In section II.1.5, the analysis of factors influencing the use of technologies has showed that usability problems of interactive technologies can have a negative impact on acceptance and adoption of technologies by older adults. In order to improve the usability of interactive systems and interaction techniques on touchscreen, tactile interaction should be appropriately designed and evaluated. In order to find elements to address our Research Question 3, in this section, we review HCI studies on design and evaluation of tactile interaction for older adults.
Design and evaluation of interactive systems and interaction II.3.1.
techniques
We made a systematic review on studies evaluating interaction of older adults with touchscreens. We selected 36 studies published between 2000 and 2013 on scientific journals and peer-reviewed conferences from HCI and also from ergonomics, healthcare and computer science research (such as ACM CHI, Int. Journal of HCI, BCS-HCI, INTERACT, Gestures Workshop, Universal Access on HCI, ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, Universal Access on the Information Society, Journal of Applied Gerontology, Ergonomics, Human factors and Ergonomics Society, USAB, Engineering of Interaction on Computer Science).
In our review, we try to identify the characteristics of the studied populations, the procedures of the studies (touchscreen devices and tasks), the interaction techniques that were designed and investigated and the evaluation criteria employed in the studies analyzed. Additionally, we search for the aspects of the situations of the studies that could interfere on interaction performances, the errors of interaction that have been reported and the solutions that have been proposed by the studies’ authors.
Populations II.3.1.1
The studies reviewed included three to 85 older adults as participants aged from 50 to 94 years old.
14 studies only had older participants (Gonçalves and Ueyama, 2012; Harada et al., 2013; Hwangbo et al., 2013; Jin et al., 2007; Kobayashi et al., 2011; J. Lee et al., 2009; Leitao and Silva, 2013; Leonard et al., 2005; Mertens and Jochems, 2010; Nicolau and Jorge, 2012; Tsai and Lee, 2009; Umemuro, 2004; Wacharamanotham, 2011; Wood et al., 2005). The other studies compared different age groups.
According to the studies comparing older and younger users, age is a significant predictor of performance. Usually, older adults took longer times for completing the tasks and made more errors than younger participants (M. K. Chung et al., 2010; Findlater et al., 2013; Hourcade and Berkel, 2006; Kobayashi et al., 2011). Authors who assessed participants’ skills before the experiments demonstrated that manual dexterity (Jin et al., 2007), visual impairment (Leonard et al., 2005) or attention and concentration capabilities (Tsai and Lee, 2009) are also predictors of performance.
Users’ skills have been measured by means of self-report or evaluation methods.
Sometimes, these measures were used to determine inclusion or exclusion criteria (e.g., users with low dexterity or visual impairments are not included as participants). Table II.3 summarizes subjects’ skills assessed before the experiments, assessment tests and inclusion criteria.
The incidence of sensory, cognitive or motor impairments increases with ageing (Caprani et al., 2012). Even though, most of the studies we analyzed (18) included only able-bodied older adults.
Table II.3 HCI studies: Subjects’ skills assessed for the experiments, assessment tests and inclusion criteria in the studies analyzed
Assessed skills Pre-experiment tests Inclusion criteria Sensorial skills Six studies assessed visual acuity.
Eight studies assessed auditory skills;
four of them provided audio feedback.
Visual or hearing acuity were assessed through tests (Charness et al., 2004;
Leonard et al., 2005) or participants were just questioned about it.
One included visually impaired subjects (age-related macular degeneration – AMD) (Leonard et al., 2005).
Two studies included users wearing hearing aids
Cognitive skills Ten studies assessed cognitive skills.
Attention and concentration capabilities were assessed through computer assisted tests or standardized measures (Charness et al., 2004; Jastrzembski et al., 2005; Rogers et al., 2005; Tsai and Lee, 2009; Wood et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2000).
Fourteen studies assessed motor skills or manual dexterity.
Different tests have been used: Purdue Pegboard test, Grooved Pegboard test or paper folding test for manual dexterity (Jin et al., 2007; Leonardi et al., 2010;
Moffatt and McGrenere, 2007; Wood et al., 2005), Digit Symbol Substitution with lower manual dexterity according to the results of pre-experiment tests (Jin et al., 2007;
Nicolau and Jorge, 2012; Wright et al., 2000).
2007), Operations on calculators were used to measure keyboard dexterity (Wright et al., 2000).
Archimedes spiral drawing (Nicolau and Jorge, 2012; Wacharamanotham,
2011), accelerometers
(Wacharamanotham, 2011) or Nine holes steadiness test were used to measure tremor (Moffatt and McGrenere, 2007; Wacharamanotham, 2011).
The different performances of participants during interaction with technologies can also be related to the user’s background. Sixteen authors questioned the participants about their personal history, including attitudes towards technologies, health conditions, levels of education and reading skills.
Previous experience with computers, Internet, mobile phones or touchscreen devices was considered as a factor influencing the performances of older users for several studies (e.g., (M. K. Chung et al., 2010; Findlater et al., 2013; Kobayashi et al., 2011;
Stößel, 2009)). Table II.4 shows the studies in which users were questioned about their previous experience with information and communication technologies (ICTs) and interactive technologies. In five of these studies, previous experience with technologies was as criteria for inclusion or exclusion of participants (Kobayashi et al., 2011; Leonard et al., 2005; Nicole Schneider et al., 2008; Stößel et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2005). This information was assessed by self-report, interview or standardized questionnaires (Nicole Schneider et al., 2008).
Table II.4 HCI studies: Users’ previous experience with ICTs and interactive technologies and the inclusion criteria adopted in the studies analyzed
Kind of technologies
Assessment of users’ previous experience with technologies
Experienced subjects included on the study
Computers 6 studies
(Findlater et al., 2013; Kobayashi et al., 2011; Leonard et al., 2005; Nicole Schneider et al., 2008; Stößel et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2005)
5 studies
(Kobayashi et al., 2011; Leonard et al., 2005; Nicole Schneider et al., 2008; Stößel et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2005)
Mobile phones 5 studies
(Harada et al., 2013; Kobayashi et al., 2011; J. Lee et al., 2009; Leonard et
(Findlater et al., 2013; Harada et al., 2013; Kobayashi et al., 2011)