In this work, we synthesize 27 emerging research studies and standards to develop a resource that highlights accessibility risks of new design concepts. Prior studies have identified key factors that influence packaging accessibility: we summarize major themes and validate our findings through a Human Factors usability study. Results suggest that the design comparison tool can contribute to more accessible packaging, yielding a statistically significant difference in participants’ preference rankings. While existing methodologies evaluate a package’s accessibility at the final stages of the development process, this work suggests that usability problems can be surfaced as early as design conceptualization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArditiA. (1999). Making Text Legible: Designing for People with Partial Sight. Lighthouse International.
2.
Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and others. (2013). Human Factors Engineering–Design of Medical Devices. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.
FeeneyR. (2002). Specific Anthropometric and Strength Data for People with Dexterity Disability (No. 1). Department of Trade and Industry.
8.
FulconisF.PhilippB. (2018). Packaging Scorecard or Closed-loop Logistics Systems: A Sustainable Development Perspective. International Symposium in Management, 238, 19–28.
International Standard. (2011). Packaging — Accessible Design — General requirements: ISO 11156 (Version 1). American National Standards Institute.
14.
International Standard. (2015). Packaging — Accessible design — Ease of opening: ISO 17480 (Version 1). American National Standards Institute.
15.
KaplanR. S.NortonD. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action (Vol. 1). Harvard Business Review Press.
16.
KitchelE. (2019). APH Guidelines for Print Document Design. American Printing House for the Blind.
17.
LöfgrenM.WitellL.GustafssonA. (2008). Customer Satisfaction in the First and Second Moments of Truth. In Journal of Product & Brand Management (Vol. 17, Issue 7, pp. 463–474).
18.
MumaniA. A. (2018). User-packaging Interaction (UPI): A Comprehensive Research Platform and Techniques for Improvement, Evaluation, and Design (R. Stone (ed.)) [Industrial Engineering]. Iowa State University.
SahaC.ShehabR. L. (2005). Package Opening: An Evaluation of Opening Tools for the Elderly Population. In PsycEXTRA Dataset.
23.
SteinfeldE.PaquetV.D’SouzaC.JosephC.MaiselJ. (2010). Anthropometry of Wheeled Mobility Project (No. 1). U.S. Access Board.
24.
TilleyA. R., & Henry Dreyfuss Associates. (2001). The Measure of Man and Woman: Human Factors in Design. John Wiley & Sons.
25.
World Health Organization. (2011). World Report on Disability.
26.
YoxallA.LangleyJ.JansonR.WearnJ.MansonG. (2006). The Use of Uncertainty Analysis for the Design of Container Closures. Packaging Technology & Science, 19(3), 139–147.
27.
YoxallA.LangleyJ.MusslewhiteC.Rodriguez-FalconE. M.RowsonJ. (2010). Husband, Daughter, Son and Postman, Hot-water, Knife and Towel: Assistive Strategies for Jar Opening. In Designing Inclusive Interactions (pp. 187–196). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-166-0_18
28.
YoxallA.LuxmooreJ.RowsonJ.LangleyJ.JansonR. (2007). Size Does Matter: Further Studies in Hand-Pack Interaction using Computer Simulation. Packaging Technology & Science, 21(2), 61–72.
29.
ZavodnaL. S. (2013). Sustainability As A Part Of Balanced Scorecard (No. 1). University of Bucharest.
