Presentation and activities - People - Virginia Tech

flosssnailsMobile - Wireless

Dec 10, 2013 (3 years and 7 months ago)

63 views

DIS 2012:

Designing for Cognitive Limitations

Scott McCrickard

Virginia Tech

Clayton Lewis

University of Colorado, Boulder

Workshop overview




9.00
-
9.20

Workshop Introduction

9.20
-
10.30

Participant Introductions

10.30
-
11.00

Morning Break

11.00
-
12.30

Cognitive Walkthroughs

12.30
-
14.00

Lunch

14.00
-
15.30

Scenario Prototyping

15.30
-
16.00

Afternoon Break

16.00
-
17.30

Future Directions

What are cognitive limitations?


limitations that result in the user’s
performance on cognitive tasks falling
outside of a normal range


includes limitations from:


situation: driving, walking, multitasking,
interacting with others


disability: autism, ADD/ADHD, stroke, aphasia,
brain injury, Alzheimer's, dementia, …


may be temporary or long
-
lasting

About cognitive disabilities


difficulty with mental tasks


memory


attention


language


math


problem
-
solving (at various stages)


often accompanied by other disabilities


visual (low vision or blind)


hearing disabilities


physical disabilities

Designing for cognitive disabilities


address difficulty with mental tasks


avoid lengthy interactive processes


break interactions into separate pages


give reminders of progress (e.g., page 2 of 4)


explain how to fix errors


use visual cues to focus attention


support multimedia display and interaction


use language appropriate for the target audience


require minimal math skills, when possible


the same guidelines for cognitive limitations?


Capturing problems


Most “accepted” design knowledge doesn’t hold
when designing for cognitive limitations


We have been using
claims

to capture key
issues in designing for cognitive limitations


Claims always include a feature together with
potential upsides and downsides, and may
include other supporting material (pictures,
quotes, citations, etc.)


Claims are falsifiable hypotheses that are meant
to start debates, not serve as the final word

Example claim:

The use of
smartphone

technology to replace
dedicated accessibility devices


+ Accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers offer

new input methods that can be more accessible than

traditional input devices



For people with sufficient neurological and motor ability, the accelerometers,

gyroscopes, etc. that are built into most modern
smartphones

offer the possibility for

spatial
-

and gesture
-
based interfaces (Li,
Dearman

& Truong, 2010)





BUT, damage to a single multi
-
use device would have

multiple problems




As reported in (Kane et al., 2009) the independence gained from mobile devices has the

problem of putting the user at significant risk in the event of a failure. One blind

participant explained the decision to carry a dedicated GPS despite having a phone with

overlapping functionality: “If something happens to my phone, I'd still want to be able to

have my [GPS]. If my [GPS] breaks, I still want to be able to have my phone.”




Example

claim:

Peripheral interfaces for


cumbersome but


beneficial tasks (like


setting IM status)

+ can lead to neglected tasks being performed more
frequently (
Hausen
, 2012)

+ can be completed without direct focus by many people
after two weeks (
Hausen
, 2012)

-

BUT may require training and/or a steep learning curve
(
Hausen
, 2012)

-

BUT, it is difficult to assess effectiveness of peripheral
interactions


About the organizers


Scott McCrickard


Associate Professor of Computer Science and
member of the Center for HCI at Virginia Tech


research interests include design methods,
notification systems, divided attention situations


Clayton Lewis


Professor of Computer Science at the University
of Colorado, Boulder


Scientist in Residence at the Coleman Institute
for Cognitive Disabilities

Coleman Institute thrust:
shape mainstream technology

Participant introductions


Those with position papers:


Joshua
Hailpern
, HP Labs


Doris
Hausen
, University of Munich


Gavin Wood, Newcastle University


Young
Seok

Lee, Motorola Mobility


Others:


Justin
Brockie
,
Therap

Services


Margot Brereton, Queensland Univ. of Technology


Mathew Kipling, Newcastle University

Break


Reconvene at 11.00


Next up: cognitive walkthroughs of a camera
app on various Android devices


an expert review from the perspective of users
with cognitive limitations

The problem


Issues with using the camera app on various
Google Android devices (i.e., mobile phone,
small tablet, large tablet)


Consider goals of users with cognitive
limitations due to disabilities, use while
mobile, distraction, etc.


Consider different camera tasks, including
taking a picture, zooming, taking a black
-
and
-
white picture, emailing a picture, etc.

Cognitive walkthroughs


An analytic evaluation technique that focuses
on a target user population


Helps understand
why

errors take place




i
dentify opportunities for future design


To be applied to a common interface that is
often used by people with cognitive
limitations

Discussion


From each group:


Briefly summarize the cognitive limitation and task
sets that you considered, and any key findings


[How] did the cognitive walkthrough approach help
you identify key areas of concern?


From each participant:


What new knowledge did you gain from this
activity? What unsolved problems emerged? Can
you frame it in terms of a claim (UI feature,
upsides, downsides) that reflects the problem?


Product Testing Laboratory



Principal Investigator: Greg McGrew, MEBME



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Funding is provided by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research under the US Department of Education,

Gr
ant #H133E090003, the Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities, the Department of Pediatrics and
the Colorado Intellectual and Developmental Disability Research Center, (IDDRC), University of Colorado.

User

AT

Direct
Support

The Usability Testing Program evaluates human factors issues pertinent to specific products through a
process of data collection on ‘real people’ performing ‘real tasks’. In essence, people with disabilities that
would normally use the type of product to be tested will be asked to perform tasks for which the product
was designed. These sessions, along with pre and post test interviews, are digitally recorded to gather
structured data and feedback from participants on the product. Usability metrics, including time on task,
errors, and satisfaction, are applied to the results.

Usability Testing Program

Formal usability testing involves capturing real users (people with disabilities or caregivers
that represent the target market for the AT or consumer product) using the product,
attempting to accomplish tasks for which the product was designed. The example at the
right shows a parent (participant) setting up a book reading product for their child’s use.
During the test this activity is recorded and then analyzed against an optimal performance
scenario. This enables us to identify problems, difficulties, and missteps made by the
participant, and analyze them to determine what design features or documentation may have
contributed to their cause.

The Testing Process

From 5 to 20 participants are recruited for each product test session. This number depends on the
test objectives.

For each test, there is typically and optimal series of steps to complete it. Usability metrics are
applied to each test, comparing this optimal path to the one carried out by the participant. Metrics
include the number of errors, time
-
on
-
task, success/non
-
success, and efficiency. In addition, a
standardized measure of usability is applied through administration of the System Usability Survey
developed by IBM. Satisfaction is assessed through administration of a short post
-
test survey.

Usability Metrics

Cognitive Walkthrough Method

Step 1


Pick a mobile device as an example


Work out how to take a picture and create a
scenario
:


List the actions you must take, and…


…what is on the screen after each action, and…


…any other feedback, eg sounds


Since you have the phone in front of you, your
descriptions can be
brief

Step 2


Critique each action


Will the user know
what to try to do

at this
point? Why?


Will the user know
how to do

it? Why?


Are there wrong actions that may look
correct?


If the correct action is taken, will the
feedback show this, or create doubt?


Very Important: This is
not

a user test!

Very Important!

This is
not

a user test!


Critique each action


Will the user
[not you]

know
what to try to do

at
this point? Why?


Will the user
[not you]

know
how to do

it? Why?


Are there wrong actions that may look correct
[to
the user, not you]
?


If the correct action is taken, will the feedback
show this, or create doubt
[in the user, not you]
?

Lunch


Follow Mat to lunch!


Reconvene here at 14.00


Next up: designing some prototypes
targeting people with cognitive limitations


we’ll use three techniques developed to
encourage the consideration of limitations

The problem


Issues with using the camera app on various
Google Android devices (i.e., mobile phone,
small tablet, large tablet)


Consider goals of users with cognitive
limitations due to disabilities, use while
mobile, distraction, etc.


Consider different camera tasks, including
taking a picture, zooming, taking a black
-
and
-
white picture, emailing a picture, etc.

Discussion


From each group:


Briefly summarize the cognitive limitation and task
sets that you considered, and any key findings


[How] did the cognitive walkthrough approach help
you identify key areas of concern?


From each participant:


What new knowledge did you gain from this
activity? What unsolved problems emerged? Can
you frame it in terms of a claim (UI feature,
upsides, downsides) that reflects the problem?

From problems to solutions


The first activity examined widely
-
used
interfaces through the perspective of a
person with a cognitive limitation



a new perspective, new knowledge


The afternoon activity will apply our
collective knowledge to design problems



deeper understanding of key questions,
appreciation for future directions

Prototyping tools


PIC
-
UP


a card set for notification systems that captures
key user interface claims
(Wahid, 2011)


Cognitive claims


the set of claims extracted from the workshop
position papers
(all of us, 2012)


Context cards


a card set that captures different user contexts
to be considered during design
(haptimap.org)

Problem domains


Design a notification system for a senior
center, in which many of the target users
will have diminishing cognitive skills (PIC
-
UP)


Design a mobile application to help people
with speech loss from aphasia actively learn
to communicate (Cognitive Claims)


Design a mobile application to help a target
user population (of your choosing) navigate
around a university campus (Context Cards)

Break



Reconvene at 16.00


Next up: future directions


for the field (government initiatives, funding
opportunities, collaboration possibilities)


for each of us


for future workshops and other events

Discussion


From each group:


Briefly summarize the task sets you considered,
non
-
traditional populations, and any key findings


[How] did the card set help you identify key areas
of concern?


From each participant:


What new knowledge did you gain from this
activity? What unsolved problems emerged? Can
you frame it in terms of a claim (UI feature,
upsides, downsides) that reflects the problem?

Future directions


for each of us


for future workshops and other events


for the field (government initiatives, funding
opportunities, collaboration possibilities)



Profile
-
based presentation is a key aim of the Global
Public Inclusive Infrastructure initiative.

Gregg
Vanderheiden

Profile
-
based Presentation

The Fluid project is developing technology for
storing user preferences in user profiles
accessed from the cloud.

Jutta Treviranus
OCAD University,
Toronto

Profile
-
based Presentation

To respond to preferences when rendering
Web content, the approach uses a form of
Inversion of Control (IoC), enhanced to permit
specification of user preferences when services
are requested.


Colin
Clark

Antranig Basman

Future directions


for each of us


for future workshops and other events


for the field (government initiatives, funding
opportunities, collaboration possibilities)