Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Remote User Testing for an Age-Friendly Interface Design for Smart Homes

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Technology Design and Acceptance (HCII 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12786))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The age group of 65 years has been described as the fastest growing demographic in the world. As life expectancy increases, older adults prefer to remain independent at home. Smart Home systems and Assistive Technologies have been developed to enable older adults to live in their own homes as they age, enhancing safety, independence and quality of life. Although considerable Smart Home mobile applications exist focused on older adult’s wellbeing, they still face considerable challenges in usability, feasibility and accessibility regarding design of interfaces. There is a gap in recent research on evaluation of User Interface (UI) designed or adapted to address older adults needs and abilities. The paper takes part of an ongoing project evaluation stage, for a smart home and health monitoring system, applied in two stages: (i) heuristic evaluation and (ii) remote user testing. The main objective of the paper is to focus on the second evaluation stage, that took place with end users, applying unmoderated remote usability testing, due to Covid-19 pandemic. According to the System Usability Scale (SUS) and Net Promoter Score (NPS) techniques it could be able to quantify the users experience and measure the level of satisfaction related to the smart home and health monitoring system. The SUS results identified that the system’s usability was considered acceptable with a final score of 65,6. It was concluded that the unmoderated test with a SUS post-questionnaire can be a complex method to apply with older adults. The SUS questionnaire could lead to mistakes and misinterpretation, some contradictory results could be related to this complexity among older adults, and this could lead to a major impact on overall SUS scores. In addition, the NPS metric was identified as not the appropriate to measure user satisfaction with a small sample of users as SUS technique. It is concluded that findings should be supported by applying individual moderated tests with more end users to provide insights to designers and developers to create more usable interfaces to address the needs and abilities of the older adults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marques da Silva, A., Ayanoglu, H., Silva, B.M.C.: An age-friendly system design for smart home: findings from heuristic evaluation. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Gao, Q., Zhou, J. (eds.) HCII 2020. LNCS, vol. 12426, pp. 643–659. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60149-2_48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson, J., Finn, K.: Designing User Interfaces for an Aging Population. Elsevier (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/C2015-0-01451-4

  3. United Nations: World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights, no. (ST/ESA/SER.A/423) (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Eurostat, “Ageing Europe,” Luxembourg (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Xu, L., Fritz, H.A., Shi, W.: User centric design for aging population: early experiences and lessons. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 1st International Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Technologies. CHASE 2016, pp. 338–339 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/CHASE.2016.65

  6. Carnemolla, P.: Ageing in place and the internet of things – how smart home technologies, the built environment and caregiving intersect. Vis. Eng. 6(1) (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40327-018-0066-5

  7. Nielsen, J.: Usability for Senior Citizens: Improved, But Still Lacking (2013). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-seniors-improvements/. Accessed on 03 Oct 2019

  8. World report on Ageing And Health Summary (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E.: A systematic review of the smart home literature: a user perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 138(2017), 139–154 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.015

  10. Liu, L., Stroulia,, E., Nikolaidis, I., Miguel-Cruz, A., Rios Rincon, A.: Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 91, 44–59 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.04.007

  11. Alaa, M., Zaidan, A.A., Zaidan, B.B., Talal, M., Kiah,, M.L.M.: A review of smart home applications based on internet of things. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 97, 48–65 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2017.08.017

  12. Alsinglawi, B., Nguyen, Q.V., Gunawardana, U., Maeder, A., Simoff, S.: RFID systems in healthcare settings and activity of daily living in smart homes: a review. E-Health Telecommun. Syst. Netw. 06(01), 1–17 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4236/etsn.2017.61001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kalimullah, K., Sushmitha, D.: Influence of design elements in mobile applications on user experience of elderly people. Procedia Comput. Sci. 113, 352–359 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Petrovčič, A., Rogelj, A., Dolničar, V.: Smart but not adapted enough: heuristic evaluation of smartphone launchers with an adapted interface and assistive technologies for older adults. Comput. Human Behav. 79, 123–136 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Barney, K.F., Perkinson, M.A.: Occupational Therapy With Aging Adults. Elsevier Inc, St. Louis, Missouri (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pericu, S.: Designing for an ageing society: products and services. Des. J. 20(sup1), S2178–S2189 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Czaja, S.J., Boot, W.R., Charness, N., Rogers, W.A., Arthur, D.F.: Designing for Older Adults Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harada, C.N., Natelson Love, M.C., Triebel, K.L.: Normal cognitive aging. Clin. Geriatric Med. 29(4), 737–752 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2013.07.002

  19. Salman, H.M., Wan Ahmad, W.F., Sulaiman, S.: Usability evaluation of the smartphone user interface in supporting elderly users from experts’ perspective. IEEE Access 6, 22578–22591 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2827358

  20. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G.D., Beale, R.: Human Computer Interaction-Lab, 3rd edn. Pearson Education, London (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Silva, P.A., Holden, K., Jordan, P.: Towards a list of heuristics to evaluate smartphone apps targeted at older adults: a study with apps that aim at promoting health and well-being. In: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 2015, pp. 3237–3246 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rogers, Y., Preece, J., Sharp, H.: Interaction Design - beyond human-computer interaction. Interact. Comput. New Paradig. 227–254 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tullis, T.S., Stetson, J.N.: A comparison of questionnaires for assessing website usability. Usability Prof. Assoc. Conf. 1, 1–12 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brooke, J.: SUS - A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. Digit. Equip. Corp. 15(8), 41–47 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Reichheld, F.F.: The one number you need to grow. Harv. Bus. Rev. 81(12), 9 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Reichheld, F., Markey, R.: The Ultimate Question 2.0 - How Net Promoter Companies Thrive in a Customer-Driven World (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Brooke, J.: SUS - a retrospective. J. Usability Stud. 8(2), 29–40 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bangor, A., Staff, T., Kortum, P., Miller, J., Staff, T.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. Arch. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sauro, J., Lewis, J.R.: When designing usability questionnaires, does it hurt to be positive?. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2215–2223 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The study was supported by UNIDCOM under a grant from the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) No. UIDB/00711/2020 attributed to UNIDCOM – Unidade de Investigação em Design e Comunicação, Lisbon, Portugal. The study was also partially supported by the Instituto de Telecomunicações and funded by FCT/MCTES through national funds and when applicable co-funded EU funds under the project UIDB/EEA/50008/2020.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IADE, Universidade Europeia, Av. D. Carlos I, 4, 1200-649, Lisbon, Portugal

    Adriana Marques da Silva & Hande Ayanoglu

  2. UNIDCOM/IADE, Av. D. Carlos I, 4, 1200-649, Lisbon, Portugal

    Hande Ayanoglu & Bruno Silva

  3. Instituto de Telecomunicações, Departamento de Informática, Universidade da Beira Interior, Rua Marquês d’Ávila e Bolama, 6201-001, Covilhã, Portugal

    Bruno Silva

Authors
  1. Adriana Marques da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hande Ayanoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hande Ayanoglu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

    Qin Gao

  2. Chongqing University, Chongqing, China

    Jia Zhou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

da Silva, A.M., Ayanoglu, H., Silva, B. (2021). Remote User Testing for an Age-Friendly Interface Design for Smart Homes. In: Gao, Q., Zhou, J. (eds) Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Technology Design and Acceptance. HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12786. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78108-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78108-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78107-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78108-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics