Search

Purpose: To advance knowledge of specific usability criteria for Geospatial Assistive Technologies (GATs) and manual wheelchair users, and to develop a profile and expectations for potential future users. Method: A face-to-face cross-sectional study was conducted with 17 community-dwelling manual wheelchair users (aged 18–45 years) who use a mobile device. A semi-structured interview was conducted as follows: (1) four video clips presenting technologies related to GATs (applications on a smartphone or smart watch, augmented reality glasses, virtual reality helmet) were shown; (2) questions were asked about the perceived advantages and disadvantages of route planning prior to travel and navigation while receiving guidance in urban areas; and (3) an activity to rank fifteen defined usability criteria by importance was conducted. Two questionnaires were also self-administered: the Temple University Community Participation Measure and the Wheelchair Use Confidence Scale for Manual Wheelchair Users (WheelCon). Results: This study defines a comprehensive sample profile of manual wheelchair users with GAT and 19 distinctive usability criteria for GATs specifically suited to manual wheelchair users. Fifteen criteria were identified as the most important (actual use, appearance, Bluetooth, comfort, dimensions, ease of use, efficiency, familiarity, features, hands-free operation, information content, quality of information and transportability). Information content and transportability demand higher expectations while the emerging Bluetooth and free-hands criteria are associated with transportability. Conclusion: The results obtained using a user-centric approach yielded useful data to improve GATs and broaden the concept of compatibility among users and specific-use situations to ensure usability. For manual wheelchair users paired with a geospatial assistance technology: • The smart phone is preferred (compared to the smart watch, augmented reality glasses or virtual reality helmet) for both plan and navigation tasks. Actual use, comfort, ease of use, familiarity, features and informative content are important criteria and the smart phone as mobile device for GATs is perceived favourably to meet the requirements coming up with these criteria. • Especially suitable for guidance and manual wheelchair navigation (double-task), two emergent criteria emerge regarding the usability of GATs: hands-free and Bluetooth. Hands-free is associated with potential usability issues regarding smart phone transportability and to the relevance of augmented reality glasses or smart watches as mobile device for GATs. The Bluetooth connexion appears as being part of the solution for increasing the transportability of any of these mobile devices. • Appearance and dimension of GATs, their efficiency for planning and navigating, and the quality of the delivered information are other important usability criteria. • Since information content and transportability are targeted as the two most important criteria, we should pay special attention in the future to the availability of information about accessibility of destinations and also, to appropriate fixation and Bluetooth systems ensuring, partially or completely, hands-free operation in order to meet user needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Wheelchair users are increasingly using route planners and navigation systems to help them get around the city. The absence of a list of usability criteria for wheelchair user-centred design and recommending geospatial assistive technologies creates uncertainty about the choices to be made by rehabilitation clinicians and geographic information systems specialists. The aim of this study was to compile such a list by identifying usability criteria from standardized questionnaires linked to user interfaces and geospatial assistive technologies (GATs). Material and methods: We conducted a scoping review in ACM Digital Library, Inspec/Compendex and PsycINFO for the period 2005–2016 using keyword strategies. From 84 articles identified, after screening and exclusion procedures, 15 articles were selected. Data were extracted from them and reported in table 1 (relevant questionnaires listed in alphabetical order, type of user interface, population studied, psychometric properties, type of measurement scale and information about the construct, number of subscales and items) and in table 2 (usability criteria up to 20 items for the questionnaires, scales or constructs, pointing criteria as gold standard in physical rehabilitation and as in geographic information). Results: We identified 87 usability criteria in 12 standardized questionnaires in 15 articles (with at least two types of psychometric properties). There are 54 usability criteria that could be used in clinical situations concerning their potential applicability to GATs for wheelchair users: 20 are familiar to rehabilitation clinicians who recommend assistive technologies, 21 are generic to GATs while 13 are specific to mobile applications or voice recognition systems. It remains 34 criteria that are not actually familiar to clinicians: actual use, content (including content-clarity, content-color, content-consistency, content-credibility, content-legibility, content-relevance, content-trustworthy, and content-understandable), control-obviousness, customer service behavior, delivery format, design-application, ease of navigation, entry-point type, everyday words, fingertip-size controls, font, functions-expected, functions-integration, gestalt, graphics, habit, hierarchy, input, network externality, speech characteristics, structure, subtle animation, time spent waiting, transition, user goal orientation and verbosity. Conclusions: More research is needed to develop a questionnaire specific to geospatial assistive technologies for wheelchair users linked with mobile applications and information content. For manual wheelchair users paired with geospatial assistance technology, "effectiveness, efficiency, learnability and satisfaction" are essential criteria for route planning and navigation task. Clinicians can optimize the selection of a geospatial assistance technology considering 16 criteria: appearance, assistance-human support, comfort, ease of holding, ease of use, emotional aspect, endurance, facilitating conditions, intention to use, minimal memory load, physical effort, price value, simplicity, social influence, training and usefulness. Clinicians should have in mind that WC users want to plan a route with as few obstacles as possible. Information on the screen should be accessible to WC users (text, contrast, symbols, graphics, photos, voice, vibration, route views). Hands are occupied with the hand rims, WC users would prefer "listen to verbal" instructions to continue their route instead of looking on their electronic device. 34 criteria are specific for route planning and navigation task. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]