Geospatial assistive technologies: potential usability criteria identified from manual wheelchair users

Abstract Purpose: To advance knowledge of specific usability criteria for Geospatial Assistive Technologies (GATs) and manual wheelchair users, and to develop a profile and expectations for potential future users. Method: A face-to-face cross-sectional study was conducted with 17 community-dwelling manual wheelchair users (aged 18–45 years) who use a mobile device. A semi-structured interview was conducted as follows: (1) four video clips presenting technologies related to GATs (applications on a smartphone or smart watch, augmented reality glasses, virtual reality helmet) were shown; (2) questions were asked about the perceived advantages and disadvantages of route planning prior to travel and navigation while receiving guidance in urban areas; and (3) an activity to rank fifteen defined usability criteria by importance was conducted. Two questionnaires were also self-administered: the Temple University Community Participation Measure and the Wheelchair Use Confidence Scale for Manual Wheelchair Users (WheelCon). Results: This study defines a comprehensive sample profile of manual wheelchair users with GAT and 19 distinctive usability criteria for GATs specifically suited to manual wheelchair users. Fifteen criteria were identified as the most important (actual use, appearance, Bluetooth, comfort, dimensions, ease of use, efficiency, familiarity, features, hands-free operation, information content, quality of information and transportability). Information content and transportability demand higher expectations while the emerging Bluetooth and free-hands criteria are associated with transportability. Conclusion: The results obtained using a user-centric approach yielded useful data to improve GATs and broaden the concept of compatibility among users and specific-use situations to ensure usability. Implications for rehabilitation  For manual wheelchair users paired with a geospatial assistance technology: • The smart phone is preferred (compared to the smart watch, augmented reality glasses or virtual reality helmet) for both plan and navigation tasks. Actual use, comfort, ease of use, familiarity, features and informative content are important criteria and the smart phone as mobile device for GATs is perceived favourably to meet the requirements coming up with these criteria. • Especially suitable for guidance and manual wheelchair navigation (double-task), two emergent criteria emerge regarding the usability of GATs: hands-free and Bluetooth. Hands-free is associated with potential usability issues regarding smart phone transportability and to the relevance of augmented reality glasses or smart watches as mobile device for GATs. The Bluetooth connexion appears as being part of the solution for increasing the transportability of any of these mobile devices. • Appearance and dimension of GATs, their efficiency for planning and navigating, and the quality of the delivered information are other important usability criteria. • Since information content and transportability are targeted as the two most important criteria, we should pay special attention in the future to the availability of information about accessibility of destinations and also, to appropriate fixation and Bluetooth systems ensuring, partially or completely, hands-free operation in order to meet user needs.

[1]  Angela F. L. Wong,et al.  Computer anxiety and its correlates : a meta-analysis , 1999 .

[2]  Magid Igbaria,et al.  Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model , 1997, MIS Q..

[3]  James R. Lewis,et al.  Investigating the psychometric properties of the Speech User Interface Service Quality questionnaire , 2015, International Journal of Speech Technology.

[4]  Paula W Rushton,et al.  Measure for the assessment of confidence with manual wheelchair use (WheelCon-M) version 2.1: reliability and validity. , 2013, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[5]  Harvey J. Miller,et al.  U-Access: a web-based system for routing pedestrians of differing abilities , 2006, J. Geogr. Syst..

[6]  Hassan A. Karimi,et al.  Personalised routing for wheelchair navigation , 2009, J. Locat. Based Serv..

[7]  A. Vanbiervliet,et al.  Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors , 2005, Disability and rehabilitation.

[8]  French-Canadian translation of the WheelCon-M (WheelCon-M-F) and evaluation of its validity evidence using telephone administration , 2015, Disability and rehabilitation.

[9]  Klaus Opwis,et al.  Intranet satisfaction questionnaire: Development and validationof a questionnaire to measure user satisfaction with the Intranet , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[10]  L. Krefting.  Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. , 1991, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[11]  James R. Lewis,et al.  Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Emotional Metric Outcomes (EMO) Questionnaire , 2014, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[12]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  A proposed index of usability: A method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems , 1997, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[13]  James A Lenker,et al.  Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[14]  B Phillips,et al.  Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. , 1993, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[15]  L Demers,et al.  Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). , 1996, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[16]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[17]  H. Matthews,et al.  Mapping for Wheelchair Users: Route Navigation in Urban Spaces , 2006 .

[18]  Kraig Finstad,et al.  The Usability Metric for User Experience , 2010, Interact. Comput..

[19]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[20]  M. Salzer,et al.  Measuring community participation of adults with psychiatric disabilities: reliability of two modes of data collection. , 2014, Rehabilitation psychology.

[21]  W Ben Mortenson,et al.  Prevalence of Wheelchair and Scooter Use Among Community-Dwelling Canadians , 2016, Physical Therapy.

[22]  Jen-Her Wu,et al.  Empirical evaluation of the revised end user computing acceptance model , 2004, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[23]  James T. Miller,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

[25]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2012, MIS Q..

[26]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Leveraging Microsoft's mobile usability guidelines: Conceptualizing and developing scales for mobile application usability , 2016, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[27]  Jenny Harding,et al.  Usability of geographic information -- factors identified from qualitative analysis of task-focused user interviews. , 2013, Applied ergonomics.

[28]  Dan Ding,et al.  Understanding route choices for wheelchair navigation , 2015, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[29]  Mary Corbett,et al.  SUMI: the Software Usability Measurement Inventory , 1993, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[30]  Patrick Langdon,et al.  Key influences on the user-centred design process , 2010 .

[31]  J. Wernstedt,et al.  Application of machine learning methods to route planning and navigation for disabled people , 2006 .

[32]  James R. Lewis,et al.  IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[33]  Donald R. Miller,et al.  Barriers, facilitators, and access for wheelchair users: substantive and methodologic lessons from a pilot study of environmental effects. , 2002, Social science & medicine.

[34]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Mobile Application Usability: Conceptualization and Instrument Development , 2015, MIS Q..