Co-Design, co-creation or participatory design are all approaches to involving the end user in a specification and product design process. Co-design is a form of participatory design activity, originating from a systems engineering approach; in this case, it refers to a one-to-one design activity with the designer. It is also known as co-discovery, (Kemp 1996).
Key elements of co-design are:
Defining your target market;
Identifying socio-economic and cultural context;
Identifying a representative end user of your target market;
Defining an appropriate language and terminology between user and designer co-designers.
Dialogue is key to building trust and a common understand of user needs (functional) and aspirations (social and cultural function, values and affordances).
Icebreaking exercises before any co-design activity can enable a designer to be introduced to the end user and the user’s context of social, cultural and economic daily living, as well as their language and terminology.
Designers can use the following ways in which to communicate with end users involved in a co-design process:
Physical or cognitive impairment through disease, injury or environment (physical or cultural) will reduce the range of options or ‘band-width’ within which to communicate.
CoDesign dialogue ‘bandwidth’, (Torrens 2018)Codesigning with KS3 Pupils at a Special education School, (Torrens and Newton 2013)
Useful links
Albinsson, L., Lind, M., Forgsefren, O., 2007. Co-Design: An Approach to Border Crossing, Network Innovation.
Kemp , J.A.M., and van Geldren, T., 1996. Co-discovery exploring: An informal method for iteratively designing consumer product. Usability evaluation in industry, (eds.) Jordan, P.W., Tomas, B., Weerdmeester B.A., and McClelland. I. L., Taylor & Francis, London.
Sanders, E. B.- N., Stappers, P.J., 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design, CoDesign, International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts. (4), 1 Taylor & Francis: London. pp5-18
TORRENS, G. and BLACK, K., 2011. Equipment design in inclusive physical activity and disability sport. IN: Roibas, A.C., Stamatakis, E. and Black, K. (eds). Design for Sport. Farnham: Gower, pp. 153-178. Available at: (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/9025), [Accessed: 22/09/2015]
Torrens, G. and Newton, N., 2013. Getting the most from working with higher education: a review of methods used within a participatory design activity involving KS3 special school pupils and undergraduate and post-graduate industrial design students. Loughborough University. Available at: ( https://hdl.handle.net/2134/14858 ), Accessed: [21/01/2021]
Torrens, G.E., 2017. Dialogue appropriate to assistive technology product design: A taxonomy of communication formats in relation to modes of sensory perception. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(4), pp.262-276. Available at: (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2018.01.001), Accessed: [21/01/2021]
A model of human and object physical interaction (HOPI) has been developed to provide a more detailed understanding of how we control or environment and how to optimise the interface.
There are a number of explanations of aspects of hand and object interaction. The explanations document different levels of the interaction, from the macro of task analysis by Guo, Genaidy, Christiansen and Huntington (1996) to micro interaction at an biomechnical level by Gielo-Perczak (1994). Structures of interaction documented by Sperling, Dahlman, Wikstrom, Kilbom, Kadefors (1993) and Drury (1985), Hsia and Drury CG (1986) provide understanding of hand and object interaction based on mainly observation and biomechanics respectively.
Hand and object interaction is a description of the primarily static connection (grip) between a hand and an object formed for the purpose of the performance of a task. Due to the complexity of hand and object interaction a description of the interaction is based upon a specific moment during a task performance.
Static grip is critical to the user’s perception of comfort and ease of use. If an object slips within a user’s hand they will increase their grip until slippage stops. Conversely, a user will reduce their applied grip force until the object reaches a point just before slippage occurs (Edin, Westlin and Johansson, 1995). A product that enables a static grip to be produced that requires a minimum of grip strength to maintain it will be perceived as easy to use.
There are three levels of interaction:
Gross interaction, where a grip pattern made by the user to resist the forces acting through the object handle. A grip pattern relies heavily on the ability of the user to be able to move their fingers and thumb into the required positions. Mobility of joints and muscle strength are required to achieve this objective.
Intermediate interaction, where the soft tissues of the hand interlock with the coarse surface features of the object.
Micro interaction, where the skin surface interacts with the fine surface features of the object. The interaction is primarily a form of adhesion. The adhesive is a combination of the sweat (sebum) and the dead skin layer (epidermis).
HOPI model structure, (Torrens and Gyi 1999)
Useful links
Brown F.R., Torrens G.E., Wright D.K. , Research into optimising hand and body function for tasks in everyday living: the development of a range of “easy use” saucepan handles, In Bracale M. and Denoth F. (ed), Number 1, Medicon ’92, Proceedings of the VI Mediterranean conference on medical and biological engineering (Associazione Italiana di Medica e Biologica, Napoli) 1992, pp549-553
Buck R, Greatorex G, Development of a human factors task database for human performance evaluation, Contemporary Ergonomics(Annual conference of the Ergonomics Society, University of Leicester), London:Taylor Francis 1996, pp275-280 ISBN 07484 05496
Drury CG, The role of the hand in manual materials handling, Ergonomics, Number 1, London: Taylor Francis, 1985, pp213-227
Blair VA, 1999 in Functional human movement: measurement and analysis, (Ed)Durward BR, Baer GD, Rowe PJ, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford ISBN 0 7506 2607 0 p160-179
Edin B., Westling G., Johansson R.S., , Independent control of human finger-tip forces at individual digits during precision lifting, Journal of Physiology, Number 450, 1992, pp547-564.
Gielo-Perczak K, Advances in Biomechanics of the Hand and Wrist, Schuind F, An KN, Cooney WP, Garcia-Elias M (Ed), NATO ASI Series A, 256, London: Plenum Press, 1994, pp123-135
Guo L, Genaidy A, Christiansen D, Huntington K, Macro-ergonomic risk assessment in nuclear remediation industry, Applied Ergonomics, Number 4 , London: Elsevier Science, 1996, pp 241-254
Hamilton, Mcdonald, Chenier, Measurement of grip strength: Validity and reliability of the sphygmomanometer and the Jaymar grip dynomometer, Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, Number 5, 1992 pp215-219
Hsia PT, Drury CG, , A simple method of evaluating handle design, Applied Ergonomics, Number 3 , London: Elsevier Science, 1986, pp209-213
Harkonen R, Piirtomaa M, Alaranta H, 1993, Grip strength and hand position of the dynamometer in 204 Finnish adults, Journal of Hand Surgery, Number 1, pp129-132
Jones AR, Unsworth A, Haslock I, Functional measurements in the hands of patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, Number 4, 1987, pp62-72
Kadefors R, Areskoug A, Dahlman S, Kilbom A, Sperling L, Wikstrom L, Oster J, , An approach to ergonomics evaluation of hand tools, Applied Ergonomics, Number 3, London: Elsevier Science, 1993, pp203-211
Kilbom A, Makarainen M, Sperling L, Kadefors R and Liedberg L, Tool design, user characteristics and performance: a case study on plate-shears, Applied Ergonomics, London:Elsevier Science, , 1993, pp221-230
MacKenzie C.L. and Iberall T., The grasping hand; Advances in psychology Number 104, Stelmach G.E. and Vroon P.A. (ed.), Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1994, pp222-235.
Napier JR, The prehensile movements of the human hand, Journal of bone and Joint Surgery, Number 38:B, 1956 p902
Shah S, Cooper B, Commentary on a critical evaluation of the Barthel Index, The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, Number 2, 1993, pp70-72
Surburg PR, Suomi R, Poppy WK, Validity and reliability of a hand held dynamometer with two populations, Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, Number 5, 1992, pp229-234
Torrens GE, A contribution to the understanding of the role of digital pulp in hand grip performance, Robertson SA (Ed), Contemporary Ergonomics, (Annual conference of the Ergonomics Society, University of Leicester), London: Taylor Francis 1996, pp75-80 ISBN 0 7484 0549 6
Torrens GE, The development and evaluation of a saucepan used by people with Rheumatoid Arthritis by the use of an optimised specification, 1997a, Unpublished
Torrens G E (1997) What is the optimum surface feature? Contemporary Ergonomics, Robertson S A (ed), London: Taylor & Francis pp 314-319.
Torrens G E and Gyi D E (1999) Towards the integrated measurement of hand and object interaction, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Product Safety Research, US Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, USA pp 217-226, ISBN 90-6788-251-
Torrens G.E., Kay G., Design for Physical Disability: A Discussion of Research and Development Methods Through to a Commercial conclusion, Design Interfaces, (Inaugural Conference of the European Academy of Design, University College Salford, University of Salford, Salford, U.K. Proceedings: Number 1, Product Design,Graphic Design),11 April 1995, ISBN 0 9525666 1 3
Williams M. and Lissener H.R., , Williams and Lissener’s biomechanics of human motion, 3rd ed, LeVeau B.F.(ed.), Philadelphia:Saunders, 1991
Wood Jones F., The principles of anatomy as seen in the hand, 2nd ed, London:Bailliere, Tindal and Cox, 1941, pp166-167.Bobjer O (1989) Ergonomic Knives, Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety I, Edited by A Mital, London: Taylor & Francis pp 291-298.
A mood board is a collection of images, materials or text that is collectively aligned with a specific project or task.
The material within a mood board evokes a defined response in the viewer. Mood boards contain a collection of social and cultural coding that evokes a response at a visceral, behavioural or reflective level.
Mood boards are used by designers to help identify social and cultural references relating to, target user’s lifestyle, persona, product brand, current and past styles and trends. Each board is focused on one particular aspect of a new product development. This may be the target user’s current lifestyle, aspirational lifestyle, a brand or type of product (clothing, watches, domestic lighting).
Mood boards may be used as an ‘aide memoir’ for reference during design decision-making and as part of an audit trial within a design document.
Process
As a designer, you use your past experience to select materials that you feel are associated with the topic of the mood board.
You select materials, order and prioritise them to present them in a meaningful communication, using presentation board techniques.
A mood board may be a physical or a digital presentation.
Mood boards are an accessible way of presenting market research information, relating to individual and social trends, product analysis and brand analysis.
Useful links
Baker, S., 2004. Colour and emotion in design, (in) Design and Emotion: experience of everyday things, (eds) McDonagh, D., Hekert,P., van Erp, J, Gyi, D., Taylor & Francis, London. p170-174.
Bruseberg, A., McDonagh, D., Wormald, P., 2004. Communicating product experience, (in) Design and Emotion: experience of everyday things, (eds) McDonagh, D., Hekert,P., van Erp, J, Gyi, D., Taylor & Francis, London. p114-118.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J., 2003. Universal principles of design: 100 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design, Rockport, Gloucester. Pruitt, J., Adlin T., 2006. The persona lifecycle: keeping people in mind throughout product design, Elsevier, San Francisco. p379.
Interviews involve an interviewer asking questions of an interviewee. There are three main forms of interview:
Structured (formal ordered and unchanging questions used in quantitative surveys);
Semi-structured (has a series of set questions, but subsequent questions asked by the interviewer to fully understand and explore the reply given by the interviewee); and,
Unstructured (subsequent questions led by the responses of interviewee to the first asked by the interviewer to fully explore a particular line of responses). (Cohen et al 2007)
Interview technique:
Ensure your head is below the interviewee;
Place your body at 900 to the participant’s body;
Non-threatening body language and voice;
One person only to talk at any time;
Maintenance of positive eye-contact;
Direct communication with participants, even when supported by an advocate; and,
Smile at appropriate points in the conversation.
When interviewing, you may also use:
Role play
Mood boards
Scenario boards
Sketch models
Interview posture, (Torrens and Newton 2013)
Useful links
ALLISON, B. and DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY, 1996. Research skills for students. London: Kogan Page in association with De Montfort University.
Cohen, L. Mannion, L., Morrison K. 2007. Research methods in education. 6th ed. London, New York: Routledge.
TORRENS, G.E. and NEWTON, H., 2013. Getting the most from working with higher education: a review of methods used within a participatory design activity involving KS3 special school pupils and undergraduate and post-graduate industrial design students. Design and Technology Education: an international journal, 18 (1), pp. 58 – 71.
Adaptability and flexibility (standardisation and modularity) embody the application of the seven principles of universal design. Good examples include ‘plug and play’ computer technology; and, applications, ‘apps’, for i-Pod touch and other hand-held computer products.
Standardisation and modularity are engineering conventions that enable adaptability and flexibility of functions. Using a standardised physical or electronic interface reduces costs and offers the maximum options within a product. (Burkitt 1995, Torrens 1996) The same principles may be applied to a product service. There are many good references that describe both modularity and standardisation (Ulrich 2000).
Useful links
Torrens, G.E., Marshall, R., Burkitt, J. and Kay, G., Using modularity to produce more competitive assistive technology products, Proceedings of the 13th Irish Manufacturing Committee , Limerick, Ireland, 1996, pp 797-804 Available at: (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/15775) , Accessed: [23/052015]
A design tool that has been found to be an effective method of refining AT product designs is Persona Footprint Assessment (PFA). This design heuristic enables a practitioner to quickly assess the area of visible technology compared with that of the person. The objective is to minimise the perceived technology and emphasise the personality of the individual.
This tool is based on David Marr’s computational theory of vision perception (Marr 1982). Marr indicated that humans build up a visual map of the world from a series of visual scans, from a 2D outline through to a fully-rendered 3D environment.
The PFA tool focuses on the initial scan made where we identify outlines, important to identifying visual elements that pose a threat, such as objects heading towards us or a Tiger hiding nearby, or that are food shapes (background to foreground differentiation).
Strategies for this include:
Minimise the volume of the technology (compact electronics, body contoured supports and seating, fold-away items);
Break the technology into smaller elements (battery pack on a belt, not part of the communication device);
Use of colour to make technologies recessive (dark colours, matt textures); and,
Customising the technology to the individual’s personality and value system, branding (symbols and colours of a favourite football team).
When applied to AT products, it has been found in previous years that effective use of technologies has visually swamped the person using it. (Torrens 2012)
An example of an AT product designed and made is a baby carrier for a mother with cerebral palsy, shown in the example figure. The visual impact of the structure was minimised through the use of a single pole support thin rod holding structure and satin finish black frame. Using Marr’s theory of perception, the viewer should define the outline of the proprietary baby carrier seat and mother before the supporting frame.
An example of a wheelchair baby carrier that demonstrates the reduction of the visual footprint of the applied technology. (Torrens 2012)
Useful links
Marr, D. 1982. Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information MIT Press.
Torrens, GE (2011) Universal Design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, Eds, (ed) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Products, CRC Press, pp.233-248 Available at: (http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/b10950-19), Accessed: [23/09/015]
Predictive modelling is applying existing knowledge about a target user, task and environment (UTE); accessed through both generic and specific databases and design guides.
There are many such modelling databases that often include descriptions of research methods by which the data may be updated. Paper-based tool and databases include User-fit (Poulson 1995) and Inclusive guidelines (Keates and Clarkson 2003). Computer based predictive modelling has also been developed to enable more intuitive use. The Inclusive Design Tool Kit (Engineering Design Centre 2010), an internet data-base and methods guide is an intermediate to the software based analysis tools shown in USER-fit. Generic anthropometric databases, such as PEOPLEsize (Open Ergonomics 2015), support specific guidelines and tools. Software tools such as SAMMIE (Loughborough University 2010) provide physical ergonomics-based data, mainly for spatial accessibility and usability, the specification for which is imported into the software. HADRIAN (Porter 2004) is an advance on the anthropometric-based design tools and databases such that it integrates the best of these elements. The software provides an information-rich interface for performance information collected from real people with defined medical conditions. Other Chapters in this book provide more in-depth detail about SAMMIE and HADRIAN.
Whilst these databases provide a very useful starting point to gain empathy with a target user, they are limited in the number of components they capture. An advantage that systems such as Hadrian have is that they enable a cost-effective way for designers to match a target market with a clear population size and associated characteristics envelope.
Useful links
Keates, S., and P. J. Clarkson. 2003. Countering design exclusion through inclusive design. SIGCAPH NEWSLETTER: 69-76.
Porter, J. M., Case , K., Marshall, R., Gyi, D., and Oliver-Sims, R., 2004. Beyond Jack and Jill: Designing for individuals using HADRIAN. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33, (3), Elsevier, London. pp249-64.
Torrens, GE (2011) Universal Design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, Eds, (ed) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Products, CRC Press, pp.233-248 Available at: (http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/b10950-19), Accessed: [23/09/015]
Much of AT product design is currently focused on the physical function of a product. However, there are many commentators who have highlighted the issues in user acceptance of AT products. (Philips 1993, Fuhruer 2003). High quality engineered products that function safely and effectively in relation to a given task or purpose are often discarded when they do not have an appropriate component of social and cultural function. The social and cultural function is often referred to as style or the ‘x’ factor of a product.
This text takes the viewpoint and context of a westernised consumer society and end user. Krippendorff (2006) proposed what he felt was a paradigm shift in the design of artefacts and services from how those products and services functioned to what they meant for those who consumed them.
Whilst Industrial and graphic designers have always worked within a user-focused or centred environment, the value of their work has only been fully recognised or utilised by business or engineering profession in the last five decades. A user-centred approach to the application of interfaces, technology or systems, now termed ‘design thinking’ has gained popularity over the last two decades. It fits with the application of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) principles, user experience, and social values given to a product or service also defined as affordances by Donald Norman (1988).
The cultural coding may be a word, symbol, shape or form, colour or texture. It may also be a sound, action, or change in state, or other physical response to interaction. The smallest component of coding is a grapheme, (language, spoken or written), or visual grapheme, (visual language of images, colours, or forms).
The application of semantics to an AT product design follows the protocol given (see below).
Identify physical, social and cultural context of the product or service;
Define the user, task and environment (as above);
Define physical constraints to the AT product design specification (standards, cost, guidelines, performance, market size);
Define keywords from user needs and aspirations
Convert keywords to form, colour, texture that embody the cultural meaning or coding for the target market (within the constraints of the PDS);
Realise an artefact or service that embodies, the functionality of the PDS and required cultural coding;
Check balance of PDS function and cultural coding through AT persona footprint and apply cognitive reframing as required;
Check/develop the balance of function and the coding through participatory design;
Produce a higher fidelity, detailed model or prototype of the product or service;
Undertake a wider check/validation using surveys/presentations.
Useful links
Barnes, C., 1995. Disability rights: rhetoric and reality in the UK. Disability & Society, 10, (1). pp. 111-116.
Fuhruer, M.J., Utai, J.W., Scherer, M.J., 2003. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes, Disability and Rehabilitation, (25), 22, Informa PLC, London. pp1243-1251
Krippendorff, K., 2006. The semantics turn: a new foundation for design,CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Norman, D. 1988. Psychology of everyday things, Basic Books, New York.
Philips, B., 1993. Predictors of Assistive Technology Abandonment, Assistive Technology: The official journal of RESNA, (5), 1. Taylor and Francis, New York.
Torrens, GE, 2011. Universal Design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, Eds, (ed) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Products, CRC Press, pp.233-248 Available at: (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/15737), Accessed: [7/11/2015]
Ranking is a scaling method for ordinal data. Ordinal data in this context means the opinions of participants given about a product or service (the entity) and on what property those opinions focused upon (the attribute). An attribute may be how well a product performs, its weight or ease of use.
Opinions are qualitative and so stand-alone and have no direct measure against another participant’s opinion. The evidence collected is called nonparametric data. However, a consensus can be achieved through gaining many opinions. There are associated statistical (nonparametric) methods for checking the reliability of the data collected. It is best to get the advice of a statistician about which statistical analysis method is most appropriate if this level of reliability is required.
Ranking has been used in the form of ‘Hall testing’ of products, to get preferences and opinions on a range of products or services. Ranking can be used on this more basic level in conjunction with a semi-structured interview or questionnaire to gain some insights into the preferences of a target user group or associated stakeholders. The questions provide some insights into the reasoning behind the priority order.
Points to consider:
No more than nine entities (products or services) should be put together. It is suggested that only the first two or three positive rankings made and the final two or three negative order of preference provided are the reliable. This means if nine products are used, only six will reliably ordered.
The operator should define the attribute they wish the participant to use to review the entities, e.g. handling, perceived weight, usability, perceived safety.
All of the entities or products should have a common attribute, e.g. all walking sticks. Checking the attribute is within the entity becomes more difficult if talking about an abstract service or complex system.
There are many opportunities for bias in the participant’s answer/response to the operator’s question. The diagram shows the process through which a participant will go to answer a question relating to ranking. Providing clear guidance about the questions asked and checking participants understand the terminology/ nomenclature will help avoid bias at any point of the subjective assessment process through to response.
Useful links
Cohen, L. Mannion, L., Morrison K. 2007. Research methods in education. 6th ed. Routledge, London.
Creswell JW., 2009. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Sage, London.
Greer B, Mulhern G. 2002. Making sense of data and statistics in psychology. Palgrave, Baskingstoke.
Sinclair, M. 1999. Subjective assessment. In: J.R. Wilson & E.N. Corlett (eds). Evaluation of human work, a practical ergonomics methodology. 2nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis, pp69-83.
Torrens, GE (2011) Universal Design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, Eds, (ed) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Products, CRC Press, pp.233-248 Available at: (http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/b10950-19), Accessed: [23/09/015]
Role play can be used to demonstrate or re-enact a sequence of use, task performance or user experience (UX) with an imaginary product with an imaginary service.
Role play is very effective in conjunction with low-fidelity prototype objects or interfaces. Mood boards and scenario boards can be used as background scene-setting before the start of the performance.
Multiple players or actors may be used, but is often used as an additional way of augmenting a presenting of a new product or service.
Role play can be used as part of a participatory design activity or research method, such as a focus group.
Role play within interview and codesign, (Torrens and Newton 2013)
Useful links
Albinsson, L., Lind, M., Forgsefren, O., 2007. Co-Design: An Approach to Border Crossing, Network Innovation.
Kemp , J.A.M., and van Geldren, T., 1996. Co-discovery exploring: An informal method for iteratively designing consumer product. Usability evaluation in industry, (eds.) Jordan, P.W., Tomas, B., Weerdmeester B.A., and McClelland. I. L., Taylor & Francis, London.
Sanders, E. B.- N., Stappers, P.J., 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design, CoDesign, International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts. (4), 1 Taylor & Francis: London. pp5-18
TORRENS, G. and BLACK, K., 2011. Equipment design in inclusive physical activity and disability sport. IN: Roibas, A.C., Stamatakis, E. and Black, K. (eds). Design for Sport. Farnham: Gower, pp. 153-178. Available at: (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/9025), [Accessed: 22/09/2015]
Torrens, GE (2011) Universal Design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, Eds, (ed) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Products, CRC Press, pp.233-248 Available at: (http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/b10950-19), Accessed: [23/09/015]
TORRENS, G.E. and NEWTON, H., 2013. Getting the most from working with higher education: a review of methods used within a participatory design activity involving KS3 special school pupils and undergraduate and post-graduate industrial design students. Design and Technology Education: an international journal, 18 (1), pp. 58 – 71. Available at: (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/14858), Accessed [8/10/2015]
Sketch models are a quick and low-cost option for prototyping.
Low cost physical prototypes can be made from paper, cardboard, extruded polystyrene foam board (blue board) or soft wood of a fine grain (such as jelutong or balsa). These can be finished to a high quality with limited resources (craft knife, fine blade fret saw and sand paper). These types of prototype give a good user experience (UX) beyond visual review.
Using weights (lead shot, for example) sandwiched between sections of the outer model can replicate the weight of a real product.
Human Computer Interaction and Apps design can be prototyped using simple line drawings of computer screens. This may be replaced by simple screens produced in low-cost or free graphics packages alongside basic ‘hypertext mark-up language’ (HTML) webpages to replicate control interactions.
Useful links
Martin, B., Hanington, B., 2012. Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions, Rockport, Beverly.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J., 2003. Universal principles of design: 100 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design, Rockport, Gloucester.
Torrens, GE and Black, K (2011) Equipment design in inclusive physical activity and disability sport. In Riobas, AC, Stamatakis, E, Black, K (ed) Design for Sport, Gower, pp.153-178, Available at: (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/9025), Accessed: [23/09/2015]
Torrens, GE (2011) Universal Design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, Eds, (ed) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Products, CRC Press, pp.233-248 Available at: (http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/b10950-19), Accessed: [23/09/015]
Camouflage has been used extensively in modern military applications for over one hundred years. However, social camouflage has been used by artists and designers for even longer within clothing, body-worn accessories and more recently automotive and product design. Most practising designers learn this tacit heuristic through trial and error or passed on through master-student experience.
The explanation of underpinning theory links the principle to application.
The main Gestalt principle applied within the social camouflage heuristic is the ‘law of pragnanz’ or ‘law of simplicity’, that states people will perceive and interpret ambiguous or complex images as the simplest form(s) possible. (Lidwell 2010: 144-5) This Gestalt law or principle is associated with other laws such as continuation and closure, already highlighted earlier. In terms of camouflage, the ‘dazzle’ pattern used on early 20th Century warships is a good example of breaking up the outer profile of a ship when viewed on the horizon.
Camouflage is used in nature by many animals for hunting or survival. A scientific approach has been extensively used in modern military applications for nearly one hundred years. Baumach, (2012: 79-102) provides a good introduction to the military application of camouflage.
Key points from this summary are:
Distance at which the object is being viewed will affect the choice of camouflage options;
Blending of colours or patterns into the surround environment;
Disrupting the outline of an object against the background;
Baumach cites Burle Industries (1974) and Graham (1966) when defining resolution of lines at a set frequency in different lighting conditions through stereoscopic vision (0.5 minute of arc per line pair);
Using a Farnsworth-Munsell 100 hue test, Baumach cites Graham again to highlight that the human eye is least sensitive to hue differences in the blue and red regions of the colour spectrum;
The eye is least sensitive to chromatic change within the green region of the colour spectrum.
Baumach goes on to further discuss the processing and interpretation of what the eyes see through the brain and mind, citing the work of the psychologist Max Wertheimer. Wertheimer’s principles of Gestalt are a good practical guide to how the mind interprets the world from vision. (Ellis 1997) The principles of Gestalt highlighted as being useful in camouflage are: Proximity, Similarity, Continuity, Closure, and Common fate. (Baumach 2012: 87-78)
The principles applied rely mainly on the understanding of ‘Phase One’ or ‘bottom-up’ visual processing within perception. Ware (2012) and Crilly (2004) have produced models of this mechanism of processing, leading to object recognition and assignment of meaning. Object recognition and assignment of meaning primarily involves ‘Phase One’ or top-down’ processing. Whilst ‘Phase One’ processing takes 200-250msec to complete ‘Phase Two’ is parallel processed alongside ‘Phase One’, taking around 400msec to complete.
An example is the Kura Care cutlery range, which used a white outer to frame a high-contrast black centre. The centre section was made to match a conventional straight, parallel sided cutlery handle where possible. The non-colour preference was chosen based on experience from undertaking other cutlery assessments, where most participants would accept a non-colour for the handle but had different preferences if a colour choice was offered.
Kura Care cutlery range (Nottingham Rehab Healthcare limited)
Useful links
Baumbach, J., 2012. Colour and camouflage: design issues in military clothing. In Advances in Military Textiles and Personal Equipment (pp. 79-102).
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J.,2004. Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design studies, 25(6), 547-577.
Ellis, D.W., 1997. A source book of Gestalt psychology. (Ed) Ellis. W.D. reprint, The Gestalt Journal Press, Gouldsboro.
Lidwell, W., Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J., 2011. Universal principles of design: 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design, 2nd Ed, Rockport, Gloucester.
Marr, D., 1982. Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Torrens, G., Storer, I., Asghar, S., Welsh, R., Hurn, K., 2019. Social camouflage: A survey of 143 students of their preference for assistive technology cutlery and the visual mechanisms being influenced. In: Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors 2019, (Conference), Eds. Rebecca Charles and David Golightly. CIEHF. Available at: (https://hdl.handle.net/2134/36645), Acccessed: [25/01/2021]
Torrens, G., Storer, I., Asghar, S., Welsh, R., Hurn, K., 2019. Social camouflage: A survey of 143 students of their preference for assistive technology cutlery and the visual mechanisms being influenced. Figshare. Fileset., Figshare. Available at: (https://doi.org/10.17028/rd.lboro.7472675.v1), [Accessed 21 December 2018]
A key element of the AT-ID process is the use of standardisation and modularity within the product’s design for manufacture and assembly (DFMA).
Standardising on original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts for the core physical functional components of an AT product increases the potential viability of an AT product.
Standard locations and assembly interfaces within the core subassembly offer the greatest opportunity to attach a range of components that customise the product for a niche market. ‘plug and play’ technology within computer peripherals are a good example of this strategy.
Useful links
Burkitt, J., G. Martin, G.H. Kay, G. E. Torrens, C. Chapman, and D. Sandbach, 1996. The development of the port-a-bidet: A portable bidet for people with minimal hand function. Medical Engineering & Physics 18, (6): 515-8.
Burkitt, J. A., G.E.Torrens, G.H. Kay, D. Sandbach and I.A. Sutherland, 1995. The development of the Autosip: A hygienic, self-operated, drinking device for people with minimal sucking ability and/or minimal arm strength. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences. 8, (4): 115.
Torrens, G.E., Marshall, R., Burkitt, J. and Kay, G., Using modularity to produce more competitive assistive technology products, Proceedings of the 13th Irish Manufacturing Committee , Limerick, Ireland, 1996, pp 797-804 Available at: (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/15775) , Accessed:[23/09/2015]
A story board provides a visual story of the scenario of use of a product or service. It is a design tool to communicate how a product or service may work and how the target user might interact with it. The story board conventionally involves a series of scenes that are in time-linked sequence. The time may be over a short or long period, of varying time periods between scenes, but will be sequential.
They offer the viewer an opportunity to see the process involved in using a product or service. The user, task and environment are often described in the sequence.
A storyboard may be a low fidelity hand-drawn sketch sequence or a high-fidelity computer-generated animation or film presentation.
Story boards have a number of advantages:
They can be low-cost
Quick to produce in minutes
Demonstrate complex systems
Can evoke some level of empathy through description of UTE
Highlight important moments that may be performance or safety critical
Can be presented to an individual or team for review
Can be used as a presentation tool to target users of a predicted product or service for evaluation
Can be used as a real-time design tool to review complex systems with a multi-disciplinary team for expert review.
Useful links
Martin, B., Hanington, B., 2012. Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions, Rockport, Beverly.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J., 2003. Universal principles of design: 100 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design, Rockport, Gloucester.
Torrens, GE and Black, K (2011) Equipment design in inclusive physical activity and disability sport. In Riobas, AC, Stamatakis, E, Black, K (ed) Design for Sport, Gower, pp.153-178, Available at: (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/9025), Accessed: [23/09/2015]
Torrens, GE (2011) Universal Design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, Eds, (ed) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Products, CRC Press, pp.233-248 Available at: (http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/b10950-19), Accessed: [23/09/015]
Task analysis may be considered an analysis tool for system design and evaluation or task requirements and human behaviour. In this context, the description will focus on the latter.
Task refers to a unit of activity within a work environment. A task may be given or imposed upon a participant; it may also be something carried out by the participant under their own initiative. It also requires more than one simple physical or cognitive operation for its completion. It is often negatively associated with an arduous or onerous activity. It is goal driven, with a defined outcome or objective. A task may be defined as describing a single task or a combination of smaller tasks. The larger task may be divided into sub-sections of the overall task, leading to moments in time. These may be then analysed using the HOPI model.
There are three components of a task to be considered:
Requirement (objective or goal)
Environment (elements of the work environment)
Behaviour (observed user actions)
Recording of the task may be done using coding in conjunction with a time or duration. Forms of coding may include sketches/stick figures, mapping, symbols (Therbligs), or even short written phrases.
The recordings may of the same participant doing multiple actions or multiple participants doing the same action.
The outcomes may be processed into a chart for statistical analysis or visually shown in maps or diagrams.
Useful links
Cohen, L. Mannion, L., Morrison K. 2007. Research methods in education. 6th ed. Routledge, London,
Creswell JW., 2009. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Sage, London.
Stammers, R.B., Sheppard, A., 1999. Subjective assessment. In: J.R. Wilson & E.N. Corlett (eds). Evaluation of human work, a practical ergonomics methodology. 2nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis, pp144-163.
Torrens, GE (2011) Universal Design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, Eds, (ed) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Products, CRC Press, pp.233-248 Available at: (http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/b10950-19), Accessed: [23/09/015]
The International Standards Office (ISO) standard 9241 (ISO 1994), provides a statement that provides some explanation of what is usability: “The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use.” This matches the aspirations of a Universal design approach to AT product and service development.
Although often associated with human Computer Interaction and service design, this term of evaluation is an umbrella term for under which a mixed methods approach may be applied. It is a user-centred approach that matches to design thinking and an evidence-based design process.
Key elements of usability evaluation include the review of:
Effective intuitive use
Enhanced performance
Reduction in error
End user satisfaction
Key methods to be used under this umbrella term that have been found to be useful in AT product and service design are:
Needs requirement analysis
Task analysis
Focus groups
Interview
Questionnaire
Paired comparison
Ranking or benchmarking
Persona
Useful links
Cohen, L., L.Mannion, and K.Morrison 2007. Research methods in education. 6th ed. London, New York: Routledge.
Creswell, J.W. and Plano-Clark, V.L., 2006. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage, London.
Langford, J., McDonagh, D., 2003. Focus groups supporting effective product development. Taylor & Francis, London.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J., 2003. Universal principles of design: 100 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design, Rockport, Gloucester.
Martin, B., Hanington, B., 2012. Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions, Rockport, Beverly.
Poulson D, Ashby M and Richardson SJ (eds.) (1996) USERfit. A practical handbook on user centred design for assistive technology. HUSAT Research Institute for the European Commission. Available from: (http://www.education.edean.org/index.php?row=3&filters=f16&cardIndex=21). Accessed: [23/09/2015]
Torrens, GE (2011) Universal Design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, Eds, (ed) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Products, CRC Press, pp.233-248 Available at: (http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/b10950-19), Accessed: [23/09/015]
Torrens, GE and Black, K (2011) Equipment design in inclusive physical activity and disability sport. In Riobas, AC, Stamatakis, E, Black, K (ed) Design for Sport, Gower, pp.153-178, Available at: (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/9025), Accessed: [23/09/2015]
Wilson, J. R., and E. N. Corlett. 1995. Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology. 2nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis.
User experience or UX has developed from human computer and human system interaction. The origins of the term are with Donald Norman and effective usability, but now apply to many areas of computing technology applications within society.
The interpretation and evaluation of UX is within usability evaluation and design ergonomics. The key elements of user requirement and aspirations for an AT product or service may be found in usability evaluation, market analysis and persona definition.
The language of UX is product semantics and its evaluation is through usability related methods. Matching the expectation to the AT design outcome is a critical part of UX. This topic is also closely aligned with service design and design thinking.
Useful links
Barnes, C., 1995. Disability rights: rhetoric and reality in the UK. Disability & Society, 10, (1). pp. 111-116.
Cohen, L., L.Mannion, and K.Morrison 2007. Research methods in education. 6th ed. London, New York: Routledge.
Creswell, J.W. and Plano-Clark, V.L., 2006. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage, London.
Fuhruer, M.J., Utai, J.W., Scherer, M.J., 2003. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes, Disability and Rehabilitation, (25), 22, Informa PLC, London. pp1243-1251
Krippendorff, K., 2006. The semantics turn: a new foundation for design,CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Norman, D. 1988. Psychology of everyday things, Basic Books, New York.
Philips, B., 1993. Predictors of Assistive Technology Abandonment, Assistive Technology: The official journal of RESNA, (5), 1. Taylor and Francis, New York.
Langford, J., McDonagh, D., 2003. Focus groups supporting effective product development. Taylor & Francis, London.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J., 2003. Universal principles of design: 100 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design, Rockport, Gloucester.
Martin, B., Hanington, B., 2012. Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions, Rockport, Beverly.
Poulson D, Ashby M and Richardson SJ (eds.) (1996) USERfit. A practical handbook on user centred design for assistive technology. HUSAT Research Institute for the European Commission. Available from: (http://www.education.edean.org/index.php?row=3&filters=f16&cardIndex=21). Accessed: [23/09/2015]
Torrens, GE, 2011. Universal Design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, Eds, (ed) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Products, CRC Press, pp.233-248 Available at: (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/15737), Accessed: [7/11/2015]
