Participatory Design – Stories from the GReAT Project - Abi Roper, City University London

754 views
620 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
754
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Participatory Design – Stories from the GReAT Project - Abi Roper, City University London

  1. 1. Stories from the GReATprojectParticipatory DesignAbi RoperDivision of Language and Communication ScienceDepartment of Human Computer Interaction DesignCity University London
  2. 2. Talk Outline— What is Aphasia?— Participatory Design— The GReAT Project— Overview— Overcoming challenges to the typical designprocess— Lessons learnt – aphasia accessibility— Outcomes and implications#HCID2013
  3. 3. What is Aphasia?— Language difficulty affecting around onethird of people who have had a stroke— Difficulty finding words and constructingsentences— Difficulty understanding words andsentences#HCID2013
  4. 4. What is Aphasia?#HCID2013Video example
  5. 5. Aphasia - prevalence—  About 250,000 people living with aphasia in theUK (Speakability, www.speakability.org.uk)—  Approximately 45,000 new cases each year (Officeof National Statistics, 2001)—  “Aphasia affects about one million Americans [..]and is more common than Parkinsons Disease,cerebral palsy or muscular dystrophy. More than100,000 Americans acquire the disorder eachyear. However, most people have never heard ofit.”(National Aphasia Association, USA)#HCID2013
  6. 6. Participatory Design“… the direct involvement of peoplein the co-design of things andtechnologies they use.”(http://pdc2012.org/about.html)#HCID2013
  7. 7. Methods include• Participant talk describing what aperson is doing as they are doing it• Role-play• Work involving detailed writtenmaterial• Work involving abstracted ideas#HCID2013
  8. 8. The GReAT Project(Gesture Recognition in Aphasia Therapy)Aim: to develop a computer-based gesture therapy tool usingparticipatory design methods#HCID2013
  9. 9. Naturalistic “Camera” Gesture#HCID2013
  10. 10. TanyaStroke:9 years agoTechnology: Skype,FacebookLanguage: Shortsentences spoken.Reading difficultTomStroke:3 years agoTechnology:some emailLanguage:Single wordsand phrasesAnnStroke:24 years agoTechnology: nocomputer or mobilephone useLanguage: Singlewords spoken.Good spokenunderstandingMartinStroke:3 years agoTechnology: nocomputer ormobile phone useLanguage:One or two wordsspoken.DifficultiesunderstandingSarahStroke:3 years agoTechnology: iPhone,WiiLanguage:Short sentencesspoken. Readssingle wordsParticipants
  11. 11. ParticipantsSamTechnical Researcherand SoftwareDeveloperExperience: Gesturerecognition, computervision, machinelearningJuliaHuman ComputerInteraction ResearcherExperience:Innovations inhealthcare technology,augmentedcommunication forpeople with cerebralpalsyAbiSpeech andLanguage ResearcherExperience:Speech and languagetherapy, computertherapy applicationsin aphasia#HCID2013
  12. 12. MethodsParticipatory workshop series including 2/3people with aphasia and 2/3 researchersAbsent• Participant talk describing what a person is doing asthey are doing it• Role-play• Work involving detailed written material• Work involving abstracted ideasPresent• Strong focus on hands-on methods• Multiple concrete examples#HCID2013
  13. 13. Challenges to the typical designprocessand possible resolutions#HCID2013
  14. 14. Session Structure1.  Introduction  to  scheduled  activities2.  Round table gesture activity  3.  Demonstration of technology4.  Trial use of technology by one consultant followedby interview at computer  5.  Tea break6.  Trial use of technology by remaining consultant(s)#HCID2013
  15. 15. Language Difficultiesand the Design ProcessChallenge• Eliciting detailed responses to materialsResolutions• Careful material choice• Adjustments to activity structure• Additional time provision#HCID2013
  16. 16. Abstraction of Informationand the Design ProcessChallenge• Comprehending and making projectionsabout imagined / abstract scenariosResolutions• Provide multiple concrete examples• Carry out discussions in situ• Avoid use of highly abstracted ideas#HCID2013
  17. 17. Information Retention & Retrievaland the Design ProcessChallenge• Reflecting and commenting on activities fromthe recent or not-so-recent pastResolutions• Provision of structured interview• Recall carried out directly after activity• Recall/commentary facilitated bydemonstration#HCID2013
  18. 18. #HCID2013—  Video of participatory design
  19. 19. Distractionsand the Design ProcessChallenge  • Maintaining  the  necessary  focus  to  access  and  feed  back  upon  ac5vi5es    Resolu-ons  • Ac5vi5es  carried  out  one  par5cipant  at  a  5me  • Background  distrac5ons  kept  to  a  minimum  • Filler/rest  ac5vi5es  provided  (tea  breaks!)  #HCID2013
  20. 20. How to overcome design processchallenges— Time— Demonstration / Interaction— Concrete examples— Simplicity#HCID2013
  21. 21. Outcomesfor Participants with AphasiaTanyaImprovedconfidenceLiked working witha speech andlanguage therapistwho understoodher aphasiaTomHaving peoplewith aphasiainvolved indesign “wasgood.”AnnEnjoyed thesessions –specifically thegesturing andgamesMartinImprovedconfidence:“…there, and there,and there”SarahImprovedgesturingSometimesfrustrating workingwith those lessable tocommunicate#HCID2013
  22. 22. Outcomesfor Participants with AphasiaAll reported that they had been listened to andtheir opinions taken into accountAll reported that they would take part insomething similar again#HCID2013
  23. 23. Lessons LearntAphasia Accessibility#HCID2013
  24. 24. The Prototype - GeSTOK    ←  →1.  Consistency #HCID2013
  25. 25. 2.  Simplicity#HCID2013
  26. 26. Lessons from the GReAT project1.  Consistency  2.  Simplicity  3.  Rewards  #HCID2013
  27. 27. 4.  Individual  Differences  #HCID2013
  28. 28. 5.  Poten5al  of  Gaming  #HCID2013
  29. 29. Lessons from the GReAT project1.  Consistency2.  Simplicity3.  Rewards4.  Individual Differences5.  Potential of ‘Gaming’#HCID2013
  30. 30. Outcomesfrom the GReAT projectTherapy tool has since been used with 10people in their homesEstablishment of further projects involvingpeople with aphasia in the review anddevelopment of technological applications#HCID2013
  31. 31. ImplicationsPossible to include people with aphasia in aparticipatory design modelThe choice to do so informs both choice ofmethods and ultimate designCritically, the process empowers the usergroup#HCID2013
  32. 32. Thank YouWebsite:  www.soi.city.ac.uk/great    Vimeo:  www.vimeo.com/aphasiatech      Email:  Abi.Roper.1@city.ac.uk  #HCID2013

×