A comparison of methods currently used in inclusive design.

Inclusive design has unique challenges because it aims to improve usability for a wide range of users. This typically includes people with lower levels of ability, as well as mainstream users. This paper examines the effectiveness of two methods that are used in inclusive design: user trials and exclusion calculations (an inclusive design inspection method). A study examined three autoinjectors using both methods (n=30 for the user trials). The usability issues identified by each method are compared and the effectiveness of the methods is discussed. The study found that each method identified different kinds of issues, all of which are important for inclusive design. We therefore conclude that a combination of methods should be used in inclusive design rather than relying on a single method. Recommendations are also given for how the individual methods can be used more effectively in this context.

[1]  Patrick Langdon,et al.  Using disability data to estimate design exclusion , 2010, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[2]  J.C. Williams,et al.  A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance , 1988, Conference Record for 1988 IEEE Fourth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants,.

[3]  Barry Kirwan,et al.  A Guide To Task Analysis: The Task Analysis Working Group , 1992 .

[4]  Ebba Þóra Hvannberg,et al.  Basic concepts , 2020, Fluid Flow in Porous Media.

[5]  J. Grudin.  12 – WHY PERSONAS WORK: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE , 2006 .

[6]  Patrick Langdon,et al.  Developing a Method for Assessing Product Inclusivity , 2009 .

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

[8]  Pj Clarkson,et al.  Comparison of the usability of three autoinjectors , 2010 .

[9]  Mark S. Young,et al.  An investigation into usability and exclusivity issues of digital programmable thermostats , 2012 .

[10]  Susan G. Hill,et al.  Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: Are paired comparisons necessary? In A , 1989 .

[11]  Ruth Sims,et al.  'Design for all': methods and data to support designers , 2003 .

[12]  Patrick Langdon,et al.  Design and delivery of a national pilot survey of capabilities , 2013 .

[13]  Simeon Keates,et al.  Countering Design Exclusion: An Introduction to Inclusive Design , 2003 .

[14]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[15]  Simeon Keates,et al.  Are Users Necessary for Inclusive Design , 2005 .

[16]  Patrick Langdon,et al.  Visualising the number of people who cannot perform tasks related to product interactions , 2013, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[17]  Patrick Langdon,et al.  Characterising user capabilities to support inclusive design evaluation , 2007, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[18]  Maria Ebling,et al.  On the contributions of different empirical data in usability testing , 2000, DIS '00.

[19]  John Clarkson,et al.  Capability measurement for Inclusive Design , 2010 .

[20]  Simeon Keates,et al.  Design for Inclusivity : Assessing the Accessibility of Everyday Products , 2002 .

[21]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems , 1993, INTERCHI.

[22]  John S. Pruitt,et al.  The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design , 2006 .

[23]  Pj Clarkson,et al.  Product evaluation: practical approaches [Chapter 12] , 2007 .