Advertisement

YouTube and intergenerational communication: the case of Geriatric1927

  • Dave HarleyEmail author
  • Geraldine Fitzpatrick
Long paper

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of a 79 year old video blogger called ‘Geriatric1927’, and his use of the video sharing website, YouTube. Analysis of his first eight video blogs, and the subsequent text responses, reveals opportunities of this medium for intergenerational contact, reminiscence, reciprocal learning and co-creation of content, suggesting that older people can be highly motivated to use computers for social contact. The paper concludes by noting the importance of technologies that are socially engaging and meaningful for older people, and pointing to ways in which the social life of YouTube might be better promoted on its interface.

Keywords

Intergenerational communication YouTube Video blog Older people Social software 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the UK EPSRC through the Equator IRC Project (EPSRC GR/N15986/01). Many thanks to the reviewers for their helpful comments and to Peter (Geriatric1927) for allowing us to analyse his videos and the comments relating to them.

References

  1. 1.
    Audit Commission (2004) Independence and Well-Being 4 Assistive Technology. (Audit Commission Report) Audit Commission, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barkhuus, L., Rode, J., Bell, G.: Entertainment media at home—looking at the social aspects. Workshop at CHI 2006, Montreal, 22 April 2006Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bornat, J.: Reminiscence and oral history: parallel universes or shared endeavour? Ageing Soc. 21, 219–241 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowes, A., McColgin, G.: Smart technology at home: ‘users’ and ‘carers’ perspectives: interim report, University of Stirling [Available at http://topics.developmentgateway.org/evaluation/rc/ItemDetail.do~1038028 (2005)] Accessed 13 April 2006
  5. 5.
    Butler, R.: The life review: an interpretation of reminiscence in the aged. Psychiatry 26, 65–76 (1963)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carotenuto, L., Etienne, W., Fontaine, M., Friedman, J., Newberg, H., Muller, M., Simpson, M., Slusher, J., Stevenson, K.: CommunitySpace: toward flexible support for voluntary knowledge communities. In: Proceedings of Workshop “Changing Places”, April, 1999 at Queen Mary & Westfield College, University of London, London, UK [Available from http://domino.watson.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/0/0e8c8166a02d5338852568f800634af1/$FILE/communityspace.PDF]
  7. 7.
    Coleman, R.: Living longer: the new context for design. Design Council, London [Available from http://www.education.edean.org/pdf/Intro033.pdf (2001)]
  8. 8.
    Consolvo, S., Roessler, P., Shelton, B.: The CareNet display: lessons learned from an in home evaluation of an ambient display. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference of Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp 2004). Nottingham, England, 7–10 September 2004, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Department of Health: White Paper 30th January 2006. Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services. Department of Health, London, UK [Available from http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/12/74/59/04127459.pdf] (2006)
  10. 10.
    Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Syme, A., Eisma, R., Tiwari, L., Mival, O., Newell, A.: Domesticating technology: in-home requirements gathering with frail older people. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) 10th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction HCI (22–27 June, Crete, Greece 2003) 4, pp. 827–831 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisma R., Dickinson A., Goodman J., Syme A., Tiwari L., Newell A.: Early user involvement in the development of information technology-related products for older people. Universal Access Inf. Soc. 3(2), 131–140 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erikson, E.H.: Childhood and Society. Norton, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erikson, E.H., Erikson, J.M., Kivnick, H.Q.: Vital Involvement in Old Age. Norton, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitzpatrick, G., Stringer, M.: Exploring technology influences between home, work and school: implications for managing ubiquitous technologies in the home. HOIT (2007, to appear)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gaver, B., Dunne, T., Pacenti, E.: Design: Cultural probes. Interactions 6(1), 21–29 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glaister, D. (2006) Cult blog a fake, admit ‘lonelygirl’ creators. The Guardian. [Available from: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1868499,00.html] Published 9 September 2006. Accessed 15 November 2006
  17. 17.
    Glaser, B.G.: The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description. Sociology Press, Mill Valley (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goodman, J., Syme, A., Eisma, R.: Older adults’ use of computers: a survey. In: Proceedings of HCI 2003, vol. 2, pp. 25–28, Bath, UK (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gomes, L. (2006) Will All of Us Get Our Fifteen Minutes on a YouTube Video? Wall St. J. [Available from: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1156892981680489045wWyrSwyn6RfVfz9NwLk774VUWc_20070829.html?mod=rss_free] Published 30 August 2006. Accessed 7 November 2006
  21. 21.
    Gowans, G., Campbell, J., Alm, N., Astell, A., Ellis, M., Dye, R. (2004) Designing a Multimedia Conversation Aid for Reminiscence Intervention in Dementia Care Environments. In: Proceedings of CHI 2004, pp. 825–836. ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., Bederson, B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., Beaudoin-Lafon, M., Conversy, S., Evans, H., Hansen, H., Roussel, N., Eiderback, B., Lundquist, S., Sundblad, Y. (2003) Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In: Proceedings of CHI2003, pp. 17–24. ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jimison, H., Pavel, M., McKanna, J., Pavel, J.: Unobtrusive monitoring of computer interactions to detect cognitive status in elders. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 8(3), 248–252 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kern, D., Stringer, M., Fitzpatrick, G., Schmidt, A. (2006) Curball—a prototype tangible game for inter-generational play. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Tangible Interaction in Collaborative Environments (TICE 2006), IEEE Press, Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kurniawan, S., Zaphiris, P. (2005) Designing for individuals with memory and cognitive disabilities: research-derived web design guidelines for older people. In: Proceedings of the 7th international ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility Assets ‘05 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lo, B. Wang, J., Yang, G. (2005) From imaging networks to behaviour profiling: ubiquitous sensing for managed homecare of the elderly. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Pervasive Computing (PERVASIVE 2005), pp. 101–105, Munich, Germany, 8–13 May 2005Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCarthy, H., Thomas, G.: Home Alone. Demos, London (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mynatt, E., Essa, I., Rogers, W.: Increasing the opportunities for aging in place. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Universal Usability, pp. 65–71. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mynatt, E., Rowan, J., Craighill, S., Jacobs, A.: Digital family portraits: providing peace of mind for extended family members. In: Proceedings of CHI2001, pp. 333–340. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nelson, T.D.: Ageism: prejudice against our feared future self. J. Soc. Issues 61(2), 207–215 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Newman, S., Smith, T.B. (1997) Developmental theories as the basis for intergenerational programs. In: Newman, S., Ward, C.R., Smith, T.B., Wilson, J.M., McCrea, J.M., Calhoun, G., Kingson, E. (eds) Intergenerational Programs. Past Present and Future, pp. 3–19. Taylor and Francis, Washington Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Office for National Statistics. Social Trends 31 [Available from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=7528&RT=128&PG=1]. Accessed 23rd May 2006
  33. 33.
    Plos, O., Buisine, S.: Universal design for mobile phones: a case study. In: CHI’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perry, M., Dowdall, A., Lines, L., Hones, K.: Multimodal and ubiquitous systems: supporting independent-living older users. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 8(3), 258–270 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reed, D.J.: Fun on the phone. The situated experience of recreational telephone conferences. In: Blythe, M., Monk, A., Overbeeke, K., Wright, P. (eds) Funology. From Usability to Enjoyment, pp. 67–80. Kluwer, London (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Savidis, A., Stephanidis, C.: Inclusive development: software engineering requirements for universally accessible interactions. Interact. Comput. 18, 71–116 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., Furlong, J., Madden, L.: The information aged: Older adults’ use of information and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing Soc. 23, 561–582 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Selwyn, N.: The social processes of learning to use computers. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 23(1), 122–135 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stefanov, D., Bien, Z., Bang, W.: The smart house for older persons and persons with physical disabilities: Structure, technology arrangements, and perspectives. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 12(2), 228–50 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stephanidis C. (ed.): User Interfaces for All: Concepts, Methods and Tools. Lawrence Erlbaum, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tapia, E.M., Intille, S., Larson, K.: Activity recognition in the home setting using simple and ubiquitous sensors. In: Ferscha, A., Mattern, F. (eds.) Proceedings of PERVASIVE 2004, Linz, Austria, 18–23 April 2004, vol. LNCS 3001, pp. 158–175. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thompson, M.G., Heller, K.: Facets of support related to well-being: quantitative social isolation and perceived family support in a sample of elderly women. Psychol. Aging 5(4), 535–544 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tornstam, L.: Gero-transcendence; a meta-theoretical reformulation of the disengagement theory. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 1(1), 55–63 (1989)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tornstam, L.: Gerotranscendence—a theory about maturing into old age. J. Aging Identity 1, 37–50 (1996)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vetere, F., Nolan, M., Raman, R.A.: Distributed hide-and-seek. In: Proceedings of OzCHI2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vetere, F., Davis, H., Gibbs, M., Francis, P., Howard, S.: A magic box for understanding intergenerational play. In: Proceedings of CHI 2006 (Work-in-Progress), Montreal, Canada (24–27 April), pp.1475–1480 (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Whitcomb, G.R.: Computer games for the elderly. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computers and the quality of life, Washington, D.C., pp. 112–115 (1990)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Woods, B., Spector, A., Jones, C., Orrell, M., Davies, S.: Reminiscence therapy for dementia. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD001120. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001120.pub2 (2005)
  49. 49.
    Yousef, M.: Assessment of metaphor efficacy in user interfaces for the elderly: a tentative model for enhancing accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 2001 EC/NSF Workshop on Universal Accessibility of Ubiquitous Computing: Providing for the Elderly, Alcacer do Sal, Portugal, pp 120–124 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Informatics, Interact LabUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations