Advertisement

How Two become One – Creating Synergy Effects by Applying the Joint Interview Method to Design Wearable Technology

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8517)

Abstract

This paper addresses the design of wearable technology and its user acceptance by applying the Joint Interview Method. In order to further develop a wearable warning system in form of a glove, five semi-structured joint interviews were held by a trained human factors specialist. Each joint interview consisted of one respondent with an engineering background and one respondent with a psychological or cognitive-science background. In this process, the Joint Interview Method revealed two advantages: First, the interviews benefited from the discussion between both participants and, second, it enabled an observation from two different perspectives (i.e. one implementation-oriented view, which focused on the technological capabilities and the other user-oriented view, which focused on human perception and information processing). Both aspects mentioned led to synergy effects. To sum up, the Joint Interview Method turned out to be a promising usability approach to explore new technologies’ potential and user acceptance and therefore, can be recommended for its use in the process of designing and evaluating wearables.

Keywords

dyadic interview two-person-interview user-centered design user acceptance smart clothing wearable warning system industrial maintenance 

References

  1. 1.
    Arskey, H.: Collecting data through joint interviews. Social Research Update 15, 1–8 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barfield, W., Mann, S., Baird, K., Gemperle, F., Kasabach, C., Stivoric, J., Bauer, M., Martin, R., Cho, G.: Computational clothing and accessories. In: Barfield, W., Caudell, T. (eds.) Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality, pp. 471–509. Routledge (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beier, M., Von Gizycki, V. (eds.): Usability. IFIP AICT, vol. 99. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breznitz, S.: Cry wolf: The psychology of false alarms. Psychology Press (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cho, G., Lee, S., Cho, J.: Review and reappraisal of smart clothing. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 25(6), 582–617 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunn, K.: Interviewing. In: Hay, I. (ed.) Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eliot, S.: David Morgan on the Two-Person Interview. Qualitative-researcher.com (August 31, 2010), http://www.qualitative-researcher.com (retrieved December 12, 2013)
  8. 8.
    Fern, E.F.: Advanced focus group research. Sage (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frieling, E., Sonntag, K.: Arbeitspsychologie. Hans Huber, Bern (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibbs, S., Arthur, C.: CES 2014: Why wearable technology is the new dress code. The Guardian (2014), http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/08/wearable-technology-consumer-electronics-show (retrieved January 8, 2014)
  11. 11.
    Hatch, K.L.: Textile science. West Publishing, Minneapolis (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huth, V., Biral, F., Martín, Ó., Lot, R.: Comparison of two warning concepts of an intelligent Curve Warning system for motorcyclists in a simulator study. Accident Analysis and Prevention 44, 118–125 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kirstein, T., Cottet, D., Grzyb, J., Tröster, G.: Wearable computing systems – electronic textiles. In: Xiaoming, T. (ed.) Wearable Electronics and Photonics, pp. 177–197. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kornblum, S., Lee, J.W.: Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21(4), 855 (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lieberman, J., Breazeal, C.: Development of a Wearable Vibrotactile Feedback Suit for Accelerated Human Motor Learning. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE ICRA, pp. 4001–4006 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Macefield, G., Gandevia, S.C., Burke, D.: Conduction velocities of muscle and cutaneous afferents in the upper and lower limbs of human subjects. Brain 112(6), 1519–1532 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mayhew, D.: The Usability Engineering Lifecycle – A Practitioner’s Handbook for User Interface Design. Academic Press, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McDaniel, M.A., Einstein, G.O.: Prospective memory: An Overview and Synthesis of an Emerging Field. Sage (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morgan, D.L., Ataie, J., Carder, P., Hoffman, K.: Introducing Dyadic Interviews as a Method for Collecting Qualitative Data. Qualitative Health Research 23(9), 1276–1284 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen, J.: Why you only need to test with 5 users. Nielsen Norman Group (2000), http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html (retrieved February 5, 2012)
  21. 21.
    Saha, M.K.: Anirudh Sharma Invents Haptic Shoe for the Visually Impaired. MIT Technology Review (2012), http://www.technologyreview.com/tr35/profile.aspx?TRID=1258 (retrieved July 31, 2012)
  22. 22.
    Sarodnick, F., Braun, H.: Methoden der Usability-Evaluation – Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen und Praktische Anwendung. Huber, Bern (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmuntzsch, U., Feldhaus, L.H.: The Warning Glove: Wearable Computing Technology for Maintenance Assistance in IPS². In: 12th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Symposium on Analysis, Design, and Evaluation of Human-Machine Systems, vol. 12(1) (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmuntzsch, U., Sturm, C., Rötting, M.: How can multimodality be used to design usable interfaces in IPS² for older employees? A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 41(1), 3533–3540 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wickens, C.D., Carswell, C.M.: The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37(3), 473–494 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nicolai, T., Sindt, T., Witt, H., Reimerdes, J., Kenn, H.: Wearable computing for aircraft maintenance: Simplifying the user interface. In: 3rd International Forum on Applied Wearable Computing (IFAWC), pp. 1–12. VDE (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wogalter, M.S.: Purposes and Scope of Warnings. In: Wogalter, M.S. (ed.) Handbook of Warnings, pp. 3–9. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Ergonomics, Chair of Human-Machine Systems Office: MAR 3-1TU BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations