Human-Centered Design Components in Spiral Model to Improve Mobility of Older Adults

  • Jayden KhakurelEmail author
  • Jari Porras
  • Helinä Melkas
  • Ainara Garzo
Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)


As humans grow older, their cognitive needs change more frequently due to distal and proximal life events. Designers and developers need to come up with better designs that integrate older users’ needs in a short period of time with more interaction with the users. Therefore, the positioning of human end users in the center of the design itself is not the key to the success of design artifacts while designing applications for older adults to use a smartphone as a promising tool for journey planner while using public transportation. This study analyzed the use of human-centered design (HCD) components, the spiral model, and the design for failure (DfF) approach to improve the interactions between older users and designers/developers in gathering usability needs in the concept stage and during the development of the app with short iterative cycles. To illustrate the importance of the applied approach, a case study with particular focus on older adults is presented.



The results presented in this study are based on “Assistant” project funded by AAL JP, co-funded by the European Union. The authors would like to thank Dr. Stefan Carmien, my colleague in Assistant, for mentoring and for reading and making comments in the earlier versions of this chapter; participating research institutes; funding agencies; and companies from Finland, Spain, Austria, France, and the United Kingdom for their active support throughout the project.


  1. 1.
    Muramatsu N, Akiyama H (2011) Japan: super-aging society preparing for the future. Gerontologist 51(4):425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    He W, Goodkind D, Kowal P (2016) An aging world: 2015 international population reports. Aging (Albany, NY) p 165Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenbloom S, Ståhl A (2003) Automobility among the elderly: the convergence of environmental, safety, mobility and community design. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res 2:197–213Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sangpikul A (2008) Travel motivations of Japanese senior travellers to Thailand. Int J Tour Res 10(1):81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jang SC, Wu CME (2006) Seniors’ travel motivation and the influential factors: an examination of Taiwanese seniors. Tour Manag 27(2):306–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patuelli R, Nijkamp P (2016) Travel motivations of seniors. Tour Econ 22(4):847–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carmien S, Dawe M, Fischer G, Gorman A, Kintsch A, Sullivan JF (2005) Socio-technical environments supporting people with cognitive disabilities using public transportation. ACM Trans Comput Interact 12(2):233–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Field MJ, Jette AM (2007) The future of disability in America. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hounsell NB, Shrestha BP, McDonald M, Wong A (2016) Open data and the needs of older people for public transport information. Transp Res Procedia 14(0):4334–4343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Srichuae S, Nitivattananon V, Perera R (2016) Aging society in Bangkok and the factors affecting mobility of elderly in urban public spaces and transportation facilities. IATSS Res 40(1):26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marquié J-C, Gabaude C (2010) Aging, transportation and mobility: current issues. Trav Hum 73(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barham P, Carmien S, Garzo A (2015) The Assistant Project – Creating a Smartphone App to Assist Older People when Travelling by Public Transport. Proceed 1st Int Conf Inform Commun Technol Ageing Well e-Health 1:253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sendra S, Granell E, Lloret J, Rodrigues JJPC (2014) Smart collaborative mobile system for taking care of disabled and elderly People. Mob Networks Appl 19(3):287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goodman J, Brewster S, Gray P (2004) Connecting elders by facilitating mobility. In: Home Technologies for Connecting Elders, workshop at CHI , 2004, pp 1719–1720Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Plaza I, Martín L, Martin S, Medrano C (2011) Mobile applications in an aging society: status and trends. J Syst Softw 84(11):1977–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Joe J, Demiris G (2013) Older adults and mobile phones for health: a review. J Biomed Inform 46(5):947–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kobayashi M, Hiyama A, Miura T, Asakawa C (2011) Elderly user evaluation of mobile touchscreen interactions much research has been done to evaluate the usability for elderly people of desktop or, Human-Computer Interact – INTERACT 2011 pp~83–99Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carmien S (2016) Assistive technology design for intelligence augmentation. Synth Lect Assist Rehabil Heal Technol 5(2):i-171Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zajicek M (2001) Interface design for older adults. In: Proceedings of the 2001 EC/NSF workshop on universal accessibility of ubiquitous computing: providing for the elderly – WUAUC’01, pp 60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhou X, Zhao S, Chignell M, Ren X (2011) Assessing age-related performance decrements in user interface tasks. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on information and automation, ICIA 2011, pp 817–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Barros AC, Leitão R, Ribeiro J (2014) Design and evaluation of a mobile user interface for older adults: navigation, interaction and visual design recommendations. Procedia Comput Sci 27:369–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenbloom S (2009) Meeting transportation needs in an aging-friendly community. Generations 33(2):33–43Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wretstrand A, Svensson H, Fristedt S, Falkmer T (2009) Older people and local public transit: mobility effects of accessibility improvements in Sweden. J Transp Land Use 2(2):49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boehm BW (1988) Spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer 21(5):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    International Organization for Standardization (1998) ISO 9241-11: ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – part 11: guidance on usability. Int Organ Stand 2:28Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kujala S (2003) User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav Inf Technol 22(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uzor S, Skelton DA, Baillie L, Skelton DA (2012) Senior designers : empowering seniors to design enjoyable falls rehabilitation tools. In: Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst, pp 1179–1188Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ferreira F et al (2013) Elderly centered design for interaction – the case of the S4S medication assistant. Procedia Comp Sci 27:398–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Witteman HO et al (2015) User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev 4:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rinkus S et al (2005) Human-centered design of a distributed knowledge management system. J Biomed Inform 38(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Khakurel, J. Porras, and H. Melkas, A systematic literature review on the usability of wearable devices. 2016Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lauesen S, Younessi H (1988) Six styles for usability requirements. In: REFSQ, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nicolle C, Ross T, Burnett G, Stapleton L (1999) TELSCAN code of good practice and handbook of design guidelines for usability of systems by elderly and disabled drivers and travellers, vol 5Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parhi P, Karlson AK, Bederson BB (2006) Target size study for one-handed thumb use on small touchscreen devices. In: Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Human-computer Interact. with Mob. Devices Serv, pp 203–210Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    ISO/IEC (2001) Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities. In: Iso/Iec 2001, p 36Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang J (1996) A representational analysis of relational information displays. Int J Hum Comput Stud 45(1):59–74MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Morrison LG, Hargood C, Pejovic V et al (2017) The effect of timing and frequency of push notifications on usage of a smartphone-based stress management intervention: an exploratory trial. PLoS One 12:15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Oppermann R (2002) User-interface design. In: Adelsberger HH, Collis B, Pawlowski JM (eds) Handbook on information technologies for education and training. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ivory MY, Hearst MA (2001) The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Comput Surv 33(4):470–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Paul G, Stegbauer C (2005) Is the digital divide between young and elderly people increasing? First Monday 10:12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zimmermann D, Grötzbach L (2007) Human-computer interaction. Interaction design and usability, vol 4550. Springer/Berlin/Heidelberg, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hwang MI, Thorn RG (1999) The effect of user engagement on system success: a meta-analytical integration of research findings. Inf Manag 35(4):229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Khakurel J, Tella S, Penzenstadler B, Melkas H, Porras J (2018) Living with smartwatches and pedometers: the intergenerational gap in internal and external contexts. In: GOODTECHS conference proceedings. P isa, Springer in the Lecture Notes of ICST (LNICST), pp 31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Arfaa J, Wang YK (2014) A usability study on elder adults utilizing social networking sites. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), vol 8518 LNCS, no. PART 2, pp 50–61Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wallace S, Yu H-C (2009) The effect of culture on usability : comparing the perceptions and performance of Taiwanese and north American MP3 player users. J Usability Stud 4(3):136–146Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vatrapu R, Perez-Quinones M (2006) Culture and usability evaluation: the effects of culture in structured interviews. J Usability Stud 1(4):156–170Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tyrinopoulos Y, Antoniou C (2008) Public transit user satisfaction: variability and policy implications. Transp Policy 15(4):260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jayden Khakurel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jari Porras
    • 1
  • Helinä Melkas
    • 1
  • Ainara Garzo
    • 2
  1. 1.Lappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  2. 2.TECNALIAGipuzkoaSpain

Personalised recommendations