دانلود رایگان مقاله لاتین شیوه ی کنونی مورد استفاده در طراحی فراگیر از سایت الزویر
عنوان فارسی مقاله:
مقایسه شیوه های کنونی مورد استفاده در طراحی فراگیر
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:
A comparison of methods currently used in inclusive design
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله شیوه ی کنونی مورد استفاده در طراحی فراگیر اینجا کلیک نمایید.
مقدمه انگلیسی مقاله:
1. Introduction
Inclusive design focuses on making mainstream products and services usable by as many people as is reasonably possible, without requiring them to use specialised adaptations (Keates and Clarkson, 2003). It thus seeks to meet the needs of a wide range of users, including both mainstream users and those with specific needs. In particular, it typically aims to include more of those with lower levels of sensory, motor and cognitive ability. A range of methods are commonly used in inclusive design, including both general user-centred design methods and methods specifically developed for inclusive design. In particular, user trials are widely considered to be one of the most reliable methods for identifying usability problems, both within user-centred design as a whole (e.g. Nielsen and Landauer, 1993; Ebling and John, 2000) and within inclusive design in particular (e.g. Cardoso et al., 2005). These trials are commonly used in design practice with limited samples (Goodman-Deane et al., 2010a,b). For example, Sims (2003) found that many designers “only involve a few users, who may not reflect the variety of needs of the target user group”. If more representative samples are sought, it seems likely that practitioners will follow standard practice in mainstream design by looking for a good spread of demographic variables such as age and gender. Some have expressed concern about the effectiveness of this approach within inclusive design. For example, Grudin (2006, p. 662) notes that “a [design] team relying on usability studies, for example, is unlikely to inquire very deeply into the diversity of the participants, few or none of whom they might ever see”. Further work is needed to determine whether user trials, used in this fashion, are adequate to uncover the main usability problems in an inclusive design context. Some specialised inclusive design methods have also been developed. In this paper, we focus on exclusion calculations as an example of an expert appraisal method developed for use in inclusive design (Keates and Clarkson, 2003; Waller et al., 2010). This method helps usability experts to assess inclusivity. The calculations estimate how many people in the target population would be excluded from using a product or service due to limited user capabilities. This process is sometimes referred to as an “exclusion audit”, although this term can also refer to a package of methods, including user trials and expert appraisal as well as exclusion calculations. Exclusion calculations have been used successfully in both research and commercial contexts, along with other methods, such as user trials (e.g. Klein et al., 2003; Clarkson et al., 2007). These studies combined findings from the different methods to build overall pictures of the products’ usability. In fact, Clarkson et al. (2007) recommend that exclusion calculations be used along with user trials and expert appraisal to provide the different kinds of guidance needed for inclusive design. However, this recommendation has not been tested extensively: there has only been limited work comparing the results of user trials and exclusion calculations. Furthermore, there has been limited work in exploring how effective exclusion calculations actually are for inclusive design, particularly at identifying usability issues. For example, Cardoso (2005) (c.f. Cardoso et al., 2005) examined the usability of electric kettles, domestic heating controls and digital television boxes. He compared the usability problems identified by exclusion calculations and user trials. However, he used the user trial results as a benchmark to identify the main usability problems, rather than fully comparing the contributions of the different methods. He also used earlier versions of the exclusion calculations. More recently, Combe et al. (2012) compared the results of exclusion calculations and user trials in assessing the usability of digital programmable thermostats. However, they focused on the exclusion estimated by the calculations rather than the usability problems found, and thus did not examine the full use of this method. This also made it difficult to compare the methods, as they did not use the same outcome measures from the two methods. This paper aims to address these gaps in the research by examining the effectiveness of both user trials and exclusion calculations more extensively. These methods use different measures, such as timings and exclusion figures. However, they are both commonly used for the same ends, particularly to uncover usability and accessibility problems. We therefore compared the methods on their ability to achieve these goals. A study was conducted involving both methods, and the usability problems and other findings identified by each method are compared. The effectiveness of the methods for inclusive design is also discussed.
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله شیوه ی کنونی مورد استفاده در طراحی فراگیر اینجا کلیک نمایید.
کلمات کلیدی:
Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1447100018 P.John Clarkson, Roger Coleman, Simeon Keates - 2013 - Technology & Engineering Design for the Whole Population P.John Clarkson, Roger Coleman, Simeon ... populations is probably the most important as it provides a direct comparison of how ... As discussed earlier in this chapter, it is helpful to offer designers methods of ... of inclusive merit were proposed for enumerating the success of current design ... Inclusive Design - Design for the Whole Population | P.John Clarkson ... www.springer.com/gp/book/9781852337001 Inclusive Design: What's in It for Me? presents a comprehensive review of current practice in inclusive design. ... Inclusive Design is composed of two parts with a common chapter structure so that the business and design arguments in favour of inclusive design can be easily compared ... "Who is going to use my design? [PDF]A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYTICAL INCLUSIVE DESIGN EVALUATION m.designsociety.org/.../a_framework_for_analytical_inclusive_design_evaluation by U Persad - Cited by 10 - Related articles Though current data is lacking for making these predictions, further research is planned ... Keywords: Inclusive Design, Analytic Evaluation, User Capability. 1 ... methods can be used depending on the resources available. ... demand provide a useful framework for evaluation i.e. the comparison of the sensory, cognitive and. Capability measurement for Inclusive Design - ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/.../38184051_Capability_measurement_for_Inclusive_Desi... Capability measurement for Inclusive Design on ResearchGate, the professional network for ... A comparison of methods currently used in inclusive design. [PDF](2000). "Towards a practical inclusive design approach." web.mit.edu/16.459/Keates.pdf by S Keates - 2000 - Cited by 106 - Related articles the principal methods for designing for users with different capabilities is given along ... with the expression Design for All now being used, for example, in European ..... As a comparison, the functionality and usability of the prototype IP shall be ...
