Approaches for Evaluating the Usability of Assistive Technology Product Prototypes

ABSTRACT User input is an important component to help guide designers in producing a more usable product. Evaluation of prototypes is one method of obtaining this input, but methods for evaluating assistive technology prototypes during design have not been adequately described or evaluated. This project aimed to compare different methods of evaluating prototypes to determine which hold promise as aids to designing new assistive technology products. Eight teams were recruited to independently design a working prototype of an assistive device. Twenty potential users were recruited to evaluate each of the devices by using the device to perform a task, completing an evaluation survey, answering a single overall opinion question, and by ranking the devices. The results indicate that a short evaluation survey may be a useful tool to help designers engage users during the design process.

[1]  Louise Demers,et al.  The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress , 2002 .

[2]  Earl R. Babbie,et al.  Survey Research Methods , 1984 .

[3]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development: Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125 (Summer 1992) , 1992 .

[4]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and head) , 1996 .

[5]  A. Page,et al.  Developing an effective concept testing program for consumer durables , 1992 .

[6]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[7]  C Hershler,et al.  Effectiveness: a neglected dimension in the assessment of rehabilitation devices and equipment , 1991, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[8]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[9]  Dean Nieusma,et al.  Alternative Design Scholarship: Working Toward Appropriate Design , 2004, Design Issues.

[10]  Simeon Keates,et al.  I-Design project (inclusive design for the whole population) , 2000 .

[11]  Jose Rebimbas,et al.  Examining the Usability of a Virtual Reality Driving Simulator , 2007, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[12]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[13]  Karel Vredenburg,et al.  The state of user-centered design practice , 2005, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[14]  L. P. de Witte,et al.  Measuring effectiveness of and satisfaction with assistive devices from a user perspective: An exploration of the literature , 2004 .

[15]  Simeon Keates,et al.  Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population , 2003 .

[16]  B. Bayus.  Speed‐to‐Market and New Product Performance Trade‐offs , 1997 .

[17]  C. Hocking.  Function or feelings: factors in abandonment of assistive devices ∗ , 1999 .

[18]  Albert M. Cook,et al.  Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice , 1995 .

[19]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[20]  Alan F. Newell,et al.  Inclusive design or assistive technology , 2003 .

[21]  F DeRuyter,et al.  Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: do we understand the commitment? , 1995, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[22]  Karel Vredenburg,et al.  USER-CENTERED DESIGN PRACTICE , 2005 .

[23]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Chapter 4 – The Usability Engineering Lifecycle , 1993 .

[24]  Michael E. McGrath,et al.  Product development : success through product and cycle-time excellence , 1992 .