By giving a voice to users in the design process of information systems, they often feel more empowered and engaged. The inclusion of users with disabilities in the design process, however, can be markedly more difficult. User profiling allows a user's preferences and interests to be captured and represented. However, for a user with severe motor disabilities, information related to his or her user profile must be obtained through a variety of means. Because feedback from a person with a severe motor disability may be limited and, at times, unreliable, system requirements must be triangulated using multiple sources to help ensure that an accurate representation of the user's input is obtained. A process for triangulating system requirements is presented, which starts with identifying the user and people closely related to the user, then interviewing the user, recording interactions with the user, interviewing others, and finally confirming captured preferences through a questionnaire.
AbrahamC.JunglasI. (2009). An enriched understanding of the “fit” between people, task, environment and technology in patient care. Paper presented at the Pre-AMCIS International Workshop by the Association for Information Systems (AIS) Special Interest Group for Health-Related Research.
2.
Assistive Technology Act of 2004, 108th Congress Sess. (2004).
3.
BeukelmanD. R.MirendaP. (2005). Augmentative &alternative communication: Supporting children &adults with complex communication needs (3rd ed.). Lincoln, NE: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
4.
BouchardT. J.Jr. (1976). Field research methods: Interviewing, questionnaires, participant observation, systematic observation, unobtrusive measures. In DunnetteM. D. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 363–413). Chicago: Rand McNally.
5.
BrandtE. N.PopeA. M. (Eds.) (1997). Enabling America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6.
CarrollK.SchlagC.KirikciO.MooreM. (2002). Communication by neural control. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
7.
CastrogiovanniA. (Ed.) (2008). Incidence and prevalence of speech, voice, and language disorders in adults in the United States. Rockville, MD: American Speech–Language–Hearing Association.
8.
CookA. M.HusseyS. M. (2002). Assistive technology: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby, Inc.
9.
CopestakeA. (1996). Applying natural language processing techniques to speech prostheses. Paper presented at the AAAI Fall Symposium on Developing Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities.
10.
DavisA. B.MooreM. M.StoreyV. (2003, November). Context aware communication for severely disabled users. Paper presented at the Conference on Universal Usability 2003, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
11.
DishawM. T.StrongD. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information and Management, 36, 9–21.
12.
DowningJ. E. (1999). Teaching communication skills to students with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
13.
HananiU.ShapiraB.ShovalP. (2001). Information filtering: Overview of issues, research and systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11, 203–259.
14.
HigginsP. A.DalyB. J. (1999, December). Research methodology issues related to interviewing the mechanically ventilated patient. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 21, 773–784.
15.
JackoJ. A.VitenseH. S. (2001). A review and reappraisal of information technologies within a conceptual framework for individuals with disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1, 56–76.
16.
JamesonA. (2001). Modeling both the context and the user. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5, 29–33.
MooreM. M.StoreyV.DavisA. B.NapierN. (2004, August 6–8). Deriving user profiles for augmentative communication. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), New York, NY.
19.
MooreM. M.StoreyV. C.RandolphA. B. (2005). User profiles for facilitating conversations with locked-in users. Paper presented at the International Conference for Information Systems (ICIS), Las Vegas.
20.
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2007). Locked-in syndrome. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
PriceK. J.SearsA. (2009). The development and evaluation of performance-based functional assessment: A methodology for the measurement of physical capabilities. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), 2. doi: 10.1145/1530064.1530068
24.
RandolphA. B.HubonaG. S. (2006). Organizational and individual acceptance of assistive interfaces and technologies. In GallettaD.ZhangP. (Eds.), Human–computer interaction and management information systems—Applications (Vol. 5). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
25.
RandolphA. B.JacksonM. M. Moore (2010). Assessing fit of nontraditional assistive technologies. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 2. doi: 10.1145/1786774.1786777
26.
SchererM. J.CraddockG. (2002). Matching person &technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology and Disability, 14, 125–131.
27.
SnellM. E.ChenL.-Y.HooverK. (2006). Teaching augmentative and alternative communication to students with severe disabilities: A review of intervention research 1997–2003. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 203–214.
28.
SotoG.MüllerE.HuntP.GoetzL. (2001). Professional skills for serving students who use AAC in general education classrooms: A team perspective. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 51–56.
29.
TasséM. J.SchalockR.ThompsonJ. R.WehmeyerM. (2005). Guidelines for interviewing people with disabilities: Supports Intensity Scale. American Association on Intellectual Developmental Disabilities: Washington, DC.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2008). The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). Retrieved on March 6, 2012, from http://www/eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adaaa.cfm.
32.
WolpawJ. R.BirbaumerN.McFarlandD. J.PfurtschellerG.VaughanT. M. (2002). Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113, 767–791.
33.
WoodL.LaskerJ.Siegel-CauseyE.BeukelmanD.BallL. (1998). Input framework for augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 261–267.
