Collaborative design of accessible information with people with aphasia

Background: People with aphasia report preferences for specially formatted health information materials, but there is little evidence that modified materials result in improved comprehension. Potential explanations for this include language included not taking account of aphasic processing difficulties, topics unrelated to aphasia, lack of clarity regarding the use of images, and the lack of end-user involvement in the design. Additionally, no definitive criteria for production of accessible information have been identified. Aims: The first aim of this study was to collaborate with people with aphasia in an iterative design process to develop and finalise accessible information materials. The second aim was to identify definitive criteria for use in the future production of information materials for people with aphasia. Methods and procedure: Prototype materials were developed for the study, were based on criteria identified from the existing research into aphasia-accessible information, and on the evidence base concerning language processing in aphasia. Fourteen people with aphasia took part in two rounds of consensus group meetings and viewed information about aphasia presented within the prototype materials. Consensus points were identified within the groups through discussion and through ratings using Likert scales. The set of consensus points and ratings were adapted into criteria for graphic designers to incorporate into subsequent designs of the materials, in order to generate a final version, and related criteria. Outcomes and results: The group discussions and the ratings of materials led to the identification of an agreed layout within which to present information, and specific criteria for the following: information consisting of one proposition expressed via everyday words and canonical syntactic forms; one or two images relating directly to keywords; sans serif typography with keyword emphasis. Individual preferences with regard to image types were identified. Novel criteria were identified in the study, relating to layout, language, images and typography. These were added to the original set of criteria to form definitive criteria for use in the development of accessible aphasia materials. Conclusions: This study successfully involved people with aphasia in the design process to produce novel materials, and related design criteria. The resulting materials and criteria differ from those previously proposed, by reflecting directly people with aphasia’s views and preferences, and by incorporating language and images suitable for people with aphasia, based on the existing research evidence and the outcomes of this study. The materials and criteria have the potential to improve people with aphasia’s understanding of health information

Human factors and ergonomics design principles and guidelines : helping designers to be more creative

This is a pre-copyedited version of a contribution published in: Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 824, edited by Bagnara S., Tartaglia R., Albolino S., Alexander T., Fujita Y., published by Springer, Cham. The definitive authenticated version is available online via https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_17.The knowledge and application of Human Factors/Ergonomics (HFE) principles and guidelines can help designers to develop better products and services. However, they may also include design constraints that may affect designers’ creativity. Although both HFE principles and guidelines and creativity are considered essential in the design of products and services, the link between them is little researched. In this article a discussion is presented on the influence that HFE principles and guidelines can exert on the creativity of designers. It also presents case studies of HFE principles and guidelines and discusses how they can influence designers’ creativity. In addition, a set of recommendations is suggested to help designers apply ergonomic design principles and guidelines to stimulate creativity. It is concluded that HFE principles and guidelines can assist designers in creating safer and more efficient products and services and can also broaden their creative process and therefore the originality and appropriateness of products and services

Comparing the impact of an icon array versus a bar graph on preference and understanding of risk information: Results from an online, randomized study.

Few studies have examined the best way to convey the probability of serious events occurring in the future (i.e., risk of stroke or death) to persons with low numeracy or graph literacy proficiency. To address this gap, we developed and user-tested a bar graph and compared it to icon arrays to assess its impact on understanding and preference for viewing risk information. To determine the: (i) formats' impact on participants' understanding of risk information; (ii) formats' impact on understanding and format preference across numeracy and graph literacy subgroups; (iii) rationale supporting participants' preference for each graphical display format. An online sample (evenly made up of participants with high and low objective numeracy and graph literacy) was randomized to view either the icon array or the bar graph. Each format conveyed the risk of major stroke and death five years after choosing surgery, a stent, or medication to treat carotid artery stenosis. Participants answered questions to assess their understanding of the risk information. Lastly, both formats were presented in parallel, and participants were asked to identify their preferred format to view risk information and explain their preference. Of the 407 participants, 197 were assigned the icon array and 210 the bar graph. Understanding of risk information and format preference did not differ significantly between the two trial arms, irrespective of numeracy and graph literacy proficiency. High numeracy and graph literacy proficiency was associated with high understanding (p<0.01) and a preference for the bar graph (p = 0.01). We found no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of one format over another on understanding. The majority of participants preferred viewing the risk information using the bar graph format

Transdisciplinarity and the 'Living Lab Model' : food waste management as a site for collaborative learning

Transdisciplinary (TD) research is an increasingly recognized theoretical framework for addressing complex, socio-environmental problems involving multiple disciplines and a diversity of societal actors in complex projects. The underlying assumption is that creating effective solutions to complex problems requires exchanging knowledge and experiences among a diversity of disciplines with stakeholders in both public and private spheres (Gibbons et al. 1994; Lang et al. 2012; Neuhauser and Pohl 2014; Westberg and Polk 2015; Robinson 2008; Fam and Crosby 2017). By bringing a variety of different knowledge perspectives to bear, it is assumed that there is a better chance of understanding a problem from the perspectives of those implicated, generating innovation and solutions to complex societal problems (Bammer 2013). In the higher education context, on-campus Living Labs are one way to create an environment that supports TD research. Living Labs bring members of the public, business, government and researchers together to co-create services, systems, technologies and societal solutions. While the Living Lab concept has a range of applications, in this chapter we adopt a model that utilises the built environment of the university campus as a clearly defined educational context for bringing together students, academics, industry experts and campus facilities management in a transdisciplinary form of collaboration. This chapter draws on 2 years of experience by the authors in developing a ‘Transdisciplinary Living Lab’ (TDLL) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), where the on-campus food waste management system was used as the context for transdisciplinary learning by third year design students (Fashion and Textiles, Visual Communication, and Product Design)