Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 119–135 | Cite as

Characterising user capabilities to support inclusive design evaluation

  • Umesh Persad
  • Patrick Langdon
  • John Clarkson
Long Paper


Designers require knowledge and data about users to effectively evaluate product accessibility during the early stages of design. This paper addresses this problem by setting out the sensory, cognitive and motor dimensions of user capability that are important for product interaction. The relationship between user capability and product demand is used as the underlying conceptual model for product design evaluations and for estimating the number of people potentially excluded from using a given product.


Inclusive design Design evaluation Ability model Product design 



This work has been funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT).


  1. 1.
    Langdon, P.M., Adams, R., Clarkson, P.J.: Universal access to assistive technology through ‘client-centred’ cognitive assessment, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Universal access, theoretical perspectives, practice and experience, v2615/2003, pp. 153–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baddeley, A.D.: The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 417–423 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bridger, R.S.: Introduction to ergonomics, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, London (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brinck, T.: Return on goodwill: return on investment for accessibility. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byrne, M.D.: Cognitive Architecture. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (eds) The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 97–117. LEA, New Jersey (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cañas, J.J., Antolí, A., Quesada J.F.: The role of working memory on measuring mental models of physical systems. Psicologica 22, 25–42 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The Psychology of Human–Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Mahwah (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cardoso, C.: Design for Inclusivity: Assessing the Accessibility of Everyday Products. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlsson, G., Iwarsson, S., Sthål, A.: The personal component of accessibility at group level: exploring the complexity of functional capacity. Scand. J. Occupational Therapy 9, 100–108 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarkson, J., Keates, S.: User capabilities and product demands. In: Include 2003—Inclusive design for society and business, London (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Colenbrander, A.: Aspects of vision loss–visual functions and functional vision. Visual Impairment Res. 5, 115–136 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeBonis, D.A., Donohue, C.L.: Survey of Audiology: Fundamentals for Audiologists and Health Professionals. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dong, H.: Barriers to Inclusive Design in the UK. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fleishman, E.A., Quaintance, M.K.: Taxonomies of human performance—the description of human tasks. Academic, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fletcher, D.C., American Academy of Ophthalmology.: Low vision rehabilitation: caring for the whole person. Ophthalmology monographs, vol 12. American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco [Great Britain] (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goodman, J., Langdon, P.M., Clarkson, P.J.: Providing strategic user information for designers: methods and initial findings. In: Clarkson, J., Langdon, P., Robinson, P. (eds.) Designing Accessible Technology, pp. 41–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grundy, E., Ahlburg, D., Ali, M., Breeze, E, Sloggett, A: Disability in Great Britain: Results from the 1996/97 disability follow-up to the family resources survey. UK Department of Social Security (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gyi, D.E, Sims, R.E, Porter, J.M, Marshall, R., Case, K.: Representing older and disabled people in virtual user trials: data collection methods. Appl. Ergon. 35, 443–451 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hartson, H.R., Andre, T.S, Williges, R.C.: Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 13, 373–410 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacko, J.A., Dixon, M.A., Jr RHR, Scott, I.U., Pappas, C.J.: Visual profiles: a critical component of universal access. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: the CHI is the Limit, Pittsburgh (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacko, J.A., Vitense, H.S.: A review and reappraisal of information technologies within a conceptual framework for individuals with disabilities. Universal Access Inf. Soc. 1, 56–79 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    John, B.E., Kieras, D.E.: The GOMS Family of Analysis Techniques: Tools for Design and Evaluation, Human–Computer Interaction Institute Technical Report CMU-HCII-94-106. School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kanis, H: Operation of controls on consumer products by physically impaired users. Hum. Factors 35, 305–328 (1993)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karwowski, W.: Achieving compatibility in human–computer interface design and evaluation. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (eds.) The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, LEA, NJ (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, J.: Countering design exclusion—an introduction to inclusive design. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, J.: Supporting the adoption of inclusive design practices. In: Include 2003—inclusive design for society and business, London (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kondraske, G.V: Workplace design: an elemental resource approach to task analysis and human performance measurements. In: Choice For All. ICAART’88. RESNA International Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology, Montreal (1988)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kondraske, G.V.: Measurement tools and processes in rehabilitation engineering. In: Bronzino, J.D. (ed.) The Biomedical Engineering Handbook, 2nd edn, vol 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton pp. 145.1–145.16 (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kondraske, G.V: A working model for human system-task interfaces. In Bronzino JD (ed.) The Biomedical Engineering Handbook, 2nd edn, vol 2, pp. 147.1–147.18. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kwahk, J., Han, S.H.: A methodology for evaluating the usability of audiovisual consumer electronic products. Appl. Ergon. 33, 419–431 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Langdon, P., Keates, S., Clarkson, P.: New cognitive capability scales for inclusive product design. In: Keates, S., Clarkson, J., Langdon, P., Robinson, P. (eds.) Designing a More Inclusive World. Springer, London (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martin, J., Elliott, D.: Creating an overall measure of severity of disability for the office of population censuses and surveys disability survey. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. A (Stat. Soc.) 155, 121–140 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Meister, D.: Behavioural Analysis and Measurement Methods. Wiley, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Monk, A.: Cyclic interaction: a unitary approach to intention, action and the environment. Cognition 68, 95–110 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moore, B.C.J.: Cochlear Hearing Loss. Whurr, London (1998)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moore, B.C.J.: An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, 5th edn. Academic, San Diego (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Napier, J.R.: The prehensile movements of the human hand. J. Bone Joint Surg. 38B, 902–913 (1956)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Norman, D.A.: Some observations on mental models. In: Gentner, D., Stevens, A.L. (eds.) Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp. 7–14 (1983)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books (Perseus), New York (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Norton, T.T., Corliss, D.A., Bailey, J.E.: The psychophysical measurement of visual function. Butterworth Heinemann, London (2002)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Persad, U., Langdon, P.M., Clarkson, P.J.: Exploring user capabilities and health: A population perspective. In: Contemporary Ergonomics 2006, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Petrie, H.: Accessibility and usability requirements for ICTs for disabled and elderly people: a functional classification approach. In: Nicolle, C., Abascal, J. (eds.) Inclusive Design Guidelines for HCI, Taylor & Francis, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pirkl, J.J, Babic, A.L.: Guidelines and Strategies for Designing Transgenerational Products: A Resource Manual for Industrial Design Professionals. Syracuse University Series in Gerontology Education. Copley Publishing Group, Acton (1988)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Porter, J.M., Case, K., Marshall, R., Gyi, D., Oliver, RSn.: ‘Beyond Jack and Jill’: designing for individuals using HADRIAN. Int. J. Indus. Ergon. 33, 249–264 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Poulson, D., Ashby, M., Richardson, S. (eds) (1996) USERfit A practical handbook on user-centred design for assistive technology. Handbook produced within the European Commission TIDE programme USER project, HUSAT Research Institute, LoughboroughGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Proctor, R.W., Vu, K-P.L.: Human information processing: an overview for human–computer interaction. In: Jacko, J.A, Sears, A. (eds.) The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 35–51. LEA, New Jersey (2003)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Robertson, SI.: Problem Solving. Psychology Press, Hove (2001)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Russell, S.J, Norvig, P.: Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 2nd, International edn, Prentice Hall series in artificial intelligence. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River/London (2003)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schieber, F.: Aging and the senses. In: Birren, J.E, Sloan R., Cohen, G. (eds.) Handbook of Mental Health and Aging, pp. 251–306. Academic, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schiffman, H.R.: Sensation and Perception: An Integrated Approach, 5th edn. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sears, A., Young, M.: Physical disabilities and computing technologies: an analysis of impairments. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (eds.) The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 482–503. LEA, New Jersey (2003)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sesto, M., Vanderheiden, G., Radwin, R.G.: Functional characterization of disability and interface use. In: RESNA 2004 Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Story, M.F., Muller, J.L., Mace, R.L.: The Universal Design File—Designing for People of All Ages and Abilities. The Center for Universal Design (1998)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vanderheiden, G.C., Vanderheiden, K.: Guidelines for the Design of Consumer Products to Increase Their Accessibility to People with Disabilities—Working Draft 1.7. Trace R & D Center (1992)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    VanDerVeer, G.C., Melguizo, MdCP.: Mental models. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (eds.) The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 52–80. LEA, New Jersey (2003)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    VanDerVegte, W.F.: Consideration and modelling of use processes in computer-aided conceptual design: a state of the art review. Trans. SDPS J. Integr. Des. Process Sci. 6, 25–59 (2002)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
  58. 58.
    Warburton, N.: Everyday inclusive design. In: Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Keates, S., Lebbon, C. (eds.) Inclusive Design–Design for the Whole Population, pp. 250–269. Springer, London (2003)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    WHO.: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. World Health Organization (2001)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G.: Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1999)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zachary, W., Campbell, G.E., Laughery, K.R., Glenn, F., Cannon-Bowers, J.A.: The application of human modeling technology to the design, evaluation and operation of complex systems. In: Salas, E., (ed.) Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, vol 1, pp. 199–247. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Langdon, P.M, Lewis, T., Clarkson, P.J.: The Effects of Prior Experience on the Use of Consumer Products, Universal Access in the Information Society, Special Issue on Designing Accessible Technology, (Ibid), Springer, London (2007)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Juran, J.M., Gryna, F.M.: Juran’s Quality Control Handbook. Mcgraw-Hill, New York. ISBN 0-07-033176-6 (1951)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering, Engineering Design CentreUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations