No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

We are pleased to welcome Designing Interactive Systems DIS 2018 to Hong Kong. DIS 2018 is the first of its kind in two ways. It is in Asia for the first time. It is also in an art and design school for the first time. The theme of the conference is Design and Diversity. The theme reflects a classic design themeand also a foundational distinction in philosophy-of universals and particulars. Should we, as designers, follow Silicon Valley in its quest for products that engage everyone on the planet, or the architect Glenn Murcutt's conviction that he can only build in places he knows so well that his designs can be outstanding? The underlying logic of this question divides designers and design disciplines and emerges in every design process. This theme operated as a guiding tool for selecting our four keynotes, professors Jodi Forlizzi, Kun-pyo Lee, Phoebe Sengers and Erik Stolterman. During their years in design, they have lived through its diversities. We were happy that they accepted the challenge to share their experiences and thoughts about diversity to the benefit of our community. The theme was also our tool for directing the DIS community into the future. A few years from now, we hope, we will start to see answers to the challenges our keynotes are posing to us. The nucleus of the conference organization were two chairs and three technical chairs. This small group invited sixteen Subcommittee Chairs, three Pictorials chairs, and two chairs each for Workshops, Provocations and Work-in-Progress, Doctoral Consortium, and Demos. These chairs recruited 100 Associate Chairs, who recruited 1818 reviewers. Our review and decision schedule was brutal, but the organization worked through it efficiently, always with humor, and with collegial respect. DIS 2018 received 645 submissions: 405 for full papers and notes submissions; 71 for pictorials; 23 for workshops submissions; 107 for Provocations and Work-in-Progress (out of these, 19 were Provocations); 20 for Doctoral Consortium Submissions; and 19 for Demos. Acceptance rates were: 23% for papers and notes, 24% Pictorials, 55% for Workshops, 73% for Demos, 53% for PWiPs, and 50% for Doctoral Consortium. All this work led into a highly competitive conference between 9-13 June. June 9-10 were reserved for Workshops and Doctoral Consortium, and June 11-13 for 28 paper sessions. Pictorials are not in separate sessions; they are treated the same way as Full Papers. The 11th of June became an Experience Night of Demos, PWiPs, and a small design exhibition, which illuminated interaction design in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta. As extra, we organized a postconference trip to a few technology companies in Shenzhen, China. The program reflects the highly diverse nature of our discipline. We could not see any particular trends in papers, but a few observations may be possible. Two thirds of submissions focused on the following two human-oriented subcommittees: Experience and Methods and Processes. In comparison, the two technically oriented committees were smaller, but th...

No abstract

Background Voice assistants allow users to control appliances and functions of a smart home by simply uttering a few words. Such systems hold the potential to significantly help users with motor and cognitive disabilities who currently depend on their caregiver even for basic needs (eg, opening a door). The research on voice assistants is mainly dedicated to able-bodied users, and studies evaluating the accessibility of such systems are still sparse and fail to account for the participants’ actual motor, linguistic, and cognitive abilities. Objective The aim of this work is to investigate whether cognitive and/or linguistic functions could predict user performance in operating an off-the-shelf voice assistant (Google Home). Methods A group of users with disabilities (n=16) was invited to a living laboratory and asked to interact with the system. Besides collecting data on their performance and experience with the system, their cognitive and linguistic skills were assessed using standardized inventories. The identification of predictors (cognitive and/or linguistic) capable of accounting for an efficient interaction with the voice assistant was investigated by performing multiple linear regression models. The best model was identified by adopting a selection strategy based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Results For users with disabilities, the effectiveness of interacting with a voice assistant is predicted by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Robertson Dysarthria Profile (specifically, the ability to repeat sentences), as the best model shows (AIC=130.11). Conclusions Users with motor, linguistic, and cognitive impairments can effectively interact with voice assistants, given specific levels of residual cognitive and linguistic skills. More specifically, our paper advances practical indicators to predict the level of accessibility of speech-based interactive systems. Finally, accessibility design guidelines are introduced based on the performance results observed in users with disabilities.

No abstract

Collaborative robots (cobots) are increasingly installed at manufactory plants to keep up with the market demands, combining the benefits of advanced automation and flexible production machines. Yet, the workers' acceptance of this technology is crucial to fully exploit their potential and to make cobots a valuable support for operators themselves. The present paper reports and discusses the preliminary results of a semi-structured interview study, which investigates how adult workers of different age groups receive a cobot installed in an Adaptive Assembly Workstation (AAW), which is a cutting-edge tool customizable to match the physical features of the operator. More specifically, participants had the opportunity to experience a realistic working activity with the cobot before being interviewed. Data from the interviews indicate that participants considered the robot useful and safe. Additionally, some design proposals emerged. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI); HCI design and evaluation methods; User studies; • Computer systems organization → Embedded and cyber-physical systems; Robotics; Robotic control.