Designing for Parental Control: Enriching Usability and Accessibility in the Context of Smart Toys

  • André de Lima SalgadoEmail author
  • Leandro Agostini do Amaral
  • Paula Costa Castro
  • Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes
Part of the International Series on Computer Entertainment and Media Technology book series (ISCEMT)


Designing usable parental control interfaces remains as a challenge in the field. This chapter reviewed traditional Human-Computer Interaction methods, with examples focused on Parental Control interfaces in the context of Smart Toys, aiming practitioners from security and privacy area. We reviewed stages of the User Centered Design (UCD) with greater attention to the evaluation stage. Thus, we detailed activities of evaluation such as: User Testing, Usability Inspection, Accessibility Inspection and Automated Accessibility Testing Tools. Also, we suggested directions for the development of new methods of UCD focused on the context of Smart Toys. Finally, we discussed future trends in the context of Smart Toys: designing for elderly healthcare and interfaces of family control.


Parental Control Family Control Smart Toys Human-Toy Interaction Elderly Evaluation Usability and Accessibility 



This study was supported by the grant #2015/09493-5, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).


  1. Alshamari M (2016) A review of gaps between usability and security/privacy. Int J Commun Netw Syst Sci 9:413–429. doi: 10.4236/ijcns.2016.910034 Google Scholar
  2. Anderson WL, Wiener JM (2015) The impact of assistive technologies on formal and informal home care. Gerontol 55:422–433. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashok V, Borodin Y, Stoyanchev S et al (2014) Wizard-of-Oz evaluation of speech-driven web browsing interface for people with vision impairments. In: Proceedings of the 11th web for all conference. ACM, New York, pp 12:1–12:9. doi: 10.1145/2596695.2596699
  4. Bhattarai R, Joyce G, Dutta S (2016) Information security application design: understanding your users. In: Proceedings of the international conference on human aspects of information security, privacy, and trust. Springer International Publishing, Toronto, pp 103–113. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39381-0_10
  5. Borsci S, Macredie RD, Barnett J et al (2013) Reviewing and extending the five-user assumption: a grounded procedure for interaction evaluation. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 20:29:1–29:23. doi: 10.1145/2506210
  6. Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Pirogowicz I (2014) Support for e-health services among elderly primary care patients. Telemed e-Health 20:696–704. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CBC News (Canada) Ludwig the Robot Designed to Help Alzheimer’s Patients. Accessed 28th Jun 2017
  8. Cha CH (2014) Global population ageing and mission of gerontechnological research and development. Geron 13:65Google Scholar
  9. Chin E, Felt AP, Sekar V, Wagner D (2012) Measuring user confidence in smartphone security and privacy. In: Proceedings of the eighth symposium on usable privacy and security. ACM, New York, pp 1:1–1:16. doi: 10.1145/2335356.2335358
  10. de Lima SA, Freire AP (2014) Heuristic evaluation of mobile usability: a mapping study. In: Kurosu M (ed) Human-computer interaction applications and services. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, New York, pp 178–188. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07227-2_18 Google Scholar
  11. de Lima SA, Rodrigues SS, Fortes RPM (2016) Evolving Heuristic Evaluation for multiple contexts and audiences: Perspectives from a Mapping Study. In: Proceedings of the 34th ACM international conference on the design of communication. ACM, New York, pp 19:1–19:8. doi: 10.1145/2987592.2987617
  12. de Veer AJE, Peeters JM, Brabers AE et al (2015) Determinants of the intention to use e-health by community dwelling older people. BMC Health Serv Res 15(103). doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0765-8
  13. Delello JA, McWhorter RR (2015) Reducing the digital divide connecting older adults to iPad technology. JAppl Gerontol 36(1):3–28. doi: 10.1177/0733464815589985 Google Scholar
  14. Dhillon G, Oliveira T, Susarapu S, Caldeira M (2016) Deciding between information security and usability: developing value based objectives. Comput Hum Behav 61:656–666. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dishman E (2004) Inventing wellness systems for aging in place. Computer 37:34–41. doi: 10.1109/MC.2004.1297237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd GD, Beale R (2003) Human computer interaction, 3rd edn. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, EssexGoogle Scholar
  17. Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1980) Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev 87:215–251. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Union Safer Internet Program (n.d.) Benchmarking of parental control tools for the onling protection of children.
  19. Fernandez A, Insfran E, Abrahão S (2011) Usability evaluation methods for the web: a systematic mapping study. Inf Softw Technol 53:789–817. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2011.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Følstad A, Law E, Hornbæk K (2012) Analysis in practical usability evaluation: a survey study. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 2127–2136. doi: 10.1145/2207676.2208365
  21. Gould JD, Lewis C (1985) Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun ACM 28:300–311. doi: 10.1145/3166.3170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartson R, Pyla PS (2012) The UX book: process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience. Elsevier, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  23. Hertzum M, Jacobsen NE (2001) The evaluator effect: a chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. Int J Hum Comput Interact 14:421–443. doi: 10.1207/S15327590IJHC1304_05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hornbæk K (2010) Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods. Behav Inform Technol 29:97–111. doi: 10.1080/01449290801939400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hornbæk K, Stage J (2006) The interplay between usability evaluation and user interaction design. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 21:117–123. doi: 10.1207/s15327590ijhc2102_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hung PCK, Iqbal F, Huang S-C et al (2016) A glance of child’s play privacy in smart toys. In: Sun X, Liu A, Chao H-C, Bertino E (eds) Cloud computing and security. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 217–231. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-48674-1_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ISO 9241-161 (2016) Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 161: Guidance on visual user-interface elements. Accessed 28th Jun 2017
  28. ISO 9241-210 (2010) Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Accessed 28th Jun 2017
  29. ISO/IEC 25066 (2016) Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Common Industry Format (CIF) for Usability — Evaluation Report. Accessed 28th Jun 2017
  30. ISO/IEC TR 25060 (2010) Systems and software engineering — Systems and software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Common Industry Format (CIF) for usability: General framework for usability-related information. Accessed 28th Jun 2017
  31. Jadhav D, Bhutkar G, Mehta V (2013) Usability evaluation of messenger applications for Android phones using cognitive walkthrough. In: Proceedings of the 11th Asia Pacific conference on computer human interaction. ACM, New York, pp 9–18. doi: 10.1145/2525194.2525202
  32. Katzeff C, Nyblom Å, Tunheden S, Torstensson C (2012) User-centred design and evaluation of EnergyCoach – an interactive energy service for households. Behav Inform Technol 31:305–324. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2011.618778 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klemmer SR, Sinha AK, Chen J et al (2000) Suede: a wizard of Oz prototyping tool for speech user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. ACM, New York, pp 1–10. doi: 10.1145/354401.354406
  34. Kurniawan S (2008) Older people and mobile phones: a multi-method investigation. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 66:889–901. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Law EL-C, Roto V, Hassenzahl M et al (2009) Understanding, scoping and defining user experience. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems – CHI 09 719. doi: 10.1145/1518701.1518813
  36. Leme RR, Zaina LA, Casadei V (2014) Interaction with mobile devices by elderly people: The Brazilian Scenario. ACHIGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis C, Polson PG, Wharton C, Rieman J (1990) Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory-based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 235–242. doi: 10.1145/97243.97279
  38. Liu B, Lin J, Sadeh N (2014) Reconciling mobile app privacy and usability on smartphones: could user privacy profiles help? In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York, pp 201–212. doi: 10.1145/2566486.2568035
  39. Liu B, Andersen MS, Schaub F et al (2016) Follow my recommendations: a personalized assistant for mobile app permissions. In: Twelfth symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS 2016)Google Scholar
  40. Mahatody T, Sagar M, Kolski C (2010) State of the art on the cognitive walkthrough method, its variants and evolutions. Int J Hum Comput Interact 26:741–785. doi: 10.1080/10447311003781409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martins AI, Queirós A, Silva AG, Rocha NP (2014) Usability evaluation methods: a systematic review. In: Saeed S, Bajwa IS, Mahmood Z (eds). Human Factors in Software Development and Design. IGI Global. Hershey. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6485-2.ch013
  42. Maulsby D, Greenberg S, Mander R (1993) Prototyping an intelligent agent through wizard of Oz. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT ‘93 and CHI ‘93 conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 277–284. doi: 10.1145/169059.169215
  43. Munteanu C, Molyneaux H, Moncur W et al (2015) Situational ethics: re-thinking approaches to formal ethics requirements for human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 105–114. doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702481
  44. Ng G, Chow M, Salgado A d L (2015) Toys and mobile applications: current trends and related privacy issues. In: PCK H (ed) Mobile services for toy computing. Springer International Publishing, pp 51–76Google Scholar
  45. Nielsen J (1992) Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM/Springer, Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London, pp 373–380. doi: 10.1145/142750.142834
  46. Nielsen J (1994) Heuristic evaluation. In: Mack RL, Nielsen J (eds) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New York, pp 25–62. ISBN 0-471-01877-5Google Scholar
  47. Norman DA (2013) The design of everyday things: revised and expanded edition. Basic books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Paz F, Pow-Sang JA (2015) Usability evaluation methods for software development: a systematic mapping review. In: 2015 8th international conference on Advanced Software Engineering Its Applications (ASEA). pp 1–4. doi: 10.1109/ASEA.2015.8
  49. Paz F, Pow-Sang JA (2016) A systematic mapping review of usability evaluation methods for software development process. Int J Softw Eng Appl 10:165–178Google Scholar
  50. Petrie H, Savva A, Power C (2015) Towards a unified definition of web accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 12th web for all conference. ACM, Florence, Italy, pp 1–13. doi: 10.1145/2745555.2746653
  51. Polson PG, Lewis C, Rieman J, Wharton C (1992) Cognitive walkthroughs: a method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. Int J Man-Machine Stud 36:741–773. doi: 10.1016/0020-7373(92)90039-N CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Preece J, Sharp H, Rogers Y (2015) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction, 4th edn. Wiley, Chichester, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  53. Rafferty L, Fantinato M, Hung PCK (2015) Privacy requirements in toy computing. In: PCK H (ed) Mobile services for toy computing. Springer International Publishing, Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London, pp 141–173Google Scholar
  54. Rowe JW, Kahn RL (2015) Successful aging 2.0: conceptual expansions for the 21st century. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 70:593–596. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbv025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Segura VCVB, Barbosa SDJ (2013) UISKEI++: multi-device wizard of Oz prototyping. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCHI symposium on engineering interactive computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 171–174. doi: 10.1145/2494603.2480337
  56. Tang JKT, Tewell J (2015) Emerging human-toy interaction techniques with augmented and mixed reality. In: PCK H (ed) Mobile services for toy computing. Springer International Publishing, Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London, pp 77–105Google Scholar
  57. Warpenius E, Alasaarela E, Sorvoja H, Kinnunen M (2015) A mobile user-interface for elderly care from the perspective of relatives 40(2):113–124. doi: 10.3109/17538157.2013.879148
  58. Wharton C, Rieman J, Lewis C, Polson P (1994) In: Nielsen J, Mack RL (eds) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New York, pp 105–140. ISBN 0-471-01877-5Google Scholar
  59. Winstead V, Anderson WA, Yost EA et al (2013) You can teach an old dog new tricks: a qualitative analysis of how residents of senior living communities may use the web to overcome spatial and social barriers. J Appl Gerontol 32:540–560. doi: 10.1177/0733464811431824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. World Health Organization (WHO) (2015) Number of people over 60 years set to double by 2050; major societal changes required. In:. WHO. Accessed Nov 17th 2016
  61. Yuan B, Herbert J (2011) Web-based real-time remote monitoring for pervasive healthcare. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops). pp 625–629. doi: 10.1109/PERCOMW.2011.5766964

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • André de Lima Salgado
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leandro Agostini do Amaral
    • 1
  • Paula Costa Castro
    • 2
  • Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Mathematical Science and Computing, University of São Paulo (USP)São CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Department of GerontologyFederal University of São Carlos (UFSCAR)São CarlosBrazil

Personalised recommendations