1. MOBILE PHONE USER INTERFACE DESIGN FOR PATIENTS WITH TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY David Nandigam Judith Symonds Nicola Kayes Kathryn McPherson The 11th Annual ACM SIGCHI NZ Conference on Computer-Human Interaction 8 July 2010 — Massey University, Auckland, NZ

2. Background & Motivation  Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the leading causes of death and life-long disability.  Goal Management Training (GMT) is a therapy that teaches strategies in order to improve an individual's ability to complete everyday tasks  The current project proposes using mobile phone as a tool to augment Goal Management Training (GMT) with people after TBI.

3. Scope

4. Questions Explored  Can we use a mobile phone available off-the-shelf?  If so, which type most meets the divergent requirements of individual users?  If not, do we have to develop a mobile phone interface with custom features?

5. Cell-phone Attributes Choi et al.(2005) Eisenstein et al. (2001) identify key factors in the selection of a mobile phone : screen size, size of menu items or buttons, and presentation structure Mori et al. (2004) propose three levels of abstractions that allow designers to focus on the relevant logical aspects and avoid dealing with platforms and interaction modalities while preserving usability. Ziefle & Bay (2006) identify three types of knowledge for successful interaction with a cell phone: survey knowledge, route knowledge, landmark knowledge

6. Selection of Phones a) grouping menus on the basis of their thematic similarities (iPhone); b) grouping menus according to categories in terms of parent-child taxonomy (Nokia); c) functional - a combination of a) and b) (Blackberry). (a) (b) (c)

7. Selection of Participants Participants  had a TBI - suffered moderate or severe trauma with disabling consequences  able to understand the study  able to communicate with the researchers  had some experience with a mobile phone  receiving rehabilitation at the neuro-rehabilitation providers (Cavit ABI)  identified by Cavit ABI as meeting selection criteria.  Ethical approval from the Northern Y Regional Ethics Committee in New Zealand

8. Interviewing process

9. Procedure  The interviews were recorded and transcribed separately.  The transcripts were coded and content analysis conducted, taking into consideration the context and role of the contributor (Patton, M. Q. 2002).  Initial categories were collated from each source, with comparisons made within data (QSR nVivo©)  categories were linked into themes

10. Key findings: unique needs “I would be able to just push the button …it’s lot better than touch screen” “when you got to push a button you end up pushing two or three buttons“… “I hate having to push it down a bit and put effort into it…I’d rather have the easy as you can push it “ “that’s the very annoying one….I end up losing it “ people with big fingers...stylus would be better they [icons] are fine we can still see them …. the words are still a little bit small if there was no text I would misinterpret that one [options] for settings there are certain things that you go to but sometimes I keep forgetting where it is

11. Key findings: themes Physiological  Button size  Button type  Touch type  Using stylus  Text size Cognitive  Icon recognition  Menu depth

12. Conclusion Buttons 1.larger buttons/icons than presented with any of the three mobile phones 2.picture based icons supported by unambiguous and reasonably sized text titles 3.one allotted function per icon/button Features 1.soft touch 2.stylus (for use with virtual keyboard). 3.voice control

13. Contribution This research (even with a small sample)  shows the importance of seeking specific user feedback (people with TBI have unique needs)  highlights limitations to current technologies for these users Future work could  validate and expand on the design implications found with more participants and more in-depth inquiry  explore other ideas such as using voice interaction or users typing menu entries (a command-language style) in a text-box as an initial version substituting voice interaction (Thimbleby,1987)

14. Mobile Phone User interface Design for Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury References  McPherson, K., Kayes, N., & Weatherall, M.. (2009).  Jhangiani, I., & Smith-Jackson, T. (2007).  Patton, M. Q. (2002).  David Nandigam  Judith Symonds  Nicola Kayes  Kathryn McPherson Acknowledgements  the Health Research Council (NZ) for funding  my advisor Dr Judith Symonds for all the support and guidance  Joanna Fadyl for training me for qualitative interviewing  the clinicians & participants at Cavit ABI for their time and commitment  the Goals-SR Research Group for guiding this research