journal article·2019-03-13Open access

Older Adults’ Usability and Emotional Reactions toward Text, Diagram, Image, and Animation Interfaces for Displaying Health Information

Yu-Min Fang, Lin Chun, Bo-Cheng Chu

Applied Sciences· Volume 9· Issue 6

Abstract

Technology can facilitate the provision of healthcare to older adults. Wearable devices are thus increasingly prevalent amidst perpetual component miniaturization and cost reduction. This study aimed to determine whether existing application (app) interfaces are suitable for older adults by comparing the perceived usability and emotional reactions of younger users and older users to the health information display formats of wearable interfaces. Based on the outcomes of a literature review and expert recommendations, four health display interfaces—text, diagram, image, and animation—were developed and revised. Thirty respondents in Miaoli, Taiwan, were invited to participate in a questionnaire and interviews. The collected data were analyzed and discussed to develop design recommendations. The findings of this study were as follows: (1) the diagram interface had the lowest performance; (2) the respondents preferred the animation interface, which produced strong affective valence, thereby suggesting that animation generated positive emotions, yielding a result consistent with expert views and existing design principles; and (3) older users were more accepting of the text interface than the younger users, who exhibited negative emotions toward the text interface, highlighting a significant generation gap.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Technology Use by Older Adults · Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts · Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Industrial Design, National United University, Miaoli 36003, Taiwan

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan

References (47)

Show source-provided references
1. Binstock, R., Cluff, L., and von Meerin, O. (1996). The Role of Technology in Long-Term Care. The Future of Long Term Care, Johns Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801853203 ↗
2. A Novel Wearable System for Elderly Monitoring10.4028/www.scientific.net/AST.85.17 ↗
3. Users’ Psychological Perception and Perceived Readability of Wearable Devices for Elderly People10.1080/0144929X.2015.1114145 ↗
4. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Past, present and future10.1136/svn-2017-000101 ↗
5. Artificial intelligence, machine learning and health systems10.7189/jogh.08.020303 ↗
6. Extracting biological age from biomedical data via deep learning: Too much of a good thing?10.1038/s41598-018-23534-9 ↗
7. Bharadwaj, R. (2018, December 28). Will Doctors Fear Being Replaced by AI in the Hospital Settling?. Available online: https://www.techemergence.com/will-doctors-fear-being-replaced-by-ai-in-the-hospital-settling/.
8. Arnold, D., and Wilson, T. (2017). Why AI and Robotics Will Define New Health, PwC.
9. Wearable Devices in Medical Internet of Things: Scientific Research and Commercially Available Devices10.4258/hir.2017.23.1.4 ↗
10. Wearables and the Internet of Things for Health: Wearable, Interconnected Devices Promise More Efficient and Comprehensive Health Care10.1109/MPUL.2016.2592260 ↗
11. Gartner Inc (2017). Forecast: Wearable Electronic Devices, Worldwide, Gartner Inc.
12. Research and Markets Inc (2018). Wearable Medical Devices Market by Device (Diagnostic (Heart, Pulse, BP, Sleep), Therapeutic), Application (Sport, Fitness, RPM), Type (Smartwatch, Patch), Distribution Channel (Pharmacy, Online)—Global Forecast to 2022, MarketsandMarkets Research Private Ltd.
13. Kulkarni, A., Kalburgi, D., and Ghuli, P. (2017, January 21–23). Design of Predictive Model for Healthcare Assistance Using Voice Recognition. Proceedings of the 2017 2nd International Conference on Computational Systems and Information Technology for Sustainable Solution (CSITSS), Bangalore, India.10.1109/CSITSS.2017.8447814 ↗
14. Using Voice-Activated Conversational Interfaces for Reporting Patient Safety Incidents: A Technical Feasibility and Pilot Usability Study
15. Alsaleh, D.A. (2010). A Social Model for the Consumer Acceptance of Technology Innovation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
16. The effect of Facebook users’ arousal and valence on intention to go to the festival: Applying an extension of the technology acceptance model10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.018 ↗
17. Saariluoma, P., Cañas, J.J., and Leikas, J. (2016). Emotions, Motives, Individuals, and Cultures in Interaction. Designing for Life, Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-53047-9 ↗
18. Feldman, S.S., Yalcin, O.N., and DiPaola, S. (2017, January 11–13). Engagement with artificial intelligence through natural interaction models. Proceedings of the Conference on Electronic Visualisation and the Arts, London, UK.10.14236/ewic/EVA2017.60 ↗
19. Luxton, D. (2015). Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health Care, Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-420248-1.00001-5 ↗
20. Tehrani, K., and Michael, A. (2018, December 28). Wearable Technology and Wearable Devices: Everything You Need to Know. Available online: http://www.wearabledevices.com/what-is-a-wearable-device/.
21. Competition in wearable device market: The effect of network externality and product compatibility10.1007/s10660-016-9227-6 ↗
22. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Population Division (2002). World Population Aging 1950–2050, WHO, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division.
23. Pervasive healthcare and wireless health monitoring10.1007/s11036-007-0017-1 ↗
24. Smart wearable systems: Current status and future challenges10.1016/j.artmed.2012.09.003 ↗
25. User interface design for older adults10.1016/0953-5438(94)90009-4 ↗
26. Kobayashi, M., Hiyama, A., Miura, T., Asakawa, C., Hirose, M., and Ifukube, T. (2011, January 5–9). Elderly user evaluation of mobile touchscreen interactions. Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT, Lisbon, Portugal.10.1007/978-3-642-23774-4_9 ↗
27. Bai, Y.W., Chan, C.C., and Yu, C.H. (2014, January 7–10). Design and implementation of a simple user interface of a smartphone for the elderly. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 3rd Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE), Tokyo, Japan.10.1109/GCCE.2014.7031146 ↗
28. Marcus, A. (2015). Universal, Ubiquitous, User-Interface Design for the Disabled and Elderly. HCI and User-Experience Design, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4471-6744-0 ↗
29. Bederson, B., and Shneiderman, B. (2003). The Craft of Information Visualization: Readings and Reflections, Morgan Kaufmann.
30. Cook, K.A., and Thomas, J.J. (2005). Illuminating the path: The research and development agenda for visual analytics 2005, IEEE Computer Society.
31. Pousman, Z., and Stasko, J. (2006, January 23–26). A taxonomy of ambient information systems: Four patterns of design. Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, Venezia, Italy.10.1145/1133265.1133277 ↗
32. Applying Eco-Visualisations of Different Iinterface Formats to Evoke Sustainable Behaviours towards Household Water Saving10.1080/0144929X.2016.1189965 ↗
33. Helander, M.G., Landauer, T.K., and Prabhu, P.V. (2014). Screen Design. Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Elsevier. [2nd ed.].
34. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., and Preece, J. (2011). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, John Wiley and Sons.
35. A laboratory test of the efficacy of energy display interface design10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.07.026 ↗
36. Harada, H. (2013). UI Design Textbook in Web Design for Multi-Device Era—From Aarchitecture to UX, Shoeisha Co. Ltd.
37. Google Inc (2017, August 31). Material Design Guidelines. Available online: https://material.io.
38. Mehrabian, A., and Russell, J.A. (1974). Approach to Environmental Psychology, The MIT Press.
39. Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9 ↗
40. Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., We-erdmeester, B.A., and McClelland, A.L. (1996). SUS: A “Quick and Dirty” Usability Scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, Taylor and Francis.10.1201/9781498710411 ↗
41. An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale (SUS)10.1080/10447310802205776 ↗
42. Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A., and Norman, K.L. (1988, January 15–19). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Washington, DC, USA.10.1145/57167.57203 ↗
43. Harper, B.D., and Norman, K.L. (1993, January 25–26). Improving Us-er Satisfaction: The Questionnaire for User In-teraction Satisfaction. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Mid-Atlantic Human Factors Conference, Virginia Beach, VA, USA.
44. Tullis, T.S., and Stetson, J.N. (2004, January 7–11). A Comparison of Questionnaires for Assessing Website Usability. Proceedings of the Usability Professionals Association (UPA) 2004 Conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
45. Tullis, T.S., and Albert, W. (2008). Measuring the User Experience: Collecting Analyzing, and Presenting Usability, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
46. Preece, J. (1993). A Guide to Usability—Human Factors in Computing, Addison Wesley.
47. Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, Taiwan (2010). National Survey on Knowledge, Attitude, Practice of Health Promotion, Academia Sinica. Available from Survey Research Data Archive.