Developing an Interactive TV for the Elderly and Impaired: An Inclusive Design Strategy

  • Pat Langdon
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


Combining the development of multimodal technology with research exposes the weaknesses of conventional approaches when the target users are elderly or impaired. This chapter examines the antecedents, implementation and evaluation of a User Centered approach to the design of interactive technology such as iDTV and mobile devices that takes into account the variability and extraordinary capabilities of users and how to design for them. It describes the strengths and weaknesses of the new Inclusive Interaction Design approach and compares a usage case with another separate project with the same goals.


Cognitive Capability User Centre Design Universal Design User Capability Impaired User 
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.


  1. 1.
    Benyon, D., & Murray, D. (1993, August). Applying user modeling to human computer interaction design. Artificial Intelligence Review, 7(3–4), 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bichard, J., Langdon, P., & Coleman R. (2007). ‘Does my stigma look big in this?’ Considering acceptability and desirability in the inclusive design of technology products. In Coping with diversity, 4th international conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, UAHCI 2007 (pp. 622–631), Beijing, 4554. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biswas P., Robinson P., & Langdon P. (2012). Designing inclusive interfaces through user modelling and simulation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Taylor & Francis, 28(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blackwell, A. D., Eckert, C. M., Bucciarelli, L. L., & Earl, C. F. (2009). Witnesses to design: A phenomenology of comparative design. Design Issues, 25(1), 36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charness, N., & Bosman, E. A. (1992). Chapter 10: Human factors and age. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 495–551). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coleman, R. (2001). Designing for our future selves. In W. F. E. Preiser & E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal design handbook (pp. 4.1–4.25). New York: MacGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czaja, S. J., & Lee, C. C. (2008). Chapter 39: Information technology and older adults. In A. Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications human factors and ergonomics (2nd ed., Section 5), Designing for diversity (pp. 811–882). CDC: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DFS-SN4090. (1997). Disability follow-up to the 1996/97 [FRS] Family Resources Survey. Accessed 29 Jan 2013.
  9. 9.
    Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freudenthal, T. D. (1998). Learning to use interactive devices; Age differences in the reasoning process. Ph.D. thesis. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Grundy, E., Ahlburg, D., Ali, M., Breeze, E., & Sloggett, A. (1999). Disability in Great Britain: Results from the 1996/97 disability follow-up to the family resources survey. London: UK Department of Social Security/Corporate Document Services. ISBN 1-84123-119-3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haigh, R. (1993). The ageing process: A challenge for design. Applied Ergonomics, 24(1), 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Höök, K. (1997). Evaluating the utility and usability of an adaptive hypermedia system. SICS, Box 1263, 164 28 Kista.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Höök, K. (2000, February). Steps to take before intelligent user interfaces become real. Interacting with Computers, 12(4), 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horstmann, H. M., & Levine, S. P. (1990). Modeling of user performance with computer access and augmentative communication systems for handicapped people. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 18.
    Jacko, J. A., & Vitense, H. S. (2001). A review and reappraisal of information technologies within a conceptual framework for individuals with disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society (UAIS), 1, 56–76.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Keates, S., & Clarkson, J. (2003). Countering design exclusion – An introduction to inclusive design. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Kondraske, G. V. (2000). A working model for human system-task interfaces. In J. D. Bronzino (Ed.), The biomedical engineering handbook (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 147-141–147-118). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Langdon, P., Aurisicchio, M., Clarkson, P. J., & Wallace, K. (2003). An integrated ethnographic and empirical methodology in a study of knowledge searches in aerospace design. In International conference on engineering design, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    Langdon, P. M., Lewis, T., & Clarkson, P. J. (2007). The effects of prior experience on the use of consumer products. Universal Access in the Information Society, 6(2), 179, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 24.
    Langdon, P. M., Lewis, T., & Clarkson, P. J. (2010). Prior experience in the use of domestic product interfaces. Universal Access in the Information Society, 9(3), 209. ISSN:1615-5289, Springer.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    Langdon, P., Persad, U., & Clarkson, P. J. (2010). Developing a model of cognitive interaction for analytical inclusive design evaluation. Interacting with Computers, 22(6), 510–529. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 27.
    Martin, J., & Elliot, D. (1992). Creating an overall measure of severity of disability for the office of population census and surveys disability survey. Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series A, 155(1), 121–140.Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    MyUi Project, Accessed 30 Jan 13.
  26. 29.
    Neilson, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 0-12-518406-9.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    Newell, A. F., Arnott, J. L., & Waller, A. (1992). On the validity of user-modeling in AAC: Comments on Horstmann and Levine (1990). Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 31.
    Newell, A. F. (2006). Older people as a focus for inclusive design. Gerontechnology, 4(4), 190–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 32.
    Newell, A. F., Carmichael, A., Gregor, P., Alm, N., & Waller, A. (2008). Information technology for cognitive support, chapter 41. In A. Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications human factors and ergonomics (2nd ed., Section 5), Designing for diversity (pp. 811–882). CDC: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  30. 33.
    Newell, A. F. (1995). Extra-ordinary human computer operation. In A. D. N. Edwards (Ed.), Extra-ordinary human-computer interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 34.
    Newell, A. F., et al. (1997). Human computer interfaces for people with disabilities. In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human computer interaction (pp. 813–824). ISBN 0-444-1862-6.Google Scholar
  32. 35.
    Nichols, T. A., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2006). Design for aging. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (3rd ed., pp. 1418–1445). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 36.
    Oliver, M. (2004). If I had a hammer: The social model in action. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling barrier; Enabling environments (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications. ISBN 07619 42645.Google Scholar
  34. 37.
    Ormerod, M., & Newton, R. A. (2005). Moving beyond accessibility: The principles of universal (inclusive) design as a dimension in nD modelling of the built environment. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 1(2), 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 38.
    Persad, U., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, J. (2007). Characterising user capabilities to support inclusive design evaluation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 6(2), 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 39.
    Petrie, H. (2001). Accessibility and usability requirements for ICTs for disabled and elderly people: A functional classification approach. In C. Nicolle & J. G. Abascal (Eds.), Inclusive guidelines for human computer interaction. London: Taylor and Francis. ISBN 0-748409-48-3.Google Scholar
  37. 40.
    Porter, J. M., Case, K., Marshall, R., Gyi, D. E., & Sims, R. E. (2004, March 1). ‘Beyond Jack and Jill’: Designing for individuals using HADRIAN. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 333, 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 41.
    Porter, J. M., Marshall, R., Freer, M., & Case, K. (2004). SAMMIE: A computer aided ergonomics design tool. In N. J. Delleman, C. M. Haslegrave, & D. B. Chaffin (Eds.), Working postures and movement tools for evaluation and engineering (pp. 454–462). Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.Google Scholar
  39. 42.
    Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1993). Does it all go together when it goes? The nineteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A(3), 385–434.Google Scholar
  40. 43.
    Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 44.
    Schaie, K. W. (1988). Variability in cognitive functions in the elderly: Implications for societal participation. Basic Life Science, 43, 191–211.Google Scholar
  42. 45.
    Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  43. 46.
    Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file. Raleigh: North Carolina State University/The Centre for Universal Design.Google Scholar
  44. 48.
    Van Velsen, L., Van der Geest, T., Klaassen, R., & Steehouder, M. (2008). User-centered evaluation of adaptive and adaptable systems: A literature review. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 23(3), 261–281.Google Scholar
  45. 49.
    Vanderheiden, G. C., & Vanderheiden, K. (1992). Guidelines for the design of consumer products to increase their accessibility to people with disabilities. Madison: Trace R & D Center.Google Scholar
  46. 51.
    World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  47. 52.
    Waller, S. D., Williams, E. Y., Langdon, P. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2010). Understanding the co-occurrence of ability loss. In P. M. Langdon, P. J. Clarkson, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Designing inclusive interactions (pp. 35–45). London: Springer. ISBN 9-781849-961653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 53.
    Waller, S. D., Williams, E. Y., Langdon, P. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2010). Quantifying exclusion for tasks related to product interaction. In P. M. Langdon, P. J. Clarkson, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Designing inclusive interactions (pp. 57–69). London: Springer. ISBN 9-781849-961653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridge, CambridgeshireUK

Personalised recommendations