Designing Inclusive Systems: Designing Inclusion for Real-world Applications

Designing Inclusive Systems Patrick Langdon John Clarkson Peter Robinson Jonathan Lazar Ann Heylighen • • Editors ...

Author: Patrick Langdon | John Clarkson | Peter Robinson | Jonathan Lazar | Ann Heylighen

37 downloads 2098 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Designing Inclusive Systems

Patrick Langdon John Clarkson Peter Robinson Jonathan Lazar Ann Heylighen •

•

Editors

Designing Inclusive Systems Designing Inclusion for Real-world Applications

123

Patrick Langdon Department of Engineering Cambridge Engineering Design Centre University of Cambridge Trumpington Street Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK

Jonathan Lazar Universal Usability Laboratory Department of Computer and Information Sciences Towson University,York Road 8000 Towson, MD 21252, USA

John Clarkson Department of Engineering Cambridge Engineering Design Centre University of Cambridge Trumpington Street Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK

Ann Heylighen Department of Architecture Urbanism and Planning Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Kasteelpark Arenberg 1/2431 3001 Leuven, Belgium

Peter Robinson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge JJ Thomson Avenue, Madingley Road William Gates Building 15 Cambridge CB3 0FD, UK

ISBN 978-1-4471-2866-3 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-2867-0

e-ISBN 978-1-4471-2867-0

Springer London Heidelberg New York Dordrecht British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2012933436 Ó Springer-Verlag London 2012 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. Cover Photography: Matt Willox in Design Futures, part of Sheffield Hallam University Packaging Accessibility Analysis, Dr Alaster Yoxall: Lab4living, Sheffield Hallam Universit Museum M in Leuven, Belgium designed by Stéphane Beel Architecten: Peter-Willem Vermeersch Cover design: eStudio Calamar S.L. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface

The Cambridge Workshops on Universal Access and Assistive Technology (CWUAAT) are a series of workshops held at a Cambridge University College every two years. This volume: “DESIGNING INCLUSIVE SYSTEMS” comes from the 6th in this series of highly successful events. The workshops are characterised by a single session running over three days in pleasant surroundings with delegates from home and abroad staying on site. Feedback suggests that allowing speakers longer presentation times, carrying discussion on through sessions into plenaries and shared mealtimes generates a highly cooperative and creative academic environment that is both enjoyable and informative. The workshop theme: “Designing inclusion for real-world applications” refers to the emerging potential and relevance of the latest generations of inclusive design thinking, tools, techniques and data, to mainstream project applications such as healthcare and the design of working environments. Inclusive Design Research involves developing tools and guidance enabling designers to design for the widest possible population, for a given range of capabilities. In the context of demographic changes leading to an increasing number of older people, the general field of inclusive design research strives to relate the capabilities of the population to the design of artefacts, environments and technology by better characterising the user and the task demand. Inclusive populations of older people, for example, contain a greater variation in sensory, cognitive and physical capabilities. These variations may be co-occurring and rapidly changing leading to a demanding design environment. Previous research developments in inclusive design have addressed issues of matching product and task demand to users’ capabilities in the context of simple daily living activities or specific products. New research developments are now extending the scope of the inclusive design approach into real-world applications by forming interdisciplinary links with systems engineering, industrial product design, healthcare and medical device design as well as education, policy development and architecture. This is a necessary stage of research because once design techniques and materials are fully developed for knowledge transfer, a v

Preface

vi

proving ground is required in real-world application and industry. This proving ground then tests the impact made by the original research. As in the previous years, this book contains the best reviewed papers invited for oral presentation. The papers that have been included were selected by blind peer review carried out by an international panel of currently active researchers. The chapters forming the book represent an edited sample of current national and international research in the fields of inclusive design, universal access, and assistive and rehabilitative technology. In the 2012 workshop, as well as the typical Inclusive Design themes of measuring demand and capability; emergent technologies, and design for inclusion, there has also been more focus on new themes such as cognitive interaction with new technologies, architecture, and healthcare. This reflects the newly developing transdisciplinary perspectives and ongoing research agendas. For example, can medical and neuroscientific models of thinking impairment be harmonised with functional descriptions to assist more inclusive design? Is it possible to motivate older generations to use modern healthcare software by better understanding the psychology of human motivation? Can we identify and quantify the differences between designers’ and users’ mental models of a product? In addition, researchers are increasingly investigating how public policies; both from governments and international non-governmental organisations, influence inclusive and accessible design, as well as the usage and adoption of assistive technology by individuals. Healthcare is a forcing domain: how can we provide architects with sufficient evidence to enable them to design healthcare buildings that better anticipate the needs of patients lying in a hospital bed? For this CWUAAT we have extended the editorial panel to include two esteemed colleagues, Ann Heylighen from KU Leuven in Belgium, and Jonathan Lazar from Towson University in the US. This reflects the growing importance of particular interdisciplinary fields such as inclusive architecture, and public policy related to inclusive design, to the CWUAAT workshops. It also acknowledges the substantial international contributions that have been made over the series. There are five main themes: I.

Designing for the Real-world addresses the application of Inclusive Design techniques in healthcare, public facilities and services, and hazardous traditional industries; II. Measuring Demand and Capabilities looks at ways of measuring capability-demand relationships for actual tasks, software, devices and buildings; III. Designing Cognitive Interaction with Emerging Technologies draws together a number of threads related to cognition including the alignment of design and user mental models, motivating older users and unifying models of cognitive impairment; IV. Design for Inclusion is a space specifically for design issues in inclusive design, from sampling through to policy and novel new ways to inform the designer about inclusive design features;

Preface

vii

V. Designing Inclusive Architecture highlights specific cases, such as inclusive heritage, architecture for dementia and virtual environment tools for design. In the tradition of CWUAAT, we have solicited and accepted contributions over a wide range of topics, both within individual themes and also across the workshop’s scope. We ultimately hope to generate more interdisciplinary dialogues based on focused usage cases that can provide the discipline necessary to drive further novel research, leading to better designs. The aim is to impact industry and end-users as well governance and public design, thereby effectively reducing exclusion and difficulty in people’s daily lives and society. We would like to thank all those authors and contributors who have submitted to CWUAAT 2012 and to the preparation of this book. Many thanks are also due to the reviewing members of the Programme Committee who continue to support the workshop series. Finally, thanks are particularly due to Mari Huhtala and Suzanne Williams, who both play a key role in bringing the resulting publication to fruition between final submission and the Workshop itself. As in previous years, we are grateful to the staff at Fitzwilliam College for their patience and service. Pat Langdon, John Clarkson, Peter Robinson Jonathan Lazar and Ann Heylighen The CWUAAT Editorial Committee University of Cambridge March 2012

Contents

List of Contributors …………………………………………………………..xiii

Part I Designing for the Real-world 1.

Hospital Reality from a Lying Perspective: Exploring a Sensory Research Approach M. Annemans, C. Van Audenhove, H. Vermolen and A. Heylighen .................................................................................. 3

2.

Inclusive Bus Travel - A Psychosocial Approach F. Nickpour, P.W. Jordan and H. Dong.............................................. 13

3.

Safe and Inclusive Design of Equipment Used in the Minerals Industry T. Horberry and T. Cooke .................................................................. 23

4.

Deploying a Two-player System for Arm Rehabilitation in Schools R.J. Holt, A.P.H. Weightman, J.F. Gallagher, N. Preston, M.C. Levesley, M. Mon-Williams and B. Bhakta ................................ 33

5.

Evaluating the Accessibility and Usability of Blogging Platforms for Blind Users B. Wentz, M. Cirba, N. Kharal, J. Moran and M. Slate ...................... 43

ix

x

Contents

Part II Measuring Demand and Capabilities 6.

A Population Perspective on Mobile Phone Related Tasks M. Bradley, S. Waller, J. Goodman-Deane, I. Hosking, R. Tenneti, P.M. Langdon and P.J. Clarkson ....................................................... 55

7.

How to Use Virtual and Augmented Reality Techniques to Design Highly Usable Human-machine Interfaces S. Ceccacci, M. Germani and M. Mengoni ....................................... 65

8.

Development and Evaluation of Sonified Weather Maps for Blind Users R. Weir, B. Sizemore, H. Henderson, S. Chakraborty and J. Lazar........................................................................................ 75

9.

Achieving Inclusion in Public Spaces: A Shopping Mall Case Study Y. Afacan............................................................................................ 85

10. Visibility Prediction Software: Five Factors of Contrast Perception for People with Vision Impairment in the Real World H. Dalke, A. Corso, G. Conduit and A. Riaz ...................................... 93

Part III Designing Cognitive Interaction with Emerging Technologies 11. Intrinsic Motivation and Design of ICT for the Ageing Population T.S. Goldhaber, P.M. Langdon and P.J. Clarkson........................... 105 12. A Framework for Studying Cognitive Impairment to Inform Inclusive Design E. Jokisuu, P.M. Langdon and P.J. Clarkson................................... 115 13. Interactive Error Correction Using Statistical Language Models in a Client-server Interface for Editing Mathematical Text D. Attanayake, G. Hunter, E. Pfluegel and J. Denholm-Price.............................................................................. 125 14. Understandable by Design: How Can Products be Designed to Align with User Experience? A. Mieczakowski, P.M. Langdon, R.H. Bracewell, J.J. Patmore and P.J. Clarkson............................................................................. 133

Contents

xi

Part IV Design for Inclusion 15. Design Advisor: How to Supply Designers with Knowledge about Inclusion? E. Zitkus, P.M. Langdon and P.J. Clarkson ..................................... 145 16. From Guinea Pigs to Design Partners: Working with Older People in ICT Design R. Edlin-White, S. Cobb, A. Floyde, S. Lewthwaite, J. Wang and J. Riedel ........................................................................................... 155 17. When Users Cannot be Included in Inclusive Design R. Herriott ......................................................................................... 165 18. What is Good Design in the Eyes of Older Users? N. Goddard and C. Nicolle ............................................................... 175 19. Equal Access to Information? Evaluating the Accessibility of Public Library Web Sites in the State of Maryland J. Lazar, B. Wentz, C. Akeley, M. Almuhim, S. Barmoy, P. Beavan, C. Beck, A. Blair, A. Bortz, B. Bradley, M. Carter, D. Crouch, G. Dehmer, M. Gorman, C. Gregory, E. Lanier, A. McIntee, R. Nelson Jr., D. Ritgert, R. Rogers Jr., S. Rosenwald, S. Sullivan, J. Wells, C. Willis, K. Wingo-Jones and T. Yatto ............................. 185 20. Clustering User Data for User Modelling in the GUIDE Multi-modal Set-top Box P.M. Langdon and P. Biswas ........................................................... 195

Part V Designing Inclusive Architecture 21. Inclusive Built Heritage as a Matter of Concern: A Field Experiment A. Heylighen ..................................................................................... 207 22. Designing a Virtual Environment Framework for Improving Guidance for the Visually Impaired S. Kammoun, M.J-M. Macé, B. Oriola and C. Jouffrais ................... 217 23. Spatial Clues for Orientation: Architectural Design Meets People with Dementia I. Van Steenwinkel, C. Van Audenhove and A. Heylighen .............. 227 Index of Contributors …………………………………………………..…..237

List of Contributors

Afacan Y., Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey Akeley C., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Almuhim M., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Annemans M., Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium Attanayake D., Faculty of Computing, Information Systems and Mathematics (CISM), Kingston University, London, UK Barmoy S., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Beavan P., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Beck C., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Bhakta B., Academic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Biswas P., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Blair A., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Bortz A., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Bracewell R.H., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK xiii

xiv


Bradley B., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Bradley M., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Carter M., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Ceccacci S., Department of Management and Industrial Organisation, Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy Chakraborty S., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Cirba M., Division of Business, Management and Technology, Keystone College, La Plume, PA, US Clarkson P.J., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Cooke T., Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia Cobb S., Human Factors Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Conduit G.J., Department of Condensed Matter Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel Corso A., Design Research Centre, Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Kingston University, UK Crouch D., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Dalke H., Design Research Centre, Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Kingston University, UK Dehmer G., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Denholm-Price J., Faculty of Computing, Information Systems and Mathematics (CISM), Kingston University, London, UK Edlin-White R., Human Factors Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Elton E., Ergonomics and Safety Research Institute, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK Floyde A., Human Factors Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Gallagher J.F., Institute of Engineering Systems and Design, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Germani M., Department of Industrial Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy Goddard N., Ergonomics and Safety Research Institute, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK Goldhaber T.S., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK Goodman-Deane J., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK


xv

Gorman C., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Gregory C., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Henderson H., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Herriott R., Aarhus School of Architecture, Aarhus, Denmark Heylighen A., Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Holt R.J., Institute of Engineering Systems and Design, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Horberry T., Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia Hosking I., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Hunter G., Faculty of Computing, Information Systems and Mathematics (CISM), Kingston University, London, UK Jokisuu E., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Jouffrais C., IRIT-CNRS, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France Kammoun S., IRIT-CNRS, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France Kharal N., Division of Business, Management and Technology, Keystone College, La Plume, PA, US Langdon P.M., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Lanier E., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Lazar J., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Levesley M.C., Institute of Engineering Systems and Design, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Lewthwaite S., Department of American and Canadian Studies, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Macé M.J-M., IRIT-CNRS, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France Mengoni M., Design Tools and Methods Group, Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy Mieczakowski A., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK McIntee A., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Mon-Williams M., Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Moran J., Division of Business, Management and Technology, Keystone College, La Plume, PA, US Nelson Jr.D., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US

xvi


Nickpour F., Inclusive Design Research Group, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, West London, UK Nicolle C., Ergonomics and Safety Research Institute, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK Oriola B., IRIT-CNRS, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France Patmore J.J., Member of Pembroke College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Pfluegel E., Faculty of Computing, Information Systems and Mathematics (CISM), Kingston University, London, UK Preston N., Academic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Riaz A., Design Research Centre, Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Kingston University, UK Riedel J., University of Nottingham Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Ritgert D., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Rogers Jr.R., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Rosenwald S., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Sizemore B., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Slate M., Division of Business, Management and Technology, Keystone College, La Plume, PA, US Sullivan S., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Tenneti R., School of Primary, Aboriginal and Rural Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia Van Audenhove C., Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Van Steenwinkel I., Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Vermolen H., Osararchitects nv, Antwerpen, Belgium Waller S.D., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK Wang J., University of Nottingham Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Weightman A.P.H., School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Weir R., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Wells J., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Wentz B., Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD, US


xvii

Willis C., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Wingo-Jones K., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Yatto T., Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universal Usability Laboratory, Towson University, US Zitkus E., Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK

Part I

Designing for the Real-world

Chapter 1 Hospital Reality from a Lying Perspective: Exploring a Sensory Research Approach M. Annemans, C. Van Audenhove, H. Vermolen and A. Heylighen

1.1 Real Buildings, Real Experiences Despite many efforts by healthcare providers, for most people a hospital stay is rarely a pleasant experience. The hospital building as such is part of this perception. Moreover, the specific situation of a hospital stay is largely determined by the material reality of the organisation. Studies on hospital environments tend to single out one particular aspect, e.g. the view through the window, or presence of green (Ulrich 1984a, 1984b) and try to prove its clinical outcome. Yet they fail to translate their results to the design of real-life settings (Rubin et al., 1998, Cbz 2008). Moreover, the influence of patients’ peculiar perspective, i.e. lying in a hospital bed, on the way they experience the reality of the hospital is largely under researched. The overall objective of our research is therefore to investigate what spatial aspects influence patients’ well-being in a hospital setting through an improved understanding of people’s spatial experience from a lying perspective. By developing a better understanding of the relationship between the patient, the objects that feature in his or her hospital life, especially the bed and the building, we hope to enable architects to design buildings that add to the healing character of the hospital environment. Ultimately, we aim to provide architects with sufficient evidence to design healthcare buildings that can better anticipate the needs of patients and other users. Since our research aims to gain insight in how patients experience a hospital from a lying perspective, we need a manner to make their spatial experience more explicit. Therefore, we explored different ways for patients to document their spatial experience. In this paper, we report on a pilot study which explores how three patients with a very different profile each deal with this task in their own way. The empirical material collected is not only very rich in itself, but also inspires the participating patients to talk about those aspects of the building that

P. Langdon et al. (eds.), Designing Inclusive Systems, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-2867-0_1, © Springer-Verlag London 2012

3

4

Annemans et al.

affect them most. Certain themes frequently return in the conversations, yet the goal at this stage in our research is not so much to obtain valid information, but rather to explore the possibilities of using participant collected material to facilitate the interviews.

1.2 Sensory Reality Research about healing or wholesome environments in health care settings is mostly conducted in the field of evidence based design (EBD). This notion found its origin in the analogy with other evidence-based approaches to research and practice. When it comes to buildings for health care especially, evidence based medicine was a source of inspiration. In EBD studies evidence for the healing outcome of building aspects is being collected (Ulrich et al., 2004). Mostly individual aspects are investigated and clinical output is highly valued (Rubin et al., 1998). However, almost all reports that collect and evaluate the results of the conducted studies have to conclude that the evidence is not ready to be transposed to the real world. To start with, the settings in which the trials are carried out single out individual aspects and, as such, are not representative of real-world hospital settings. Secondly the studies do not provide insight in how the different aspects relate to each other (Rubin et al., 1998; Van den Berg, 2005; Cbz, 2008). However, a wholesome environment involves more than the measurable aspects that withstand the evaluation of EBD studies. After all, architecture is experienced through the senses (Rasmussen, 1964; Pallasmaa, 2005), so how a place feels, smells, sounds, and looks defines our impression of it. In this multisensory experience of the environment, time, movement and activities play a major role. The senses are indeed a key factor in the experience of everyday reality (Ingold, 2000). If we are to develop an articulate understanding of patients’ actual experience from a lying perspective, as is the aim of our research, we thus need to collect firsthand information about what they feel, sense, and think during their hospital stay, not only while in their room, but also while travelling through the hospital building.

1.3 Insight/Inside Spatial Experience In studying patients’ spatial experience from a lying perspective, we explore and develop a research methodology that respects the interrelatedness of how they experience the reality of things in the hospital, addressing different aspects of the built environment as well as their complex interaction. To obtain a broad spectrum of empirical material, participants should be challenged to interrogate all their senses. The method of collecting material should also appeal to a very diverse group of patients within the hospital, making them feel at ease with their participation. Only when these criteria are met, will the material be rich enough to gain a nuanced understanding of the complex reality of everyday hospital experience.

Hospital Reality from a Lying Perspective

5

In the first months of our research we conducted interviews with various actors in the field (medical staff, patients, technical directors of hospitals, hospital architects) to obtain a profound understanding of the meaning of the bed in the hospital (Annemans et al., 2011). Each interviewee shed light on the topic from his/her specific perspective. This resulted in a good understanding of the complexity of hospital design. Although our research focuses on the experience of (lying) patients, this background makes us aware of the importance of reflecting on and taking into account certain undeniable technical and organisational realities. During these interviews it became clear that people find it hard to talk about their spatial experience, especially those unfamiliar with the design and construction process. This lack of conversation skills about the research topic makes it hard to obtain the rich empirical material we are looking for. Part of the difficulty can be explained by a lack of vocabulary when talking about space (Franck and von Sommaruga Howard, 2009). Additionally, due to the complexity of experience, it is not easy to ensure that it is explored throughout the entire range of its various articulations (Throop, 2003). These obstacles force us to look for a suitable research approach that can give us access to patients’ personal ways of experiencing a hospital environment. For this reason we decided to explore alternative interviewing techniques. Aware of the difficulty for patients of expressing their spatial experience and given the explorative phase of the research, we opted to ask the participating patients only one, very broad question: “Can you document the hospital experience from a lying perspective?” After a short introduction patients are then invited to document their spatial experience in any way that pleases them. They are provided with pens, pencils, note block, drawing paper and a camera (with the possibility of recording sound and movies), or they can use their own camera. Afterwards the material produced during this process is used to facilitate a semi-structured interview with the participating patient about the spatial qualities of the building. As already pointed out, we experience the built environment through all our senses. For this reason we looked into the use of sensory methods. Visual techniques like photo-elicitation where people are interviewed using photographs are not new (Collier, 1967). Over the years the technique has gained popularity in various fields such as visual ethnography, visual anthropology, visual sociology, and visual cultural studies (Pink, 2007). A sensory method does not guarantee access to sensory realms; for example, the visual is not necessarily best accessed by a visual method (Mason and Davies, 2009). Nevertheless, introducing photography can be seen as a first contribution to a more ‘sensually complete’ methodology (Warren, 2002). In order to capture the real-life experience instead of a fictive reality constructed by the researcher, however, we shifted our focus beyond photo-elicitation to photo-production (Radley, 2010). In line with the work of other researchers (Herssens and Heylighen, 2009; Radley, 2010), our interest lies not so much in the meaning of pictures, we want to gain a good understanding not only of what has been made visible, but also why, and how. Indeed, how images are recorded may also tell us something about the hospital experience of the participating patients. As taking pictures in hospitals is not always appropriate or allowed (Radley and Taylor, 2003), we did not provide the patients with a camera only, and limit their way of expression to photographs, but

6

Annemans et al.

also gave them the opportunity to take notes or make a drawing. This approach yields richer empirical material, which initiates different topics in the interviews. In the elicitation process, there is no reason why the drawings and plans should be treated any differently to the photographs (Harper, 2002).

1.4 “Talking” Patients, “Speaking” Hospitals 1.4.1 Who is Talking To explore the methodology’s possibilities and limitations we try it out with three very different, pragmatically chosen patients. Because of the explorative stage of the research the validity and generalisability of the obtained results is subordinate to the test of the methodology and the participants’ engagement. The three of them are in the hospital for different reasons while documenting their stay. Although all are provided with the same equipment, they choose very diverse ways to document their experience. There is Mrs A, who stays a few days in the hospital for rather serious surgery. Through photographs she elaborately documents her experiences in two rooms, a double room before the operation, a single room afterwards. Despite her commitment to the task, she admits she does not feel comfortable or able to take the camera into the hallway or to treatment. Mrs B has a long history of hospital visits, and participates in this study when going for a check-up in a hospital where she has been a regular patient. Since she is not lying herself while travelling through the hospital this time, she interprets the question as illustrating what she remembers from previous visits and uses it to signal points of improvement in the treatment of patients. Depending on what she feels is appropriate, she switches between taking pictures and drawing sketches of what she observes. Even a brief story emerges. Mr C is on dialysis, making him visit the same part of the hospital several times a week. Taking pictures he considers redundant, as the researcher can see everything herself when conducting the interview. However, he does have some ideas about how the department should be rearranged, improving most of the disadvantages he experiences today. He sketches a plan of the current situation to explain to the researcher how it is and re-sketches it to illustrate how he would alter it.

1.4.2 How Patients “Talk” How patients choose to document their experience tells us a lot about how they experience certain situations. The pencils and papers, for instance, were initially introduced as a pragmatic solution to the problem that taking pictures in hospitals is not always appropriate or allowed. However, they turn out to provide insights that would have stayed undiscovered had only a camera been used.


7

As one patient points out, sketching an awkward situation afterwards is much less confronting for the people involved than taking a picture as it unfolds. Another patient does not see the point of taking pictures of a building that the researcher can observe herself, however he does have some suggestions on how a future hospital setting should be designed. Whereas, for him, a photograph just shows an existing situation, drawing provides the opportunity to manipulate reality. Since we use the recorded images as a base for interviews, it does not come as a surprise that also this kind of material serves as an interesting source of information about how the hospital building is perceived, or which aspects are appreciated or considered problematic. Often just starting the conversation is enough to divert to aspects not, or only slightly, related to the collected material. As if enabling participants to start the conversation from their viewpoint is enough to open the door to unexpected insights.

1.4.3 What Hospitals “Say” Through the material collected by the participants, the hospitals tell us both about their organisation and about the building and its interior. The collected images and accompanying narratives give us a good overview of what kind of material can be expected. Obviously there are the images that literally represent visual elements in the environment, such as the ceiling. However mostly, here too, the explanation why the image is recorded reveals supplementary useful insights. In addition some images are not taken for what they show but have an iconographic meaning, telling us about other sensory experiences than the visual. Finally, the produced images can be a representation of what could be, giving the participating patients a voice to express how they would change the spatial situation they are in. Sometimes the same picture can be placed in different categories because of the multi-layered explanation that comes with it. Pictures of the windows or the ceiling are fairly straightforward in what they indicate. Fresh air and a view of the outside world are generally considered important aspects of a healing environment (Rubin et al., 1998; Devlin and Arneill, 2003; Dijkstra et al., 2006; Cbz, 2008). It is thus no surprise that one who wants to discuss these topics pictures windows. When lying in a hospital bed your perspective changes. Lying or sitting in bed has a great impact on what, or whether, you see through the window.

Figure 1.1. Difference between what you see through the window when lying down versus sitting in bed

8

Annemans et al.

The iconographic meaning can only be discovered when both the image and the narrative are combined. Indeed, the same object can be pictured for a completely different reason. One of the pictures made by Mrs A shows a window as well. However, this window does not represent fresh air or daylight. The window in the picture is located in an inner wall around the atrium accommodating the cafeteria. Through the window the sound of chattering people and laughing children enters the room. Although Mrs A describes this as a pleasant sound when in a different setting, she finds it quite disturbing while being in the hospital and trying to recover from surgery. Fairly banal objects can be icons of less tangible aspects that have a strong impact on the experience of the hospital. Mrs A photographs the little table and the chairs in her room while having visitors. Because of the table’s presence, the people in the chairs do not seem to be visiting in a hospital so much as just being at home. As she puts it: ‘I think it has a more homelike atmosphere when people can be sitting on a chair, at a table, where you can put something on, than when you would just have a row of chairs, then it would feel like they were watching me.’ (Mrs A, interview transcript)

Figure 1.2. Iconographic images: left: Window photographed to illustrate the sound that enters through it; right: The presence of a table changes the perception of visitors on the chairs.

Mrs B made a set of two photos and a drawing, picturing the transportation of a(n unknown) patient in bed. In this trilogy she combines a reflection on her own experiences while transported through the hospital in a bed and the observations from the bed.


9

Figure 1.3. Nurse connecting a patient’s bed to a wagon, a view of the ceiling while travelling through the hospital, setup of how the bed is transported through the hospital

The first picture shows the hallway in the basement of the hospital. Mrs B mainly wants to point out how she felt when she was transported through it during an earlier stay. It is a very functional hallway, used as a storage space for carts, bicycles, obsolete beds and so on. It seems as if no one ever thought about the fact that patients who have to go to the nuclear department are transported through it. As Mrs B explains, “the lighting is not pleasant, and all the stuff that is stored there makes you feel uncomfortable”. The nurse in the picture is attaching a bed to a cart, used to pull the beds when large distances have to be covered. Mrs B reflects on how the patient in the bed must feel, being handled like that. Since she did not feel comfortable taking a picture while the patient could see her, she drew the setup, explaining how the bed is attached to the cart, how the patient does not have any contact with the nurse involved, and what s/he must perceive and feel while being towed like that. To illustrate that, Mrs B also took a picture of the ceiling a little further down the hall and concluded that seeing all those pipes, and the rags in between, is not how a disconcerted patient is comforted. The dust between the technical equipment on the ceiling makes her wonder about hospital hygiene. Although these pictures might seem a little banal at first, how they come together and are used as a backbone for the narrative provides new opportunities to talk about spatial experience. We do not just learn about Mrs B’s experience while visiting the hospital this time, but are also provided with a reflection on previous visits and when and why you feel most vulnerable as a patient, which she uses to explain her reluctance to take a picture. Even movement and time are touched upon during the conversation. The length of the travel through the hall, how the patient must undergo the transportation not knowing where he/she is going, it all adds to

10

Annemans et al.

the experience of the building without being necessarily related to visual perception. In response to the simple question we asked the patients to also express their view on how the building could be improved. For Mr C drawing a plan of the ward gives him the opportunity to point out the shortcomings of the current setup, while by sketching how he would organise it, he brings up spatial aspects that he thinks are important. More acoustic barriers, more visual transparency, and a reduction of the passage to create a quiet atmosphere are only some of the aspects mentioned.

Figure 1.4. Left: existing situation, right: how Mr C would organise the ward

Suggesting alterations to the hospital layout is not restricted to drawing plans. Mrs A documents how she improved her privacy by opening a second door to block the view from the hallway. When both her door and the one at the other side of the hall were fully opened, she could see right into the other room. Since she did not want to close her door completely, preferring some connection with the rest of the ward, she opened the door of the bathroom to block the view. The conversation about these pictures first focuses on the privacy but soon broadens to interactions with other patients and staff, feelings of safety and even how bed transport could be improved so there would be fewer obstacles on the way.

Figure 1.5. Left: open doors, giving a view into the room at the other side of the hall, right: opening the bathroom door can create a second barrier without closing the door of the room


11

1.5 Conclusions and Future Work Developing a better understanding of how patients experience the complex reality of a hospital building from a lying perspective, asks for a sensitive methodological approach that addresses all senses and facilitates reflection on experience. Although we do not wish to push forward a single method, the technique explored so far seems to fulfil the requirements. By asking patients to document their spatial experience and providing them with multiple media to do so, we gain insights from the inside out, not only from the material they collect, but also from why and how they collect it. Using the illustrations generated by the participants themselves clearly adds an extra dimension to the interviews. Both the interviews and the findings are deepened. Even though the material collected is mostly visual, it can also illustrate auditory or haptic qualities, like the window through which a lot of noise enters. The images, complemented by the accompanying narratives, serve as a source of information about all senses, movement and time, illustrating the intangibility of sensory experience. Overall, this alternative way of questioning people definitely provides additional value given the aim of our research. Given the promising results of this exploratory phase, the approach will be further elaborated in future phases into a more generally applicable methodology that can, at least partially, bypass the difficulty of articulating spatial experience. The motivation of the participating patients is of crucial importance to the success of the approach. As such, finding patients willing to participate is a key concern. Although part of the strength of the approach lies in its flexibility, a balance should be found between freedom and guidance. In future research, when the key concern is the outcome of the interviews and not the methodology followed, the selection of the settings and participants will need to be more representative to obtain more valid and transferable results. When thinking about the translation of the research results to inform architects’ design process, we might even consider using the empirical material in its original form. This would imply that real data, directly from the patients, are used by those designing environments for them. Especially in health care buildings, the highly complex reality forms an important step for designers to acknowledge the needs of the primary users. Since the evidence provided by EBD studies conducted so far is not ready to be converted to real-life applications yet, it is definitely worth investigating whether different empirical material can be used to inform the design process.

1.6 Acknowledgements Margo Annemans’ research is funded by a PhD grant from the Baekeland program from the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT-Vlaanderen). The Baekeland program gives researchers the opportunity to complete a PhD in close collaboration with the industry, in this case Osar Architects nv provided this opportunity. Ann Heylighen received support form the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh

12

Annemans et al.

Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement No. 201673. The authors thank the participating patients for sharing their time and insights.

1.7 References Annemans M, Van Audenhove C, Vermolen H, Heylighen A (2011) Lying architecture: Experiencing space from a hospital bed. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference Exploring the Multi-dimensions of Well-being (Well-being 2011), Birmingham, UK Cbz (2008) Kwaliteit van de fysieke zorgomgeving, stand van zaken onderzoek omgevingsvariabelen en de effecten op de (zieke) mens, College bouw zorginstellingen, Utrecht, The Netherlands Collier J (1967) Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method, Holt Rinehart and Winston, NY, US Devlin AS, Arneill AB (2003) Health care environments and patient outcomes: A review of the literature. Environment and Behavior, 35(5): 665-694 Dijkstra K, Pieterse M, Pruyn A (2006) Physical environmental stimuli that turn healthcare facilities into healing environments through psychologically mediated effects: Systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(2): 166-181 Franck K, von Sommaruga Howard T (2010) Design through dialogue: A guide for clients and architects, Wiley, Chichester, UK Harper D (2002) Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1): 13-26 Herssens J, Heylighen A (2009) A lens into the haptic world. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Inclusive Design and Communications (INCLUDE 2009), London, UK Ingold T (2000) The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill, Routledge, London, UK Mason J, Davies K (2009) Coming to our senses? A critical approach to sensory methodology. Qualitative Research, 9(5): 587-603 Pallasmaa J (2005) The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses, John Wiley & Sons, NY, US Pink S (2007) Doing visual ethnography: Images, media, and representation in research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London, UK Radley A (2010) What people do with pictures. Visual Studies, 25(3): 268-279 Radley A, Taylor D (2003) Images of recovery: A photo-elicitation study on the hospital ward. Qualitative Health Research, 13(1): 77-99 Rasmussen SE (1964) Experiencing architecture, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US Rubin HR, Owens AJ, Golden G (1998) An investigation to determine whether the built environment affects patients’ medical outcomes, Center for Health Design, Martinez, CA, US Throop CJ (2003) Articulating experience. Anthropological Theory, 3(2): 219-241 Ulrich RS, Zimring C, Joseph A, Quan X, Choudhary R (2004) The role of the physical environment in the hospital of the 21st century: A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, Centre for Health Design, Concord, CA, US Van den Berg AE (2005) Health impacts of healing environments: A review of evidence for benefits of nature, daylight, fresh air, and quiet in healthcare settings. University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Warren S (2002) ‘Show me how it feels to work here’: Using photography to research organisational aesthetics. Ephemera Critical Dialogues on Organisations, 2(3): 224-245

Chapter 2 Inclusive Bus Travel - A Psychosocial Approach F. Nickpour, P.W. Jordan and H. Dong

2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Public Transport - The New Climate Public transport is facing major challenges in the current economic and social climate; a considerable rise in demand for public transport and an ageing population that is mainly dependant on public transport and is increasingly in need of specialised and door-to-door services. The above challenges double when one considers the raised public awareness and the pressure from user organisations to improve the equality and quality of public transport for all. Public transport providers need to respond to increasing demand for service provision, both in terms of volume and diversity of service users. Transport for London (TfL), a major public transport provider in UK, is currently facing oversubscribed door-to-door services and an increasing demand for accessible and usable public transport by conventionally marginalised groups such as older people and people with disabilities. Issues of accessibility, reliability and quality of service are key indicators that are sometimes in conflict and need to be revisited. There is a need to keep the quality of service consistent and at the same time redefine and prioritise the areas of focus and improvement.

2.1.2 Public Bus Services Buses will continue to be - probably for many years - the main and only form of public transport that can be accessible to almost all (London TravelWatch, 2010). There is also evidence that bus services are often more frequently used by disadvantaged or vulnerable sections of society, therefore poor performance is more likely to impact on these groups (London TravelWatch, 2009). Thus, the bus


13

14

Nickpour et al.

service proves to be the single most powerful transport tool in terms of inclusivity and equality potential and provision in a mega-city like London. There have been great improvements in terms of making buses fully accessible. In London, all buses are now low-floor vehicles and have a space for one wheelchair (Transport for London, 2011). However, an ‘accessible bus’ does not necessarily guarantee an ‘accessible bus service’. An accessible bus service requires not only an accessible bus and an accessible bus stop but also an empathic well-trained driver and a user-friendly environment. As well as improving inclusivity, making local bus services more accessible brings wider benefits including facilitating social inclusion in the local community, making bus travel easier and more pleasurable for every member of the local community and reducing the need for dedicated services (e.g. Dial a Ride) which are not costeffective.

2.1.3 The Project Commissioned by Transport for London and one local London borough, a research project was conducted in order to address issues associated with bus travel in London. The aim of the project was to produce recommendations for improving the accessibility of bus travel through investigating barriers to a diverse range of people using (or not using) public buses and what makes a journey either pleasant or unpleasant. A variety of approaches and techniques were used in order to understand the barriers to accessibility and inclusivity and how these could be overcome. The research project aimed to assess and improve the accessibility of public buses through a holistic and comprehensive service-oriented approach, focusing on an accessible bus service as a whole rather than focusing on segments of the whole service such as bus or bus-stop. 2.1.3.1 Bus Service - Key Stakeholders Broadly, with respect to bus services, three major stakeholders were defined: • • •

Service user - mobility challenged people Service provider - bus drivers Service operator - bus companies

Addressing accessibility and inclusivity issues, the project focused on mobility challenged people as the critical bus service users. For the purpose of this project, a mobility-challenged person was defined: ‘A mobility challenged person is someone whose mobility has been challenged due to age, physical or mental impairment, or an external physical condition; each of the above could have substantial and long-term adverse effect on the person’s ability to use public transport.’ (Nickpour and Jordan, 2011)

This definition includes, but is not limited to, wheelchair users and those with other impairments that affect mobility. Other major groups with other mobility

Inclusive Bus Travel - A Psychosocial Approach

15

restrictions that may make it more difficult to use public transport are: older people, blind or visually-impaired people, deaf people or people with hearing difficulties, those with learning difficulties or social phobias, and guardians with buggies. 2.1.3.2 Bus Service - Stakeholder Issues Key issues concerning each stakeholder included: • •

•

For bus passengers: Positive experience from start to finish - every stage of the journey should be efficient, enjoyable and smooth, and the user should be and feel safe at all times. For bus drivers: Pleasant working environment - drivers should be treated politely and respectfully by all passengers. They should be equipped with the skills needed to carry out all aspects of their duties competently and receive the full support of both bus users and their employers in doing so. For bus operators: Profitable business - operators should be encouraged and enabled to fulfil the service requirements against suitable performance targets in a manner which is commercially viable.

2.2 Methodology and Methods 2.2.1 Methodology The research project followed a combined primary and secondary research methodology, with a heavy focus on primary research conducted through a diverse range of field research methods. A major focus for the project was consultation with people who had a wide range of mobility challenges. Many other stakeholders were also included in the consultation process. This included bus drivers and representatives from bus operating companies, TfL, police and advocacy groups representing mobility-challenged people. In addition to this consultation process, members of the project team gained first-hand experience of some of the issues faced by mobility-challenged people by taking bus trips while using wheelchairs. Information was also collected through observing mobility-challenged people travelling on buses and asking mobilitychallenged residents of London Borough of Hillingdon - where the study was conducted - to take bus journeys and report their experiences.

2.2.2 Methods A wide range of methods were used in order to collect first-hand information regarding the existing barriers and issues regarding accessibility and inclusiveness of bus services. All primary research was undertaken in the local London borough. In some cases, similar services were observed in other London boroughs as well. Due to space limitation, specific details in terms of participants’ process of

16

Nickpour et al.

selection, age, demographics, position, etc. are not included here. More detail on the above is provided in a technical report (Nickpour and Jordan, 2011). 2.2.2.1 Focus Groups Three focus group sessions with different focuses were run in order to provide a holistic understanding of the existing issues. Each session focused on one stakeholder group. Firstly, a focus group session was held with nine representatives of service providers and a cross-section of other stakeholders aiming to look at organisational and big-picture issues. The participants included representatives from TfL, the local Council, bus companies, Dial a Ride, Age UK, Metropolitan Police, Hillingdon Community Transport and Access and Mobility Forum. Then, one session was held with a diverse group of service users with a focus on mobility-challenged passengers. This included nine participants; one blind person, one person with learning difficulties, one wheelchair user and six older people. Finally, a session was held with service non-users including seven mobilitychallenged members of the public who did not use currently public buses for a variety of reasons. These included previous negative experience with using public buses and lack of trust and confidence in the service. 2.2.2.2 Access Audits Two sets of access audits were planned and carried out. The emphasis was on both immersion (Moore and Conn, 1985) and direct observation (Dray, 1997). The first series of audits included eight local bus journeys and were carried out by the project research team, role-playing by using a wheelchair, aiming to look at specific mobility issues. Each observation session was attended by two members of the research team. The second series of access audits were carried out by a diverse group including five local participants with mobility impairments. Participants included one male older person aged 72, and two wheelchair users, one with an electric wheelchair and one with a normal wheelchair. Also, one person with learning difficulty aged 21 and one blind person aged 42 carried out the access audits. All audit sessions were documented through various applicable audio, visual and textual formats. 2.2.2.3 Interviews and Meetings A number of meetings and interviews were held with individuals from various organisations and groups in order to look into a number of issues in more detail. Altogether, five interview sessions were held; these included interviews with three bus drivers, meetings with Hillingdon Community Transport general manager, the accessibility officer of Hillingdon Council, two officers from the Disablement Association of Hillingdon and six members of the local Youth Council. 2.2.2.4 Observations Two major observation sessions were held. One session focused on special services aimed at mobility-challenged passengers; the project team spent a day working with the Dial-a-Ride service that provided door to door transport for mobilitychallenged people. Another observation session took place at Bus Mentoring Day -


17

a training day aimed at helping those who assist mobility challenged people with their travels. 2.2.2.5 Literature Review The literature review drew on a number of sources, reports and documents including reports by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), Direct Gov, The Department of Transport and London TravelWatch. The main source for the literature review was the new report by the Greater London Authority (GLA), titled “Accessibility of Transport” (GLA, 2010) which looked at the accessibility of all public transport within the capital including buses. The report drew on inputs from a wide variety of advocacy groups representing mobility challenged people as well as on a wide array of statistics quantifying accessibility of buses and other modes of transport.

2.3 Findings Based on the access audits conducted, the journey was broken down into the stages shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1. Key stages of a bus journey

The findings are presented under three key categories; physical, psychosocial and operational issues. Due to the length available for this paper, only a summary of findings is presented here. Detailed breakdown and analysis of findings can be found in the ‘Inclusive Bus Travel in Hillingdon: Assessing Accessibility’ report (Nickpour and Jordan, 2011).

2.3.1 Physical Issues From a physical accessibility point of view, users tended to find the most problematic part of the journey was getting from home to the bus stop and getting from the bus to their final destination. Examples of problems here included: narrow pavements, loose paving stones, steep roads and difficult crossings. There were also accessibility difficulties at some bus stops - for example, the positioning of litter bins and other street furniture sometimes made deploying and using the ramp somewhat inconvenient.

18

Nickpour et al.

However, despite such difficulties, it was possible for mobility challenged people to board the bus at all of the stops examined in the audit. Improvements in the design of buses meant that, in general, once the user had reached the stop, the bus could be accessed OK and the on-board part of the journey completed.

2.3.2 Psychosocial Issues Various observational and immersive methods used also uncovered a number of other difficulties - mostly psychological and social - that users faced. These included: 2.3.2.1 Uncertainties There were many aspects to this including uncertainties as to whether users would be able to get on and off the bus OK, whether they would have a long wait at the stop and whether their interactions with others would be positive. 2.3.2.2 Overcrowding The start and end of the school day are times when the bus gets particularly crowded. This can sometimes mean that the bus is too crowded to let a wheelchair on. Even if it is possible to board, overcrowding can make it difficult for wheelchair users to get to the wheelchair bay and to move their chair into the proper position within it. Overcrowding is becoming an increasingly problematic issue as more and more people are using buses. This is due in part to the difficult economic conditions that we have had recently (bus travel tends to increase in times of financial hardship) and in part to the issuing of free bus passes to schoolchildren and older people. 2.3.2.3 Negative Experiences with Drivers Many users had also mentioned that they had had problems with the drivers. This could be because of inconsiderate driving - for example pulling away too quickly or because they were perceived as having an unfriendly or surly attitude towards the user. Indeed, during the access audits there were a number of incidents of drivers not stopping at bus stops when they saw a wheelchair user waiting to get on. Bus drivers mentioned that there were often problems with ramps failing to deploy and cited this as a reason why they could not always pick up wheelchair users. 2.3.2.4 Negative Behaviour of Other Passengers A number of participants reported being annoyed or intimidated by the behaviour of other passengers. In particular they mentioned teenagers who they said could be very loud and often used foul language. A number of participants also mentioned that they also found it annoying when people had loud conversations on mobile phones or played music so loudly that it could be heard through their headphones. The behaviour of other passengers when getting on and off the bus was also a source of annoyance and intimidation. In particular they mentioned pushing and


19

shoving and people not waiting their turn in the queue. Other users had reported that they are wary of using buses in the evening or night because of the risk of encountering drunk or threatening people. 2.3.2.5 Off-putting Stories In some cases, participants were put off using the bus because of stories they heard about other people having bad experiences, in particular stories of violent or frightening incidents. These stories may have been told to them by friends or they may have read or heard about them in the media.

2.3.3 Operational Issues An issue that may be a contributory factor is the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the performance of the bus operators. Currently, emphasis is mostly on reliability - that has to do with timeliness of the bus service. There are no measures in place to monitor either the number of mobility challenged people using buses or the quality of their experience as one performance indicator. It was observed that it can take some time for a mobility challenged person, such as a wheelchair user, to board the bus. This may lead to the bus running behind schedule with the consequence that it affects reliability. As reliability is the basis on which the bus companies are judged and the pressure is for them to run on time, drivers sometimes feel unenthusiastic about picking up mobility challenged passengers and hence may have a hostile attitude towards mobility challenged them or may try to avoid picking them up altogether.

2.4 Discussion 2.4.1 Physical Versus Psychosocial Issues Overall the research suggested that good progress had been made in terms of addressing the physical issues. There could be problems getting to and from the bus stop and sometimes there were problems with ramps and small wheelchair spaces. However, it was generally the case that it was physically possible to complete a journey without excessive difficulties. Perhaps the most striking issue to emerge from the research was the role that psycho-social factors played in affecting mobility-challenged people’s quality of experience of using public buses, in particular, the impact of the attitudes and behaviour of the driver and of other passengers. Bad experiences of this nature were the most frequently cited reasons for not enjoying a bus journey or for not using the bus at all. Previously, the emphasis of accessibility research and improvements schemes has been on the physical elements of accessibility. While these are certainly extremely important, the outcomes of our research suggest that psychosocial issues are equally, perhaps

20

Nickpour et al.

even more, so. This observation mirrors those within the field of design generally where there has been increasing attention in recent years on psychosocial issues and their emotional consequences (Norman, 2005).

2.4.2 Special Service Versus Public Service As part of this research we also looked at people’s experiences with door to door transportation schemes for mobility challenged people within London. These included Dial-a-Ride, a minibus-based service which picks up passengers at their home and takes them to a pre-requested destination. This service was very popular with users. In particular they enjoyed the friendly atmosphere on the minibus and the friendly, attentive and considerate behaviour of the driver. Mobility-challenged users praised the drivers for their empathy and understanding, for their cheerfulness and for making them feel valued and welcome whenever they used the service. They mentioned how much they looked forward to the social aspects of using the service and for the enjoyable conversations with other passengers. A challenge is to try and recreate some of these benefits on public buses and to put into place approaches and schemes that will help to foster a positive ambience.

2.4.3 Negative Interactions It should be emphasised that the picture is not entirely negative; Field research supported the fact that many of the drivers have an excellent approach to interacting with mobility-challenged people. They are friendly, welcoming, informative and help make the journey a great experience. Similarly, many teenagers are polite, well-behaved and kind towards other passengers. However, this was mainly the result of each individual’s intrinsic motivation and personal codes of conduct. Nevertheless, it is also important to recognise that there are genuine problems with some bus drivers’ and teenagers’ attitudes and behaviours. Negative drivers’ attitudes were observed and reported, such as being rude and uncommunicative towards mobility challenged people. Also, in some cases, some teenagers’ behaviour appeared inconsiderate and liable to make people feel uncomfortable. The effects of this negative behaviour tend to extend beyond the specific incidents that occur. When service users encounter a bad experience, they will remember this and will have a doubt in their minds about the quality of their experience next time. This uncertainty can have a very powerful and negative effect. Even if people subsequently have positive experiences, the memory of the previous bad experience can create a sense of doubt - will this happen again? This doubt can make people question whether they want to use the bus again and leave them with some negative feeling for the duration of their travel. Moving forward, the


21

challenge is to find effective ways of improving the ambience on board and tackling some of the psychosocial issues that have been identified.

2.5 Conclusions and Recommendations There is need for a ‘Mentality Shift’ when addressing accessibility in public transport. This study suggests and highlights ‘psycho-social’ inclusion as the key area of focus. The findings suggest accessibility and inclusivity issues affecting public bus services fall into three broad categories: Physical, Psycho-social and Operational. Physical issues are to do with the design of the bus and the built environment and are the ‘typical’ issues considered when looking at accessibility. Findings suggest the key physical barriers identified include Getting to bus-stop, Space availability and priority on bus and Ramp technology & reliability. Psycho-Social issues are the ‘soft’ issues associated with the quality of people’s travel experience. Findings suggest the key psycho-social barriers identified are Ambience, Awareness and empathy and Communication. Operational issues concern the running of the service and cross-organisational strategies and regulations. The key identified operational barriers are Key Performance Indicators. Public bus service KPIs currently appear to focus only on efficiency rather than quality, inclusivity and pleasurability of service. The results indicate that it is the psycho-social issues that seem to be proving the biggest barrier to using public buses, in particular for mobility-challenged people. Addressing these issues requires a focus on people. It involves making them aware of the effect that their behaviour is having, convincing them to change it and giving them the skills and insights needed to do so. It also involves creating a desirable ambience throughout the bus journey, making the public transport experience not only efficient but also pleasurable. Overall - including both physical and psychosocial factors - the following nine recommendations are proposed as key principles for improving mobility challenged passengers’ experience of public bus travel. Create an inviting and friendly experience of the bus service. Perceptions about bus travel influence people’s decisions about whether to take the bus and the emotions associated with anticipating using it. Mobility challenged people should be confident that their bus journey will be a positive experience. Make bus stops reachable. Getting to and from the bus stop is, generally, the biggest physical barrier to bus travel for mobility challenged people. Making bus stops more reachable would significantly increase the numbers of people who could access public buses. Make all bus stops fully accessible. Once at the stop, mobility challenged people should be accurately informed about when the bus will arrive. The design of the stop should also facilitate quick and easy ingress for them. Promote and facilitate positive behaviour amongst passengers. Interactions with other passengers should be positive and friendly throughout the bus journey.

22

Nickpour et al.

Ensure that key aspects of the bus are fully operational. The aspects of the bus that affect accessibility should be fully operational at all times. Mobility challenged people should be confident that their journey will run smoothly and efficiently. Ensure that all users have a safe and comfortable space. All mobility challenged users should have a safe and comfortable space in which to complete their journey. They should be able to move into and out of this space easily. Welcome mobility challenged people aboard. Drivers should warmly welcome mobility challenged people aboard the bus. They should communicate clearly and cheerfully with them throughout the journey. Set off and drive smoothly. Ensure that mobility challenged people are settled before moving off. Make sure that this is done smoothly and that the drive is smooth and controlled throughout the journey. Provide information clearly through multiple channels throughout the journey. Mobility challenged people should be clear about when the bus is approaching their stop and have plenty of time to prepare to exit.

2.6 Acknowledgements This research project was commissioned by London Borough of Hillingdon and Transport for London. The authors would like to thank all local participants in the project and the user research team including Murtaza Abidi, Penelope Bamford, Thomas Wade and Jennifer McCormack.

2.7 References Dray SM (1997) Structured observation: Practical methods for understanding users and their work in context. In: Proceedings of CHI 97 Workshop on Human Factors in Computer Systems, SIGCHI, Atlanta, GA, US GLA (2010) Accessibility of the transport network. Greater London Authority, London, UK London TravelWatch (2009) TfL performance report. London TravelWatch, London, UK London TravelWatch (2010) Bus passengers’ priorities for improvement in London. London TravelWatch, London, UK Moore P, Conn CP (1985) Disguised: A true story. Word Books, Waco, TX, US Nickpour F, Jordan PW (2011) Inclusive bus travel in Hillingdon: Assessing accessibility. Technical Report, Brunel University, Brunel, UK Norman DA (2004) Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, Basic Books, NY, US Transport for London (2011) TfL accessibility guide. Available at: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/transportaccessibility/1171.aspx (Accessed 13 August 2011)

Chapter 3 Safe and Inclusive Design of Equipment Used in the Minerals Industry T. Horberry and T. Cooke

3.1 Introduction The focus of this paper is upon the application of both safe and inclusive design to equipment used by operational and maintenance personnel in mining. It begins by introducing the minerals industry and outlining two important human-related issues that will greatly impact upon the design of future mining equipment. The paper then focuses on the importance of safe and inclusive design in this domain, and outlines a task-orientated risk assessment and design process called ‘OMAT’ that was developed by the authors. A series of semi-structured interviews with designers of mining equipment are then presented: they focus in particular on how designers currently obtain user-centred input and how the OMAT process might be integrated into their design practices. Finally, conclusions regarding the future safe and inclusive design of equipment (especially automated equipment) in this domain and why user-centred design processes should be of central importance to mining are presented.

3.1.1 An Overview of Mining and the Minerals Industry The minerals industry is a significant worldwide employer. For example, in Australia it employs approximately 136,000 personnel. Mining occurs across virtually the whole globe, with major areas in South Africa, North and South America, Australia, China and much of Europe. The worldwide injury, ill-health and fatality rates vary greatly, ranging from usually single figure deaths per annum in Australia through to many hundreds being killed in many third-world countries (Simpson et al., 2009). Whatever the precise figures, the minerals industry is a major global employer with many high hazards that can cause injuries and fatalities unless well managed (Komljenovic and Kecojevic, 2007).


23

24

Horberry and Cooke

Looking in more depth at the elements of the minerals industry system, there is no ‘typical’ arrangement that is used at the majority of mine sites (Sanders and Peay, 1988). Instead, it is a complex sociotechnical system where people, procedures, environments and equipment need to interact safely and efficiently. The main elements here include (Horberry et al., 2010): • • • • • • • •

an increasingly diverse group of people employed; a wide assortment of different jobs, tasks and roles; many different equipment manufacturers and suppliers; different worldwide mining companies; a wide array of national laws, regulations, and guidelines; different procedures, rules, practices and cultures at individual mine sites; differences in the built environment and precise mining method used; uncertainties in the natural environment.

3.1.2 Mining Equipment Focusing on the equipment element, there is a discernable trend in most advanced economies for mining equipment parameters to be improved in that the equipment needs to be bigger, stronger, quicker, safer and more reliable (Horberry et al., 2010). The images in Figure 3.1 show the size and complexity of two examples of mobile mining equipment.

Figure 3.1. Examples of mobile mining equipment

In tandem with this, there are continual equipment-related operational challenges, including the ever-present balance between safety and production. It is not within the scope of this paper to describe the range of equipment employed, but it certainly is within the scope to briefly describe two general human element challenges that impinge upon designing and deploying safe, inclusive and fit-forpurpose equipment. These are: the ageing workforce and the increased development and deployment of automation/new technologies in mining.

Safe and Inclusive Design of Equipment Used in the Minerals Industry

25

3.1.2.1 An Ageing Workforce Over twenty years ago it was noted that the average age of the mining workforce was getting younger (Sanders and Peay, 1988). In most industrialised countries this situation has now reversed: the minerals industry workforce is on average now getting older, and fatter. Of course, this mirrors many general trends in Western society; however, it does present a few specific issues for the design of mining equipment, especially to make such equipment inclusive and safe. Given the nature of the equipment in use then extreme ageing is not an issue in mining, but there are still many issues for safe and inclusive design that result from an older workforce. These include (adapted from Horberry et al., 2010): •

• •

•

Increased difficulty in learning new skills. Older workers do not automatise tasks as easily as their younger counterparts. This has implications for mining technology and automation use (e.g. remote control of a rock breaker) where skill requirements may change over time and require new automatic, over-learnt operating procedures. Reaction time increases, especially in reacting to unexpected stimuli. This is a particular concern for mobile mining equipment (e.g. haul trucks) operating in the complex transport environment in most mine sites. Loss of muscular strength, endurance and tone. Although many manual tasks in mining have been eliminated, they are still present in many equipment maintenance tasks. This problem is exacerbated if significant weight gain occurs in these older maintenance workers. Visual function changes including loss of precision, difficulty in focusing on near objects and declines in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Given the automated, round-the-clock nature of mining then this can present particular problems in bad lighting conditions or with a complex background.

3.1.2.2 Increasing Development and Deployment of New Mining Technologies and Automation Mining is already highly mechanised, but it seems certain that there will be more remote control and/or automation of mining equipment in the future. Indeed, automation in mining is now finally permeating into many cutting-edge sites. Although automation progress began initially during the 1960s, today many mining companies are investing heavily in automation initiatives (Lynas and Horberry, 2011). As in other industries, this may change the types of human element inputs required (Sheridan, 2002). For example, less manual operational tasks (at least when the equipment is working correctly) and many operators becoming more of a passive monitor of the system, rather than an active controller or driver of it. More broadly, the increasing uptake of mining automation presents many opportunities, but also many challenges related to safe and inclusive design and effective human systems integration (Lynas and Horberry, 2011). The role of the human in the overall mining system may change, but is still a central part rather than an optional extra. Thus, developing operator-centred approaches for the design and

26

Horberry and Cooke

integration of new/automated mining technologies is a key priority area for the technology to be successful: central to this is safe and inclusive design.

3.1.3 The Importance of Safe and Inclusive Design of Mining Equipment The design of mining equipment plays a critical part in the safety and efficiency of tasks that are conducted by operators using it. However, as much as in virtually any other occupational domain, the design of mining equipment is still heavily technology-centred rather than user-centred (Horberry et al., 2010). This has been for a variety of reasons in mining, including: •

•

•

Designers sometimes think they can use their knowledge/common sense/intuition, or they rely purely on designing to standards. This is particular acute in the minerals industry, where mine site access for designers can be a significant limitation (EMESRT, 2011). Adding a user-centred focus may be thought to alter an agreed design process. Similarly, an older version of a system may already be in place, and piecemeal alterations are subsequently made (for example, the design of haul trucks). The benefits and costs of using a user-centred approach for equipment design are not clear (Burgess-Limerick et al., 2007).

Because some mine equipment designers (and their customers) still view human element constraints to be less significant than technical challenges (such as equipment payload) there is a tendency not to adequately consider human factors in the equipment design life-cycle process, and it is common to see human factors concerns being passed from one phase to the next (Horberry et al., 2010). For example, during conceptual design, if the analysis does not adequately capture user requirements then subsequent inadequacies are hard to resolve in the detailed design phase. Human element problems (such as usability) that remain after the system has been designed cannot therefore be easily resolved during equipment build or implementation phases. This is a particular problem for mining equipment that still requires considerable human intervention in its maintenance and operation (e.g. mobile mining equipment maintenance such as changing air filters). Indeed, where such user-centred design does exist, it focuses more on safe rather than inclusive design. Safe design (sometimes known as safety in design, or prevention through design) has begun to receive an increasing amount of attention in both the scientific and occupational safety domains (including in mining, albeit slowly) and is generally applied to products and equipment. As the name implies, it involves occupational health and safety (OHS) through the original design, not safety by procedure or through retrofit trial and error.


27

“Safe Design is a design process that eliminates OHS hazards, or minimises potential OHS risk, by involving decision makers and considering the life cycle of the designedproduct.” (Safe Work Australia, 2011)

In contrast, inclusive design is still in its infancy in mining. As an occupational, high-hazard domain, it might be argued that a ‘conventional’ inclusive design process is in need of modification as the focus here is not on mainstream commercial products. However, the earlier-described changing workforce demographics (e.g. older operators) and the design possibilities raised by the uptake of automation should increase the focus on designing for an increasingly diverse user group that will engage in a wide range of new tasks.

3.1.4 The Operability and Maintainability Analysis Technique (OMAT) To help ensure safe and inclusive design, the authors of this paper recently developed and evaluated a process that could be used by mining Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) (Cooke and Horberry, 2011). More specifically, OMAT is a task-oriented risk assessment process that focuses on human factors risks related to mobile mining equipment design. The starting point of the work was that poor equipment operability or maintainability can produce major safety and performance disbenefits. As such, many mining incidents and accidents are due to equipment design inadequacies, either in maintainability or operability, and are therefore theoretically preventable (Horberry et al., 2009). The behaviour of the operators and maintainers is largely shaped by their tasks which are, in turn, partly shaped by the equipment’s design. Therefore, in order to create the safest equipment possible designers must predict how their designs will shape the behaviours of miners in different sites around the world. With this in mind, a number of mining companies started discussing an approach to improve the human factors design of mobile mining equipment at an OEM level. This eventually resulted in a multi-company industry initiative known as EMESRT; the purpose was to establish a process of engagement between OEMs and mining customers to promote the development and adoption of leading practice user-centred designs (EMESRT, 2011). The OMAT tool was developed by support from EMESRT (Horberry et al., 2009). The OMAT process has been developed to align with existing OEM design processes (including major design milestones). OMAT has also been developed specifically to provide a user-engagement processes to identify and assess the risks in the design of mining equipment. Investigating such risks in operational or maintenance tasks involves six OMAT steps (after an initial step zero, to define the scope of the work) that are heavily dependent on OEM and mine site user engagement. A summary of these six stages is presented below.

28

Horberry and Cooke

1. Based on a comprehensive list of all operations and maintenance tasks performed using the equipment, the critical tasks are prioritised. 2. The constituent steps in these priority tasks are described and analysed. In effect this is a task analysis, whereby each task step and its order is uncovered, including deviations, short cuts or different methods of task completion for different user-groups. 3. Risks at each of the task steps are identified. Using the types of matrices commonly used in the mining industry the risks are identified, noting any current controls employed (e.g. guard rails for working at height). 4. Solutions are developed for the risks identified in stage 3. These should be primarily design solutions that eliminate risk. 5. Feedback received. The solutions developed in stage 4 are further developed by the OEMs. However, to continue the process of user-centred design, these solutions are then evaluated by mine site users. 6. A risk register is maintained to keep track of the whole process. This is of particular value for future design iterations of the equipment. The development and largely positive evaluation of the OMAT process to help promote safe and inclusive design of existing mobile mining equipment has resulted in important design changes being made (see Cooke and Horberry, 2010). But a comparatively neglected area to date has been an assessment of designers’ opinions of the process, and how it can be integrated with their existing safe and inclusive design processes.

3.2 Interviews with Mobile Mining Equipment Designers 3.2.1 Aim The aim of the study was to gauge the opinions and work practices of mobile equipment designers regarding user-centred design processes. In particular, it compared their current design methods to the OMAT task-based model and explored the designers’ current methods of gaining end-user feedback (i.e. from mine site operational and maintenance personnel).

3.2.2 Method A series of semi-structured interviews were held with personnel employed by a major manufacturer of mining equipment. Fourteen people who worked for the manufacturer were interviewed; all interviews took place in Finland. The participants worked in a variety of design-related roles including design engineers, project managers, safety experts and user interface specialists.


29

Rather than asking a rigid set of pre-defined questions, the interviews were topic based, allowing the interviewer to prompt, clarify and further probe the thoughts and practices of those being interviewed. Three topic areas were covered: Topic 1: The current design situation. Interviewees asked about the formal and informal human-related methods used to create and assess safety of the equipment. Specifically, they were asked to consider methods that considered end-user interaction. For each method noted, the interviewees were asked to describe the strengths and weaknesses of that technique. Topic 2: OMAT review. The OMAT process was then described to the participants (many already had a basic knowledge of OMAT). The participants were asked to judge and predict the strengths and weaknesses of this technique, and to state how it might be integrated within their overall design processes. Topic 3: End-user input. Of course, gaining end-user input is a common theme in safe, participatory and inclusive design. However, this has increasingly become difficult as the design, manufacture and use of equipment commonly occurs in different countries across varying cultural and language barriers. As an example of this, the interviews were conducted in Finland for equipment that would be used ultimately in Australia or elsewhere. This topic explored the currently-used methods of gaining end-user input into their design processes, especially as there was no homogeneous end-user group. It then explored two practices that could be used within the overall OMAT methodology to potentially gain more comprehensive end-user feedback: the inclusion of more (and varied) end-users in the OMAT workshops and the collection of video footage of tasks being performed with current equipment.

3.2.3 Results The results are described in terms of the three topics mentioned above. For reasons of space, only summary findings are reported here. Topic 1: The current design situation. The interviewees reported a large number of broadly human-centred methods to improve the safety of their equipment. They also reported that considering the end-user was a constant informal consideration. However, only four methods were noted that specifically included some consideration of the end-user. Two of these methods were only used by specific design specialists. The first was an “Ergonomic Checklist for the Operator’s Cabin”. This primarily involved ensuring that the adjustability of elements like reach distances to controls and chair design for weight of operator was accounted for using anthropometric data. The second method was in-field usability observation. However, this was limited to new digital controls used during operation (primarily of automated equipment). The interviewees thought that these methods were potentially useful; however, the scope and application of them was extremely limited.

30

Horberry and Cooke

The third method involved direct customer feedback from the use of current products. This was noted to be beneficial as many issues only emerged during equipment use. However, the major issue related to the ‘voice of the customer’ was that the input was only text-based and needed to pass through many hands before it reached the appropriate designer. By this stage it was commonly difficult to understand the precise issue and the person who raised it was not contactable. Therefore, only easily explainable and understandable issues fed through the current system with consistent success. The fourth, and most noted, method was that of a risk assessment workshop using qualitative risk matrices. The issues primarily came from equipment standards and were a mix of hazards and requirements. The primary positive issue noted about this method was that the workshop forced conversation amongst the stakeholders. The most significant negative issue noted was that the discussion focused only on the rather restrictive set of issues mentioned in existing standards. This commonly did not involve the end-user but, rather, ‘have we met the standard?’ This meant that significant issues related to operator interaction could be missed, and innovation might be stifled. Furthermore, the interviewees noted that extremely rarely did the method actually lead to design changes. As such, the interviewees mostly viewed this method as a legal cover rather than a useful design method. Topic 2: OMAT review. Despite the potential bias that might have been present (where one of the originators of the process was conducting the interviews), the interviewees’ opinions of OMAT were largely positive. In particular: • they welcomed the task-based, user-centred approach; • they found the whole OMAT process to be easy to understand; • it was viewed as comprehensive; • they predicted that it might encourage innovation in design solutions. However, some of the more negative features noted were: • • •

the OMAT process might take a long time (especially in workshops); it might be difficult to maintain/update this method; some concerned was expressed that it does not link sufficiently to standards. Although this was not fully articulated, there was more of a general feeling of unease about how much it became the workshop’s judgement (rather than an ‘objective’ standard) and having that judgement documented for a lawyer to subsequently investigate.

Topic 3: End-user input. The inclusion of a variety of end-users in design workshops (whether using OMAT or other methods) was reasonably positively received. This was because operational knowledge was seen to offer valuable design opportunities by knowing ‘what really happens’. However, there were also significant negative issues noted (that are also applicable to many other participatory, inclusive or safe design processes): • •

the end-user inputs received are limited to the knowledge of that person; legal issues (‘what happens if we don’t take their advice?’);


• • •

31

disclosure of information about design, so market value might be potentially reduced; they already have in-house operational ‘experts’ involved so current endusers might not add much extra information; pragmatically, and certainly when considering universal design, the potential users come from across the world and speak different languages. This was perceived to be a potentially costly exercise for little gain.

The technique of obtaining end-user inputs by means of video recording of current tasks was viewed by every interviewee as an extremely beneficial addition. In particular, it was opined that video records provided objective visual information that is easily shared, showed the designers how their equipment was actually used, acted as a memory aid for those designers who had actually been to a mine site and more generally could be an excellent reminder that real people will eventually have to use the equipment. Video records are, of course, not as an adequate replacement of comprehensive end-user feedback; the interviewees noted that they were unable to ask the person about the task, so had to interpret the actions on the video. Equally, other design options could not be explored, and if a design is changed significantly then the task itself changes. Finally, video records were only useful in the latter stages of the design process, so a designer would have to wait for the equipment to be out in the field before they can get this first iteration of the feedback.

3.3 Conclusions Including end-user input in some form in the design of equipment is a laudable goal in virtually any domain. As indicated in other domains that have successfully integrated automation (e.g. aviation), unless new technology in mining takes into account the human element that will ultimately operate or maintain the systems, then it is unlikely that such technology will flourish (c.f. Sheridan, 2002). This paper has hopefully shown some of the challenges and opportunities for those mining equipment designers who have a human-centred focus. Some of the challenges include designers actually getting access to mine sites, and obtaining appropriate end-user input, due to the widely diverse workforce involved. Not surprisingly, a disjointed group of user-centred methods currently exists, and these are employed to varying degrees by mining equipment designers. Despite this, safe design in some guise is certain to become more firmly entrenched in the design practices of larger OEMs. Consequently, it is anticipated that the task-based nature of OMAT will result in it being more widely accepted and deployed, especially for high frequency/high hazard tasks. A criticism of OMAT was that the method could be quite time-intensive, especially when involving extensive end-user workshops that needed to be formally documented. One way to address such a criticism would be to employ a streamlined version of the method that is still task-based and participatory, but only focuses on design issues of the highest priority tasks in a less formally documented workshop-style setting. Also, obtaining end-user inputs

32

Horberry and Cooke

by means of video recording of current tasks with the equipment is another way of streamlining the OMAT method whilst still retaining its task-based approach. Inclusive design of mining equipment is far less well-developed and wellaccepted than safe design. Indeed, philosophically, it might be maintained that specialised and hazardous mining equipment should not be designed for universal use unless reasonable controls (including training and following site procedures) are deployed. Still, designing accessible and usable mining equipment without excessive adaptations for the worldwide minerals industry user-group is certainly of importance for both safety and productivity. It is anticipated that user-centred design tools such as OMAT can be expanded and further employed to help achieve this goal.

3.4 References Burgess-Limerick R, Straker L, Pollock C, Dennis G, Leveritt S, Johnson S (2007) Participative ergonomics for manual tasks in coal mining. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37: 145-155 Cooke T, Horberry T (2011) The operability and maintainability analysis technique: Integrating task and risk analysis in the safe design of industrial equipment. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Ergonomics and Human Factors 2011, Stoke Rochford, UK EMESRT (2011) Earth moving equipment safety round table. Available at: http://www.mirmgate.com/index.php?gate=emesrt (Accessed 8 August 2011) Horberry T, Burgess-Limerick R, Steiner L (2010) Human factors for the design, operation and maintenance of mining equipment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, US Horberry T, Sarno S, Cooke T, Joy J (2009) Development of the operability and maintainability analysis technique for use with large surface haul trucks. Australian Coal Association Research Program report. Available at: http://www.acarp.com.au/ abstracts.aspx?repId=C17033 (Accessed 8 August 2011) Komljenovic D, Kecojevic V (2007) Risk management programme for occupational safety and health in surface mining operations. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 7(5): 620-638 Lynas D, Horberry T (2011) Human factors issues with automated mining equipment. Ergonomics Open, 4(Suppl 2-M3): 74-80 Safe Work Australia (2011) What is safe design? Available at: http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/SafetyInYourWorkplace/SafeDesign/Understanding /Pages/WhatIs.aspx (Accessed 8 August 2011) Sanders MS, Peay JM (1988) Human factors in mining (IC 9182). Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, PA, US Sheridan T (2002) Humans and automation. John Wiley, New York, US Simpson G, Horberry T, Joy J (2009) Understanding human error in mine safety. Ashgate Press, Farnham, UK

Chapter 4 Deploying a Two-player System for Arm Rehabilitation in Schools R.J. Holt, A.P.H. Weightman, J.F. Gallagher, N. Preston, M.C. Levesley, M. Mon-Williams and B. Bhakta

4.1 Introduction Cerebral Palsy (CP) is the commonest cause of disability among children in Europe (Johnson, 2002). Its effects and severity can be extremely varied, but a combination of arm impairments through weakness or spasticity and sensory deficits is common and can (i) significantly impair the ability of individuals with CP to carry out daily activities and (ii) create significant social barriers (Imms, 2008). Therapy is often used to aid the acquisition of motor skills, particularly in childhood, but a lack of physiotherapy resources means that this is often delivered through a self-managed home exercise programme. Exercises are frequently dull and repetitive, and children often lack the motivation to carry out these exercises, leading to poor compliance with the prescribed plan (Chappell and Williams, 2002). One solution to this is the use of Interactive Computer-Play (ICP)-based therapy (Sandlund et al., 2009), where therapy is delivered as a game through a computer-interface. Prior research at the University of Leeds has led to the development of a game-based system for home rehabilitation of upper limb impairment (Weightman et al., 2011). However, feedback from the participants in that project indicated that they preferred to play games with friends and suggested that this would improve their motivation further. Accordingly, a multiplayer ICPbased therapy system for upper limb rehabilitation intended for use in schools has been developed, and this paper describes both the system and the results of its initial deployment in a school environment. A brief overview of the background to ICP-based therapy and arm rehabilitation is given, followed by a description of the system itself, and finally the outcomes of deploying the system in a school environment for an eight-week period, including the amount of usage, feedback on the games used, and user comments received.


33

34

Holt et al.

4.2 Background ICP-based therapy has been growing in popularity in recent years, particularly with the advent of home computers and videogame consoles and the growing popularity of videogaming as a pastime in the last few decades. The development of consoles which use movement-based interaction in videogames, most notably the Nintendo WiiTM, has led to great interest in their use as a means of encouraging physical activity among children and making rehabilitation enjoyable (Deutsch et al., 2008; Lanningham-Foster et al., 2009). The use of off-the-shelf videogame consoles in rehabilitation has many benefits, as they enjoy the economies of scale of mass production, do not require specialist development, and games are already designed first and foremost to be enjoyable. However, they also have limitations: they are not necessarily accessible to players with more significant arm impairments; they do not provide the assistive force that a physiotherapist would provide (which is important in extending a patient’s capabilities); the games are not necessarily designed to provide therapeutic benefits; and these systems do not enforce compliance with a therapeutically desirable trajectory, which means that players can get away with making motions that are successful in the game, but do not provide therapeutic benefit. Research at the University of Leeds has promoted the use of Assisted Movement Devices as an adjunct to therapy, whereby a robotic system is used to provide both the assistive force and to encourage compliance with therapeutically desirable trajectories. Previous research has developed systems that use this approach with stroke patients in a clinical environment (Jackson et al, 2007) and for children with in a home environment (Weightman et al, 2011). In response to feedback gathered from the latter project, a two-player system has been developed, with the aim of deploying it in a school environment, where it would be easier to find multiple players. Social interaction such as co-operation and competition in games has long been identified as a motivator for playing (Malone and Lepper, 1987), and continues to be recognised as an important aspect of making games enjoyable (Sweetser and Wyeth, 2005). However, it does raise significant challenges in ICP-based therapy, as different players will have different levels of impairment (and in some cases, none at all), making it difficult to create a level playing field. The next section reviews the system developed, and how it addresses some of these issues.

4.3 The System The original home-based system had been based around a Microsoft SideWinderTM joystick, which had been adapted so that its force feedback system would provide the assistive force required to help players make the required movements (Weightman et al., 2011). This plugged via USB into a conventional PC, where the specially designed games would run. It was originally envisaged that the new system would take a similar form, with perhaps four to six such joysticks plugging

Deploying a Multiplayer System for Arm Rehabilitation in Schools

35

into a PC to allow multiplayer gaming. However, a number of factors meant that this approach was not feasible. Firstly, the Sidewinder was not able to provide as much force as desired, meaning a move towards a new design with larger motors and bespoke control software developed in LabVIEW and delivered via a National InstrumentsTM cRIO (Compact Reconfigurable Input-Output) controller. Furthermore, in working closely with teachers, children and parents to develop the system, it soon became apparent that class time was at an absolute premium for teachers, and they argued that they could not afford to spend take even a few minutes out of class time setting the system up and getting started without the children losing interest. Space was also at a premium, meaning that a four to six player system would be prohibitively large - teachers felt that this was redundant as they rarely had more than one or two children in a class requiring physiotherapy and were reluctant to take many unimpaired children out of lessons to participate in the games. Accordingly, the system was designed as a self-contained unit with two joysticks, two monitors, a PC and cRIO as shown in Figure 4.1. The system was wheeled so that it could be easily moved between classrooms or out of the way as needed, and required only a single button press to start up or turn off, booting directly into the games as needed.

Figure 4.1. The system

To address the need for a level playing field between different players, an Adaptation to Player Performance Algorithm (APPA) was developed. Four games were developed, representing different combinations of competitive and collaborative, sequential and simultaneous play. They all centred around the same premise, delivered through simple cut scenes: the players are monkeys trying to rescue their friends from a hungry crocodile in order to provide elements of fantasy

36

Holt et al.

and curiosity as recommended by Malone and Lepper (1987) and Sweetser and Wyeth (2005); and all were based around the simple back-and-forth movement of a conventional reach/retrieve exercise. The APPA first involved the players carrying out a simple single-player assessment task at the start of each session, in which each player guided their ‘monkey’ around the screen and tried to collect as many ‘bananas’ as possible in the time available. The system then adjusted the amount of assistance provided based on their performance in this task. The four actual games were developed with a user group of children with cerebral palsy who had participated in the previous home-based project (Weightman et al., 2011). These children gave feedback and made comments on early iterations, evaluating the initial concepts and gameplay proposals, giving feedback on early prototypes and testing the near final games for usability. The final four games selected were: 1. Van Game (Simultaneous, Cooperative): Players work together to collect bananas and destroy the crocodile’s van before s/he escapes with their monkey friends. 2. River Game (Simultaneous, Competitive): Players race against each other to collect the most bananas as they race along a winding river. 3. Chase Game (Sequential, Competitive): Players take it in turns to find their way through a maze, one playing as the crocodile, the other as a monkey - the player with the fastest time wins. 4. Maze Game (Sequential, Cooperative): Players work together to find a way through a maze before time runs out, as each player collects bananas so new paths open to the other player. Screenshots from these games are shown in Figure 4.2. Each game also had a single player variant, in which the player raced against the clock, rather than the other player.

4.4 Outcomes of Deployment To evaluate the feasibility of using the system in a real school environment, the system has been field-tested in seven schools with an overall total of eight children with CP aged between 8 and 12 years (to date). At this stage, the purpose of this testing is to assess whether the system can actually be delivered and used in a school without supervision by the research team, rather than assessing whether the system delivers therapeutic benefits.

4.4.1 Process A total of four systems were built. The systems were deployed into schools for two periods of four weeks, with a one-week “washout” period in between. In one period, the system was used in a single-player mode; in the other, it was used in a multiplayer mode. Half the schools were randomly assigned to use the single player mode first, while the other half used the system in multiplayer mode first.


37

As there were seven schools and just four systems, the systems were deployed in four schools first (Schools A, B, C and D) and in the remaining schools thereafter.

a) Van Game

b) River Game

c) Chase Game

d) Maze Game

Figure 4.2. Games for use with the system

The research team delivered the system to each participating school, explained to the member of staff who would be given responsibility for the system how to set it up and play the games, and then left the system under the supervision of the school for the four-week period. Teachers were introduced to the goals of the research project, made aware that the system was intended as a way of delivering therapy through gameplay and informed that the version of the system delivered was a prototype for evaluation with the aim of assessing the feasibility of its use in a school environment. The initial explanation was supplemented by an instruction manual, and a contact number to call in case of significant problems. The aim was to see whether and how each school would use the system in practice, without the research team’s input, so they were permitted to make whatever use of the system they saw fit. The systems gathered details of the amount that each child played, and a feedback questionnaire based on Read’s (2008) Smileyometer was used for each child to rate each of the games and the assessment task. Finally, a debriefing

38

Holt et al.

questionnaire was used to capture the views of adults and children about the system, any problems or benefits they encountered, and what might be done to improve it in the future. As a result of difficulties in getting time in teachers’ diaries for interviews in the early phase of the project, it had been agreed that the most effective way of gathering information was to provide paper feedback questionnaires with a stamped self-addressed envelope that the school could return to the researchers at their convenience, rather than attempting to arrange formal feedback interviews.

4.4.2 Usage Table 4.1 records the amount of usage made of the system for each child at each school (note that School C had two children), in terms of the number of days upon which the system was used, and the mean length of play on those days. In addition, it shows the mean number of days on which the system was used across all the children, and the mean length of all their sessions. Data were only recorded for children with cerebral palsy as they were the target users of the system: the project was not concerned with the amount of therapy delivered to children who did not require it. Table 4.1. Usage of system by school and child School

Child

Days Used Single Player (of possible 20)

Mean Session Length Single Player (mins)

Days Used Multiplayer (of possible 20)

Mean Session Length Multiplayer (mins)

A

1

10

6.68

19

9.38

B

2

5

5.26

13

10.2

C

3

15

21.5

19

17.2

C

4

15

17.7

16

19.0

D

5

12

8.71

10

9.51

E

6

15

3.38

12

6.20

F

7

13

15.5

10

9.70

G

8

10

13.3

16

20.5

11.9

12.7

14.4

13.4

Overall Mean

All the children made some use of the system and with just one exception (Child 2’s single player phase), it was used on at least half the available days. In some phases, days were lost owing to school closures in bad weather and bank holidays, but these were accepted as part of a realistic snapshot of how much use the system received in practice (as these were all factors that might limit its use they are not corrected for in the table above). On average, multiplayer mode was


39

played more often and for longer than the single player mode, despite the difficulty in having to take children without arm impairments out of lessons to accommodate this - though with such a small sample, the difference was not statistically significant.

4.4.3 Game Ratings Getting schools to complete and return questionnaires proved extremely difficult, and several rounds of chasing up were required. A total of fourteen smileyometers were returned, though we know that a total of thirty-two children across the seven schools (including the eight with CP) used the system altogether. Unfortunately, the questionnaires were not always correctly labelled, making it impossible at some schools to determine which feedback was from children with CP and which from children without. Accordingly, the results presented here represent the overall feedback from all the children that provided Smileyometers rather than trying to distinguish between the different groups of users. The results for each game, including the assessment task, are shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3. Smileyometer ratings for the four games and assessment tasks

40

Holt et al.

Overall, the two co-operative games - the Van and Maze Games - proved most consistently popular, with the Maze Game receiving no negative ratings (Not Very Good or Awful), and the Van Game receiving just one not very good. The River Game caused the greatest split in opinion, receiving the most Brilliants, but also receiving the most negative ratings of the four games. The Chase Game also received mixed feedback, but with a more even split across the ratings. The Assessment Task also split opinion, receiving more negative ratings than any of the games, but also surprisingly receiving a large number of positive ratings, with only the River Game receiving more positive ratings. It is worth noting that the ordering of the games varied from child to child quite significantly as well: each game was most popular for at least two children, and least popular for at least two others. On the whole, this suggests that the games were well-received, although there were substantial variations in individual preferences, and several children did suggest that more games would be welcome to provide greater variety.

4.4.4 Qualitative Comments Feedback comments from the school staff responsible for the system focused consistently on the size of the system, and ease of setup. One school indicated that manoeuvrability was not important, as the size of the system meant that it could not be moved anywhere else. The other schools indicated that being able to move the system around easily was very important, as it needed to be used in different classrooms, or moved out of the way when not in use. Every school was able to find space for the system, and none felt it was too big, but all agreed that a system any larger than this would be untenable. Ease of setup was also an issue, with all schools praising the ease with which the system could be started, but also reporting that the system sometimes failed to initialise properly the first time it was switched on. While they were always able to resolve this by restarting the system, School B in particular complained that this cut significantly into the short periods they were able to find for use. Finally, schools E, F and G all indicated that exam preparation cut into the amount of time available for therapy, particularly in the second phase of their deployment (the multiplayer phase for Schools E and F, single player for School G), and that this made it particularly difficult to find time to use the system. These comments all confirmed our initial finding from working with teachers when developing the system in the first place, that manoeuvrability, ease of setup and a small footprint are all important for a school environment. This demonstrates not only the merit of the revised concept of a self-contained unit over the initial notion of four to six independent joysticks, but also the importance of engaging with users to properly understand their needs.


41

4.5 Conclusions and Further Work This paper has reported the deployment of a novel multiplayer gaming system for delivering arm rehabilitation in a school environment. The system has been deployed in a real environment, and this has demonstrated that the system can be used in a variety of schools. The games presented have been well-received despite their simplicity although there were significant variations in individual preference and a wider range of games would be desirable if the system were to be used in the longer term. There are a further three schools still to test the system before final conclusions are drawn. In addition, this project has only assessed the feasibility of deploying and using the system in a school environment. Clinical trials with a larger number of children will be required to demonstrate the therapeutic efficacy of this approach.

4.6 References Chappell F, Williams B (2002) Rates and reasons for non-adherence to home physiotherapy in paediatrics. Physiotherapy, 88(3): 2-11 Deutsch JE, Borbely M, Filler J, Huhn K, Guarrera-Bowlby P (2008) Use of a low-cost, commercially available gaming console (Wii) for rehabilitation of an adolescent with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy, 88(10): 1196-1207 Imms C (2008) Children with cerebral palsy participate: A review of the literature. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(24): 1867-1884 Jackson AE, Holt RJ, Culmer PR, Makower SG, Levesley MC, Richardson RC et al. (2007) Dual robot system for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: the design process. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 221(7): 845-857 Johnson A (2002) Prevalence and characteristics of children with cerebral palsy in Europe. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 44(9): 633-640 Lanningham-Foster L, Foster RC, McCrady SK, Jensen TB, Mitre N, Levine JA (2009) Activity-promoting video games and increased energy expenditure. Journal of Pediatrics, 154(6): 819-823 Malone TW, Lepper MR (1987) making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning In: Snow RE, Farr MJ (eds.) Aptitude, learning and instructions, Vol. 3: Cognitive and affective process analyses. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, US, pp 223-253 Read JC (2008) Validating the fun toolkit: An instrument for measuring children’s opinions of technology. Cognition, Technology and Work, 10(2): 119-128 Sandlund M, Mcdonough S, Hager-Ross C (2009) Interactive computer play in rehabilitation of children with sensorimotor disorders: A systematic review. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 51(3): 173-179 Sweetser S, Wyeth P (2005) Gameflow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 3(3): 3A Weightman APH, Preston N, Levesley MC, Holt RJ, Mon-Williams M, Clarke M et al. (2011) Home based computer-assisted upper limb exercise for young children with cerebral palsy: A feasibility study investigating impact on motor control and functional outcome. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43(4): 359-363

Chapter 5 Evaluating the Accessibility and Usability of Blogging Platforms for Blind Users B. Wentz, M. Cirba, N. Kharal, J. Moran and M. Slate

5.1 Introduction Web-based social media have become a dynamic way of allowing the inclusive communication of many perspectives from diverse backgrounds. In a recent survey from WebAIM, blogging was noted to be the dominant form of social media according to screen reader users (WebAIM, 2010). Social media and other forms of technology can provide a platform for users with disabilities to interact and communicate on a level playing field with anyone else throughout society. It is the responsibility of application designers to follow established standards of accessibility and usability in order to provide equal access to this dynamic technology.

5.2 Related Literature There are approximately 284 million individuals worldwide who are visually impaired (low vision), and this figure includes 39 million individuals who are completely blind with no residual vision (World Health Organization, 2011). A screen reader (such as JAWS, System Access, VoiceOver, or Window-Eyes) is a software application that reads the content of a computer screen out loud in a linear manner, using computer-synthesised speech. This is the primary way that blind users access computers and web sites. Braille devices are often too expensive, and the rate of Braille literacy among blind users very low. For example, in the United States, fewer than 10% of children who are blind are learning to read Braille (National Federation of the Blind, 2011). In 2005 a small study was conducted to evaluate the accessibility of several blogging platforms (American Foundation for the Blind, 2010). It was concluded that problems such as CAPTCHAs, which are required to register and create most blogs, create accessibility challenges. Also highlighted were accessibility


43

44

Wentz et al.

challenges related to navigating many of the blog platforms. Common problems discovered were related to basic principles of accessible design, such as properly labeling the fields on a web-based form. Recently, WordPress has made an attempt to provide some general accessibility guidelines for bloggers who use that platform (WordPress.org, 2011). Our project was intended to provide a more recent examination of a more narrow focus, namely to evaluate accessibility and usability by enabling users who rely on screen readers to access the platforms. Our usability testing examined the ability to read and post comments, and our accessibility evaluation evaluated the technical ability required to create a blog and access the main administrative console of a blog platform.

5.3 Research Methodology and Results 5.3.1 Usability Testing 5.3.1.1 Blog Platform Selection Blogger (a Google product) and WordPress were selected for usability testing due to suggestions that together they are the largest platforms, providing the background structure for approximately 85% of all blogs (Peltier, 2009). WordPress offers both WordPress.com (which provides free blog hosting and/or paid, ad-free blogging) as well as WordPress.org (which provides blogging software available as a download to be installed on a server for localised hosting). Since the default templates are the same for WordPress.org and WordPress.com, WordPress.com was selected since it is a hosted system through which any individual is permitted to establish a free blog. The focus of the following usability testing was on the default templates within both Blogger and WordPress, since both platforms offer numerous templates. 5.3.1.2 Participant Selection for Usability Testing The participants recruited for this study were self-labeled as blind, JAWS screen reader users, and at least 18 years of age. We sent recruitment emails to the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Federation of the Blind as well as the Pennsylvania Council of the Blind. Additionally, the recruitment email was posted on listservs that are commonly used by blind individuals within the state. Since there is no central directory of all blind individuals worldwide (or in the United States), a true random sampling would be technically impossible. A total of 15 participants were involved in the usability testing. Our goal with this evaluation was to conduct exploratory research with a group of blind users, in order to discover usability challenges that could be corrected to provide improved accessibility and usability of web-based blog platforms. 5.3.1.3 Data Collection for Usability Testing Usability testing of Blogger and WordPress was conducted in March and April 2011. The testing was conducted using an Acer Aspire One netbook with the Windows XP operating system and Internet Explorer 8. An external keyboard,

Evaluating the Accessibility and Usability of Dominant Blogging Platforms

45

external speakers, a wireless broadband card (for testing the web-based applications) and JAWS 12 (screen reader software) were used for the usability testing. A stopwatch was used to record the time spent on each task. We spent time creating test blogs and accounts that would make sure that no personal data of the participants was used. Each session was started by asking each participant questions about their background and blog experience, and then participants were asked to rank the importance of reading blog comments, posting blog comments and creating a blog. After the initial questionnaire, we read each task to the participants, and then they tried to complete each task without our assistance. Each task was timed and recorded for completion, and participants could choose to stop the task at any time. We noted problems and comments when they were mentioned by participants or observed by us. 5.3.1.4 Demographics of Usability Testing The participants in our study ranged in age from 34 to 63, with the mean age being 54. There was a close ratio of male (seven) to female participants (eight). Most of the participants were college graduates or had completed some college (12 out of 15). The most common operating system was Windows XP, and the most common Web browser was Internet Explorer 8. The versions of JAWS used ranged from version 8 to 12, with the most common version being version 12. The mean number of years of experience using JAWS was 10.8 years. Since the average blind individual might have less education and screen reader experience than the participants in this study, it is likely that they would have more difficulty with these blog interfaces than the study participants did. 5.3.1.5 Previous Experience and Value of Blogging When asked about their previous experience with blogs, 80% (12 out of 15) of the participants reported having previously read comments that were posted on a blog, and out of those participants, 47% (7 out of 15) recalled having no difficulty when reading blog comments. Participants were then asked about posting comments on a blog, and only 47% (7 out of 15) reported previously posting comments on blogs. Of those participants, 57% (8 out of 15) recalled having difficulty when posting blog comments. Only 27% (4 out of 15) of the participants reported previously creating or attempting to create a blog, and out of those, two of the four reported having difficulty when trying to create a blog. Participants were then asked three questions related to the value that they place on being able to read comments, post comments, and create blogs. On a scale of 15 (with 5 being the most important), the mean responses were very close for all three. Reading comments had a mean of 3.5, posting comments had a mean of 3.7, and creating blogs had a mean of 3.5. This indicates that for this sample, a moderate value is placed on all aspects of interacting with blogs. 5.3.1.6 Testing Results and Impact of Previous Experience After the preliminary questions about demographics and prior experience with blogs, users were then asked to complete two tasks in both Blogger and WordPress. For Task 1, participants were asked to read any comment posted on the

46

Wentz et al.

blog web page. For Task 2, participants were asked to post a comment about the article on the blog web page. The tasks with the results are illustrated in Table 5.1. Blogger had a higher rate of completion for Task 1, but the task took longer to complete than it did in WordPress. No participants were able to complete Task 2 in Blogger due to a usability problem which is described later. Table 5.1. Tasks and the completion rate, mean time, and SD for successful tasks Task 1: Read a comment 1: Read a comment 2: Post a comment 2: Post a comment

Blog Platform Blogger WordPress Blogger WordPress

Completion Percentage 80% (12 out of 15) 67% (10 out of 15) 0% 53% (8 out of 15)

Mean Time 144.3 sec. 126.8 sec. 129 sec.

Standard Deviation 75.2 sec. 36.1 sec. 54.3 sec.

The impact that previous experience with reading and posting comments had on the results of this usability testing is illustrated in Table 5.2. It is important to note that this does not reflect previous experience with a particular interface but rather previous experience with either reading a blog comment or posting a blog comment on any blog interface. For task 1 on the Blogger interface, it appears that there is an improvement in usability based on prior familiarity, but it is important to note that there were only a small number of users (three) who were inexperienced with task 1. Task 2 in WordPress does seem to indicate a usability curve based on experience, since the number of experienced to inexperienced users was much closer, yet the task completion rate was heavily weighted towards experienced users. In addition, the mean time to complete successful tasks was higher for inexperienced users for Blogger task 1, and for WordPress tasks 1 and 2. Table 5.2. Previous experience and mean completion rate/time for successful tasks Task/Interface Task 1, Blogger

Users with Experience 12 out of 15

Task 1, WordPress

12 out of 15

Task 2, Blogger

7 out of 15

Task 2, WordPress

7 out of 15

Experienced Users 92% (11/12) 135.6 sec. 67% (8/12) 119.6 sec. 0% 71% (5/7) 113 sec.

Inexperienced Users 33%. (1/3) 217.7 sec. 67% (2/3) 155.5 sec. 0% 38% (3/8) 155.7 sec.

5.3.1.7 Usability Problems Identified While many minor usability challenges were identified during the usability testing conducted for this study, there were several major usability challenges which, if corrected, could dramatically improve the usability of these blog interfaces. Usability problems with Blogger included a “Post Comment” button that did not work as expected and an audio CAPTCHA that is not embedded and requires an external plug-in to work. These problems effectively prevent users from successfully posting comments.


47

Figure 5.1. Post comment problem in blogger

In Figure 5.1, there is a screen shot of the “Post a Comment” form for the Blogger interface. While this should be a simple, straightforward process, when a user (blind or sighted) selects the “Post Comment” button, the action is not performed, and instead the user is redirected back to the same page, and the comment is not posted. It takes several attempts before the user is directed to the login prompt for account credentials. This does not occur if a user is already logged into a Google Account. While this is frustrating for any user, the problem is not immediately evident to a blind user. The only indication that this is occurring is the small red image that is shown in the screenshot above. One user, who tried this process repeatedly and did reach the next step, was taken to a prompt for a CAPTCHA. Figure 5.2 illustrates the traditional CAPTCHA screenshot for the Blogger interface with a symbol indicating an audio option for accessibility. The alternate text for the audio option says “Listen and type the words you hear.” The problem is that the user was unable to proceed because the CAPTCHA did not rely on embedded audio but on a particular format of audio which required a plug-in for use.

Figure 5.2. Audio CAPTCHA plug-in problem in blogger

48

Wentz et al.

Usability problems with WordPress included a link that directs users to the wrong field in a form, and an error message that could be improved for usability. When a user selects the reply link to add a comment, the focus of the cursor goes to the “Comment” field on the form. For a sighted user, it would be evident that “Name” and “Email” are required fields, but for a user relying on a screen reader and keyboard navigation, the usability problem with the “Reply” link is confusing and could prevent a successful post unless the user realises what the problem is.

5.3.2 Accessibility Evaluations Accessibility evaluations often rely on automated software (such as A-Prompt, Deque WorldSpace, and WAVE). Automated evaluations can determine that a web page generally fails compliance with standards such as Section 508, but automated evaluations are often not as accurate as manual evaluations because accessibility problems such as alternate content descriptions that do not fit the context cannot be currently determined by automated means. Careful inspections using a screen reader (such as JAWS) are considered to be the most accurate form of accessibility evaluation (Mankoff et al., 2005), and that accuracy increases when multiple individuals evaluate the same interfaces (Lazar et al., 2010a). This process can be used to determine compliance with standards, such as the Section 508 standards for web sites. Accessibility evaluations complement usability evaluations in that usability evaluations can assess ease of use, whereas usability testing can often not completely evaluate compliance with standards since users may not be able to completely use all aspects of a system due to accessibility barriers. 5.3.2.1 Procedures for the Accessibility Evaluations The evaluations that we conducted utilised the web site accessibility guidelines of Section 508 (1194.22) of the US Rehabilitation Act, identified as paragraphs “a” through paragraph “p” (US Government, 2010). This inspection process involves an individual (previously trained on accessibility inspections) with vision inspecting a web site using a screen reader and a checking for compliance with each guideline from Section 508. Table 5.3 presents a list of the guidelines, along with a short description of each of the guidelines (note that the descriptions are summarised from Lazar et al., 2010a, and not a part of the Section 508 guidelines).


49

Table 5.3. Description of each of the 16 paragraphs of the Section 508 web guidelines (a) Text Equivalent (have a text equivalent for any graphical elements) (b) Synchronised Equivalent Alternatives (have captioned video, transcripts of any audio, or other alternatives for multimedia) (c) Use of Color (color should not be used as the only method for identifying elements of the web page or any data) (d) Organisation (style sheets are encouraged, but users should still be able to utilise a web page when style sheets are turned off) (e) Redundant Text Links on Server-Side Image Map and (f) Client-Side Image Maps (redundant clickable links for server-side image maps, and accessible client-side image maps are preferred) (g) and (h) Row and Column Headers (use appropriate headers and markup to allow easy navigation of a table) (i) Frames (title all frames and label all frames for easy identification and navigation, e.g., use “navigation” “main content” and “search” rather than “top” or “bottom”) (j) Screen Flicker Frequency (limit or eliminate the use of flickering, which can provoke seizures) (k) Text-Only Page Default (if a web page cannot be made accessible, provide an equivalent text-only page, and make sure it is kept up to date) (l) Scripting Languages (make sure that equivalents for any non-accessible scripting are included, e.g., for those who are not using pointing devices) (m) Linked Plug-In or Applet (if any plug-ins are required, make sure to provide a link to an accessible version of the plug-in) (n) Online Electronic Forms (all forms must be properly labeled and accessible) (o) Method to Skip Repetitive Navigation Links (all web pages should have a link which allows a user to skip directly to the main content, bypassing any site navigation information) (p) Alerts on Timed Responses (if any page responses are timed, the user should be given the opportunity to indicate that more time is needed)

For this evaluation, we selected the pages used to create a blog as well as the main interface for managing the blog in both Blogger and WordPress (refer to Table 5.4). Table 5.4. Web pages on blogger and WordPress selected for evaluation Blogger.com Web Pages: Home page “Get started” page to create an account Page to name the blog Page to choose the template Blog management page

WordPress.com Web Pages: Home page Page to create an account Blog management page

For each web page, four individuals did a separate inspection using a screen reader, followed-up by a code inspection. After doing an individual inspection, the four individuals met, discussed the differences between their individual evaluations, interpreted, re-inspected the pages, and then agreed upon one common

Wentz et al.

50

evaluation for each web page. This is a common approach to provide a higher level of validity than a single individual review (Nielson and Mack, 1994). 5.3.2.2 Results of the Accessibility Evaluations The accessibility evaluation revealed some major accessibility barriers with the registration process and the management interface for both Blogger and WordPress. Each page that was evaluated had at least some minor accessibility violations. Some of the violations for Blogger included images with no alternate text (paragraph “a”), tables with headers that were missing mark-up (paragraph “h”), labels that were not properly associated with their controls, and poor error labeling (paragraph “n”). Blogger also violated paragraph “c” by using color alone to identify information on the “Get Started” page. During the blog template selection process, paragraph “l” was violated by the template selection feature being inaccessible with the keyboard alone. On the main page to manage the blog, Blogger violated paragraph “b” (with no caption for the video on how to use Blogger), paragraph “g” (with no headers in a table), and paragraph “l” (drop-down selections for text formatting were created using inaccessibly implemented JavaScript). On WordPress, the home page was missing alternate text for images (paragraph “a”), and a search form field was not properly labeled (paragraph “n”). On the sign-up page, color alone was used to convey meaning (paragraph “c”), there was a table without header information (paragraph “h”), there was a scripted drop-down list on a form that was not accessible (paragraph “l”), and there was another search form field that was not labeled (paragraph “n”). There were many violations on the main blog management page (7 out of 16 paragraphs), including missing alternate text (paragraph “a”), no captions for the tutorial video (paragraph “b”), missing headers for tables (paragraph “h”), untitled frames (paragraph “i”), a JavaScript “admin” bar that was not accessible (paragraph “l”), and no way to skip over navigational links to reach the main content (paragraph “o”). Figure 5.3 shows a screenshot of the JavaScript “admin” bar on the main blog management page which was only accessible by using a mouse.

Figure 5.3. Inaccessible “admin” bar in WordPress


51

5.4 Discussion The major usability problems discovered during the usability testing process of the Blogger and WordPress interfaces are primarily simple issues that could easily be corrected by developers and could have been avoided through some basic usability evaluations of these interfaces. As far as the audio CAPTCHA plug-in problem with Blogger, it is ironic that Google owns both Blogger and reCAPTCHA, which is a company that develops CAPTCHAs for commercial use. The audio CAPTCHAs produced by reCAPTCHA use embedded audio, and while they may have usability problems related to audio CAPTCHAs in general (Lazar et al., 2010b), at least the external plug-in to play the CAPTCHA could be avoided. The accessibility problems identified during the accessibility evaluations of the Blogger and WordPress registration and management processes were also problems that could easily be corrected. Adding alternate text, adding labels to form fields, adding skip navigation links, and adding headers to tables are all very simple tasks for web designers. A basic accessibility evaluation would reveal these problems, and evaluations at regular intervals could prevent problems like these from occurring in the future. Companies who provide products such as Blogger and WordPress, and anyone who uses these products should be aware of these accessibility and usability problems. The impact of web-based blogs is far-reaching, and simply paying attention to the design of these common templates could significantly improve the online experience of millions of users.

5.5 Conclusions A few of the problems uncovered in this study could affect both blind and sighted users to some extent (such as the “Post Comment” problem in WordPress): however, navigating with only a keyboard and screen reader causes many of these problems to become significant. Designers should carefully follow national guidelines such as those set forth in US Section 508 and international guidelines such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Regular accessibility evaluations and usability testing would ensure that these popular blogging platforms are equally accessible to all users.

5.6 References American Foundation for the Blind (2010) Is blogging accessible to people with vision loss? Available at: http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=57&DocumentID=2753 (Accessed 13 December 2010) Lazar J, Beavan P, Brown J, Coffey D, Nolf B, Poole R et al. (2010a). Investigating the accessibility of state government web sites in Maryland. In: Langdon PM, Clarkson PJ, Robinson P (eds.) Designing inclusive interactions. Springer, London, UK, pp 69-78

52

Wentz et al.

Lazar J, Feng J, Adelegan O, Giller A, Hardsock A, Horney R et al. (2010b) Assessing the usability of the new radio clip-based human interaction proofs. In: Poster Presentation at the 6th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2010), Redmond, WA, US Mankoff J, Fait H, Tran T (2005) Is your web page accessible? A comparative study of methods for assessing web page accessibility for the blind. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR, US, pp 41-50 National Federation of the Blind (2011) How many children in America are not taught to read? Available at: http://www.nfb.org/nfb/braille_initiative.asp (Accessed 5 May 2011) Nielson J, Mack R (1994) Usability inspection methods. John Wiley and Sons, NY, US Peltier J (2009) Which blogging platform do you use? Available at: http://peltiertech.com/WordPress/which-blogging-platform-do-you-use/ (Accessed 5 December 2010) US Government (2010) Section 508 standards guide. Available at: http://www.section508.gov/ index.cfm?fuseAction=stdsdoc#Web (Accessed 5 May 2011) WebAIM (2010) Screen reader user survey #3 results. Available at: http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/ (Accessed 5 January 2011) Accessibility (2011) WordPress.org. Available at: http://codex.WordPress.org/Accessibility (Accessed 15 January 2011) World Health Organization (2011) Visual impairment and blindness. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/ (Accessed 5 May 2011)

Part II

Measuring Demand and Capabilities

Chapter 6 A Population Perspective on Mobile Phone Related Tasks M. Bradley, S. Waller, J. Goodman-Deane, I. Hosking, R. Tenneti, P.M. Langdon and P.J. Clarkson

6.1 Introduction For design to be truly inclusive, it needs to take into account the range of users’ capabilities. To do this appropriately, good data on those capabilities is needed. This paper reports on results from a postcode sampled survey of 362 people. The survey examined a wide range of user capabilities and characteristics, but the paper focuses on just a few of the survey measures. These measures examine some of the component activities involved in using mobile telephones: selection of a menu item via two different interaction patterns, use of differing sized pushbutton controls and insertion of two different types of electrical connector. These results can help to inform more inclusive design of mobile phones by examining how people’s capability to perform these activities varies across different activities and by age and gender. The survey from which this paper draws its data, aimed to test methods and materials in preparation for a follow-up survey with a bigger sample. Although the data in this paper was taken from a preparatory survey, there were 362 participants, and this sample size is big enough to achieve statistical significance for the conclusions drawn. Further details of how the survey was designed and conducted are now presented, followed by details of the specific tests that are reported here. Related research is also presented for each specific test.

6.2 Method The survey examined a wide range of human capabilities and characteristics related to product use. It was part of the i~design research programme (i~design, 2011). It was designed by the i~design research team, and conducted by the National Centre for


55

56

Bradley et al.

Social Research (NatCen). NatCen is a non-commercial professional survey organisation. 30 professional interviewers from NatCen conducted the actual surveys, and each interviewer received one day’s training supervised by the i~design team.

6.2.1 Sample The sample was recruited through random selection of private-household postcodes in England and Wales. Invitation letters were sent out to 990 postcode addresses, and each property was subsequently visited by one of the interviewers. At households that consented to take part, the interviewer selected a single occupant at random from those aged 16 and over, and the participants were not paid. 362 responses were obtained, and 53.6% of these were female. 23% of the sample were aged 16-34, 29% were aged 3549, 24% were aged 50-64 and 23% were aged over 65.

6.2.2 Survey Procedure The survey was conducted face-to-face using a computer assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) programme on a laptop. The survey examined a wide range of areas of human capability and product use: vision, hearing, dexterity, mobility, reach, cognitive function, technology/product use, psychological resources, and anthropometrics. The survey aimed to gather generic information that could be used to predict participants' ability to interact with products. Some of the tests were therefore designed to elicit information on participants’ basic capabilities, which are relevant to many aspects of product interaction. For example, vision tests measured participants’ visual acuity, which affects performance at a range of product tasks, such as reading text on a mobile phone screen and reading a manual. However, the survey also included some specific product tasks that require a combination of basic capabilities. For example, the ability to press particular buttons on a mobile phone was measured directly, because this typically requires hand-eye coordination and fingertip sensitivity. This paper focuses on the product tasks in the survey that relate specifically to mobile telephone use: selection of a menu item via two different interaction patterns, use of differing sized pushbutton controls and insertion of two different types of electrical connector. These measures are described in more detail below. Many of the other measures in the survey are also relevant to mobile phone use and design. The full results from the survey and its documentation are publicly available: please contact [email protected] for details.

6.2.3 Menu Selection As part of the survey, participants were presented with two interface styles for selecting an item from a list. We use the term ‘select and confirm’ to refer to an interface in which users navigate up and down the list using arrow keys and press a ‘select’ key when they reach their choice (Figure 6.1a). Similarly, ‘number navigation’ refers to an interface in which users choose an item by entering the number next to it (Figure 6.1b).

A Population Perspective on Mobile Phone Related Tasks

(a)

57

(b)

Figure 6.1. Mock-up paper prototype mobile phone interfaces used to assess (a) Select and confirm (b) Number navigation interaction styles

The ‘select and confirm’ style is more common in mobile telephones, but previous studies have indicated that some users experience problems with it. Lindholm and Keinonen (2003) describe how novice users can initially struggle with the concept of soft keys in interfaces of this type but this can be overcome through practice. The widespread adoption of this interface style for technology products means that many younger people are familiar with it, but many older users may still have limited or no experience with it. These older users are therefore more likely to struggle with this menu style. This difficulty was specifically observed for older users in digital set-boxes for television (Clarkson and Keates, 2003), which often have ‘select and confirm’ menus. Clarkson and Keates recommended the use of number lists as an alternative approach. Our study thus investigated whether the ‘number navigation’ approach could overcome the problems that some users experience with ‘select and confirm’. We expected that younger users would be experienced and proficient at using ‘select and confirm’ menus and that many older users (aged 65+) would not. The more direct interaction of ‘number navigation’, which requires only one key press to select a menu item, could be advantageous for such novices. These interaction styles were presented to users using a simplified paper prototyping method (Snyder, 2003). Respondents were shown images of mobile telephones with these interfaces (Figure 6.1), and were asked to indicate which buttons they would press to see what information is in the calendar. The order in which the interfaces were presented was counter-balanced. The interviewer scored whether the correct buttons were pressed in the correct order. The ‘number navigation’ interface requires fewer physical buttons to implement than the ‘select and confirm’ interface, and this reduction of complexity represents a confounding variable. However, the decision was made to present both types of user interface with the minimum number of buttons required to implement basic phone functionality. If this test revealed a useful performance difference, this could offer realworld benefit for the user. The test was limited by using a simplified paper prototyping method, where the participant was not given any feedback on button presses. This was necessitated by practical constraints; the survey was conducted by 30 different interviewers and with only one day of training to cover the whole survey, it was not feasible to train them to

58

Bradley et al.

reliably run any type of interactive prototyping. This limitation should be taken into account in interpreting the results, as failure rates on the tasks are likely to be higher without feedback to the user. However, the method was intended to measure whether, on first sight of an interface, the user’s first attempt to plan and execute the task would involve any incorrect or unnecessary actions. Even if a user could eventually succeed in a goal through trial, error and recovery, an interface that allows users to get it right first time is preferable. Another factor that should be taken into consideration is that ‘number navigation’ requires fewer key presses, and thus presents fewer opportunities for the user to make a mistake. This is a potential confounding variable which is hard to eliminate in a simple experiment of this type. The decision was made to present the user interfaces in a form that is likely to be used in practice. This has the advantage that, if there is a useful performance difference, then the improved interface can be incorporated in an actual mobile phone, even if there is potential uncertainty about the underlying reason for the benefit.

6.2.4 Pressing Buttons The survey also assessed participants’ ability to use differing sized pushbutton controls on a mobile telephone. The participants were presented with an LG KP170 mobile phone with a small five way keypad and four larger surrounding pushbuttons (Figure 6.2). They were shown the five way keypad and asked to press four of the keypad arrows, in the order of up, right, down and centre (‘OK’ button). They were then asked to press the four larger outer buttons in the order of bottom left, top left, top right and bottom right. After each task, the interviewer recorded whether the correct screen was shown. For the first task, this indicated whether the respondent had pressed the buttons correctly in the specified order. However, an experimental weakness meant that, for the second task, this only indicated whether the last of the buttons had been pressed correctly. Any participant who tried the task was also asked to rate how easy they found the task on a six point scale from very easy to impossible. They were not given any feedback on whether they had successfully completed the task before making this assessment. We expected participants (particularly older participants) to perform better with the large buttons, in accordance with Fitts’ Law (Fitts, 1954), because they require less accurate finger positioning and dexterity.

Five way keypad

Large outer buttons

Figure 6.2. LG KP170 mobile phone showing the buttons used in the study

A Population Perspective on Mobile Phone Related Tasks

59

6.2.5 Inserting Cables Participants were also tested on their ability to insert two different types of electrical connector. Participants inserted two connectors into an MP3 player (a Sansa Clip+): a 3.5mm headphone jack plug and a mini-USB plug (Figure 6.3). An MP3 player was used for purposes of experimental convenience, but it was felt that the task of insertion would not differ from that experienced on a mobile phone. Firstly, the MP3 player and headphone jack socket location were shown to the participants. They were then given the MP3 player and the headphone jack plug and were asked to insert the jack into the socket. The test was aborted if the participant took longer than 15 seconds. The participants were then shown the mini-USB socket location on the MP3 player, and the mini-USB jack (at a random but incorrect rotational orientation). They were handed the MP3 player the right way up with the mini-USB jack on top of it with the mini-USB symbol visible, and were asked to insert the jack in the indicated socket. After each task, the interviewer recorded whether the jack was inserted correctly. Participants who did the task successfully also rated how easy they found the task on a six point scale from very easy to very difficult.

Figure 6.3. MP3 player showing headphone jack and mini-USB sockets and plugs

We expected participants to perform better with the headphone jack than with the mini-USB cable because the jack on the mini-USB needs to be rotated to the correct orientation before insertion, but the headphone jack can be inserted in any orientation.

6.3 Results and Discussion 6.3.1 Menu Selection Results Overall, more people completed the ‘select and confirm’ task successfully than the ‘number navigation task’ (p

Designing Inclusive Systems: Designing Inclusion for Real-world Applications

Designing Inclusive Futures

Designing Interactive Systems

Designing Microsoft® Asp.Net Applications

Designing Relational Database Systems

Designing fuzzy logic systems

Designing Management Information Systems

Designing cdma2000 Systems

Designing Collaborative Systems

Designing Scalable .NET Applications

Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible Environments

Designing for Emotion

Designing Sound for Animation

Designing Sound for Animation

Designing for Emotion

Designing Sound for Animation

Designing Sound for Animation

Designing for XOOPS

Designing for Emotion

Designing for XOOPS

Designing Interactive Systems, 2nd Edition

Designing Data-Intensive Web Applications

Designing Berlin

Designing Hearts

Designing Dendrimers

Designing Magazines

Designing Hearts

Designing Interfaces

Designing Interfaces

Designing Interfaces

Designing Dendrimers

Designing Inclusive Systems: Designing Inclusion for Real-world Applications

Designing Inclusive Futures

Designing Interactive Systems

Designing Microsoft® Asp.Net Applications

Designing Relational Database Systems

Designing fuzzy logic systems

Designing Management Information Systems

Designing cdma2000 Systems

Designing Collaborative Systems

Designing Scalable .NET Applications

Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible Environments

Designing for Emotion

Designing Sound for Animation

Designing Sound for Animation

Designing for Emotion

Designing Sound for Animation

Designing Sound for Animation

Designing for XOOPS

Designing for Emotion

Designing for XOOPS

Designing Interactive Systems, 2nd Edition

Designing Data-Intensive Web Applications

Designing Berlin

Designing Hearts

Designing Dendrimers

Designing Magazines

Designing Hearts

Designing Interfaces

Designing Interfaces

Designing Interfaces

Designing Dendrimers

Recommend Documents