Inclusive, Blended Programming Module for Non-Traditional Students in the School of Computer Science at TU Dublin
- Inclusion
The School of Computer Science at Technological University Dublin, Ireland worked with Arthritis Ireland (a charity that supports people living with arthritis in Ireland) to develop a process to enable the certification of products that are easy-to-use for people with arthritis. The certification process includes product review panels and longitudinal user testing of products. To support this process, a checklist of key considerations was developed. The checklist was refined and redesigned over several months, with help from a number of stakeholders as well as useful existing research models such as the principles of Universal Design. This project was run over several years from approximately 2009 – 2015. In 2016 the Easy To Use (ETU) certification scheme was re-examined as part of an empirical exploration to understand the experiences of the panel members with arthritis with a a view to further developing the certification scheme.
The checklist began as a statement of the seven principles of universal design (with their associated guidelines), however it is evident that some guidelines as less relevant to the condition of arthritis, so, for example, the principle of Perceptible Information is vitally important in the design of all products but has not specific resonance for those with arthritis. Thus, the principles were recast as questions such as:
- How much strength is needed?
- How much accuracy is needed?
- How can I transport it?
- How can I maintain it?
A scoring process (on a scale of 1 to 10) was developed to accompany this, and a panel of participants from Arthritis Ireland reviewed the approach, and suggested two key changes (1) Further refinement of the questions, and (2) A more simplified scoring mechanism.
The final version of the checklist for the guidelines removed some redundant questions, and recast them into three discrete categories:
- Personal: This category determines if the product is usable by all members of the product audience, regardless of their strength, accuracy, grip, handedness, size, and speed.
- Operational: This category determines if the product is usable by all members of the product audience, considering each of the following: body position, comfort, repetition, operation time, complexity, and safety
- Non-Operational: This category determines if the product is attractive to, and maintainable by all members of the product audience, considering each of the following: appeal, setup, instruction, packaging, transportation, and storage
The scoring mechanism was changed from a ‘1 to 10’ scale to an Honours, Pass, Fail-type criteria, called Levels α, β or γ; where α [Alpha] is very easy to use, β [Beta] is somewhat easy to use, and γ [Gamma] is not easy to use. Based on feedback from Arthritis Ireland participants, the designations of the scoring criteria were changed to NO BARRIERS, FEW BARRIERS and MANY BARRIERS as it was felt that the Greek letters might prove to be unfamiliar and cause confusion for users of the guidelines. The feedback from the users throughout the design process was essential, and ensured that the checklist was usable by all users involved in the commendation process.
Panel members who had participated in previous iterations of the Easy to Use pilot scheme were recruited through Arthritis Ireland. Eight people (Six female and two male) between the ages of 36 and 69 (Mean: 57 years) took part in a focus group and individual interviews. Four participants took part in a focus group and the remaining four took part in individual interviews.
Conclusions
- Participants were enthusiastic and positive about taking part in the Easy To Use Scheme. They perceived the initiative as a way to help themselves and others coping with arthritis. It is interesting to note the motivations for joining the ETU panel: some respondents were glad their opinion was valued and that they could help others, some saw this as an opportunity to apply (or continue to apply after retirement) their professional skills, and others joined for the social connection to meet others with the same condition.
- All participants interviewed were interested in products that aim to help with arthritis (e.g. pain relief). Focus group respondents were particularly attracted to the medical products (Medicur Pro, wrist splint and knee support). Many of the participants had multiple health conditions, some very serious, and were interested in products that can improve their day-to-day life.
- In terms of ideas to improve the ETU training in the future, the key message from participants was simplicity.
- Several of the respondents did not remember the details of the assessment very well or what products they tested. Some prepared notes, others just relied on their memory.
- In some cases panellists were allowed to keep products after testing. Some respondents mentioned this could be an incentive to participate in the scheme. However, one respondent noted that she didn’t necessarily want to keep all products she tested. Others noted that they would have liked to test different (or more) products.
- All panel members gave their products to family and/or friends to try out in addition to testing themselves.
- Most respondents thought communication could be improved. In particular, they would like a more systematic approach to the planning of meetings and interviews so that they can better fit this assignment around their work and personal commitments. Respondents would have liked information about what happened to the products after the review. Some of them would have liked to buy the products, but could not find them in the shops.
Recommendations for Using Co-Design for Design of Accessible Products in the field
- Need for further exploration of participants in future iterations of the Easy to Use scheme. For example should the opinions of family members be captured or excluded? It could be argued that having other people to test products could bias the panellists’ answers. Alternatively, if products are meant to be universally usable, including a full household involved could be an advantage.
- Participants focus on the medical benefit of the products being tested may have clouded their understanding of “ease of use”. A revised approach to training may be a solution to this problem, but we must be aware that people will be testing the products in their homes, alone and with no guidance, so it might be difficult to separate usefulness vs. ease of use.
- Need to agree set of procedures for handling the distribution and retention of samples if this scheme was to run on an ongoing basis (and possibly provide mechanism to change product sizes during testing if needed, as this was an issue with a number of panellists).
- Future iterations could include distinct entries in the checklist to control for medical value or usefulness vs ease of use. While this means testers would explicitly look at whether a product is useful for arthritis, at least the expanded checklist would ensure that both variables are captured.
- Create a communication strategy for all stakeholders at each step of the process.
- Future iterations could include some kind of digital or written diary to record user’s perceptions over time. This would also target issues of learnability and ease of use. To avoid this risk in the future, it may be advisable to provide panellists with brief guidelines on product assessment to act as a reminder during home testing (and to reiterate the difference between usefulness for arthritis (or other medical benefit) and ease of use).