Persons aging with mobility disabilities are at risk of social isolation, which is associated with negative health outcomes. Tele-technology is well-suited for supporting social connectedness by facilitating communication using two-way audio/video. However, the software and hardware requirements of tele-technology for this population are not well understood. The goal of this research was to 1) assess the usability of teletechnologies for this population, and 2) identify design recommendations for improving their usability of tele-technology. We conducted two studies: a heuristic evaluation to compare tele-technology design to usability standards, and a usability study with persons aging with long-term mobility disabilities. The following usability issues emerged: hardware limitations related to the size of technology and height adjustability; interface issues, such as system navigation; and network and privacy concerns. We conclude that there is a need for design improvement and design recommendations were proposed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeerJ. M.MitznerT. L.StuckR. E.RogersW. A. (2015). Design considerations for technology interventions to support social and physical wellness for older adults with disability. International Journal of Automation and Smart Technology, 5(4), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.5875/ausmt.v5i4.959
2.
BeerJ. M.PrakashA.SmarrC.-A.ChenT. L.HawkinsK.NguyenH.DeyleT.MitznerT. L.KempC. C.RogersW. A. (2017). Older Users’ Acceptance of an Assistive Robot: Attitudinal Changes Following Brief Exposure. Gerontechnology : International Journal on the Fundamental Aspects of Technology to Serve the Ageing Society, 16(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2017.16.1.003.00
3.
BeerJ. M.TakayamaL. (2011). Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: Acceptance, benefits, and concerns. 8.
4.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. sage.
5.
BraultM. W. (2005). Americans with Disabilities:2010. 20.
6.
BrookeJ. (1986). System usability scale (SUS): A quick-and-dirty method of system evaluation user information. Reading, UK: Digital Equipment Co.
CzajaS. J.BootW. R.CharnessN.RogersW. A. (2019). Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches, Third Edition. CRC Press.
9.
CzajaS. J.CharnessN.FiskA. D.HertzogC.NairS. N.RogersW. A.SharitJ. (2006). Factors Predicting the Use of Technology: Findings From the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333
10.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
11.
EzerN.FiskA. D.RogersW. A. (2009). Attitudinal and Intentional Acceptance of Domestic Robots by Younger and Older Adults. In StephanidisC. (Ed.), Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Intelligent and Ubiquitous Interaction Environments (pp. 39–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_5
12.
HeW.LarsenL. (2014). Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 American Community Survey Reports Economics and Statistics Administration Older Americans With a Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012
13.
Holt-LunstadJ.SmithT. B.LaytonJ. B. (2010). Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
14.
KurniawanS.ZaphirisP. (2005). Research-derived web design guidelines for older people. Proceedings of the 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility - Assets ‘05, 129. https://doi.org/10.1145/1090785.1090810
15.
LewisT.DruryJ.BeltzB. (2014). Evaluating Mobile Remote Presence (MRP) Robots. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Supporting Group Work - GROUP ‘14, 302–305. https://doi.org/10.1145/2660398.2663777
16.
LilesK. R.StuckR. E.KacmarA. A.BeerJ. M. (2015). Exploring Use Cases of Smart Presence for Retirement Communities. In ZhouJ.SalvendyG. (Eds.), Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design for Everyday Life (pp. 446–455). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20913-5_41
17.
MelenhorstA.-S.RogersW.BouwhuisD. (2006). Older Adults’ Motivated Choice for Technological Innovation: Evidence for Benefit-Driven Selectivity. Psychology and Aging, 21, 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.190
18.
MitznerT. L.BoronJ. B.FaussetC. B.AdamsA. E.CharnessN.CzajaS. J.DijkstraK.FiskA. D.RogersW. A.SharitJ. (2010). Older adults talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1710–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.020
19.
MitznerT. L.ChenT. L.KempC. C.RogersW. A. (2014). Identifying the Potential for Robotics to Assist Older Adults in Different Living Environments. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0218-7
20.
MitznerT. L.SanfordJ. A.RogersW. A. (2018). Closing the Capacity-Ability Gap: Using Technology to Support Aging With Disability. Innovation in Aging, 2(1), igy008. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy008
21.
MitznerT. L.StuckR.HartleyJ. Q.BeerJ. M.RogersW. A. (2017). Acceptance of televideo technology by adults aging with a mobility impairment for health and wellness interventions. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, 4, 2055668317692755. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668317692755
22.
NielsenJ. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In NielsenJ.MackR. L. (Authors), Usability inspection methods (pp. 25–62). John Wiley & Sons.
23.
NielsenJ. (1995). How to conduct heuristic evaluation. Nielsen Norman Group, 1, 1–8.
RemillardE.GriffithsP.MitznerT. L.SanfordJ. A.ArchM.RogersW. A. (2018). TECHSAGE MINIMUM BATTERY. Innovation in Aging, 2(suppl_1), 624–624. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy023.2325
26.
RossoA. L.TaylorJ. A.TabbL. P.MichaelY. L. (2013). Mobility, Disability, and Social Engagement in Older Adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 25(4), 617–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264313482489
TakayamaL.Marder-EppsteinE.HarrisH.BeerJ. M. (2011). Assisted driving of a mobile remote presence system: System design and controlled user evaluation. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1883–1889. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2011.5979637
29.
TsuiK. M.DalphondJ. M.BrooksD. J.MedvedevM. S.McCannE.AllspawJ.KontakD.YancoH. A. (2015). Accessible Human-Robot Interaction for Telepresence Robots: A Case Study. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2015-0001
30.
TsuiK. M.DesaiM.YancoH. A.CramerH.KemperN. (2011). Measuring Attitudes Towards Telepresence Robots. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT CONTROL AND SYSTEMS, 16, 11.
31.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
32.
WebberS. C.PorterM. M.MenecV. H. (2010). Mobility in Older Adults: A Comprehensive Framework. The Gerontologist, 50(4), 443–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq013
33.
WuX.StuckR. E.MitznerT. L.RogersW. A.BeerJ. M. (2016). Televideo for older adults with mobility impairment: A needs assessment. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA), 130.
