The Capability Approach as an Evaluation Framework for ICT for Older Adults ENTRANCE | Margarita Anastassova, Sabrina Paneëls, Verena Fuchsberger, Christiane Moser, José Lozada | PAGE 1 CEA | 10 AVRIL 2012 Pour insérer une image : Menu « Insertion / Image » ou Cliquer sur l’icône de la zone image September 2013

Motivation Design guidelines for Internet services, learning games and navigation systems adapted to the needs of older adults Design guidelines based on the Capability Approach, research on Psychological Empowerment, User Engagement, Inclusive Design & Value-Based Design Systems that are easy to use, useful, accessible, BUT ALSO provide cognitive support and possibilities for cognitive development to older adults | PAGE 2 Pour insérer une image : Menu « Insertion / Image » ou Cliquer sur l’icône de la zone image

The Capability Approach A socio-economic theoretical framework about well-being, development and justice Core normative claims: The freedom to achieve well-being: of primary moral importance; To be understood in terms of people's capabilities (i.e. their real opportunities to do and be what they value). A comprehensive approach contrasting with other definitions of well-being, which focus exclusively on: subjective categories (such as happiness) or material means to well-being (e.g. resources like income or wealth). | PAGE 3 Pour insérer une image : Menu « Insertion / Image » ou Cliquer sur l’icône de la zone image

Central human capabilities (Nussbaum, 2006) Central human capabilities which could be used as high-level principles in interface design: bodily integrity and free movement; being able to use your senses, imagination, and thought; experiencing and producing culture, freedom of expression; emotions: being able to have attachments to things and people; affiliation: being able to live with and toward others; play: being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities; control over one’s environment: design choice and participation, being able to work as a human being in mutual recognition. | PAGE 4 Pour insérer une image : Menu « Insertion / Image » ou Cliquer sur l’icône de la zone image

From an economic theory to design guidelines | PAGE 5 Pour insérer une image : Menu « Insertion / Image » ou Cliquer sur l’icône de la zone image NORMATIVE CLAIMS DESIGN PRINCIPLES DESIGN GUIDELINES

From normative claims to design principles Bodily integrity: examples Bodily integrity: “being able to move freely from place to place; having one’s bodily boundaries treated as sovereign (Nussbaum, 2006). Can be associated with the following design principles of universal design (Connell, 1997; Miller et al., 2002; Rimmer, 2007 ):  Cause no harm: The system should maintain or improve the safety of the service user above other quality of life needs.  Low physical effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.  Size and space for approach and use : Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility. | PAGE 6 Pour insérer une image : Menu « Insertion / Image » ou Cliquer sur l’icône de la zone image

From design principles to design guidelines Bodily integrity: examples The interface shall be operable by users with limited manual dexterity. Design considerations must include: size of interaction components, time-delays of input sequences (i.e. before system prompts for completion of input); Timely and adequate tactile feedback. The interface shall allow the user to maintain a neutral body position. The interface shall require the use of reasonable operating forces. The interface shall minimize repetitive actions. The interface shall minimize sustained physical effort. The interfaces shall accommodate to variations in hand and grip size. The interface shall provide adequate space for the use of assistive devices or personal assistance. The user has to actually use the device. It must require mobility and agility that is with the users ability. | PAGE 7 Pour insérer une image : Menu « Insertion / Image » ou Cliquer sur l’icône de la zone image

From guidelines to usable guidelines Guidelines transformed into a questionnaire : 161 questions: 45 Questions based on a Likert-Scale form 1 to 10 (LSQ); 116 open-ended questions (OEQ) Bodily integrity: 7 LSQ, 18 OEQ; Senses: 17 LSQ, 52 OEQ; Imagination: 6 LSQ, 15 OEQ; Thought: 13 LSQ; 17 OEQ; Affiliation: 4 LSQ; 12 OEQ.

Methodology of the evaluation Objectives: test the usability and understandability of the questionnaire 4 experts (3F, 1M) 2 experts in HCI, 2 experts on older adults M age = 35; M expe = 12 (min = 4; max = 23) Material: mock-ups and demos of the mobile interface and the SG Questionnaire and mock-ups sent by Evaluation done individually + individual debriefing after evaluation using the questionnaire

Major Results Understandability of the guidelines: Good understandability of the questions (on the average, only 2% of the questions judged difficult to understand) Problematic guidelines: “sensory prominence”, “accountability and productive independence” Adaptation to the goal: On the average, 19% of the questions judged not applicable because: Not adapted to the evaluation of prototypes Not adapted to the evaluation of the limited content available in the prototypes Not adapted because no access to real users Not adapted to the type of device (e.g. no haptic devices evaluated)

Conclusion and perspectives Capability approach very useful as an evaluation framework for ICT for older adults Divide the questionnaire into different parts according to: The type of device The maturity of the prototype The type of content The type of questions Add guidelines usable for immature prototypes Improve the vocabulary and wording if questions judged difficult to understand

Direction Recherche Technologique Département Intelligence Ambiante et Systèmes Interactifs Laboratoire Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives Institut Carnot CEA LIST Centre de Fontenay-aux-Roses | 18, route du Panorama BP6 | Fontenay-aux-RosesCedex T. +33 (0) | F. +33 (0) Etablissement public à caractère industriel et commercial | RCS Paris B | PAGE 12 CEA | 10 AVRIL 2012