applying user centred and participatory design approaches ... user... · following an overview of...
TRANSCRIPT
Corresponding author:
Christopher R.
pdronline.co.uk
centred and participatory
Applying userdesign approaches to commercial productdevelopmentChristopher R. Wilkinson, National Centre for Product Design &
Development Research, Cardiff Metropolitan University,
Cardiff CF5 2YB, UK
Antonella De Angeli, Department of Information Engineering and Computer
Science, University of Trento, I-38123 Povo, Italy
Traditional design approaches have been accused of failing to engage with users
in the design process: compromising commercial opportunity and the
interactional experience of users. Alternatively, a participatory design approach
was applied to the generation of ideas for new product opportunities in the active
wheelchair user market and to the initial stages of a European project aiming to
develop an intelligent mobility aid for older people. Users were acutely aware of
problems with existing technology or designs, and including them during early
discussion and design stages was shown to facilitate new concept generation.
This highly transferable approach enhances the user experience and commercial
potential of products and services, and will be of interest to product
manufacturers, designers, and researchers, alike.
� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: product design, HCI, interaction design, user participation, user
centred design
Literature suggests that traditionally the views of individual users, and
particularly older people, were not sought to inform the design pro-
cess (Hansen, Percival, Aldred, Brownsell, & Hawley, 2007). This
lack of involvement in the design and evaluation stages of product develop-
ment may be responsible for causing some of the generational and age-
related issues that preclude a large proportion of the populace interacting
with products and may explain older peoples’ reluctance to engage with
new technology. Individuals’ views are not sought and, accordingly, designers
fail to realise and cater effectively for their specific needs. This, in turn, may
manifest itself in reluctance on behalf of this market to purchase or interact
with many forms of modern technology (Figure 1).
Lewis, Langdon, and Clarkson (2006) observed that designers were typically
male and able-bodied, and a more recent survey of the UK design industry re-
inforced concerns regarding a lack of diversity within the design community
itself. The survey revealed that the average UK designer is male, white, and
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
0142-694X Design Studies 35 (2014) 614e631
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.06.001 614� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Figure 1 Cycle of design over-
sight influencing the uptake
and engagement of technology
(Wilkinson, 2011)
Applying user centred an
38 years old, with only 7% of UK designers coming from ethnic minority
backgrounds (Design Council, 2010). The concern expressed was that de-
signers may assume that all users possess the same cognitive and physical abil-
ities as themselves, and a failure to connect with all potential user groups may
risk alienating or excluding significant proportions of the population.
As well as being ill-judged, alienation and exclusion also make poor business
sense. Failing to engage with potential users or user groups that may form part
of an increasingly influential market force potentially misses a commercial
design opportunity. Developing products that cater more effectively for a
larger demographic widens the commercial market, benefits a larger cross-
section of society, and makes both commercial and ethical sense. User involve-
ment within the design process is seen as the key solution to affect
such an outcome. Including a wider and more representative sample of
end-users e able-bodied and less-able bodied users, children, and the elderly
e at early stages of the design process, removes the need of designers to rely
on their own knowledge or skill sets as personal points of reference. Indeed,
catering for diversity within the target market should not be a unique
approach; it should be prerequisite for all design and a natural component
within requirements specification. Design should consider the user as an indi-
vidual, possessing individual aptitudes, experiences, and other human charac-
teristics, accounting for the abilities and limitations of all potential users.
Products designed in this way will be capable of being used by people with
the widest possible range of abilities, within the widest range of situations,
reaching most, if not all, potential end users.
Following an overview of the distinctions between the different user-focussed
approaches available, this article details two exploratory and collaborative
d participatory design approaches 615
616
projects in the United Kingdom and in Italy. Common themes were apparent
across both projects that highlighted the importance of involving users
throughout the process to understand in greater detail the impact of design
upon user self-perception and self-esteem. The findings presented have direct
implications upon product acceptability, uptake and adoption; critical factors
that ultimately influence the potential commercial success of every designed
and developed product or service.
1 The development of user centric designUser-centred design (UCD), and specifically inclusive design, is an approach
that aims to create interfaces, artefacts, products, and services that are appli-
cable, appropriate, and accessible to as many users as possible within the con-
straints of the design specification (Keates & Clarkson, 2003). Also referred to
as Universal Design, it attempts to optimise product and service design for
maximum accessibility and make ‘.mainstream design accessible to everyone’
(Pullin, 2011, p. 2). The intention is that this approach will provide salient so-
lutions that work as effectively for less able users as they do for more able
users. Similarly, participatory design aims to develop technologies with the
close involvement of stakeholders and end-users through cycles of require-
ments gathering, prototype development, implementation, and evaluation
(Sharma et al., 2008). To inform the design and development process, it is
important to capture user information and feedback ideally at every stage,
with input from everyone involved; users, designers and stakeholders. Partic-
ipatory design approaches can be seen as attempts to better understand and
involve real users, and as imperative and important in creating more appro-
priate, and user friendly products or services (Lindgaard et al., 2006;
Muller, 2002). The importance of individual input is also reflected in
Sanders (2002) notion of participatory design as a belief that all people have
something to offer at every stage of the design process and that when given
the appropriate tools with which to express themselves, they can be both artic-
ulate, creative, and inspirational, in terms of generating new ideas and in
developing current thinking. This research, then, attempts to appreciate the
diverse needs and requirements of two specific demographics by involving
them within a process that will foster such ideation, and these insights can
then be used to develop products or tools that are more immediately accessible
and usable to a wider proportion of the population (Etchell & Yelding, 2001).
1.1 Investigating context of use and prior experienceWithin user centred and participatory design, consideration of individuals’
prior experience and other factors such as the context of use and environment
of interaction are required to create truly usable and inclusive products, and
are key considerations in the performance of usability evaluations (Nielsen,
1993). The fact that design practice is resource constrained, often in terms
of time, financial investment, and professional expertise, causes user involve-
ment to be seen as an expensive luxury that is not always necessary (Grudin,
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 November 2014
Applying user centred an
1991). However, from a commercial management perspective, involving users
within the process can immediately improve the applicability, acceptance, and
adoption of the end design, and consequently has the potential to reduce devel-
opment risk. Mayhew (1999) advocated consideration of users’ physical char-
acteristics, knowledge and experience, widening this to include users’
psychological characteristics. By understanding these factors, and applying
them within design, the potential exists to increase the long-term profitability
of product manufacturers and enhance the competitive edge of companies,
whilst assisting in the production of better products for all users.
1.2 Applying user centred design in an experimental settingOne approach to achieve product differentiation is to examine how humans
learn and interact with interfaces and designs, and by understanding more
about how learning occurs, use this knowledge to influence future design in
terms of ease of learning, use, and access to all. Both projects presented
were exemplary in their aim to involve, consider and understand their respec-
tive user groups e older people and wheelchair users e from the beginning of
the design and development process, and beyond.
2 Case study one: intelligent mobility aidIn 2008 more people were aged over the age of 60 than under 18 years of age in
the United Kingdom, and in 2010 more than 20% of the populations of Ger-
many and Italy were over 65. By 2066 it is predicted that half a million people
in the UK will be over the age of 100, and this reflects European trends
(Population Trends, 2010). Ageing is associated with a decrease in mobility
and social interaction, and this can have detrimental effects upon access to
good nutrition, leisure, and other activities. Increasing the mobility of older
adults increases opportunities for social interaction and has positive effects
upon individual health and well-being. However, older adults may be less
confident in their ability to go out independently in unfamiliar and crowded
spaces. The Devices for Assisted Living (DALi) project pursued autonomous
mobility through the development of a mobility aid that supports navigation
in crowded and unstructured spaces by acquiring sensory information, antic-
ipating the intent of the individual or user, and determining a path that poses
minimal risk of collision.
Studies have reported how older individuals fail to recognise modern features
and iconography, suggesting the existence of a generational effect causing
modern symbols and interactional styles to be most suited to those 25 years
and younger (Langdon et al., 2010; Wilkinson et al., 2013). Elderly users
also performed less well in interface information retrieval tasks which required
searching hierarchical structures in comparison to younger adults
(Freudenthal, 2001). Such findings may explain the difficulties experienced
by older generations interacting with a variety of products and designs that
employ menu-driven systems whilst they experience a general decline in their
d participatory design approaches 617
618
cognitive and physical abilities. With the potential to incorporate state-of-the-
art technology within the design of assistive technologies, any technology must
be integrated seamlessly and satisfy the expectations and abilities of the target-
market. The following model is not dissimilar to the International Standard
for Human-Centred Design of Interactive Systems (ISO 9241-210:2010), but
is arguably more modest and emphasises the way in which the participatory
design group can and, ideally, should be involved throughout every stage of
the design process (Figure 2).
One initial task for the team developing the intelligent mobility device was to
examine how older users currently used walking-aids to assist in daily tasks
such as shopping, and how people in such shared environments reacted to
them. Initial laboratory studies investigated how a group of 25 students inter-
acted within the same shared space e in this instance, a simulated shopping
environment. How these activities were planned and executed, and how subse-
quent interaction was influenced was revealed by video-recording participants’
physical behaviour, and with the use of talk-aloud protocols capturing both
the thought and decision making processes that occurred. Further studies
were envisaged to observe older users engaged in the task of shopping to inves-
tigate and discuss exactly what the task of shopping means to older people,
how they currently approach the task, and how technology could be developed
to assist them effectively. Other insight streams involved liaison with a partic-
ipatory design group of older people, and correspondence with two UK super-
markets who revealed how the design of their stores may impact directly upon
older customers.
2.1 Methodology: mobility aid studyThe experimental design aimed to capture information regarding how people
interact in confined environments, how they negotiate shared space interac-
tion, and how they behave in relation to other agents in shared space.
The participant sample consisted of 25 university students. Each participant
was recorded whilst involved in a shared space interaction task. 20 of
these participants also completed a post-experimental questionnaire regarding
their shopping behaviour. The overall sample consisted of 6 females and 19
males.
Specific techniques were identified and selected for use in the study, as their
ability to obtain objective data in such scenarios is well documented
(Muller, 2002). Data capture thus involved the use of:
� Concurrent protocol provided by participants whilst completing tasks
� Video-recorded observation of interaction and behaviour during task
completion
� Questionnaire completion after task execution
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 November 2014
Figure 2 Placing the partici-
patory design group at the
core of the design process
allows users to inform the
design process as a whole
Applying user centred an
These verbalisation and data capture techniques have been found to be partic-
ularly effective when conducting experimental investigations (Jarke, Bui, &
Caroll, 1998). The concurrent or talk-aloud protocol e a narration of thought
and action e was adopted as literature suggests the alternative retrospective
protocol (where participants return to view and comment upon their recorded
experience) may not accurately reveal participants actual task performance
experience (Hands, Avons, & Davidoff, 2001). Furthermore, concurrent pro-
tocol participants have been found to go into greater detail and provide more
in-depth evaluations (Teague, de Jesus, & Nunes-Ueno, 2001).
2.2 Analysis of concurrent protocol and questionnairematerialThe questionnaire data confirmed that in this simulated environment, partic-
ipants used eye contact and peripheral vision to facilitate interaction with
other agents, and social conventions were observed with the visual system ap-
pearing a key factor in terms of product determination, agent awareness, and
collision avoidance strategies. Shopping for convenience appeared to exert an
influence on shopping behaviour with a significant proportion of participants
deviating from the list provided. Having initially observed the location of all
items, participants often proceeded to shop, either for the nearest items, or
to avoid other participants positioned at shopping stations, returning later.
Critical instances within the verbal protocols were pre-defined as any reference
to physical, visual or auditory agent-to-agent awareness or interaction, and
these were then mapped to the video-footage to explore the physical interac-
tions described. Analysis of these critical instances allowed them to be categor-
ised by a single observer into two groups, namely: Active Behaviours and
Reactive Behaviours. Active behaviours were considered to be behaviours em-
ployed to understand the environment and determine goal strategies towards
d participatory design approaches 619
620
task completion, environmental awareness and negotiation, mainly focussing
around the visual modality:
1. Eye-to-eye negotiation of immediate shared space interaction
2. Use of peripheral vision in assessment
3. Visual scanning of environment
4. Verbal interaction
Alternatively, Reactive behaviours were considered as the reactions of agents
in the environment to other agents; the physical reactive movements made to
accommodate other agents and successful interaction:
5. Waiting for free space or desired location to become clear
6. Stepping backwards to allow others more room/free space
7. Moving forwards to allow others more room/free space
8. Stationary agent yielding to moving agent
9. Move left
10. Move right
Determining in this study what the most frequently occurring responses were
during interaction permitted the contemplation of how similar findings might
be used in the future should the developed studies yield similar results, as well
as informing how subsequent data capture may be performed in more ecolog-
ical settings involving older participants.
2.3 Overcoming stigmatisation by designUser acceptability is one of the fundamental requirements of assistive technol-
ogy stated by older and less able-bodied users. Therefore one of the great chal-
lenges is that of developing technology which is usable and acceptable by users
with a diverse set of needs and capabilities. This is particularly true when such
reliance is placed upon the visual modality; a modality that is renowned for
deteriorating with age. Similarly, to assume that individuals will use an assis-
tive technology purely because they need it is misguided (Hirsch et al., 2000).
This notion was evident in the initial exchanges with the participatory design
group members: ‘I don’t need a walker’ was a common response of partici-
pants in the project who felt that they would be stigmatised by association
with any form of assistive technology. Overcoming these challenges, then,
can only be achieved by understanding in greater detail the complexities and
holistic experience of potential users through direct user involvement
throughout the design process.
3 Case study two: wheelchair product designDesign for the active wheelchair user market also shares common aims in
terms of facilitating personal independence, social, and physical, mobility.
In order to rapidly gain insights into the needs and requirements of wheelchair
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 November 2014
Applying user centred an
users, a user focus group was organised at the initial stages of the development
process.
With the aim to develop a wheelchair product for athletic users, four active
wheelchair users were approached to contribute towards the initial require-
ments analysis and specification stages. Being professional, international para-
lympians, these four individuals were considered lead users as their use and
demands from a product are seen to be ahead of the market (Von Hippel,
1986). Further, these users are adept at envisioning the particular benefits
that new products will create for themselves and other users of such assistive
technology. However, it is acknowledged that for true empirical integrity,
these lead users who are arguably at the extreme end of the user group should
be counterbalanced by less able wheelchair users who may experience a
different range of issues. By way of example, this article presents the initial
approach to requirements gathering in an exploration of user needs, percep-
tions, and requirements, applied to the wheelchair study. The intention is
that this inclusive, participatory, approach can be seen to be of value in obtain-
ing a more accurate picture of user requirements and reactions to prototypical
design solutions and, in a wider context, will contribute towards the explor-
ative development of assistive technology that is more usable, understandable,
and intuitive, to a larger market.
Following the participatory inclusive design and lead user approach detailed
above, a consultation with the four active wheelchair users was organised to
inform the requirements analysis of the development process. Being an author-
ity on wheelchair product design, these users are well qualified to highlight the
strengths and weaknesses of current wheelchair designs and features. Access-
ing this knowledge early on assists in the creation of design solutions that are
in greater harmony with users’ needs and desires, and can help in identifying
new market drivers. Due to the commercial sensitivities expressed by the
commissioning body, it is difficult to provide a detailed report of the experi-
mental findings. However, an overview of the process and a summary of the
wheelchair study results are presented to show how the inclusive and partici-
patory design method can be used to maximise design insight acquisition.
3.1 Methodology: wheelchair product design studyQualitative techniques were used initially to gather rich information upon
product perception, performance, and use. The methodology consisted of
performing:
� A survey of participants perceived needs from products
� A semi-structured interview and cognitive walkthrough focussing on daily
tasks that included a discussion of ‘future product use’
� Observational research in a controlled environment including talk-aloud
protocol
d participatory design approaches 621
622
All four participantsmet in a bespoke observation laboratory that allowed them
to interact with each other and typical objects that might be found in a home
environment e tables, chairs, televisions, and computers. A total of 4 h of
footage was captured, and the analysis of these multiple datasets was intended
to provide the authors with rich insights into current and potential product use.
3.2 Analysis of survey, interview, and observational materialBoth studies followed Chi’s (1997) procedure for interpreting qualitative data,
with strict coding schemes developed and applied to transcribed material. Four
higher level themes emerged from an initial evaluation: Positive Statements,
Wants and Needs; Negative Statements and Dislikes; Participant Ideas; and In-
stances of Behaviours. Each individual verbal transcription and instance of
observational data was then classified in accordance with a five-part coding
scheme extracted from further analysis. Very strict definitions for the applica-
tion of the five-part, lower-level, coding scheme were developed and adhered to:
Independence: Instances relating to current or future products that assist or
impede independence
Reliance: Instances where the user acknowledges reliance on the product or
element thereof
Empowerment: Where a product provides, or has the potential to provide,
greater empowerment
Aesthetics: Instances where users indicate the importance of aesthetics
Functionality: Instances relating to the actual or potential functionality of a
product
It is worth attaching a note of caution to the process of coding and interpre-
tation described. Inter-coder or inter-rater reliability or agreement is the extent
to which independent coders evaluate a characteristic of a message and reach
the same conclusion and it is clearly deemed best-practice to perform such ac-
tivities by independent coders and investigate the consistency of the results to
minimise any subjective effects. Due to the preliminary nature of these studies,
the critical instances and the higher and lower level themes developed above
were only determined by single reviewers in both cases. However, in the sub-
sequent investigations that these studies informed, the importance of inter-
coder reliability would be emphasised to maximise methodological rigour
(Tinsley & Weiss, 2000).
In this example, the aim of the approach was to collect qualitative data that
could be quantified and evaluated to reveal interactional behaviour and user
experience in context. It can also be used to investigate and observe how indi-
viduals learn to operate technological products through experience, and to
identify where product design may enhance or impede this process. In this
instance, the qualitative data consisted of the complete video-footage of
each individual’s experience of interacting with the wheelchair, other agents,
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 November 2014
Applying user centred an
and objects, in the environment. The footage was observed, documented, and
presented in transcript form. The actions of each individual were then inter-
preted with regard to which construct their behaviour or verbalised response
was most indicative of.
3.3 The importance of aesthetics and empowermentThe real value of this approach is the individual insights gained rather than an
overview of occurrences, particularly with small samples. However, in this
instance, an overview does provide a useful indication of user perception and
experience regarding current wheelchair devices. The wheelchair users involved
in the study were particularly stimulated by issues of design and interaction that
impacted personal empowerment, aesthetics, and product functionality.
Figure 3 (below) indicates both the frequency of construct occurrence, and
the frame of reference; Positive, Negative, Ideation, and Observed Behaviour.
Being respectful towards the commercial sensitivities expressed, it is still useful
to expand slightly on the findings above. Within the theme of Positive State-
ments, product aesthetics was the most frequently referred to factor. Partici-
pants indicated that the aesthetic look of the device was considered of
greater importance than almost all other considerations; more important
than functionality and reliance. Participants admitted possessing a reluctance
to use features that directly addressed their medical needs if they felt those fea-
tures negatively impacted the overall aesthetic, or emphasised their disability.
Many of the empowerment issues referred to in the Negative Statements theme
indicated that the product in its current iteration could also do considerably
more to empower the user and increase personal independence.
In terms of Ideas, users were quick to suggest that new product developments
should focus on improved functionality, often with the qualification that any
new features must also look good as well as being functional. In terms of Behav-
iours, themain observations focussed on issues of Functionality, Empowerment
and Aesthetics; here the workarounds that the users employed in place of using
the correct equipment (from amedical perspective) included using an undersized
chair as it was considered more aesthetically pleasing, and not using the device’s
anti-tip features as, to the users, they gave the impression of stabilisers.
Again then, these insights are arguably only born out of direct user involve-
ment within the design process. In terms of product ideation, this interaction
and input is most effective during the early stages to maximise the efficiency of
prototypical design development, and to drive design projects towards
capturing the finalised design solution.
4 General discussionDesign must not only consider how usable or user-friendly a product is but
also how people feel when using that product or how that product, in turn,
d participatory design approaches 623
Figure 3 Frequency of
construct occurrence
624
makes them feel when using it. The goals of interaction designers are to create
interactive technologies that are enjoyable, pleasurable, motivating, and satis-
fying, and these aims are largely dependent upon users’ acceptance of technol-
ogy, their perceptions of the technology and their level of engagement with it.
Literature indicates that significant proportions of users found mobility aids
either difficult or risky to use (Mann, Ottenbacher, Fraas, Tomita, &
Granger, 1999). If users ideas of how interaction is likely to occur based on
the products design do not transfer well (the design of the device misleads
them), it is likely to result in poor product performance and ultimately product
abandonment (Phillips & Zhao, 1993). Research has shown that many
disabled people with assistive technologies have been poorly trained and often
the devices selected were inappropriate (Gitlin, 2002). This may be a contrib-
utory factor that makes products difficult and unsafe to use, and has undoubt-
edly contributed towards negative consumer perceptions of product
interaction.
4.1 Context of use and prior experienceBoth these studies take account of the context of use and the environment
within which the products may ultimately be used. The significance of the par-
ticipants’ individual prior experience was perhaps more pronounced in the
latter study exploring the development of wheelchair design for active users.
This heightened consideration of users and focus upon user involvement has
the potential to reduce development cost and create more immediately usable
and rewarding products. These factors will hopefully adjust the perception of
user centred design being seen merely as an expensive and unnecessary luxury
(Grudin, 1991).
4.2 Encouraging acceptance and overcoming stigmaMembers of the active wheelchair user group felt stigmatised by features that
identified them as less-able and this also had implications upon mental health
and self-esteem. Participants indicated that aesthetics took precedence over
almost all other considerations, often even over functionality. Furthermore,
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 November 2014
Applying user centred an
participants were reluctant to use functions that addressed their clinical needs
if they felt that they detracted from the overall aesthetic or made them look
more disabled. Participants own ideas for new product developments were
often made with the qualification that any feature or functionality must also
look good.
Similar to the concept of ‘Persuasive Design’ suggested by Girling (2012), in
this instance, there appears a reciprocal need to challenge and overcome peo-
ples thinking towards designed artefacts; it is apparent that to overcome the
stigma the participants themselves associate with walker and wheelchair use,
the design teams would have to encourage the use and acceptance of the assis-
tive technology by showing clear examples of what value it might add to their
overall user experience and daily lives. Further, finalised features and designs
must be capable of making the product appear trendy, stylish, and desirable,
to the widest possible demographic, including those with or without
impairment.
4.3 New concept generation and ideationIdeation also came from outside the experimental aspects of the investigations.
Discussion with a less able-bodied member of the mobility aid’s participatory
design group who experienced Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), revealed the
extent to which their mobility and movement were directly influenced by their
limited knowledge of access to rest rooms and toilets. Therefore, developing a
mobility aid with the functionality to detect, indicate, and navigate the user to
the nearest rest room facilities would be considered extremely incentivising. By
directly increasing the user’s mobility and confidence to travel and negotiate
busy and potentially congested environments, the benefit of using the device
would outweigh any negative perceptions of assistive technology use, and
actively encourage product adoption. Arrival at train stations and airports
is also associated with increased levels of stress (Koslowsky, Kluger, &
Reich, 1995) and an often equal sense of urgency; therefore proposing a solu-
tion that can be developed to guide people through such cognitively and phys-
ically challenging environments easily, may be an effective way of encouraging
the use and acceptance of such technology.
Liaison with two leading supermarkets in the UK revealed that older users
were not considered as a specific demographic in the design of their stores,
so any way in which the shopping experience can be improved for older users,
independently, has to be beneficial. Evidence from the participatory design
group interactions indicated that store design and particularly the provision
of seating were felt to be insufficient for older users. Presumably allowing cus-
tomers to rest between purchases is insufficiently cost effective. Perhaps
another way of conveying the potential benefits of the proposed technology
may be to develop the concept of a smart shopper or product finder. This might
allow users to enter their shopping requirements and be guided in the most
d participatory design approaches 625
626
efficient manner to the product, thus reducing the time and energy expended.
Furthermore, this technology could potentially provide extra product infor-
mation if desired and make shopping suggestions based upon previous pur-
chases. This could be particularly relevant when shop displays are altered or
products are relocated to different areas of the store. It might also indicate
to the user when a product was out of stock; minimising the time and effort
spent attempting to locate products that are not available. This would have
the added benefit of reducing the cognitive and physical demands placed
upon the consumer and would allow users to apply their cognitive resources
to other tasks.
This approach of involving users heavily at the requirements gathering stage
and accurately projecting the potential of technology to enhance their lives ap-
pears to be gaining acceptance. It was certainly appreciated by one of the par-
ticipants within the active wheelchair user group who stated that in 40 years of
wheelchair use nobody had ever asked him for his thoughts, opinions, or sug-
gestions, for an improved design solution.
5 ConclusionThis article has attempted to outline how the participatory design approach to
product research and development can be inclusively applied within the pro-
cess of requirements gathering and design insight acquisition. The argument
that ‘Users don’t always know what they want’ has been shown not to hold
merit within the context of design and design teams hold an equal responsibil-
ity to credibly portray the potential benefits of novel and new technologies to
users (Madrigal & McClain, 2011). This helps users visualise, understand, and
comprehend, the capability new technology offers. In a similar way to that in
which Personas and Scenarios help designers imagine and contextualise users,
users may also require assistance to imagine and conceptualise bespoke prod-
ucts designed with them in mind.
5.1 Commercialisation through design insightThe inclusion of users throughout the design process is key to the enhanced
adoption of finalised design solutions, and in these requirements elicitation ex-
ercises, the exploration of user needs has also been successful in capturing,
creating, and driving features and ideas for new products. Making such con-
cepts easier to trust and believe in, and identifying the value such products
add to specific activities should, as in the examples provided, increase the
adoption of the developed technology and at least overcome some of the
stigma associated with the materialisation and use of assistive technology
products.
A thorough understanding of user capabilities, often only available by direct
user involvement in the participatory design process, is paramount. If we
consider the demographics involved across these studies; namely older
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 November 2014
Applying user centred an
individuals and wheelchair users, it is clear that individual capability will have
significant implications for the physical design of any supporting system or as-
sistive technology. Consideration, also, of the context of use is imperative as
many subsequent devices will, themselves, be used to help users achieve mul-
tiple aims whilst users engage in a myriad of other tasks.
5.2 Designing for an ageing demographicThese issues are exacerbated when considering different demographics, some
of whom may possess reduced cognitive and physical capability due to natural
atrophy or as a result of trauma. For example, ageing is associated with mac-
ular degeneration, and cataracts and glaucoma are common age-related causes
of visual impairment. Therefore the need to focus at different distances should
be minimised as much as possible as older adults also have difficulty adjusting
focal distances (Nichols, Rogers, & Fisk, 2006). Glare, too, is problematic for
older adults, as the ageing eye is slower to adapt to light and dark differences in
ambient lighting, and similar effects occur regarding audition: losses of higher
frequencies are common, therefore higher frequency sound should be avoided
in any system or product that older adults might use. The efficiency of selec-
tively deploying attention also decreases with age, adversely affecting perfor-
mance and therefore designers should carefully consider the implications of
their designs, particularly in environments that present multiple stimuli
(Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977). These factors alone will have a direct impact
upon the physical design of assistive technologies. Any display system incorpo-
rated must be of sufficient size and must accommodate older individual’s vi-
sual abilities (Rogers & Fisk, 1997). Screen or display illumination, if used,
must also be considered due to the variation of environments in which such
a device might be operated, and the design of manemachine interface itself
must be sympathetic to the fact that manual dexterity often decreases in old
age and impacts upon ease of use for older people (Osman, Maguire, &
Tarkiainen, 2003).
5.3 Intuitive design facilitates unconscious useIf there was one outstanding research aim, it would be that the use and design
of supporting technologies will become so intuitive users will become almost
unaware or unconscious of using such support systems or devices. This can
only truly be achieved by involving real users throughout the design process
and particularly during the crucial initial explorations into current and poten-
tial use of existing products. As a preliminary exploration into design insight
acquisition through user involvement, the methodology presented was success-
ful in gleaning relevant data that might inform the development of rehabilita-
tive or assistive technology.
That the methodologies described were capable of identifying differences in in-
dividual approaches to use, potential future uses, and differences in terms of
user perception and experience, was a significant additional feature. As
d participatory design approaches 627
628
mentioned, the real value of this approach is the method by which individual
insights are gained rather than generalising on an overview of occurrences
from such a small sample. What has been attempted is to show how transfer-
able this approach is, and to highlight how it can assist in identifying interac-
tional issues, regardless of technology, domain area, or individual context.
5.4 Using design insights to enhance current design thinkingThe key findings regarding the comments and behaviour employed by individ-
uals in the studies revealed that wheelchair users are currently dissatisfied with
the level of consideration they are provided with in design terms. This is indi-
cated in their responses regarding the look and feel of the devices used and how
these could and should be improved, with particular emphasis on product aes-
thetics. This appears to be a common theme across both demographics, as
members of the mobility aid’s participatory design group also raised concerns
over products that might enhance other people’s awareness of their reduced
capability. There was a consensus that to increase future product usage and
adoption, this practice must be avoided. This paper has highlighted how
adopting a participatory design approach has the potential to increase usabil-
ity regardless of age or impairment, reduce subsequent manufacturing, retool-
ing and operational costs, whilst widening the market for existing or potential
products, designs, and artefacts.
Close liaision with target demographics and potential users then, can help de-
signers and product manufacturers realise new avenues, inspired directly from
user involvement in the design and development process. As in the examples
portrayed, these users are often acutely aware of problems with existing tech-
nology or designs, and including them at these early stages of product redesign
and discussion, can lead directly to generating new concept ideas. There is also
a commercial benefit in receiving product feedback as it can heighten and
improve the user experience of existing products, and this carries increasing
value in terms of product differentiation in gloablised and competitive mar-
kets. As a whole, this article presents methodologies that can help designers
formulate better approaches to design and development. This approach and
knowledge is also of value to marketing professionals, as it aids designers
and developers produce products that are applicable to a wider proportion
of the population, products that work more effectively out-of-the-box, and
thereby have the potential to increase sales revenue, product engagement,
and long-term adoption.
6 Key insights, limitations and future researchOne of the key insights gained from the participatory approach, and consistent
across both studies, was the potential psychological impact design has upon
user self-esteem. That the approaches used were able to identify and draw
out this important and influential information is perhaps the articles biggest
contribution, coupled with understanding the effects this can have upon
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 November 2014
Applying user centred an
product uptake and adoption. Users will not adopt, enjoy, or potentially buy,
products that stigmatise them and emphasise their disability, but they are
capable and qualified to suggest ways in which such stigmatising effects might
be minimised. This in turn, can increase a products commercial potential as
well as increase product use, uptake and adoption.
Limitations of this work may include the reliance upon lead users in the wheel-
chair study to provide core feedback and ideation. Again, it is acknowledged
that for true empirical integrity, these lead users who are arguably at the
extreme end of the user group should be counterbalanced by less able wheel-
chair users who may experience a different range of issues. The importance
of inter-coder reliability during thematic analysis may also have been under-
stated. However, efforts were made to acknowledge and multiple references
provided from which expert knowledge may be sought to ensure experimental
rigour is maintained.
Both authors are actively involved in user centric and user centred design, and
acknowledge the importance of considering users as individuals, with individ-
ual needs, capabilities, and desires, throughout the design process. Participa-
tory and inclusive design approaches are at the core of their research and
are applied in on-going living-lab projects in Italy, and in commercial research
and design activity in the United Kingdom. Both authors maintain an interest
in the cognitive, social, and cultural, aspects of Information Communication
Technology and product interaction design. The Devices for Assisted Living
project continues to develop, with great advances having been made in terms
of monitoring and mapping individual behaviour in shared space. This new
knowledge will be incorporated into the development of the mobility aid’s pre-
diction engine in the near future, and helps to determine how such an approach
may be transferred to more ecologically valid environments and settings that
were envisaged for the future work involving older adults. Further to this
work, commercial design and research contracts have been commissioned in
the UK, in which the participatory and inclusive design approaches outlined
will be performed to enhance subsequent product adoption and engagement.
The output of this analysis highlighted how design insights can be gleaned
even an early stage of exploration. This knowledge can be translated into
further research avenues, used to identify problematic areas of existing prod-
uct interaction that are ripe for redesign, or used in the creation of novel inter-
face features to advance and lead the market.
ReferencesChi, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271e315.Design Council. (2010). Design industry research report. [online] Available at.
https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/knowledge-resources/design-industry-
research-2010.
d participatory design approaches 629
630
Etchell, L., & Yelding, D. (2001). Inclusive design: products for all consumers.Research Institute for Consumer Affairs (RICA): Consumer Policy Review,14(6), 193.
Freudenthal, D. (2001). Age differences in the performance of information
retrieval tasks. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(1), 9e22.Girling, R. (2012). Persuasive design. http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669055/de-
signs-next-frontier-nudging-consumers-into-making-better-life-choices.
Gitlin, L. (2002). Assistive technology in the home and community for older peo-ple: psychological and social considerations. In M. J. Scherer (Ed.), Assistivetechnology matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation (pp.
109e122). American Psychological Association.Grudin, J. (1991). Obstacles to user involvement in software development, with
implications for CSCW. International Journal of ManeMachine Studies, 34,
435e452.Hands, D., Avons, S., & Davidoff, J. (2001). Recency and duration neglect in tele-
vision picture quality evaluation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 639e657.Hansen, J., Percival, J., Aldred, H., Brownsell, S., & Hawley, M. (2007). Attitudes
to telecare among older people, professional care workers and informal carers:a preventative strategy or crisis management? Universal Access in the Informa-tion Society, 6(2), 193e205.
Hirsch, T., Forlizzi, J., Hyder, E., Goetz, J. A., Kurtz, C., & Stroback, J. (2000).The ELDer project: social, emotional, and environmental factors in the designof eldercare technologies. In Design, 2000 (pp. 72e79).
International Standards Organisation (ISO). (2010). Ergonomics of humanesys-tem interaction e Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems:ISO 9241-210. Geneva, Switzerland.
Jarke, M., Bui, X., & Caroll, J. (1998). Scenario management: an interdisciplinaryapproach. Requirements Engineering, 3(4), 155e173.
Keates, S., & Clarkson, J. (2003). Countering design exclusion e An introduction toinclusive design. London: Springer-Verlag.
Koslowsky, M., Kluger, A., & Reich, M. (1995). Commuting stress: Causes, ef-fects, and methods of coping. New York: Plenum Publishing.
Langdon, P., Lewis, T., & Clarkson, J. (2010). Prior experience in the use of do-
mestic product interfaces. Universal Access in the Information Society, 9(3),209e225.
Lewis, T., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, J. (2006). Investigating the role of experience
in the use of consumer products. Designing accessible technology. London:Springer-Verlag 189e198.
Lindgaard, G., Dillon, R., Trbovich, P., White, R., Fernandes, G., & Lundah, S.(2006). User needs analysis and requirements engineering: theory and practice.
Interacting with Computers, 18(1), 47e70.Madrigal, D., & McClain, B. (2011). Users don’t always know what they want.
http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2011/03/the-dangers-of-design-by-
user.php.Mann, W., Ottenbacher, K., Fraas, L., Tomita, M., & Granger, C. (1999). Effec-
tiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintain-
ing independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly. Archivesof Family Medicine, 8(3), 210e217.
Mayhew, D. J. (1999). The usability engineering lifecycle. California: Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers.Muller, M. (2002). Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In J. Jacko, &
A. Sears (Eds.), The human computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals,
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 November 2014
Applying user centred an
evolving technologies and emerging applications. Mahwah, NJ, USA: LawrenceErlbaum.
Nichols, T., Rogers, W., & Fisk, A. (2006). Design for aging. In G. Salvendy(Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (3rd ed.). (pp. 1418e1445)Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. California: Academic Press.Osman, Z., Maguire, M., & Tarkiainen, M. (2003). Older users requirements for
location based services and mobile phones. Humanecomputer interaction withmobile devices and services. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 352e357.
Phillips, B., & Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment.
Assistive Technology, 5(1), 36e45.Population Trends. (2010). UK population changes. [online] Available at. http://
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8191962/UK-population-ageing-slower-
than-most-of-Europe.html.Pullin, G. (2011). Design meets disability. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Rogers, W., & Fisk, A. (1997). ATM design and training issues. Ergonomics
Design, 5(1), 4e9.
Sanders, E. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. InJ. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences (pp. 1e9). London: Taylor& Francis.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human informa-tion processing: 1. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review,84, 1e66.
Sharma, V., Simpson, R., LoPresti, E., Mostowy, C., Olson, J., Puhlman, J., et al.(2008). Participatory design in the development of the wheelchair convoy sys-tem. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 5, 1e10.
Teague, R., de Jesus, K., & Nunes-Ueno, M. (2001). Concurrent vs. post-task us-ability test ratings. In Proceedings of computerehuman interaction (CHI ’01)(pp. 289e290). ACM Press.
Tinsley, H., & Weiss, D. (2000). Interrater reliability and agreement. In
H. E. A. Tinsley, & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate sta-tistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 95e124). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.
Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Manage-ment Science, 32(7), 791e805.
Wilkinson, C. (2011). Evaluating the role of prior experience in inclusive design.
(Unpublished PhD thesis). Engineering Department, University of Cambridge.Wilkinson, C., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, J. (2013). Exploring prior experience
and the effects of age on product interaction and learning. In Proceedings ofthe 15th international conference on human computer interaction. 21e26 July
2013, Las Vegas, USA.
d participatory design approaches 631