The global trend of increasing longevity has brought an enormous challenge to develop smart technologies to preserve independence and quality of life among the elderly in their own residences. By combining smart devices, occupants’ capabilities can be extended. The concept of ‘healthy smart home’ was introduced and numerous research projects have implemented a variety of prototypes and state-of-the-art of smart systems. However, there is little research on the elderly’s interactions and experiences in smart homes using systematic methods. The interactions of the elderly with digital devices, and further, the smart space, should be intuitive; otherwise the smart space would become an uncomfortable environment, thus displeasing the elderly. The focus of this paper is on user interfaces, especially those targeted to support the elderly’s healthy home life. Through a critical review on representative design principles for the elderly, specific criteria related to usability and user experience were defined and structuralized into a framework of user interfaces. For identifying the features of the ageing-friendly interfaces, the elderly’s reduced capabilities were considered, with a focus on assistive technologies. The proposed framework could be a basis for the perspectives of future research directions on user interfaces for the elderly in smart environments.
SatoTHaradaTMoriT. Environment-type robot system “Robotic Room” featured by behavior media, behavior contents, and behavior adaptation. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech2004; 9: 529–534.
2.
ChoMEKimMJKimJT. A smart workspace supporting a healthy life in pre-elderly households. Indoor Built Environ2013; 22: 280–288.
3.
LeeYLimHYSHwangSAJ. Housing alternatives to promote holistic health of the fragile aged. Indoor Built Environ2013; 21: 191–204.
4.
KorhonenIParkkaJGilsMV. Health monitoring in the home of the future. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag2003; 22: 66–73.
5.
KimMJOhMWChoMELeeHSKimJT. A critical review of user studies on health smart homes. Indoor Built Environ2013; 22: 260–270.
6.
JalalAUddinMZKimJTKimT-S. Recognition of human home activities via depth silhouettes and transformation for smart homes. Indoor Built Environ2013; 21: 184–190.
7.
UddinMZKimD-HKimJTKimT-S. An indoor human activity recognition system for smart home using local binary pattern features with hidden Markov models. Indoor Built Environ2013; 22: 289–298.
8.
LaxminarayanSIstepanianSH. UNWIRED E-MED: the next generation of wireless and internet telemedicine systems. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed2000; 4: 189–193.
9.
JovanovELordsAORaskovicDCoxPGAdhamiRAndrasikF. Stress monitoring using a distributed wireless intelligent sensor system. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag2003; 22: 49–55.
10.
Han-Pang H and Lu-Pei H. Development of a wearable biomedical health-care system. In: Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2005) conference, Edmonton, Canada, 2005.
11.
AsadaHHShaltisPReisnerARheeSHutchinsonRC. Mobile monitoring with wearable photoplethysmographic biosensors. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag2003; 22: 28–40.
12.
Pentland A. Smart rooms, smart clothes. In: Fourteenth international conference on pattern recognition, Brisbane, Australia, 1998; pp. 949–953.
13.
Torrence MC. Advances in human computer interaction: the intelligent room. In: Working notes of CHI 95 research symposium, Denver, CO, 1995.
14.
BrumittBMeyersBKrummJKernAShaferSEasyLiving: technologies for intelligent environments. In: ThomasPGellersenH-W (eds). Handheld and ubiquitous computing, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2000, pp. 12–29.
15.
EssaIA. Ubiquitous sensing for smart and aware environments. Pers Commun IEEE2000; 7: 47–49.
16.
Mozer MC. The neural network house: an environment hat adapts to its inhabitants. In: AAAI spring symposium on the intelligent environments, Palo Alto, CA, 1998; pp.110–114.
17.
Lee H-E, Kim Y, Park K-H and Bien ZZ. Development of a steward robot for human-friendly interaction. In: International conference on control applcations, Munich, Germany, 2006.
18.
AxisaFSchmittPMGehinCDelhommeGMcadamsEDittmarA. Flexible technologies and smart clothing for citizen medicine, home healthcare, and disease prevention. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed2005; 9: 325–336.
19.
Kim MJ, Cho ME, Choi HH and Kim JT. A framework of health smart home services for the elderly. In: International joint conference on renewable energies and healthy buildings, Belgrade, Serbia, 2013.
20.
Norman DA. The invisible computer: why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge Massachusetts, London: MIT Press, 1999.
21.
ShneidermanB. Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. IEEE Comput1983; 16: 57–69.
22.
SongJY. An approach of embodied cognition to interface metaphor, Seoul: Ewha Womans University, 2009.
23.
ShaerOHorneckerE. Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact2010; 3: 1–137.
24.
Ishii H and Ullmer B. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1997; pp.234–241. Atlanta, GA: ACM.
25.
Hornecker E and Buur J. Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In: CHI 2006, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2006.
26.
Jacob RJK, Girouard A, Hirshfield LM, Horn MS, Shaer O, Solovey ET and Zigelbaum J. Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy, 2008, pp.201–210. Florence, Italy: ACM.
27.
Koleva B, Benford S, Ng KH and Rodden T. A framework for tnagible user interfaces. In: Mobile HCI conference, Udine, Italy, 2003.
28.
Ghazali M and Dix A. Successful physical interaction design on tangible user interfaces framework and novel device design. In: 2006 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2006; pp.105–116.
29.
MoosRHLemkeSThe multiphasic environmental assessment procedure. In: JegerAMSlotnickRS (eds). Community mental health and behavioral-ecology, US: Springer, 1982, pp. 357–371.
30.
GrantLA. Assessing environments in Alzheimer special care units: nursing unit rating scale. Res Aging1996; 18: 275–291.
31.
Norris-BakerCWeismanGDLawtonMPSloanePKaupMAssessing special care units for dementia: the professional environmental assessment protocol. In: SteinfeldEDanfordGS (eds). Enabling environments: measuring the impact of environment on disability and rehabilitation, New York, NY: Plenum, 1999, pp. 165–181.
32.
FlemingR. An environmental audit tool suitable for use in homelike facilities for people with dementia. Australas J Ageing2011; 30: 108–112.
33.
LewisATorringtonJBarnesSDartonRHolderJMcKeeKNettenAOrrellA. EVOLVE: a tool for evaluating the design of older people’s housing. Housing, Care Support2010; 13: 36–41.
34.
BillingsleyJDBattersonCT. Evaluating long-term care facilities: a field application of the MEAP. J Long Term Care Adm1986; 14: 16–19.
35.
LawtonMPWeismanGDSloanePNorris-BakerCCalkinsMZimmermanSI. Professional environmental assessment procedure for special care units for elders with dementing illness and its relationship to the therapeutic environment screening schedule. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord2000; 14: 28–38.
36.
FlemingRCrookesPASumS. A review of the empirical literature on the design of physical environments for people with dementia, Sydney: Primary Dementia Collaborative Research Centre, UNSW, 2008.
37.
Mynatt ED, Essa I and Rogers W. Increasing the opportunities for aging in place. In: Proceedings on the ACM conference on universal usability, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 2000; pp.65–71.
