Universal Access Through Client-Centred Cognitive Assessment and Personality Profiling

  • Ray Adams
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3196)

Abstract

The demand for universal access to information in the evolving Information Society produces an inexorable move towards complex, powerful and interlinked technological solutions. In this context, user requirements must be captured by more powerful user models, based upon more advanced user centred methods. Traditional HCI techniques may not work well in the new context of future and emerging technologies. Earlier work [1] observed significant dissociations between observed task performance and self report, raising profound and serious problems for user modelling methods. This empirical paper evaluates three different types of method used in user modelling; task performance, self-report and the personality inventory. Four case studies with individuals with acquired disabilities are reported here. The relationships between these three aspects of the user’s profile (self report, task performance and the personality inventory) are more complex than expected and provide different, sometimes contradictory, perspectives of user needs. A potential explanatory framework is offered briefly to guide future user modelling work. More importantly, any code of practice for Universal Access must not rely on any one method alone but must combine methods to minimise conceptual and practical errors. User profiles for adaptive technology must also employ multiple methods, if such technology is to be reliable in practice.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, R., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.J.: A systematic basis for developing cognitive assessment methods for assistive technology, C6. In: Keates, S., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.J., Robinson, P. (eds.) Universal Access and Assistive Technology, pp. 53–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raven, J.: The Raven’s progressive matrices; Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology 41, 32 47 (2000) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lord, W.: A review of item content, 5th edn. ASE, London (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Interaction Design; beyond human computer interaction. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., Beale, R.: Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, London (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nielsen, J.: Designing Web Usability. New Riders, London (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, J.: Countering design exclusion: an introduction to inclusive design. Springer, London (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooper, A.: The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How To Restore The Sanity. SAMS, London (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norman, D.: The Invisible Computer. MIT Press, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newman, W., Lemming, M.: Interactive System Design. Addison Wesley, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shneiderman, B.: Designing the User Interface, 3rd edn. Addison Wesley, New York (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ray Adams
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceMiddlesex UniversityLondon

Personalised recommendations