skip to main content
10.1145/3472301.3484345acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

We are not alone: AGNES, developing a prototype to support communication between schools and student transgender women

Published:18 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Brazilian transgender women face high schools dropout rates in basic education. Brazil has 82% of school dropout rates on transgender women. This situation increases the vulnerability of this population and deepens violence rates against them. This context is influenced, among other factors, by the lack of support within the educational environment. A prototype for a mobile application named AGNES was designed based on a formative research. The goal of this application is a better communication and promoting a community sense between schools and student transgender women. This article aims to report the process development and usability tests of AGNES. The prototyping process was based on Garrett's 5-plane framework for user experience product development. Usability and satisfaction parameters were tested in a development cycle. The test was based on a preliminary survey, a Think Aloud protocol, the System Usability Scale (SUS) and an open-ended interview. The results were positive and proved a high usability with the volunteers stating that AGNES is easy to use and would be used frequently. This research project revealed that this public needs a solution to help decrease the school dropout rates. Besides, the volunteers showed satisfaction with this type of solution.

References

  1. William Albert and Thomas Tullis. 2013. Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Newnes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. L Bardin. 2011. Análise de Conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruna G. Benevides and Sayonara Naider Bonfim Nogueira. 2020. Dossiê dos assassinatos e da violência contra travestis e transexuais brasileiras em 2019. São Paulo: Expressão Popular, ANTRA, IBTE 80 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Berenice Bento. 2011. In school we learn that the difference makes a difference. Revista Estudos Feministas 19, 2 (2011), 549--559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. John Brooke. 1996. Sus: a "quick and dirty' usability. Usability evaluation in industry 189 (1996).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Leandro Jorge Coelho and Luciana Maria Lunardi Campos. 2015. Diversidade sexual e ensino de ciências: buscando sentidos. Ciência & Educação (Bauru) 21, 4 (2015), 893--910.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jaqueline Gomes De Jesus. 2012. Orientações sobre identidade de gênero: conceitos e termos. Guia técnico sobre pessoas transexuais, travestis e demais transgêneros, para formadores de opinião (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nilson Fernandes Dinis and Renata Silva Pamplona. 2014. Meeting Bianca: discourses about transvestite body. Pro-Posições 25, 2 (2014), 217--236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Lucimary Leiria Fraga and Luis Carlos Rosa. 2018. A (IN) VISIBILIDADE DA VOZ TRANS FRENTE À JUSTIÇA, O ESTADO E A SOCIEDADE. Missões: Revista de Ciências Humanas e Sociais 4, 4 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Marcos Roberto Vieira Garcia. 2009. Alguns aspectos da construção do gênero entre travestis de baixa renda. Psicologia USP 20, 4 (2009), 597--618.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Jesse James Garrett. 2010. The elements of user experience: user-centered design for the web and beyond. Pearson Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Google. 2014. Material Design Introduction. https://material.io/design/introductionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. World Leaders in Research-Based User Experience. [n.d.]. Pilot Testing: Getting It Right (Before) the First Time. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/pilot-testing/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. World Leaders in Research-Based User Experience. [n.d.]. Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. World Leaders in Research-Based User Experience. [n.d.]. Wireflows: A UX Deliverable for Workflows and Apps. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/wireflows/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. PhD Jeff Sauro. [n.d.]. Measuring Usability with the System Usability Scale (SUS). https://measuringu.com/sus/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Tatiane Lima. 2020. Educação básica e o acesso de transexuais e travestis à educação superior. Revista do Instituto de Estudos Brasileiros (2020), 70--87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Michal Malewicz. 2020. Glassmorphism in user interfaces. https://uxdesign.cc/glassmorphism-in-user-interfaces-1f39bb1308c9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Brandon Miller. 2017. YouTube as educator: A content analysis of issues, themes, and the educational value of transgender-created online videos. Social Media+ Society 3, 2 (2017), 2056305117716271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Maria Ignez Costa Moreira, Carolina Dantas Brito, Carolina Mesquita Oliveira, and Cláudio Eduardo Resende Alves. 2018. Mulheres, travestis e transexuais: interseções de gênero em documentos de políticas públicas. Fractal: Revista de Psicologia (2018), 234--242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. André Luiz Machado das Neves, Klaudia Yared Sadala, Iolete Ribeiro da Silva, Elizabeth Teixeira, Darlisom Sousa Ferreira, and Fabiane Aguiar Silva. 2015. Representações sociais de professores sobre diversidade sexual em uma escola paraense. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional 19, 2 (2015), 261--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Toni Reis, David Harrad, and Joseph Kosciw. 2016. Pesquisa Nacional sobre o Ambiente Educacional no Brasil 2015: as experiências de adolescentes e jovens lésbicas, gays, bissexuais, travestis e transexuais em nossos ambientes educacionais. Curitiba: ABGLT (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Liliana Rodrigues, Nuno Santos Carneiro, and Conceição Nogueira. 2019. Terminologias Trans. Dicionário de educação sexual, sexualidade, gênero e interseccionalidades (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Yvonne Rogers, Helen Sharp, and Jenny Preece. 2011. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Adriana Sales, Leonardo Lemos de Souza, and Wiliam Siqueira Peres. 2017. Travestis brasileiras e escola: problematizações sobre processos temporais em gêneros, sexualidades e corporalidades nômades. Fractal: Revista de Psicologia 29, 1 (2017), 71--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Dayana Brunetto Carlin dos Santos. 2015. A biopolítica educacional e o governo de corpos transexuais e travestis. Cadernos de pesquisa 45, 157 (2015), 630--651.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Glauber Weder dos Santos Silva, Emanoel Fhilipe Leite Souza, Romeika Carla Ferreira de Sena, Izabella Bezerra de Lima Moura, Maura Vanessa Silva Sobreira, and Francisco Arnoldo Nunes de Miranda. 2016. Situações de violência contra travestis e transexuais em um município do nordeste brasileiro. Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem 37, 2 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ian Sommerville. 2011. Engenharia de Software (9 ed.). Addison Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Iolanda Tortajada, Cilia Willem, R Lucas Platero Méndez, and Núria Araüna. 2020. Lost in Transition? Digital trans activism on Youtube. Information, Communication & Society (2020), 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Cláudia Pereira Vianna. 2015. O movimento LGBT e as políticas de educação de gênero e diversidade sexual: perdas, ganhos e desafios. Educação e Pesquisa 41, 3 (2015), 791--806.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Eliana Miura Zucchi, Claudia Renata dos Santos Barros, Bruna Robba Lara Redoschi, Luiz Fabio Alves de Deus, and Maria Amélia de Sousa Mascena Veras. 2019. Bem-estar psicológico entre travestis e mulheres transexuais no Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Cadernos de Saúde Pública 35 (2019), e00064618.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. We are not alone: AGNES, developing a prototype to support communication between schools and student transgender women

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        IHC '21: Proceedings of the XX Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        October 2021
        523 pages
        ISBN:9781450386173
        DOI:10.1145/3472301

        Copyright © 2021 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 October 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        IHC '21 Paper Acceptance Rate29of77submissions,38%Overall Acceptance Rate331of973submissions,34%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)25
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader