Beyond Functionality — Product Semantics in Assistive Device Design

  • J. L. Allen


This chapter discusses work carried out on a Ph.D. study addressing the design and development of a wearable communication aid for people who are illiterate and cannot speak. People with such disabilities often depend on electronic Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices for interpersonal communication. However such products, and products intended for people with disabilities more generally, have characteristics that inadequately attend to users’ needs - in particular many devices pay insufficient regard to the psychological and sociological impact the devices have upon their users. The chapter briefly discusses an empirical case study to design and develop the Portland Communication Aid (PCA). The process of establishing user requirements, and in particular the notion of designer-facilitated participatory design, is discussed. The resulting prototype of the PCA is briefly explained along with a discussion of the importance of product semantics in the design of assistive technology.


User Requirement Assistive Technology Medium Density Fibreboard Communicative Goal Empirical Case Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen JL (2002) Some problems of designing for augmentative and alternative communication users: an enquiry through practical design activity. Ph.D. Thesis. Loughborough University, Loughborough, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchanan R (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues 8(2): 5–21MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collingsworth J (1993) Design for Disability: A Handbook for Students and Teachers. London Guildhall University, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Csikszentmihalyi M, Rochberg-Halton E (1981) The meaning of things - Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dewey J (1938) Experience and education. The MacMillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Galer M (1983) Methodology for the evaluation of aids for the disabled. Institute for Consumer Ergonomics, Loughborough, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Goffman E (1973) Stigma - notes on the management of spoiled identity. Penguin Books Ltd, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Hogan P (1994/5) Introducing the European Institute for Design and Disability. Usertalk 4(Winter): 2–3Google Scholar
  9. Jonas W (1993) Design as problem-solving? or: Here is the solution - What was the problem? Design Studies 14(2): 157–170MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jonkers HL (1980) Aids for the physically disabled: Consumer conclusions drawn from a cost-benefit analysis. In: The Use of Technology in the Care of the Elderly and the Disabled. Francis Pinter, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Krippendorff K, Butter R (1984) Product semantics: Exploring the symbolic qualities of form. Innovation, the Journal of the Industrial Designers Society of America, Spring, pp 4–9Google Scholar
  12. Murphy J (1993) The advantages and disadvantages of high tech AAC devices with voice output. In: Fifth Annual European Minspeak Conference. Mansfield, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Murphy J, Collins S (1994) Advantages and disadvantages of AAC systems. Communication Matters 8(3): 5–7Google Scholar
  14. Murphy J, Markov Marková I, Moodie E, Scott J, Boa S (1995) Augmentative and alternative communication systems used by people with cerebral palsy in Scotland: Demographic survey. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 11(1): 26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nicolle C, Poulson DF, Richardson S J (1995) A methodology for defining user requirements for rehabilitation and assistive technology. In: The European Context for Assistive Technology. Proceedings of the 2nd TIDE Congress. IOS Press, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  16. Poulson DF, Ashby MC, Richardson S J (eds.) (1996) USERfit: A practical handbook on user-centred design for assistive technology. ECSC-EC-EAEC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. Ring ND (1980) Communication aids for the speech impaired. In: The Use of Technology in the Care of the Elderly and the Disabled. Francis Pinter, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Stanton N, Baber C (1996) Factors affecting the selection of methods and techniques prior to conducting a usability evaluation. In: Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor & Francis, London, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. L. Allen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations