Advertisement

Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 207–217 | Cite as

Designing technology with older people

  • Guy DewsburyEmail author
  • Mark Rouncefield
  • Ian Sommerville
  • Victor Onditi
  • Peter Bagnall
Long Paper

Abstract

Designing applications to support older people in their own homes is increasing in popularity and necessity. The increase in supporting older people in the community means that cash-strapped resources are required to be utilised in the most effective manner, which often lends itself to technology deployment, rather than human deployment as the former is perceived as more cost effective. Therefore, the concern arises as to how technology can be designed inclusively and acceptably to the people who are to receive it. This paper discusses the issue of design, and how these concerns have been addressed in a series of projects targeted towards directly supporting people in the community.

Keywords

Assistive technology Augmentative communication Older adults Interactive technology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially funded by Microsoft Research as part of their “Create, Play and Learn” collaborative research programme and partially funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as part of the DIRC Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration. We would also like to thank the participants from Age Concern Carnforth.

References

  1. 1.
    Bagnall, P., Dewsbury, G., Sommerville, I.: Easy For Everyone: Using components to offer specialised interfaces for software. In: Baxter, G., Dewsbury, G. (eds.) HEAT 2004: Proceedings of the 1st HEAT: The Home and Electronic Assistive Technology Workshop, Computing Department, Lancaster University (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batterbee, K.: CHI 2003, April 5–10, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA. ACM 1-58113-630-7/03/0004 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheverst, K., Clarke, K., Dewsbury, G., Hemmings, T., Hughes, J., Rouncefield, M.: Design with care: technology, disability and the home. In Harper, R. (ed.) Inside The Smart Home, Chapter 9, pp 63–180. Springer, London (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, K., Cheverst, K., Dewsbury, G., Fitton, D., Hemmings, T., Hughes, J., Rodden, T., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I.: Cultural probes: eliciting requirements for dependable ubiquitous computing in the home. In: The 10th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction (HCI International), June 2003Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crabtree, A.: Wild sociology: ethnography and design. Ph.D. Thesis, Lancaster University: Sociology Department (Ref. No. 000479991) (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dewsbury, G., Sommerville, I., Clarke, K., Rouncefield, M.: A dependability model for domestic systems. In: Anderson S., Felici M., Littlewood, B. (eds.) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Proceedings, SAFECOMP. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2788, pp. 103–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dewsbury, G., Clarke, K., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I.: Depending on digital design: extending inclusivity. Housing Stud. 19(5) (2004a)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dewsbury , G., Clarke, K., Hemmings, T., Hughes, J., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I.: The antisocial model of disability. Disabil. Soc. 19(2) (2004b)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emerson R.: Observational field work. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 7, 357 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fitton, D., Chevherst, K., Rouncefield, M., Dix, A., Crabtree, A.: Probing technology with technology probes. Equator Workshop on Record and Replay Technologies: Equator IRCGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garfinkel, H.: Ethnomethodology’s program: working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, pX (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garfinkel, H., Weider, L.: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. In: Watson, G., Seiler, R. (eds.) Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology, p 182. Sage, London (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaver, W.H., Dunne, A., Pacenti, E.: Design: cultural probes. Interactions 6(1), 21–29 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaver, W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., Walker, B.: Cultural Probes and the value of uncertainty, Interactions, Volume XI.5 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gheerawo, R.R., Lebbon, C.S.: Inclusive design: developing theory through practice. In: Keates, Langdon, Clarkson, Robinson (eds.) Universal Access and Assistive Technology, pp. 43–52. Springer, London (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gould, L.C., Walker, A.L., Crane, L.E., Lidz, C.W.: Connections: Notes from the Heroin, World. Yale University Press, New Haven (1974)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Slack, R., Voß, A., Buscher, M., Rouncefield, M., Rouchy, P.: Co-realisation: towards a principled synthesis of ethnomethodology and participatory design. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 2002 14(2) (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., Whittaker, S., Schiano, D.J., Candace, K.: The character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace. CSCW 2002, 16–20 November (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, J.: Countering design exclusion: an introduction to inclusive design, p 21. Springer, London (2003) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kember, S., Cheverst, K., Clarke, K., Dewsbury, G., Hemmings, T., Rodden, T., Rouncefield, M.: Keep taking the medication––assistive technologies for medication regimes in care settings’. In: Keates, S., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.J., Robinson, P. (eds.) Universal Access and Assistive Technology. Springer, London (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laprie, J.C. (ed.): Dependability: Basic Concepts and Terminology. Springer, New York (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lebbon, C., Rouncefield, M., Viller, S.: Observation for innovation. In: Clarkson, J., Keates, S., Coleman, R., Lebbon, C. (eds.) Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population. Helen Hamlyn Research Centre, Royal College of Art (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindley, C.: Ludic engagement and immersion as a generic paradigm for human–computer interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Entertainment Computing, Technical University Eindhoven, Netherlands, LNCS, p. 183. Springer, New York, (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mattelmäki, T., Battarbee, K.: Empathy probes. In: Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, Malmö Sweden, 23–25 June 2002Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sharrock, W.: Organisational articulation of the design space. In: Moran, T., Carroll J. (eds.) Design Rationale, p. 165. Lawrence Erlbaum (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharrock, W.W., Anderson, R.J.: On the demise of the native: some observations on and a proposal for ethnography. Hum. Stud. 5(2), 119–135 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sommerville, I., Dewsbury, G., Clarke, K., Rouncefield, M.: Dependability and trust in organisational and domestic computer systems. In: Clarke, K., Hardstone, G., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I. (eds.) Trust in Technology: A Socio-technical Perspective, p. 181. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guy Dewsbury
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark Rouncefield
    • 1
  • Ian Sommerville
    • 2
  • Victor Onditi
    • 1
  • Peter Bagnall
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing DepartmentLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceSt Andrews UniversityFifeUK

Personalised recommendations