Evaluation methodologies of assistive technology interaction devices: a participatory mapping in Portugal based on community-based research

A great challenge on Assistive Technology (AT) is the evaluation phase of the interaction devices. Generally the gap between users and devices is discovered during the use. This fact highlights the relevance to discuss this barriers early in the design process, specially, in the evaluation phase. This paper explores current practices about evaluation methodologies for Assistive Technology (AT) interaction devices for people with motor disabilities, both considering the use of computers and TV-sets. To achieve this objective the results from a systematic mapping study about AT evaluation methodology and a field research was done in Portugal with experts in Assistive Technology Evaluation and end users. This field research was done, with a semi-structured interviews and for the data analysis, a content analysis of these interviews was carried out. The findings from this research suggest that there are key dimensions that should be addressed when evaluating AT: qualification issues remain most important, especially the developers' awareness of end user needs as barrier on computer access. Other important issues are economic barriers involved in the acquisition of AT interaction devices as well as the emotional issues involved in using these devices. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion on directions for evaluation methodologies of AT interaction devices.

[1]  Nirvana S. Antonio,et al.  ActiveIris: uma solução para comunicação alternativa e autonomia de pessoas com deficiência motora severa , 2013, IHC.

[2]  Nigel Bevan,et al.  Classifying and selecting UX and usability measures , 2008 .

[3]  Tom Stewart,et al.  Usability evaluation , 2009, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[4]  Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann,et al.  Facial Position and Expression-Based Human–Computer Interface for Persons With Tetraplegia , 2016, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics.

[5]  Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals ( VDTs ) — Part 11 : Guidance on usability , 1998 .

[6]  Albert M. Cook,et al.  Cook & Hussey's Assistive Technologies Principles and Practice , 2007 .

[7]  Vânia Paula de Almeida Néris,et al.  Measuring the emotional experience of users through a hybrid semantic approach , 2014, IHC.

[8]  Frank Krause,et al.  Measuring the emotions elicited by office chairs , 2003, DPPI '03.

[9]  A. N. Silva,et al.  An accelerometer-based human computer interface driving an alternative communication system , 2014, 5th ISSNIP-IEEE Biosignals and Biorobotics Conference (2014): Biosignals and Robotics for Better and Safer Living (BRC).

[10]  Cristina Manresa-Yee,et al.  A motion-based interface to control environmental stimulation for children with severe to profound disabilities , 2013, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[11]  M. Bradley,et al.  Measuring emotion: the Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential. , 1994, Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry.

[12]  Toni Granollers,et al.  COMPUTER VISION INTERACTION FOR PEOPLE WITH SEVERE MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS , 2006 .

[13]  Roque Moraes,et al.  Analise de conteudo , 1999 .

[14]  Margrit Betke,et al.  HMAGIC: head movement and gaze input cascaded pointing , 2015, PETRA.

[15]  Luís Brito Palma,et al.  Intelligent human-computer interface for improving pointing device usability and performance , 2016, 2016 12th IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA).

[16]  Peter J. Kyberd,et al.  Mouse emulation based on facial electromyogram , 2013, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[17]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Emotion in human-computer interaction , 2002 .

[18]  Oscar Mauricio Serrano Jaimes,et al.  EVALUACION DE LA USABILIDAD EN SITIOS WEB, BASADA EN EL ESTANDAR ISO 9241-11 (International Standard (1998) Ergonomic requirements For office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)-Parts II: Guidance on usability , 2012 .

[19]  Angela L Sauer,et al.  Assistive technology effects on the employment outcomes for people with cognitive disabilities: A systematic review , 2010, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[20]  Sima Soltani,et al.  Design of a novel wearable human computer interface based on electrooculograghy , 2013, 2013 21st Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE).

[21]  Maria da Graça Campos Pimentel,et al.  Text entry using a foot for severely motor-impaired individuals , 2014, SAC.

[22]  Ibrahiem M. M. El Emary,et al.  Speech emotion recognition approaches in human computer interaction , 2013, Telecommun. Syst..

[23]  Miodrag Bolic,et al.  The MouthPad: A tongue-computer interface , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA).

[24]  Maysam Ghovanloo,et al.  A Dual-Mode Human Computer Interface Combining Speech and Tongue Motion for People with Severe Disabilities , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[25]  Teófilo Alves Galvão Filho A construção do conceito de Tecnologia Assistiva: alguns novos interrogantes e desafios , 2013 .

[26]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction , 2002, UBIQ.

[27]  M. W. van Someren,et al.  The think aloud method: a practical approach to modelling cognitive processes , 1994 .

[28]  Kai Petersen,et al.  Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering , 2008, EASE.

[29]  Roseli de Deus Lopes,et al.  Human–Computer Interface Controlled by the Lip , 2015, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics.

[30]  Helen Petrie,et al.  Tenuta: Strategies for Providing Guidance on Usability and Accessibility , 2007, HCI.

[31]  Ömer Nezih Gerek,et al.  A Low-Computational Approach on Gaze Estimation With Eye Touch System , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics.

[32]  Chang-Hwan Im,et al.  Real-Time “Eye-Writing” Recognition Using Electrooculogram , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[33]  João M. F. Rodrigues,et al.  Low-cost Natural Interface Based on Head Movements , 2015, DSAI.

[34]  Lynne M. Coventry,et al.  Assistive technology for older adults: psychological and socio-emotional design requirements , 2013, PETRA '13.

[35]  Bertram E. Shi,et al.  Integrating EEG information improves performance of gaze based cursor control , 2013, 2013 6th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER).

[36]  Emmanuel K. Kalunga,et al.  Hybrid interface: Integrating BCI in multimodal human-machine interfaces , 2014, 2014 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics.

[37]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Usability Evaluation , 2001 .

[38]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  User experience - a research agenda , 2006, Behav. Inf. Technol..