Advertisement

Usability Evaluation of a Virtual Assistive Companion

  • Ana Luísa JegundoEmail author
  • Carina Dantas
  • João Quintas
  • João Dutra
  • Ana Leonor Almeida
  • Hilma Caravau
  • Ana Filipa Rosa
  • Ana Isabel Martins
  • Alexandra Queirós
  • Nelson Pacheco Rocha
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 931)

Abstract

As a result of the great technological advances in the last decades, new solutions are emerging to avoid social isolation and to delay the institutionalization of older adults, as is the case of virtual assistants. This paper presents the usability evaluation of a Virtual Assistive Companion (VAC), the CaMeLi. The usability evaluation was based on a multi-method approach that comprises self-reported usability, usability reported by an evaluator and critical incidents registration. The usability tests were performed with 46 participants with an average age of 64 years. The results showed a good usability and satisfaction level, although usability reported by evaluators and critical incidents registration suggest that some functionalities need to be improved in order to facilitate the VAC interaction and understandability.

Keywords

Usability evaluation Usability testing Virtual Assistive Companion Avatar 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the GrowMeUp project, funded by the European Commission within the H2020-PHC-2014, (Grant Agreement: 643647) and by the DAPAS project co-funded by the European AAL Joint Programme (Active and Assisted Living — ICT for ageing well, Call 2017) and by FCT (Portuguese Funding Authority) - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, I.P. (AAL/0005/2017).

References

  1. 1.
    Wiles, J.L., Leibing, A., Guberman, N., Reeve, J., Allen, R.E.S.: The meaning of ‘Aging in Place’ to older people. Gerontologist 52(3), 357–366 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bedaf, S., et al.: Which activities threaten independent living of elderly when becoming problematic: inspiration for meaningful service robot functionality. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 9(6), 445–452 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsiourti, C., Joly, E., Wings, C., Ben Moussa, M., Wac, K.: Virtual assistive companions for older adults: qualitative field study and design implications. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, pp. 57–64 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper, R.S., McElroy, J.F., Rolandi, W., Sanders, D., Ulmer, R.M., Peebles, E.: Personal virtual assistant, 21 March 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tsiourti, C., et al.: A virtual assistive companion for older adults: design implications for a real-world application, pp. 1014–1033. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cáritas Diocesana de Coimbra: International Project Cameli (2017). https://www.caritascoimbra.pt/en/project/cameli/
  7. 7.
    Martins, A.I., Queirós, A., Silva, A.G., Rocha, N.P.: Usability evaluation of ambient assisted living systems using a multi-method approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion - DSAI 2016, pp. 261–268 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bickmore, T., Gruber, A., Picard, R.: Establishing the computer-patient working alliance in automated health behavior change interventions. Patient Educ. Couns. 59(1), 21–30 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schulman and Daniel: Embodied agents for long-term interaction, Northeastern University (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bickmore, T.W.: Relational agents: effecting change through human-computer relationships, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quintas, J., Menezes, P., Dias, J.: Information model and architecture specification for context awareness interaction decision support in cyber-physical human-machine systems. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst. 47(3), 323–331 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quintas, J., Martins, G.S., Santos, L., Menezes, P., Dias, J.: Toward a context-aware human-robot interaction framework based on cognitive development. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. Syst., 1–11 (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cassell, J.: Embodied conversational interface agents. Commun. ACM 43(4), 70–78 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kramer, M., Yaghoubzadeh, R., Kopp, S., Pitsch, K.: A conversational virtual human as autonomous assistant for elderly and cognitively impaired users? Social acceptability and design considerations, vol. 220. Ges. für Informatik (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klein, J., Moon, Y., Picard, R.W.: This computer responds to user frustration. Interact. Comput. 14(2), 119–140 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nijholt, A.: Disappearing computers, social actors and embodied agents. In: Proceedings. 2003 International Conference on Cyberworlds, pp. 128–134 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelley, J.F.: An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 2(1), 26–41 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vardoulakis, L.P., Ring, L., Barry, B., Sidner, C.L., Bickmore, T.: Designing relational agents as long term social companions for older adults, pp. 289–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bickmore, T.W., et al.: A randomized controlled trial of an automated exercise coach for older adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 61(10), 1676–1683 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kasap, Z., Magnenat-Thalmann, N.: Building long-term relationships with virtual and robotic characters: the role of remembering. Vis. Comput. 28(1), 87–97 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ring, L., Shi, L., Totzke, K., Bickmore, T.: Social support agents for older adults: longitudinal affective computing in the home. J. Multimodal User Interfaces 9(1), 79–88 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lund, A.M.: Measuring Usability with the USE Questionnaire. Usability Interface 8(2), 3–6 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martins, A.I., Rosa, A.F., Queirós, A., Silva, A., Rocha, N.P.: Definition and validation of the ICF - usability scale. Procedia Comput. Sci. 67 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martins, A.I., Queirós, A., Silva, A.G., Rocha, N.P.: ICF based Usability Scale: evaluating usability according to the evaluators’ perspective about the users’ performance. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion - DSAI 2016, pp. 378–383 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Luísa Jegundo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carina Dantas
    • 1
  • João Quintas
    • 2
  • João Dutra
    • 1
  • Ana Leonor Almeida
    • 1
  • Hilma Caravau
    • 3
  • Ana Filipa Rosa
    • 3
  • Ana Isabel Martins
    • 3
  • Alexandra Queirós
    • 3
  • Nelson Pacheco Rocha
    • 3
  1. 1.Cáritas Diocesana de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Instituto Pedro NunesCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Universidade de AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations