Representing Children Living with Visual Impairments in the Design Process: A Case Study with Personae

Conference paper

Abstract

Assistive technologies (ATs) must improve activities but also participations of impaired users. Thus when designing ATs, especially for children, one should consider the diversity of users and disabilities but also the educational and societal contexts, as well as subjectivities (i.e. personal experience of disability, own motivations, etc.). Co-design is a method that encompasses all those features, but it is not easy to achieve with impaired users, especially when they are children. In the context of a research project on interactive maps for visually impaired people, we first conducted a field study to better describe potential users (visually impaired people, but also parents, teachers, therapists, etc.) and their needs. Building upon this field-study, we developed a set of design cards representing users but also needs, places, goals, etc. We then designed a workshop aiming to improve the knowledge and empathy researchers had about users, ideation step of the design process. We report on how these methods facilitated the creation of inventive scenarios, interactions and prototypes, but also how they helped researchers to think about their own design and research practices.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brock AM, Oriola B, Truillet P, Jouffrais C, Picard D (2013) Map design for visually impaired people: Past, present, and future research. Médiation et Information, Editions L’Harmattan, Paris, France, 36: 117-129Google Scholar
  2. Brock AM, Truillet P, Oriola B, Picard D, Jouffrais C (2015) Interactivity improves usability of geographic maps for visually impaired people. Human–Computer Interaction 30(2): 156-194Google Scholar
  3. Brulé E, Bailly G, Gentes A (2015) Identifier les besoins des enfants en situation de déficience visuelle : état de l’art et étude de terrain. In: Proceedings of the IHM’15Google Scholar
  4. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  5. Connors C, Stalker K (2006) Children’s experiences of disability – Pointers to a social model of childhood disability. Disability and Society 22(1)Google Scholar
  6. Cooper A (1999) The inmates are running the asylum. Macmillan Publishing, Indianapolis, IN, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Druin A (2002) The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology 21(1): 1-25Google Scholar
  8. Friess E (2012) Personas and decision making in the design process: An ethnographic case study. In: Proceedings of the CHI’12, Austin, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Holt R, Moore AM, Beckett A (2014) Together through play: Facilitating meaningful play for disabled and non-disabled children through participatory design. In: Langdon PM, Lazar J, Heylighen A, Dong H (Eds.) Inclusive designing: Joining usability, accessibility and inclusion. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  10. Hurst A, Tobias J (2011) Empowering individuals with do-it-yourself assistive technology. In: Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 11–18, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Jansson DG, Smith SM (1991) Design fixation. Design Studies (12)1Google Scholar
  12. Kinoe Y, Noguchi A (2014) Qualitative study for the design of assistive technologies for improving quality of life of visually impaired. In: Yamamoto S (Ed.) HIMI 2014, Part II, LNCS 8522, pp. 602–613Google Scholar
  13. Maurer D, Lewis TL, Mondloch CJ (2005) Missing sights: Consequences for visual cognitive development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(3): 144-151Google Scholar
  14. McGaha CG, Farran DC (2001) Interactions in an inclusive classroom: The effects of visual status and setting. Journal of visual Impairment and Blindness 95(2): 80-94Google Scholar
  15. Phillips B, Zhao H (1993) Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology 5(1)Google Scholar
  16. Pielot M, Henze N, Heuten W, Boll S (2007) Tangible user interface for the exploration of auditory city maps. In: Oakley I, Brewster S (Eds) HAID 2007, LNCS vol. 4813: 86-97, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  17. Polgar JM (2010) The myth of neutral technology. In: Oishi MMK, Mitchell IM, Van der Loos HFM (Eds.) Design and use of assistive technology, Springer, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Pruitt J, Grudin J (2003) Personae: Practice and theory. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experience, ACM Press, San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Ullmer B, Ishii H (2000) Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM Syst. J. 39: 3-4Google Scholar
  21. Wright P, McCarthy J (2008) Empathy and experience in HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. Wölfel C, Merritt T (2013) Method card design dimensions: A survey of card-based design tools. In: Kotzé P, Marsden G, Lindgaard G, Wesson J, Winckler M (Eds.) Human-computer interaction – INTERACT 2013, vol. 8117: 479-846, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  23. Zeng L, Weber G (2011) Accessible maps for the visually impaired. In: Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT 2011 Workshop on ADDW, CEURGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS and University Paris Saclay, Telecom ParisTechParisFrance
  2. 2.CNRS and University of Toulouse, IRITToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations