Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The evaluation of an innovative intelligent thermostat interface: universal usability and age differences

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Usability trials were carried out with a simulation of an early version of an intelligent thermostat interface. The multimodal interaction dialog took place in speech, sound, graphics and touch. Usability of new concepts of interaction was assessed. Most user behavior and problems of use were equal for old and young subjects (between 25 and 73 years of age). Relative high usability was observed with the new interaction styles, in particular with the task-based dialog and with the suggestions given by the thermostat. Even the oldest subjects could accomplish complicated programming. Age-dependent differences in usability were found for certain interface details, such as finding a hidden menu item. The summarized typical "modern" interaction details, which caused problems, were significantly less usable for the older cohort (over 59 years of age), compared to the young (under 46 years of age).

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailey R (1999) What research-based guidelines are available for designing websites? UI Design Update Newsletter December 1999. http://www.humanfactors.com/library/dec992.htm. Cited 12 Jun 2001

  • Bradshaw JM (ed) (1997) Software agents. AAAI Press/ MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Cesta A, D'Aloisi D (1999) Mixed-initiative issues in an agent-based meeting scheduler. User Modelling User-Adapted Interact 9:1–2, 45–78

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKoven E, Keyson DV, Freudenthal A (2001) Designing collaboration in consumer products, In: Extended abstracts, interactive posters, CHI 2001, Seattle, WA, 31 March–5 April 2001. ACM Press, New York, pp 195–196

  • Docampo Rama M (2001) Technology generations handling complex user Interfaces. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands

  • Dumas JS, Redish JC (1993) A practical guide to usability testing. American Institutes for Research. Ablex, Norwood, NJ

  • Eggen B, Hollemans G, van de Sluis R (2003) Exploring and enhancing the home experience. Cogn Technol Work DOI 10.1007/s10111-002-0114-7 (in press)

  • Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1980) Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev 87(3):215–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenthal A (1999) The design of home appliances for young and old consumers. PhD thesis. Delft University Press, Delft, Netherlands

  • Freudenthal A, Keyson DV, DeKoven E, de Hoogh MPAJ (2001) Communicating extensive smart home functionality to users of all ages: the design of a mixed-initiative multimodal thermostat-interface. In: OIKOS 2001 workshop: methodological issues in the design of household technologies, Molslaboratoriet, Denmark, 12–13 March 2001, pp 34–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs WW (2000) As we may live: computer scientists build a dream house to test their vision of the future Sci Am November:26–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanis H (1998) Usage centred research for everyday product design, Appl Ergonomics 29(1):75–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp JAM, van Gelderen T (1996) Co-discovery exploration: and informal method for the iterative design of consumer products. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland IL (eds) Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 139–146

  • Keyson DV, de Hoogh MPAJ, Freudenthal A, Vermeeren APOS (2000a) The intelligent thermostat: a mixed-initiative user interface. In: CHI 2000 extended abstracts. ACM Press, New York, pp 59–60

  • Keyson DV, Freudenthal A, de Hoogh MPAJ, DeKoven EAM (2000b) TUDelft patent, Interface unit, 30 March 2000, Dutch 1014792, International PCT/NL01/00257

  • Krogsaeter M, Thomas CG (1994) Adaptivity: system-initiated individualization. In: Oppermann R (ed) Adaptive user support: ergonomic design of manually and automatically adaptable software. Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ, ch 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA (1986) Guidelines for designing user interface software. US Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA, August 1986

  • Mynatt ED, Essa I, Rogers W (2000) Increasing the opportunities for aging in place. In: Scholtz J, Thomas J (eds) Conference proceedings, conference on universal usability, CUU 2000. ACM Press, New York, pp 65–69

  • Nielsen J (1994) Estimating the number of subjects needed for a thinking aloud test. Int J Hum–Comput Stud 41:385–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman DA (1983) Some observations on mental models. In: Gentner D, Stevens A (eds) Mental models. Erlbaum, London, ch 1

  • Pirkl JJ, Babic AL (1988) Guidelines and strategies for designing transgenerational products: an instructor's manual. Center for Instructional Development, Syracuse University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich C, Sidner CL (1998) Collagen: a collaboration manager for software interface agents. User Modeling Users-Adapted Interact 8(3–4):315–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooden MJ (2001) Design models for anticipating future usage. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

  • Schneiderman B (1998) Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human–computer interaction, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan AHL (1999a) Gebruikershandleiding PEL-panel. Technische Universiteit Delft, Faculteit Ontwerp, Constructie en Productie, Subfaculteit van het Industrieel Ontwerpen, Netherlands

  • Tan AHL (1999b) Bijlagen, PEL-Panel. Technische Universiteit Delft, Faculteit Ontwerp, Constructie en Productie, Subfaculteit van het Industrieel Ontwerpen, Netherlands

  • Toon J (2001) Georgia Institute of Technology. http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/res-news/AWAREHOME.html. Cited 12 June 2001

  • Vermeeren APOS (1997) Instructions in user trialling: setting tasks or describing contexts. In: Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association, 29 June–4 July 1997, Tampere, Finland, pp 177–179

  • Virzi R (1992) Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Hum Factors 34(4):457–468

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their thanks to their colleagues M. de Hoogh, E. DeKoven and D. Keyson for their support and input during the investigation and for this paper, A.I.M. Voorbij and H.J. Arisz for their statistical support, and all subjects for testing the thermostat.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Industrial Design, Intelligence in Products Group, Delft University of Technology, Landbergsraat 15, 2628 CE, Delft, The Netherlands

    A. Freudenthal & H. J. Mook

Authors
  1. A. Freudenthal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. J. Mook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Freudenthal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Freudenthal, A., Mook, H.J. The evaluation of an innovative intelligent thermostat interface: universal usability and age differences. Cogn Tech Work 5, 55–66 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-002-0115-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-002-0115-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation