Advertisement

Design for Enabling Technologies. A Framework to Empower Multi-level User Engagement

Conference paper
  • 1.1k Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 776)

Abstract

The Internet of Things, smart devices, connected health and ICT have the potential to enable people, carers and families to improve the quality of health and social wellbeing. One factor that can help people with physical or cognitive impairments to learn new skills and to be connected with the world, concerns accessible interaction with media devices, such as radios, TVs, tablets and smartphones. According to input received from stakeholders of Irish-based communities of people with different abilities, one of the main barriers for users relates to a reduced level of accessibility when controlling media devices. The aim of this work is to improve users’ autonomy by providing tools that enhance users’ abilities with media device functionalities through the use of configurable prototypes of media assistive controllers. The output of the work is a proof of concept version of a methodology that matches user ability profiles to configurations of the corresponding functionalities of media assistive devices according to the Universal Design approach. This framework enables people with different abilities to independently engage with a media controller, through a multi-level interaction approach. It also facilitates users who become proficient at using a device at one level to improve their capabilities to a more complex level, requiring additional users’ interaction. Finally, it provides an example of how the ICF can be leveraged to suggest accessibility configuration parameters for devices of this type.

Keywords

Internet of things Ambient assisted living Inclusive design Smart remote control Human-device interactions Learning device Assistive technologies ICF Human factors 

References

  1. 1.
    European Commission: The 2015 Ageing Report. Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies. European Commission, Brussels (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pew, R.W., Van Hemel, S.B.: Technology for adaptive aging. In: Steering Committee for the Workshop on Technology for Adaptive Aging, NRC of the National Academies, p. 247 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wiener, J.M., Raymond, J.H., Clarck, R., Van Nostrand, J.F.: Measuring the activities of daily living: comparisons across national surveys. US department of health and human services. J. Gerontol. Soc. Sci. 45(6), S229–237 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fillenbaum, G.G.: Activities of daily living. In: Maddox, G.L. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Aging. Springer, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taylor, K.: Connected Health. How Digital Technology is Transforming Health and Social Care. The Creative Studio at Deloitte, London (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Ulizia, A., Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., Guzzo, T.: Smart homes to support elderly people: innovative technologies and social impacts. In: Pervasive and Smart Technologies for Healthcare: Ubiquitous Methodologies and Tools, 1st edn. Medical Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costello, L., Cox, W.: Services and supports for people with disabilities (2013). http://www.disability-federation.ie. Accessed 26 Jan 2018
  8. 8.
    Üstün, T.B., Kostanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., Rehm, J.: Measuring Health and Disability. Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS 2.0, WHO Disability, Canberra (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Howe, M.J.A.: Principles of Abilities and Human Learning. Psychology Press, East Sussex (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators: Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386(9995), 22–28 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Health Organisation: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHO Library - WHO, Geneva (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Angelucci, F., Cellucci, C., Di Sivo, M., Ladiana, D.: Autonomia, Indipendenza, Inclusione. TECHNE J. Technol. Archit. Environ. 9, 85–95 (2015). FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Disability Authority: The Application of the ICF and Related Resources to Improve Universal Design Guidance Standards. Guidance on integrating optimal terminology and classifications to improve a new revision of Guide 71:2001. Prepared for CEUD, NDA (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hornsby, P.: Hierarchical Task Analysis, Inspirations from software engineering, Feb. 2010. http://www.uxmatters.com/columns/innovating-ux-practice/. Accessed 29 Feb 2018
  15. 15.
    Ostro, E., Preiser, W.: Universal Design Handbook, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Professional, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mace, R.L., Hardie, G.J., Place, J.P.: Accessible Environments: Toward Universal Design, The Centre for Universal Design, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA (1996). https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/docs/ACC%20Environments.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  17. 17.
    Case, J.B.: Universal Design, Pearson, Texas (2013). http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/tmrs_rg/UniversalDesign.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2018
  18. 18.
    Daniel, B.: The Internet of Things Is Far Bigger Than Anyone Realizes Internet. http://www.wired.com/insights/2014/11/the-internet-of-things-bigger/. Accessed 26 Dec 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, tPOT Research GroupDublin Institute of TechnologyDublinIreland
  2. 2.BauruBrazil

Personalised recommendations