Project Description: goals and purpose of the project

Our world population is aging, and the percentage of our population constituting classification as "older adults" is increasing. By 2030 older adults will comprise about 20% of the total population (Administration on Aging, 2002). In response to this increase, researchers in human computer interaction, social sciences, and computing communities are developing applications to help older people live independent and productive lives.

The most popular online activity performed by older adults, following email, is searching online for health related information relating to prescriptions, symptoms, diagnosis, surgery and recovery (Fox and Fallows, 2003). Older adults experience declining visual and cognitive abilities as they age, which make designing a GUI tailored to their specific needs a challenge that is not being effectively addressed with current search engine implementations.

After conducting one-on-one interviews with older adults to determine what problems they experienced when using a search engine, we discovered a disparity among those who were comfortable using computers and those who were novice users. As such, our goal is to provide an easy to use search engine for older adults who have at least a general understanding and mastery of basic computer technology while providing optimal search engine results. To do this, we propose to design a "wrapper-application" that will retrieve search results from Google and displays them in a less-intimidating manner to older adults. For this project, we focused on creating the user interface for this proposed wrapper application.


Process used on the project

We met weekly with our mentor to discuss goals, methods, and design issues for our project and worked in our mentor's lab with her graduate students. Here we give an overview of the process used for designing the user interface.

We submitted human research committee forms to officially conduct the user study with participants. Our team gave an informal presentation at The Academy in an attempt to recruit participants for one-on-one interviews by generating interest in our project. We gave a PowerPoint presentation to approximately twelve residents outlining our projects goals. We showed screen- shots of the results generated by various current search engines such as Google, Yahoo and KartOO in an attempt to illustrate the necessity for a better alternative, while at the same time emphasizing our inability to design and produce one without their input.

After our presentation, we passed around a sign-up sheet for those who felt they would be interested in participating in one-on-one interviews and/or in subsequent focus groups. This list generated approximately ten interested participants, but follow-up phone calls to schedule a time for the interviews filtered out about half of the list of potential interview participants. In the end, we were able to conduct five one-on-one interviews with residents of The Academy. For each interview session, our team brought a video camera and tripod to record the interviews. To make the environment more accessible for older adults, our setup for the contextual interview included a large flat-screen monitor, a normal keyboard, and a normal mouse we thought the laptop keyboard and mouse-pad might be too uncomfortable for some of the participants. Additionally, we brought a folder that had been made specifically for each individual interview session that included a copy of our one-on-one interview script, our questionnaire, and two copies of our consent form one was for the participants to keep for their records and one, once signed, was collected for our records.

The first thing we did at all of the interviews was to talk about, and have the participants read, the consent form. We answered any questions if they had any, and after they signed the consent form, so did the interviewer. After this we read the Questionnaire sheet to the participants and circled the answer they selected, by going through the Questionnaire with them and writing down their side-comments in addition to their answer, we hoped to gain even more feedback. After the Questionnaire was finished, we proceeded to follow the One-on-one Interview Script as a guide for the rest of the contextual interview. On average the interviews took approximately forty minutes to complete.

From the interview data, we created low fidelity, paper prototypes (first iteration). After analyzing the issues and errors of our second iteration low-fidelity prototypes that were uncovered with our individual cognitive walkthroughs, we each found a volunteer with whom to perform a think aloud test. After performing these individually and then comparing our results, the major issue we uncovered was that the term "Frame" was unclear to users we decided to refer to it as a "Search Box". We also discovered minor details in the implementation of the PowerPoint hyper linking that need to be addressed before our user study sessions, such as how the "Back" button needed to be implemented very carefully, because it was possible to get to one screen from various other screens (third iteration).

Our group decided to simulate our fourth iteration prototypes in Microsoft PowerPoint, using hyperlinks to simulate functionality. Hyperlinks connected the eleven slides of screen-shots quite effectively, providing a realistic interface for participants to use during our final user study interviews. The participants did not have any notable issues with this method, as all the hyperlinks worked correctly during the session.

During our user study sessions, we attempted to address some design issues that had consistently come up during the design and iteration phase of the system development issues that we were unable to conclusively decide the ultimate merit of for users without their perspective. In addition to the specifics outlined below, we intended to keep an eye out for any design blunders that were not previously caught through the previous iteration of prototypes. Through either our observation of the participants completing the tasks while thinking aloud, or through their responses to our User Study Questionnaire we sought to: Determine whether the keyword "signaling" in the list results was obvious did they feel it was helpful? Determine whether displaying four results in the "list results" was too many, too few or just enough. Take note of their interaction with being to bring up either the 'Picture Preview' or the 'Text Description' of each listed result. Ascertain whether they believed the layout was clear enough of cluttered information. Determine whether they felt bombarded by information at any point? Determine if it was clear to them how they should proceed ate very step was the wording confusing at any point(s)? Figure out whether or not the users felt the mouse-over preview feature made the screen look to cluttered. Determine whether the interface was legible at every point with respect to the obviousness of buttons (ie: the tutorials).

Conclusions

After conducting user studies with three participants on the fourth iteration of our prototype, we found: - Confusion over what Avalon was - a couple participants suggested we explicitly state the homepage of Avalon near the logo to make it clear. We will add the text "Your Internet Searching Site" to Avalon's purpose on our homepage to be clear that is is a search engine. - If clicked either tutorial from Search Box, you can return to a fresh new Avalon homepage, but can't go back to the previous page that brought you to the tutorial - still a large tendency to not use back button in the Internew browser itself. We need to add a button (option) for users to return from the tutorial to the immediately preceeding page. - Still hard for users to differentiable between the Search Box and where the actual web site or list or results began. Make a thicker black border at the bottom of theSearch Box. - Users could not differentiate between the content enough to justify having two separate tutorials. It was too confusing - make it called "Getting Started Tutorial" Having two caused confusion. We need to combine the two separate tutorials and make the name more clear.

Future direction include improved navigation and alternative search features. Blackmon et. all have conducted research to create a comprehension-based model of Web Navigation they refer to as the CoLiDeS Model, an acronym for Comprehension-based Linked model of Deliberate Search. This model expands upon numerous previous models and empirical results, to create a theoretical model which can help Web designers mediate tradeoffs of seemingly contradictory findings based on available design practice guidelines and or usability research findings.

Due to the inconclusive results obtained from our first round of user interviews regarding the use of text vs. pictures as a means to convey information, we believe there is much insight to be gained by applying this model to the prototypes we have designed in effect compensating for the limited number or participants.

During our initial presentation to potential participants at The Academy, someone made the suggestion that a shopping website specifically for older adults be created, and while we have done no related-work research pertaining to this particular suggestion, we hope to convey that there exists a base of user interest for such a project.

Websites Developed and Publications

Web pages developed:

1. http://www.wiilab.org/avalon.php

Papers or posters at conferences:

1. Poster for Colorado Celebration of Women in Computing
   

---

Back to 2007-2008 Project Listing

---