Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design Methods for the Projection of Uses for Vulnerable People

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (IEA 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 824))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The VOCADOM research project aims to design a new technology (voice control usable at home) to encourage the well-being and autonomy of the elderly with loss of autonomy at home. To guide design choices, we develop a user-centered design for all so that all actors are involved in the design process and we develop new methods of uses prospecting so that target profiles can project themselves in-to the use of an innovative device in ecological situation. We are in a process of methodological triangulation. Especially for the study of needs where through an ethnographic study we identify the problems encountered at home where the device can help. We ask end users and caregivers who are part of the eco system. After we use activity simulation methods to evaluate the acceptance, usefulness and usability of the device. This will allow us to improve the device so that it matches the real needs of users.

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 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ballinger C, Payne S (2002) The construction of the risk of falling among and by older people. Ageing Soc 22(3):305–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barcellini F, Van Belleghem L, Daniellou F (2013) Les projets de conception comme opportunité de développement des activités. In: Ergonomie constructive. Presses universitaires de France, pp 191–206

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bobillier-Chaumon M-E (2013) Conditions d’usage et facteurs d’acceptation des technologies dans l’activité: questions et perspectives pour la psychologie du travail (Habilitation à Diriger la Recherche). Université Pierre-Mendès-France, Grenoble

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bobillier-Chaumon M-E et al (2014) Concevoir une technologie ambiante pour le maintien à domicile: une démarche prospective par la prise en compte des systèmes d’activité. Le travail humain 77(1):39–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bobillier Chaumon ME (2016) L’acceptation située des technologies dans et par l’activité: Premiers étayages pour une clinique de l’usage. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations 22(1):4–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bobillier Chaumon M-E, Clot Y (2016) Clinique de l’usage: Les artefacts technologiques comme développement de l’activité. Synthèse Introductive au dossier. Activités 13(2)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brangier É, Robert J-M (2012) L’innovation par l’ergonomie: éléments d’ergonomie prospective. Innovation, connaissances et société: vers une société de l’innovation 59–82

    Google Scholar 

  8. Caradec V (1999) Vieillissement et usage des technologies. Une perspective identitaire et relationnelle. Réseaux 17(96):45–95. https://doi.org/10.3406/reso.1999.1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caradec V (2003) Comportements culturels de la population âgée. Empan 52(4):54. https://doi.org/10.3917/empa.052.0054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Caradec V (2007) L’épreuve du grand âge. Retraite et société 52(3):11–37. Récupéré du site sur http://www.cairn.info/revue-retraite-et-societe-2007-3-page-11

  11. Chen L, Nugent C (2009) Ontology-based activity recognition in intelligent pervasive environments. Int J Web Inf Syst 5:410–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. CIRDO («Compagnon Intelligent Réagissant au Doigt et à l’Oeil» - financements ANR et CNSA) réunit plusieurs partenaires industriels et scientifiques issus de différentes disciplines: Laboratoires de traitement de l’image et du langage (GETALP, LIRIS) et laboratoire en psychologie de la santé, ergonomique et du travail (GRePS). Partenaires industriels TECHNOSENS, CATEL, IRSAP et FSI

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clement S, Rolland C, Thoer-Fabre C (2005) Usages, normes, autonomie: analyse critique de la bibliographie concernant le vieillissement de la population. https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/2438/files/2016/02/Rapport-Usages-Normes-Autonomie-1

  14. Darses F (2009) Résolution collective des problèmes de conception. Le travail humain 72(1):43–59 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Davin B, Paraponaris A, Verger P (2008) Entraide formelle et informelle: Quelle prise en charge pour les personnes âgées dépendantes à domicile? Gérontologie et société 127(4):49–65. https://doi.org/10.3917/gs.127.0049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Desai A, Jhaveri R (2017) A review on applications of ambient assisted living. Int J Comput Appl 176(8):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  17. Domus, Plateforme expérimentable du Laboratoire Informatique de l’Université Grenoble Alpes. domus.liglab.fr

  18. Easwara Moorthy A, Vu K-PL (2015) Privacy concerns for use of voice activated personal assistant in the public space. Int J Hum Comput Interact 31(4):307–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2014.986642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Flick U (1992) Triangulation revisited: strategy of validation or alternative? J Theor Soc Behav 22(2):176–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Freund AM, Baltes PB (2000) The orchestration of selection, optimization and compensation: an action-theoretical conceptualization of a theory of developmental regulation. In: Perrig WJ, Grob A (eds) Control of human behavior, mental processes, and consciousness: essays in honor of the 60th birthday of August Flammer. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 35–58

    Google Scholar 

  21. Goffman E (1977) Les stigmates: Les usages sociaux des handicaps. Ed. de Minuit, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gorges I (1996) The impact of society on CAD research in the USA, France and Germany, 1955 through 1985. In: The role of design in the shaping of technology, COST A 4, pp 155–183

    Google Scholar 

  23. Guérette M-J, Caradec V, Bergman H, Joanette Y, Blanchard F (2006) La vieillesse, c’est le déclin, on n’y peut rien. Santé, Société et Solidarité 1:23–31

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hem C (2015) Le téléphone, un artefact témoin du bien-être des personnes-âgées (thèse de doctorat, Université de Grenoble)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jeantet A (1998) Les objets intermédiaires dans la conception. Eléments pour une sociologie des processus de conception. Sociologie du travail 1998:291–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lawton MP, Brody EM (1969) Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 9(3):179–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lespinet-Najib V, Roche A, Chibaudel Q (2017) Santé et handicap: d’une conception centrée «utilisateur» à la conception universelle. In: Annales des Mines-Réalités industrielles. FFE, pp 25–27

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lie M, Brittain K (2016) Technologie et confiance. Retraite et société 3:47–72

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mace R (1990) Definitions: accessible, adaptable et universal design. The Center for Universal Design, Raleigh

    Google Scholar 

  30. Michel C, Bobillier-Chaumon M-E, Tarpin-Bernard F (2009) Fracture numérique chez les seniors du 4ème âge. Observation d’une acculturation technique. Les Cahiers du numériques 5(1):147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moget C, Bonnardel N, Galy-Marie E (2014) Ergonomie prospective et âge: proposition de méthodes nouvelles pour la conception d’un système de maintien à domicile. Le travail humain 77(3):231. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.773.0231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Monfort J (2001) Spécificités psychologiques des personnes très âgées. Gérontologie et société 98(3):159–187. https://doi.org/10.3917/gs.098.0159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nehmer J, Becker M, Karshmer A, Lamm R (2006) Living assistance systems: an ambient intelligence approach. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, pp 43–50

    Google Scholar 

  34. Norman D (1993) Les artefacts cognitifs. Raisons pratiques 4:15–34

    Google Scholar 

  35. Picard R, Poilpot L, Benoit A-M, Charrat B, Comtet G, Pallot M, Soyez S, Vial A (2011) Pertinence et valeur du concept de «Laboratoire vivant» (Living Lab) en santé et autonomie. Rapport CGEIET (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Picard R et al (2017) La co–conception en Living Lab santé et autonomie 1: Concept, méthodes et outils. iSTE editions

    Google Scholar 

  37. Poirier F (2017) Quelle modalité pour l’interaction avec les petits appareils mobiles et vestimentaires: texte ou vocal? Comment choisir entre clavier et assistant personnel? In: 29ème conférence francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine, p A–67

    Google Scholar 

  38. Portet F, Vacher M, Golanski C, Roux C, Meillon B (2013) Design and evaluation of a smart home voice interface for the elderly: acceptability and objection aspects. Pers Ubiquit Comput 17(1):127–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Reerink-Boulanger J (2012) Services technologiques intégrés dans l’habitat des personnes âgées: examen des déterminants individuels, sociaux et organisationnels de leur acceptabilité. PhD dissertation, Université Rennes 2

    Google Scholar 

  40. The Center for Universal Design (1997) The principles of universal design (Version 2.0). NC State University, Raleigh

    Google Scholar 

  41. Venkatesh V, Thong J, Xu X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Vinck V, Laureillard P (1996) Coordination par les objets dans les processus de conception. In: Représenter, Attribuer, Coordonner. pp 289–295

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wiles JL, Leibing A, Guberman N, Reeve J, Allen RES (2012) The meaning of «Aging in Place» to older people. Gerontologist 52(3):357–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr098

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Aknowledgement

The Vodacom project is funded by the National Agency for Research (ANR) and gathers different scientific partners: the GETAPS laboratories of the University of Grenoble-Alpes, GRePS of the University of Lyon and INRIA of Nancy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lyon (Lyon 2) GREPS, Institute of Psychology, Lyon, France

    Elena Elias & Marc-Eric Bobillier Chaumon

  2. University of Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble, France

    Michel Vacher

Authors
  1. Elena Elias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc-Eric Bobillier Chaumon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michel Vacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Elena Elias , Marc-Eric Bobillier Chaumon or Michel Vacher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Republic of San Marino, San Marino, San Marino

    Sebastiano Bagnara

  2. Centre for Clinical Risk Management and Patient Safety, Tuscany Region, Florence, Italy

    Riccardo Tartaglia

  3. Centre for Clinical Risk Management and Patient Safety, Tuscany Region, Florence, Italy

    Sara Albolino

  4. Fraunhofer FKIE, Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

    Thomas Alexander

  5. International Ergonomics Association, Tokyo, Japan

    Yushi Fujita

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Elias, E., Chaumon, ME.B., Vacher, M. (2019). Design Methods for the Projection of Uses for Vulnerable People. In: Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 824. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_80

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation