The Use of Older Adults on Preference Panels: Evidence From the Kentucky Interface Preference Inventory

The Kentucky Interface Preference Inventory (KIPI) is a 40-item, forced-choice questionnaire designed to serve 2 purposes. The 1st of these is to identify individual and group preferences for specific interface design options currently in use. The 2nd role of the KIPI is to identify individuals whose pattern of endorsements indicates they are taking task demands and environmental context into account when making their interface choices. Individuals who fall into this latter category, called "context sensitive users," are potentially of great value to cognitive ergonomists as test users in situations in which limited performance testing is possible. This article compares preference patterns and context sensitivity in older and younger adults. Compared to the younger participants, older adults showed greater acceptance of vocal and discrete (instead of visual and continuous) controls. They also showed greater acceptance of auditory and textual (instead of visual and iconic) displays. For control choices, ol...

[1]  C D Wickens,et al.  Compatibility and Resource Competition between Modalities of Input, Central Processing, and Output , 1983, Human factors.

[2]  Lucy J. Beck,et al.  In Miscommunication and Human Error , 1995 .

[3]  S. Coren,et al.  Validation of a self-report inventory for the measurement of visual acuity. , 1989, International journal of epidemiology.

[4]  S Coren,et al.  Color vision screening without the use of technical equipment: Scale development and cross-validation , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  C D Wickens,et al.  Principles of S-C-R Compatibility with Spatial and Verbal Tasks: The Role of Display-Control Location and Voice-Interactive Display-Control Interfacing , 1984, Human factors.

[6]  F. Jacob Seagull,et al.  Where Human Factors Meets Marketing , 1996 .

[7]  M. Posner,et al.  Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. , 1976, Psychological review.

[8]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Measuring usability: preference vs. performance , 1994, CACM.

[9]  Sidney L. Smith.  Exploring Compatibility with Words and Pictures , 1981 .

[10]  Arthur D. Fisk,et al.  Functional Limitations to Daily Living Tasks in the Aged: A Focus Group Analysis , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[11]  Stephen J. Payne,et al.  Naive Judgments of Stimulus-Response Compatibility , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[12]  S Coren,et al.  Screening for stereopsis without the use of technical equipment: scale development and cross-validation. , 1996, International journal of epidemiology.

[13]  Mark S. Sanders,et al.  Human Factors in Engineering and Design , 1957 .

[14]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  Arthur D. Fisk,et al.  Human Factors Goes to the Gridiron , 1995 .

[16]  Anthony G. Greenwald,et al.  A double stimulation test of ideomotor theory with implications for selective attention. , 1970 .

[17]  C. Wickens.  Engineering psychology and human performance, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[18]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  When Users Want What's not Best for Them , 1995 .