Keeping in Touch: Mobile Apps Use by Older Adults

  • Dalit LevyEmail author
  • Elena Simonovsky
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10926)


The presentation is based on a qualitative research that followed the process of adjustment to tablet computers by males and females aged 65+. The purpose of the study was to characterize the lifestyle of the population commonly called “the Third Age” regarding the use of touch-screen technology. From the analysis of the data accumulated through ethnographic observations in the homes of the participants and through in-depth interviews with them, a multilayered model emerged, including four dimensions relevant to living with a tablet at the third age: Activity, Learning, Independence, and Barriers. This led to proposing a new model of aging which combines extensive use of devices with integrated touch-screen technology, referred to as “Aging Model 2.0”. The research suggests that the use of advanced technology may contribute to a new representation of older adults in society, which, in turn, may lead us to reevaluate our relationship with our parents and grandparents.


Assistive technologies Touch-screen technologies Web 2.0 


  1. 1.
    Charness, N., Boot, W.R.: Aging and information technology use: potential and barriers. Current Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18(5), 253–258 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Findlater, L., Froehlich, J.E., Fattal, K., Wobbrock, J.O., Dastyar, T.: Age-related differences in performance with touchscreens compared to traditional mouse input. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 343–346 (2013). Accessed 22 Feb 2018
  3. 3.
    O’Reilly, T.: What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Commun. Strategies 1, 17 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltes, P.B.: On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny. Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. Am. Psychol. 52(4), 366–380 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rowe, J.W., Kahn, R.L.: Successful aging. In: Dychtwald, K. (ed.) Healthy Aging: Challenges and Solutions, pp. 27–44. Aspen, Gaithersburg (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nimrod, G., Kleiber, D.: Reconsidering change and continuity in later life: toward an innovation theory of successful aging. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 65(1), 1–22 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rudman, D.L.: Positive aging and its implications for occupational possibilities in later life. Canad. J. Occup. Therapy 73(3), 188–192 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Consoli, D.: A model of active aging 2.0 to stimulate older adults in the use of virtual social networks. Intergenerational Solidarity and Older Adults’ Education in Community, 296 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karakas, F.: Welcome to world 2.0: the new digital ecosystem. J. Bus. Strategy 30(4), 23–30 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Reilly, T., Musser, J.: Excerpts of Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices. O’Reilly Media (2006). Accessed 2 Dec 2013
  11. 11.
    Robillard, J.M., Johnson, T.W., Hennessey, C., Beattie, B.L., Illes, J.: Aging 2.0: health information about dementia on twitter. PLoS ONE 8(7), e69861 (2013).‏CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turkle, S.: Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other. Basic Books, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaplan, A.: Preface to Paradise, Life in the Current Site of Old Age. Series for Sociology and Anthropology. Tel Aviv (Hebrew), Rasling (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caprani, N., O’Connor, N.E., Gurrin, C.: Touch screens for the older user. In: Cheein, A.F. (ed.) Assistive Technologies, pp. 95–118 (2012). Accessed 22 Feb 2018Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Piattini, M.: The role of ICTs in ageing. LYCHNOS 8, 60–64 (2012). Accessed 23 Aug 2012
  16. 16.
    Hall, A.K., Stellefson, M., Bernhardt, J.M.: Healthy aging 2.0: the potential of new media and technology. Preventing Chronic Disease 9, E67 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dickinson, A., Gregor, P.: Computer use has no demonstrated impact on the well-being of older adults. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64(8), 744–753 (2006). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen-Mansfield, J., Biddison, J.: The scope and future trends of gerontechnology: consumers’ opinions and literature survey. J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 25(3), 1–19 (2007). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wandke, H., Sengpiel, M., Sönksen, M.: Myths about older people’s use of information and communication technology. Gerontology 58(6), 564–570 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S.: Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage, London (1989)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hart, T., Chaparro, B., Halcomb, C.: Evaluating websites for older adults: adherence to senior-friendly guidelines and end-user performance. Behav. Inf. Technol. 27(3), 191–199 (2008). Accessed 30 Aug 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levy, D., Simonovsky, E.: “Meet Vasia, our new family member”: tablets use by older adults. In: Shoniregun, C.A., Akmayeva, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the World Congress on Education (WCE-2015), pp. 132–136 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zefat Academic CollegeZefatIsrael
  2. 2.Kibbutzim College of EducationTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations