Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Computing in Smart Toys

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CogniToys Dino website at: https://cognitoys.com/. Accessed Jun 28th, 2017.

  2. 2.

    Jibo website: https://www.jibo.com/privacy. Accessed Jun 28th, 2017.

  3. 3.

    Hello Barbie website: https://www.toytalk.com/product/hello-barbie/.

  4. 4.

    Designed using Material Design guidelines and free icons from: https://material.google.com/style/icons.html#icons-product-icons.

  5. 5.

    Hierarchical Task Analysis, by Peter Hornsby at: http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2010/02/hierarchical-task-analysis.php.

  6. 6.

    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 website: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.

  7. 7.

    Google Material Design website: https://material.google.com/.

  8. 8.

    iOS Human Interface Guidelines website: https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/.

  9. 9.

    Usability.gov “Prototyping”: https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/prototyping.html.

  10. 10.

    U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Website: www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/resources/templates.html.

  11. 11.

    Retrieved June 13th, 2016, from Morae Website at: www.techsmith.com/morae.html.

  12. 12.

    Retrieved June 13th, 2016, from UserZoom Website at: www.userzoom.co.uk/software/remote-usability-testing/#content-read=true.

  13. 13.

    Retrieved June 13th, 2016, from The EyeTribe Website at: theeyetribe.com/.

  14. 14.

    Retrieved June 13th, 2016, from Tobii AB Website at: www.tobii.com/group/.

  15. 15.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.

  16. 16.

    WCAG 2.0 success criteria Webpage: www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-levels-head.

  17. 17.

    Web Accessibility Checker Webpage: achecker.ca/checker/index.php.

  18. 18.

    TAW tool Webpage: www.tawdis.net/ingles.html?lang=en.

  19. 19.

    Every information about Google Material Design was retrieved from: https://material.google.com/#.

  20. 20.

    Material Icons Webpage: https://material.io/icons/.

  21. 21.

    10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design, by Jakob Nielsen at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/.

References

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBC News (Canada) Ludwig the Robot Designed to Help Alzheimer’s Patients. https://cacm.acm.org/news/205445-ludwig-the-robot-designed-to-help-alzheimers-patients/fulltext. Accessed 28th Jun 2017

  • Cha CH (2014) Global population ageing and mission of gerontechnological research and development. Geron 13:65

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dishman E (2004) Inventing wellness systems for aging in place. Computer 37:34–41. doi:10.1109/MC.2004.1297237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd GD, Beale R (2003) Human computer interaction, 3rd edn. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, Essex

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1980) Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev 87:215–251. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Union Safer Internet Program (n.d.) Benchmarking of parental control tools for the onling protection of children. http://sipbench.eu/transfer/SIP_BENCHII_5th_cycle_Executive_summary.pdf

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Gould JD, Lewis C (1985) Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun ACM 28:300–311. doi:10.1145/3166.3170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartson R, Pyla PS (2012) The UX book: process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience. Elsevier, Waltham

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornbæk K (2010) Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods. Behav Inform Technol 29:97–111. doi:10.1080/01449290801939400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ISO 9241-161 (2016) Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 161: Guidance on visual user-interface elements. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:25066:ed-1:v1:en. Accessed 28th Jun 2017

  • ISO 9241-210 (2010) Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-210:ed-1:v1:en. Accessed 28th Jun 2017

  • ISO/IEC 25066 (2016) Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Common Industry Format (CIF) for Usability — Evaluation Report. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:25066:ed-1:v1:en. Accessed 28th Jun 2017

  • 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. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:tr:25060:ed-1:v1:en. Accessed 28th Jun 2017

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Leme RR, Zaina LA, Casadei V (2014) Interaction with mobile devices by elderly people: The Brazilian Scenario. ACHI

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 51–76

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Nielsen J (1994) Heuristic evaluation. In: Mack RL, Nielsen J (eds) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New York, pp 25–62. ISBN 0-471-01877-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman DA (2013) The design of everyday things: revised and expanded edition. Basic books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Paz F, Pow-Sang JA (2016) A systematic mapping review of usability evaluation methods for software development process. Int J Softw Eng Appl 10:165–178

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preece J, Sharp H, Rogers Y (2015) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction, 4th edn. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 141–173

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 77–105

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 0-471-01877-5

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO) (2015) Number of people over 60 years set to double by 2050; major societal changes required. In:. WHO. http://www.who.int/entity/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/older-persons-day/en/. Accessed Nov 17th 2016

  • 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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Mathematical Science and Computing, University of São Paulo (USP), São Carlos, SP, Brazil

    André de Lima Salgado, Leandro Agostini do Amaral & Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes

  2. Department of Gerontology, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCAR), São Carlos, SP, Brazil

    Paula Costa Castro

Authors
  1. André de Lima Salgado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leandro Agostini do Amaral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paula Costa Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André de Lima Salgado .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing and Information Sciences, Caritas Institute of Higher Education, Tseung Kwan O, Hong Kong

    Jeff K.T. Tang

  2. University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

    Patrick C. K. Hung

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Lima Salgado, A., do Amaral, L.A., Castro, P.C., de Mattos Fortes, R.P. (2017). Designing for Parental Control: Enriching Usability and Accessibility in the Context of Smart Toys. In: Tang, J., Hung, P. (eds) Computing in Smart Toys. International Series on Computer Entertainment and Media Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62072-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62072-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62071-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62072-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation