

Elderly Age-related characteristics Touch-based system Interaction performance Interaction experience 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61303137), the National Science and Technology Support Program (2015BAH21F01) and the Art Project for National Social-Science Foundation (15BG084).

References

  1. 1.
    Hertzum, M., Hornbæk, K.: How age affects pointing with mouse and touchpad: a comparison of young, adult, and elderly users. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 26(7), 703–734 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Barriers of information access in small screen device applications: the relevance of user characteristics for a transgenerational design. In: Stephanidis, C., Pieper, M. (eds.) UI4ALL 2006. LNCS, vol. 4397, pp. 117–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71025-7_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Motti, L.G., Vigouroux, N., Gorce, P.: Interaction techniques for older adults using touchscreen devices: a literature review. In: Proceedings of the 25th Conference on L’Interaction Homme-Machine, pp. 125–134. ACM, Talence (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, J., Or, C.: Assessing the use of immersive virtual reality, mouse and touchscreen in pointing and dragging-and-dropping tasks among young, middle-aged and older adults. Appl. Ergon. 65, 437–448 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hourcade, J.P., Berkel, T.R.: Simple pen interaction performance of young and older adults using handheld computers. Interact. Comput. 20(1), 166–183 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neerincx, M.A., Cremers, A.H.M., Kessens, J.M., van Leeuwen, D.A., Truong, K.P.: Attuning speech-enabled interfaces to user and context for inclusive design: technology, methodology and practice. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 8(2), 109–122 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taveira, A.D., Choi, S.D.: Review study of computer input devices and older users. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 25(5), 455–474 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith, A.L., Chaparro, B.S.: Smartphone text input method performance, usability, and preference with younger and older adults. Hum. Factors 57(6), 1015–1028 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Nischelwitzer, A.: On some aspects of improving mobile applications for the elderly. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) UAHCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 923–932. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73279-2_103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vigouroux, N., Rumeau, P., Vella, F., Vellas, B.: Studying point-select-drag interaction techniques for older people with cognitive impairment. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) UAHCI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5614, pp. 422–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02707-9_48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leung, R., McGrenere, J., Graf, P.: Age-related differences in the initial usability of mobile device icons. Behav. Inf. Technol. 30(5), 629–642 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asano, Y., Saito, H., Sato, H., Wang, L., Gao, Q., Rau, P.-L.P.: Tips for designing mobile phone web pages for the elderly. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4550, pp. 675–680. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73105-4_74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruber, N., Mueri, R.M., Mosimann, U.P., Bieri, R., Aeschimann, A., Zito, G.A., Nef, T.: Effects of age and eccentricity on visual target detection. Front. Aging Neurosci. 5(2), 101 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, C.-F., Kuo, C.-C.: Difficulties on small-touch-screens for various ages. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) UAHCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 968–974. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73279-2_108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suleyman, A.S.: Effects of age on smartphone and tablet usability, based on eye-movement tracking and touch-gesture interactions. Doctoral Thesis (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Modi, S.K., Elliott, S.J., Whetsone, J., Kim, H.: Impact of age groups on fingerprint recognition performance. In: 2007 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Identification Advanced Technologies, pp. 19–23. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lanitis, A., Tsapatsoulis, N.: Quantitative evaluation of the effects of aging on biometric templates. IET Comput. Vis. 5(5), 338–347 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taljaard, D.S., Olaithe, M., Brennan-Jones, C.G., Eikelboom, R.H., Bucks, R.S.: The relationship between hearing impairment and cognitive function: a meta-analysis in adults. Clin. Otolaryngol. 41(6), 718–729 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barrantes, S.S.: Some aspects of ICT accessibility, usability and design methods with the young elderly (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhou, J., Rau, P.-L.P., Salvendy, G.: Use and design of handheld computers for older adults: a review and appraisal. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 28(12), 799–826 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ziefle, M., Bay, S.: How to overcome disorientation in mobile phone menus: a comparison of two different types of navigation aids. Hum. Comput. Interact. 21(4), 393–433 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vella, F., Vigouroux, N., Rumeau, P.: Investigating drag and drop techniques for older people with cognitive impairment. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) HCI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6764, pp. 530–538. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21619-0_65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Etcheverry, I., Terrier, P., Marquie, J.-C.: Assessing web interaction with recollection: age-related and task-related differences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(1), 11–22 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Acartürk, C., Freitas, J., Fal, M., Dias, M.S.: Elderly speech-gaze interaction. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) UAHCI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9175, pp. 3–12. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20678-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morris, A., Goodman, J., Brading, H.: Internet use and non-use: views of older users. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 6(1), 43–57 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vošner, H.B., Bobek, S., Kokol, P., Krečič, M.J.: Attitudes of active older Internet users towards online social networking. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 230–241 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dell, P., Marinova, D.: Are they acting their age? Online social interaction and identity in the elderly. In: Modsim International Congress on Modelling & Simulation Land Water & Environmental Management Integrated Systems for Sustainability, vol. 364, no. 3, pp. 2700–2706 (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wandke, H., Sengpiel, M., Soenksen, M.: Myths about older people’s use of information and communication technology. Gerontology 58(6), 564–570 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hwangbo, H., Yoon, S.H., Jin, B.S., Han, Y.S., Ji, Y.G.: A study of pointing performance of elderly users on smartphones. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 29(9), 604–618 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grabowski, P.J., Mason, A.H.: Age differences in the control of a precision reach to grasp task within a desktop virtual environment. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 72(4), 383–392 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liao, M.J., Wu, Y., Sheu, C.F.: Effects of perceptual complexity on older and younger adults’ target acquisition performance. Behav. Inf. Technol. 33(6), 591–605 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Farhadi-Niaki, F., Etemad, S.A., Arya, A.: Design and usability analysis of gesture-based control for common desktop tasks. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8007, pp. 215–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39330-3_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Portet, F., Vacher, M., Golanski, C., Roux, C., Meillon, B.: Design and evaluation of a smart home voice interface for the elderly: acceptability and objection aspects. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 17(1), 127–144 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rodrigues, E., Carreira, M., Goncalves, D.: Enhancing typing performance of older adults on tablets. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 15(3), 393–418 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tsai, W.-C., Lee, C.-F.: A study on the icon feedback types of small touch screen for the elderly. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) UAHCI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5615, pp. 422–431. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhou, J., Rau, P.L.P., Salvendy, G.: Older adults’ text entry on smartphones and tablets: investigating effects of display size and input method on acceptance and performance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 30(9), 727–739 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moffatt, K.A., Mcgrenere, J.: Slipping and drifting: using older users to uncover pen-based target acquisition difficulties. In: International ACM Sigaccess Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 11–18. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fezzani, K., Albinet, C., Thon, B., Marquie, J.C.: The effect of motor difficulty on the acquisition of a computer task: a comparison between young and older adults. Behav. Inf. Technol. 29(2), 115–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cuaresma, J., MacKenzie, I.S.: A study of variations of Qwerty soft keyboards for mobile phones. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia and Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 126.1–126.8. International ASET, Inc., Ottawa (2013)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nicolau, H., Jorge, J.: Elderly text-entry performance on touchscreens. In: Proceedings of the 14th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 127–134. ACM, Boulder (2012)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Findlater, L., Wobbrock, J.: Personalized input: improving ten-finger touchscreen typing through automatic adaptation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 815–824. ACM, Austin (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nicol, E., Komninos, A., Dunlop, M.D.: A participatory design and formal study investigation into mobile text entry for older adults. Int. J. Mobile Hum. Comput. Interact. 8(2), 20–46 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lepicard, G., Vigouroux, N.: Touch screen user interfaces for older subjects. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W., Karshmer, A. (eds.) ICCHP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6180, pp. 592–599. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14100-3_88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yatani, K., Truong, K.N.: An evaluation of stylus-based text entry methods on handheld devices in stationary and mobile settings. In: International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 487–494. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Motti, L.G., Vigouroux, N., Gorce, P.: Improving accessibility of tactile interaction for older users: lowering accuracy requirements to support drag-and-drop interaction. Procedia Comput. Sci. 67, 366–375 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mclaughlin, A.C., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D.: Using direct and indirect input devices: attention demands and age-related differences. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 16(1), 1–15 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moffatt, K., McGrenere, J.: Steadied-bubbles: combining techniques to address pen-based pointing errors for younger and older adults. In: International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2010, pp. 1125–1134. ACM, Atlanta (2010)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mertens, A., et al.: Model based processing of swabbing movements on touch screens to improve accuracy and efficacy for information input of individuals suffering from kinetic tremor. In: Hippe, Z.S., Kulikowski, J.L., Mroczek, T. (eds.) Human – Computer Systems Interaction: Backgrounds and Applications 2. Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing, vol. 98, pp. 503–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23187-2_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jin, Z.X., Plocher, T., Kiff, L.: Touch screen user interfaces for older adults: button size and spacing. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) UAHCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 933–941. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73279-2_104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wulf, L., Garschall, M., Klein, M., Tscheligi, M.: The influence of age and device orientation on the performance of touch gestures. In: Miesenberger, K., Fels, D., Archambault, D., Peňáz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8548, pp. 583–590. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08599-9_86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sciarretta, E., Ingrosso, A., Volpi, V., Opromolla, A., Grimaldi, R.: Elderly and tablets: considerations and suggestions about the design of proper applications. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) ITAP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9193, pp. 509–518. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20892-3_49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chen, W.: Gesture-based applications for elderly people. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8007, pp. 186–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39330-3_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Muskens, L., van Lent, R., Vijfvinkel, A., van Cann, P., Shahid, S.: Never too old to use a tablet: designing tablet applications for the cognitively and physically impaired elderly. In: Miesenberger, K., Fels, D., Archambault, D., Peňáz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8547, pp. 391–398. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08596-8_60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Barros, A.C.D., Leitão, R., Ribeiro, J.: Design and evaluation of a mobile user interface for older adults: navigation, interaction and visual design recommendations. Procedia Comput. Sci. 27, 369–378 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bergstrom, J.C.R., Jans, O.H.M.E.: Age-related differences in eye tracking and usability performance: website usability for older adults. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 29(8), 541–548 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Witt, H., Lawo, M., Drugge, M.: Visual feedback and different frames of reference: the impact on gesture interaction techniques for wearable computing. In: International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 293–300. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ott, R., Thalmann, D., Vexo, F.: Haptic feedback in mixed-reality environment. Vis. Comput. 23(9), 843–849 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lee, J.-H., Poliakoff, E., Spence, C.: The effect of multimodal feedback presented via a touch screen on the performance of older adults. In: Altinsoy, M.E., Jekosch, U., Brewster, S. (eds.) HAID 2009. LNCS, vol. 5763, pp. 128–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04076-4_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Park, Y., Heo, H., Lee, K.: Enhanced auditory feedback for Korean touch screen keyboards. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 73, 1–11 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lemaitre, G., Houix, O., Susini, P., Visell, Y., Franinovic, K.: Feelings elicited by auditory feedback from a computationally augmented artifact: the flops. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 3(3), 335–348 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nishino, H., Goto, R., Fukakusa, Y., Lin, J., Kagawa, T., Yoshida, K., Nagatomo, N.: A touch screen interface design with tactile feedback for practical applications. Int. J. Space Based Situated Comput. 3(1), 8–21 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Pitts, M.J., Burnett, G., Skrypchuk, L., Wellings, T., Attridge, A., Williams, M.A.: Visual–haptic feedback interaction in automotive touchscreens. Displays 33(1), 7–16 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Üzüm, B., Göktürk, M.: The effect of vibrotactile feedback on novice older adults in target selection tasks. In: Robertson, M.M. (ed.) EHAWC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6779, pp. 171–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21716-6_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hoggan, E., Brewster, S.A., Johnston, J.: Investigating the effectiveness of tactile feedback for mobile touchscreens. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2008, Florence, Italy, April, vol. 2008, pp. 1573–1582 (2008)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    De Boeck, J., Vanacken, L., Coninx, K.: Target Acquisition with force feedback: the effect of different forces on the user’s performance. In: Altinsoy, M.E., Jekosch, U., Brewster, S. (eds.) HAID 2009. LNCS, vol. 5763, pp. 11–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04076-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schierholz, I., Finke, M., Schulte, S., Hauthal, N., Kantzke, C., Rach, S., Sandmann, P.: Enhanced audio-visual interactions in the auditory cortex of elderly cochlear-implant users. Hear. Res. 328, 133–147 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Huyse, A., Leybaert, J., Berthommier, F.: Effects of aging on audio-visual speech integration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136(4), 1918–1931 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Faeth, A., Harding, C.: Emergent effects in multimodal feedback from virtual buttons. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 21(1), 1–23 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Köpsel, A., Majaranta, P., Isokoski, P., Huckauf, A.: Effects of auditory, haptic and visual feedback on performing gestures by gaze or by hand. Behav. Inf. Technol. 35(12), 1044–1062 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Park, E., Joon, K., Pobil, A.P.D.: The effects of multimodal feedback and gender on task performance of stylus pen users. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 9(3), 1 (2012)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Motti, L.G., Vigouroux, N., Gorce, P.: Ease-of-use of tactile interaction for novice older adults. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) ITAP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9193, pp. 463–474. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20892-3_45CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jing Liao
    • 1
  • Jianan Lou
    • 1
  • Qifei Wu
    • 1
  • Min Zou
    • 1
  • Linfeng Zheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Zhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations