kommTUi – A Design Process for a Tangible Communication Technology with Seniors

  • Lisa Ehrenstrasser
  • Wolfgang Spreicer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7946)


In this paper we present the analysis of the three years iterative design process of the research project kommTUi. In kommTUi, the goal was to design and develop an accessible communication system with tangible user interface to support digital inclusion of elderly people. We propose our qualitative approach for user involvement and identify the atmosphere as key factor for successful research outcome when working with older adults. Therefore, we introduce a graphical analysis tool for comparing the conducted workshops by means of different trigger elements like tangible input, location, participants and communication.


user centered design tangible user interface design process AAL 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Eisma, R., Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Syme, A., Tiwari, L., Newell, F.: Early user involvement in the development of information technology-related products for older people. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 3(2), 131–140 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hawthorn, D.: Interface design and engagement with older people. Behaviour & Information Technology 26(4), 333–341 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zajicek, M.: Aspects of HCI research for older people. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 5(3), 279–286 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindsay, S., Jackson, D., Schofield, G., Olivier, P.: Engaging older people using participatory design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1199–1208. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fisk, A., Rogers, W., Charness, N., Czaja, S., Sharit, J.: Designing for Older Adults. In: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches, 2nd edn., CRC Press (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newell, A., Arnott, J., Carmichael, A., Morgan, M.: Methodologies for involving older adults in the design process. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 982–989. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandt, E., Binder, T., Malmborg, L., Sokoler, T.: Communities of everyday practice and situated elderliness as an approach to co-design for senior interaction. In: Proc. of the 22nd Conf. of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction, pp. 400–403. ACM, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shinohara, K., Wobbrock, J.: In the shadow of misperception: assistive technology use and social interactions. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 705–714. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ishii, H.: Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In: Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pp. xv-xxv. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ullmer, B., Ishii, H., Jacob, R.: Token+constraint systems for tangible interaction with digital information. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12(1), 81–118 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jordá, S., Geiger, G., Alonso, M., Kaltenbrunner, M.: The reacTable: exploring the synergy between live music performance and tabletop tangible interfaces. In: Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pp. 139–146. ACM, NY (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norman, D.: Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheridan, J., Short, B., Van Laerhoven, K., Villar, N., Kortuem, G.: Exploring cube affordances: towards a classification of non-verbal dynamics of physical interfaces for wearable computing. In: Proceedings of the IEE Eurowearable 2003, pp. 113–118. IEE (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ehrenstrasser, L., Spreicer, W.: Personal Interaction through Individual Artifacts. In: Workshop-Proc. Mensch & Computer 2012, Konstanz, September 9-12, pp. 129–134 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mugellini, E., et al.: MEMODULES as Tangible Shortcuts to Multimedia Information. In: Lalanne, D., Kohlas, J. (eds.) Human Machine Interaction. LNCS, vol. 5440, pp. 103–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Muller, M., Druin, A.: Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In: Jacko, J., Sears, A. (eds.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, pp. 1051–1068. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mao, J., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P., Carey, T.: The state of user-centered design practice. Commun. ACM 48(3), 105–109 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vredenburg, K., Mao, J., Smith, P., Carey, T.: A survey of user-centered design practice. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 471–478. ACM, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ehrenstrasser, L., Spreicer, W.: Defining Multimodality for Tangible Interaction. In: Workshop-Proceedings NordiCHI, Copenhagen, October 14-17, pp. 27–29 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hultcrantz, J., Ibrahim, A.: Contextual workshops: User participationin the evaluation of future concepts. In: Proceedings of PDC 2002. CPSR, Malmö (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Ehrenstrasser
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Spreicer
    • 2
  1. 1.iDr-inklusiv Design & ResearchAustria
  2. 2.Vienna University of TechnologyAustria

Personalised recommendations