Approaches for evaluating the usability of assistive technology product prototypes

Assistive Technology

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 36-41

  Choi, Young Mi ^a   Sprigle, Stephen H ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

methodology; usability; user feedback; user satisfaction

Indexed keywords

ASSISTIVE DEVICES; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; DESIGN PROCESS; METHODOLOGY; POTENTIAL USERS; PRODUCT PROTOTYPE; USABILITY; USER FEEDBACK; USER INPUT; USER SATISFACTION;

SURVEYS;

DESIGN;

EID: 79952592180     PISSN: 10400435     EISSN: 19493614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2010.541407     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Babbie, C. (1998). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2. Bayus, B. L. (1997). Speed-to-market and new product performance trade-offs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 485-497. (Pubitemid 127396995)
3. Connie, T., & Hershler, C. (1991). Effectiveness: A neglected dimension in the assessment of rehabilitation devices and equipment. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 14, 117-122.
4. Cook, A., & Hussey, S. (1995). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
5. Cowan, D., & Turner-Smith, A. (1999). The role of assistive technology in alternative models of care for older people. London, England: Stationery Office.
6. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2002). The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14, 101-105. (Pubitemid 35282503)
7. DeRuyter, F. (1995). Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment? Assistive Technology, 7, 3-8.
8. Harwin, W. S. (1998). Niche product design: A new model for assistive technology. Helsinki, Finland: Technology for Inclusive Design and Equality.
9. Hocking, C. (1999). Function or feelings: Factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technology and Disability, 11, 3-11. (Pubitemid 30142446)
10. Hudak, P. L., Amadio, P. C., & Bombardier, C. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Head). American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 602-608. (Pubitemid 26172396)
11. Institute for Work and Health. (2010). Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand. Retrieved from http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/conditions.htm
12. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management, 13, 111-125.
13. Mao, J., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P., & Carey, T. (2005). The state of usercentered design practice. Communications of the ACM, 48, 105-109.
14. McGrath, M. E., Anthony, M. T., & Shapiro, A. (1992). Product development: Success through product and cycle-time excellence. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Butterworth-Heinemann.
15. Newell, A. (2003). Inclusive design or assistive technology. In J. Clackson, R. Coleman, S. Keates, & C. Lebbon (Eds.), Inclusive design: Design for the whole population. London, England: Springer.
16. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. London, England: Academic Press.
17. Nieusma, D. (2004). Alternative design scholarship: Working toward appropriate design. Design Issues, 20, 13-24.
18. Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
19. Page, A., & Rosenbaum, H. (1992). Developing an effective concept testing program for consumer durables. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 267-277.
20. Schultheis, M., Rebimbas, J., Mourant, R., & Millis, S. (2007). Examining the usability of a virtual reality driving simulator. Assistive Technology, 19, 83-90.
21. Ulrich, K., & Eppinger, S. (2003). Product design and development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
22. Wessels, R., de Witte, L., & van der Heuvel, W. (2004). Measuring effectiveness and satisfaction with assistive devices from a user perspective: An exploration of the literature. Technology and Disability, 16, 83-90. (Pubitemid 39294787)