Methods for designing assistive devices extracted from 16 case studies in the literature

Abstract

International audienceThis paper studies existing design methods for designing assistive devices. Publications discussing how to select a design method when designing for disabled people are rare. However, designers do design for disabled people and researchers do publish these case-studies. The aim of this paper is to extract the underlying design methods from design cases. Sixteen case-studies presenting the design of assistive device have been analyzed. A table summarizes the design methods identified in the case-studies. Unusual methods are described. Then, each method is discussed. Results show that user-Centred Design (UCD) tools are widely used for designing assistive device. UCD approach is expected to be helpful but evidences are lacking. Recently, some authors have adapted existing tools outside the disability world to use them in the context of design projects for disabled people (ABAB design, AD SWOT and AD TOWS and Fitts' law). More investigations of these tools would be needed to be able to evaluate their benefits and weaknesses. In addition, tools coming from the rehabilitation field have been reused by designers (joint range and muscle force measure, and psycho-motor tests). Since, those tools were created initially to measure disabled people's abilities, they seem totally relevant for designers in the disability field

"It's more than just a wheelchair that gets wet …": Usability of mobile shower commodes for adults with spinal cord injury

“…This methodology, presented in Chapter 5, addresses the reported lack of documented approaches for questionnaire development in usability research (Bridgelal Ram, Grocott, & Weir, 2008). It therefore has relevance for human factors and AT researchers seeking to develop similar usability testing instruments for AT and medical devices (Berg Rice, 2008;Magnier, Thomann, Villeneuve, & Zwolinski, 2012). This research contribution addresses Research Aim A3, and has resulted in the following publication:…”

“…Usability has its origins in the fields of ergonomics, human factors engineering, and user-centred product design (Berg Rice, 2008;Choi & Sprigle, 2011;Magnier et al, 2012). Usability describes interactions between a user, the device or product, and the environment during the performance of tasks or activities.…”

“…Usability testing focus on users of AT devices. Users can include people with disability or impairments, and paid or unpaid caregivers (Berg Rice, 2008;Bridgelal Ram et al, 2008;Magnier et al, 2012).…”

“…These methods gain feedback from the point of view of the user (Berg Rice, 2008;Bridgelal Ram et al, 2008;Choi & Sprigle, 2011;Magnier et al, 2012;Martin et al, 2011). Of these, self-report questionnaires appear the most common in AT design and development (Berg Rice, 2008;Choi & Sprigle, 2011;Magnier et al, 2012;Martin et al, 2011) and in assessing outcomes of AT interventions . Some AT researchers believe that aspects of usability are complex, multi-dimensional, highly individualised, and subject to change over time, and are best captured through subjective self-report (Arthanat et al, 2007;Iwarsson & Ståhl, 2003;Wessels, et al, 1996).…”

“…formative usability testing) (Berg Rice, 2008;Bridgelal Ram et al, 2008;Magnier et al, 2012), or after AT interventions and short-or long-term use (i.e. summative usability testing) .…”