applying user centred and participatory design approaches to commercial product development

Corresponding author:

Christopher R.

[email protected]@

pdronline.co.uk

centred and participatory
Applying userdesign approaches to commercial productdevelopment
Christopher R. Wilkinson, National Centre for Product Design &

Development Research, Cardiff Metropolitan University,

Cardiff CF5 2YB, UK

Antonella De Angeli, Department of Information Engineering and Computer

Science, University of Trento, I-38123 Povo, Italy

Traditional design approaches have been accused of failing to engage with users

in the design process: compromising commercial opportunity and the

interactional experience of users. Alternatively, a participatory design approach

was applied to the generation of ideas for new product opportunities in the active

wheelchair user market and to the initial stages of a European project aiming to

develop an intelligent mobility aid for older people. Users were acutely aware of

problems with existing technology or designs, and including them during early

discussion and design stages was shown to facilitate new concept generation.

This highly transferable approach enhances the user experience and commercial

potential of products and services, and will be of interest to product

manufacturers, designers, and researchers, alike.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: product design, HCI, interaction design, user participation, user

centred design

Literature suggests that traditionally the views of individual users, and

particularly older people, were not sought to inform the design pro-

cess (Hansen, Percival, Aldred, Brownsell, & Hawley, 2007). This

lack of involvement in the design and evaluation stages of product develop-

ment may be responsible for causing some of the generational and age-

related issues that preclude a large proportion of the populace interacting

with products and may explain older peoples’ reluctance to engage with

new technology. Individuals’ views are not sought and, accordingly, designers

fail to realise and cater effectively for their specific needs. This, in turn, may

manifest itself in reluctance on behalf of this market to purchase or interact

with many forms of modern technology (Figure 1).

Lewis, Langdon, and Clarkson (2006) observed that designers were typically

male and able-bodied, and a more recent survey of the UK design industry re-

inforced concerns regarding a lack of diversity within the design community

itself. The survey revealed that the average UK designer is male, white, and

www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

0142-694X Design Studies 35 (2014) 614e631

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.06.001 614� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

mailto:[email protected]




http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.destud.2014.06.001&domain=pdf

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.06.001

Figure 1 Cycle of design over-

sight influencing the uptake

and engagement of technology

(Wilkinson, 2011)

Applying user centred an

38 years old, with only 7% of UK designers coming from ethnic minority

backgrounds (Design Council, 2010). The concern expressed was that de-

signers may assume that all users possess the same cognitive and physical abil-

ities as themselves, and a failure to connect with all potential user groups may

risk alienating or excluding significant proportions of the population.

As well as being ill-judged, alienation and exclusion also make poor business

sense. Failing to engage with potential users or user groups that may form part

of an increasingly influential market force potentially misses a commercial

design opportunity. Developing products that cater more effectively for a

larger demographic widens the commercial market, benefits a larger cross-

section of society, and makes both commercial and ethical sense. User involve-

ment within the design process is seen as the key solution to affect

such an outcome. Including a wider and more representative sample of

end-users e able-bodied and less-able bodied users, children, and the elderly

e at early stages of the design process, removes the need of designers to rely

on their own knowledge or skill sets as personal points of reference. Indeed,

catering for diversity within the target market should not be a unique

approach; it should be prerequisite for all design and a natural component

within requirements specification. Design should consider the user as an indi-

vidual, possessing individual aptitudes, experiences, and other human charac-

teristics, accounting for the abilities and limitations of all potential users.

Products designed in this way will be capable of being used by people with

the widest possible range of abilities, within the widest range of situations,

reaching most, if not all, potential end users.

Following an overview of the distinctions between the different user-focussed

approaches available, this article details two exploratory and collaborative

d participatory design approaches 615

616

projects in the United Kingdom and in Italy. Common themes were apparent

across both projects that highlighted the importance of involving users

throughout the process to understand in greater detail the impact of design

upon user self-perception and self-esteem. The findings presented have direct

implications upon product acceptability, uptake and adoption; critical factors

that ultimately influence the potential commercial success of every designed

and developed product or service.

1 The development of user centric designUser-centred design (UCD), and specifically inclusive design, is an approach

that aims to create interfaces, artefacts, products, and services that are appli-

cable, appropriate, and accessible to as many users as possible within the con-

straints of the design specification (Keates & Clarkson, 2003). Also referred to

as Universal Design, it attempts to optimise product and service design for

maximum accessibility and make ‘.mainstream design accessible to everyone’

(Pullin, 2011, p. 2). The intention is that this approach will provide salient so-

lutions that work as effectively for less able users as they do for more able

users. Similarly, participatory design aims to develop technologies with the

close involvement of stakeholders and end-users through cycles of require-

ments gathering, prototype development, implementation, and evaluation

(Sharma et al., 2008). To inform the design and development process, it is

important to capture user information and feedback ideally at every stage,

with input from everyone involved; users, designers and stakeholders. Partic-

ipatory design approaches can be seen as attempts to better understand and

involve real users, and as imperative and important in creating more appro-

priate, and user friendly products or services (Lindgaard et al., 2006;

Muller, 2002). The importance of individual input is also reflected in

Sanders (2002) notion of participatory design as a belief that all people have

something to offer at every stage of the design process and that when given

the appropriate tools with which to express themselves, they can be both artic-

ulate, creative, and inspirational, in terms of generating new ideas and in

developing current thinking. This research, then, attempts to appreciate the

diverse needs and requirements of two specific demographics by involving

them within a process that will foster such ideation, and these insights can

then be used to develop products or tools that are more immediately accessible

and usable to a wider proportion of the population (Etchell & Yelding, 2001).

1.1 Investigating context of use and prior experienceWithin user centred and participatory design, consideration of individuals’

prior experience and other factors such as the context of use and environment

of interaction are required to create truly usable and inclusive products, and

are key considerations in the performance of usability evaluations (Nielsen,

1993). The fact that design practice is resource constrained, often in terms

of time, financial investment, and professional expertise, causes user involve-

ment to be seen as an expensive luxury that is not always necessary (Grudin,

Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 November 2014


1991). However, from a commercial management perspective, involving users

within the process can immediately improve the applicability, acceptance, and

adoption of the end design, and consequently has the potential to reduce devel-

opment risk. Mayhew (1999) advocated consideration of users’ physical char-

acteristics, knowledge and experience, widening this to include users’

psychological characteristics. By understanding these factors, and applying

them within design, the potential exists to increase the long-term profitability

of product manufacturers and enhance the competitive edge of companies,

whilst assisting in the production of better products for all users.

1.2 Applying user centred design in an experimental settingOne approach to achieve product differentiation is to examine how humans

learn and interact with interfaces and designs, and by understanding more

about how learning occurs, use this knowledge to influence future design in

terms of ease of learning, use, and access to all. Both projects presented

were exemplary in their aim to involve, consider and understand their respec-

tive user groups e older people and wheelchair users e from the beginning of

the design and development process, and beyond.

2 Case study one: intelligent mobility aidIn 2008 more people were aged over the age of 60 than under 18 years of age in

the United Kingdom, and in 2010 more than 20% of the populations of Ger-

many and Italy were over 65. By 2066 it is predicted that half a million people

in the UK will be over the age of 100, and this reflects European trends

(Population Trends, 2010). Ageing is associated with a decrease in mobility

and social interaction, and this can have detrimental effects upon access to

good nutrition, leisure, and other activities. Increasing the mobility of older

adults increases opportunities for social interaction and has positive effects

upon individual health and well-being. However, older adults may be less

confident in their ability to go out independently in unfamiliar and crowded

spaces. The Devices for Assisted Living (DALi) project pursued autonomous

mobility through the development of a mobility aid that supports navigation

in crowded and unstructured spaces by acquiring sensory information, antic-

ipating the intent of the individual or user, and determining a path that poses

minimal risk of collision.

Studies have reported how older individuals fail to recognise modern features

and iconography, suggesting the existence of a generational effect causing

modern symbols and interactional styles to be most suited to those 25 years

and younger (Langdon et al., 2010; Wilkinson et al., 2013). Elderly users

also performed less well in interface information retrieval tasks which required

searching hierarchical structures in comparison to younger adults

(Freudenthal, 2001). Such findings may explain the difficulties experienced

by older generations interacting with a variety of products and designs that

employ menu-driven systems whilst they experience a general decline in their


618

cognitive and physical abilities. With the potential to incorporate state-of-the-

art technology within the design of assistive technologies, any technology must

be integrated seamlessly and satisfy the expectations and abilities of the target-

market. The following model is not dissimilar to the International Standard

for Human-Centred Design of Interactive Systems (ISO 9241-210:2010), but

is arguably more modest and emphasises the way in which the participatory

design group can and, ideally, should be involved throughout every stage of

the design process (Figure 2).

One initial task for the team developing the intelligent mobility device was to

examine how older users currently used walking-aids to assist in daily tasks

such as shopping, and how people in such shared environments reacted to

them. Initial laboratory studies investigated how a group of 25 students inter-

acted within the same shared space e in this instance, a simulated shopping

environment. How these activities were planned and executed, and how subse-

quent interaction was influenced was revealed by video-recording participants’

physical behaviour, and with the use of talk-aloud protocols capturing both

the thought and decision making processes that occurred. Further studies

were envisaged to observe older users engaged in the task of shopping to inves-

tigate and discuss exactly what the task of shopping means to older people,

how they currently approach the task, and how technology could be developed

to assist them effectively. Other insight streams involved liaison with a partic-

ipatory design group of older people, and correspondence with two UK super-

markets who revealed how the design of their stores may impact directly upon

older customers.

2.1 Methodology: mobility aid studyThe experimental design aimed to capture information regarding how people

interact in confined environments, how they negotiate shared space interac-

tion, and how they behave in relation to other agents in shared space.

The participant sample consisted of 25 university students. Each participant

was recorded whilst involved in a shared space interaction task. 20 of

these participants also completed a post-experimental questionnaire regarding

their shopping behaviour. The overall sample consisted of 6 females and 19

males.

Specific techniques were identified and selected for use in the study, as their

ability to obtain objective data in such scenarios is well documented

(Muller, 2002). Data capture thus involved the use of:

� Concurrent protocol provided by participants whilst completing tasks

� Video-recorded observation of interaction and behaviour during task

completion

� Questionnaire completion after task execution


Figure 2 Placing the partici-

patory design group at the

core of the design process

allows users to inform the

design process as a whole


These verbalisation and data capture techniques have been found to be partic-

ularly effective when conducting experimental investigations (Jarke, Bui, &

Caroll, 1998). The concurrent or talk-aloud protocol e a narration of thought

and action e was adopted as literature suggests the alternative retrospective

protocol (where participants return to view and comment upon their recorded

experience) may not accurately reveal participants actual task performance

experience (Hands, Avons, & Davidoff, 2001). Furthermore, concurrent pro-

tocol participants have been found to go into greater detail and provide more

in-depth evaluations (Teague, de Jesus, & Nunes-Ueno, 2001).

2.2 Analysis of concurrent protocol and questionnairematerialThe questionnaire data confirmed that in this simulated environment, partic-

ipants used eye contact and peripheral vision to facilitate interaction with

other agents, and social conventions were observed with the visual system ap-

pearing a key factor in terms of product determination, agent awareness, and

collision avoidance strategies. Shopping for convenience appeared to exert an

influence on shopping behaviour with a significant proportion of participants

deviating from the list provided. Having initially observed the location of all

items, participants often proceeded to shop, either for the nearest items, or

to avoid other participants positioned at shopping stations, returning later.

Critical instances within the verbal protocols were pre-defined as any reference

to physical, visual or auditory agent-to-agent awareness or interaction, and

these were then mapped to the video-footage to explore the physical interac-

tions described. Analysis of these critical instances allowed them to be categor-

ised by a single observer into two groups, namely: Active Behaviours and

Reactive Behaviours. Active behaviours were considered to be behaviours em-

ployed to understand the environment and determine goal strategies towards


620

task completion, environmental awareness and negotiation, mainly focussing

around the visual modality:

1. Eye-to-eye negotiation of immediate shared space interaction

2. Use of peripheral vision in assessment

3. Visual scanning of environment

4. Verbal interaction

Alternatively, Reactive behaviours were considered as the reactions of agents

in the environment to other agents; the physical reactive movements made to

accommodate other agents and successful interaction:

5. Waiting for free space or desired location to become clear

6. Stepping backwards to allow others more room/free space

7. Moving forwards to allow others more room/free space

8. Stationary agent yielding to moving agent

9. Move left

10. Move right

Determining in this study what the most frequently occurring responses were

during interaction permitted the contemplation of how similar findings might

be used in the future should the developed studies yield similar results, as well

as informing how subsequent data capture may be performed in more ecolog-

ical settings involving older participants.

2.3 Overcoming stigmatisation by designUser acceptability is one of the fundamental requirements of assistive technol-

ogy stated by older and less able-bodied users. Therefore one of the great chal-

lenges is that of developing technology which is usable and acceptable by users

with a diverse set of needs and capabilities. This is particularly true when such

reliance is placed upon the visual modality; a modality that is renowned for

deteriorating with age. Similarly, to assume that individuals will use an assis-

tive technology purely because they need it is misguided (Hirsch et al., 2000).

This notion was evident in the initial exchanges with the participatory design

group members: ‘I don’t need a walker’ was a common response of partici-

pants in the project who felt that they would be stigmatised by association

with any form of assistive technology. Overcoming these challenges, then,

can only be achieved by understanding in greater detail the complexities and

holistic experience of potential users through direct user involvement

throughout the design process.

3 Case study two: wheelchair product designDesign for the active wheelchair user market also shares common aims in

terms of facilitating personal independence, social, and physical, mobility.

In order to rapidly gain insights into the needs and requirements of wheelchair



users, a user focus group was organised at the initial stages of the development

process.

With the aim to develop a wheelchair product for athletic users, four active

wheelchair users were approached to contribute towards the initial require-

ments analysis and specification stages. Being professional, international para-

lympians, these four individuals were considered lead users as their use and

demands from a product are seen to be ahead of the market (Von Hippel,

1986). Further, these users are adept at envisioning the particular benefits

that new products will create for themselves and other users of such assistive

technology. However, it is acknowledged that for true empirical integrity,

these lead users who are arguably at the extreme end of the user group should

be counterbalanced by less able wheelchair users who may experience a

different range of issues. By way of example, this article presents the initial

approach to requirements gathering in an exploration of user needs, percep-

tions, and requirements, applied to the wheelchair study. The intention is

that this inclusive, participatory, approach can be seen to be of value in obtain-

ing a more accurate picture of user requirements and reactions to prototypical

design solutions and, in a wider context, will contribute towards the explor-

ative development of assistive technology that is more usable, understandable,

and intuitive, to a larger market.

Following the participatory inclusive design and lead user approach detailed

above, a consultation with the four active wheelchair users was organised to

inform the requirements analysis of the development process. Being an author-

ity on wheelchair product design, these users are well qualified to highlight the

strengths and weaknesses of current wheelchair designs and features. Access-

ing this knowledge early on assists in the creation of design solutions that are

in greater harmony with users’ needs and desires, and can help in identifying

new market drivers. Due to the commercial sensitivities expressed by the

commissioning body, it is difficult to provide a detailed report of the experi-

mental findings. However, an overview of the process and a summary of the

wheelchair study results are presented to show how the inclusive and partici-

patory design method can be used to maximise design insight acquisition.

3.1 Methodology: wheelchair product design studyQualitative techniques were used initially to gather rich information upon

product perception, performance, and use. The methodology consisted of

performing:

� A survey of participants perceived needs from products

� A semi-structured interview and cognitive walkthrough focussing on daily

tasks that included a discussion of ‘future product use’

� Observational research in a controlled environment including talk-aloud

protocol


622

All four participantsmet in a bespoke observation laboratory that allowed them

to interact with each other and typical objects that might be found in a home

environment e tables, chairs, televisions, and computers. A total of 4 h of

footage was captured, and the analysis of these multiple datasets was intended

to provide the authors with rich insights into current and potential product use.

3.2 Analysis of survey, interview, and observational materialBoth studies followed Chi’s (1997) procedure for interpreting qualitative data,

with strict coding schemes developed and applied to transcribed material. Four

higher level themes emerged from an initial evaluation: Positive Statements,

Wants and Needs; Negative Statements and Dislikes; Participant Ideas; and In-

stances of Behaviours. Each individual verbal transcription and instance of

observational data was then classified in accordance with a five-part coding

scheme extracted from further analysis. Very strict definitions for the applica-

tion of the five-part, lower-level, coding scheme were developed and adhered to:

Independence: Instances relating to current or future products that assist or

impede independence

Reliance: Instances where the user acknowledges reliance on the product or

element thereof

Empowerment: Where a product provides, or has the potential to provide,

greater empowerment

Aesthetics: Instances where users indicate the importance of aesthetics

Functionality: Instances relating to the actual or potential functionality of a

product

It is worth attaching a note of caution to the process of coding and interpre-

tation described. Inter-coder or inter-rater reliability or agreement is the extent

to which independent coders evaluate a characteristic of a message and reach

the same conclusion and it is clearly deemed best-practice to perform such ac-

tivities by independent coders and investigate the consistency of the results to

minimise any subjective effects. Due to the preliminary nature of these studies,

the critical instances and the higher and lower level themes developed above

were only determined by single reviewers in both cases. However, in the sub-

sequent investigations that these studies informed, the importance of inter-

coder reliability would be emphasised to maximise methodological rigour

(Tinsley & Weiss, 2000).

In this example, the aim of the approach was to collect qualitative data that

could be quantified and evaluated to reveal interactional behaviour and user

experience in context. It can also be used to investigate and observe how indi-

viduals learn to operate technological products through experience, and to

identify where product design may enhance or impede this process. In this

instance, the qualitative data consisted of the complete video-footage of

each individual’s experience of interacting with the wheelchair, other agents,



and objects, in the environment. The footage was observed, documented, and

presented in transcript form. The actions of each individual were then inter-

preted with regard to which construct their behaviour or verbalised response

was most indicative of.

3.3 The importance of aesthetics and empowermentThe real value of this approach is the individual insights gained rather than an

overview of occurrences, particularly with small samples. However, in this

instance, an overview does provide a useful indication of user perception and

experience regarding current wheelchair devices. The wheelchair users involved

in the study were particularly stimulated by issues of design and interaction that

impacted personal empowerment, aesthetics, and product functionality.

Figure 3 (below) indicates both the frequency of construct occurrence, and

the frame of reference; Positive, Negative, Ideation, and Observed Behaviour.

Being respectful towards the commercial sensitivities expressed, it is still useful

to expand slightly on the findings above. Within the theme of Positive State-

ments, product aesthetics was the most frequently referred to factor. Partici-

pants indicated that the aesthetic look of the device was considered of

greater importance than almost all other considerations; more important

than functionality and reliance. Participants admitted possessing a reluctance

to use features that directly addressed their medical needs if they felt those fea-

tures negatively impacted the overall aesthetic, or emphasised their disability.

Many of the empowerment issues referred to in the Negative Statements theme

indicated that the product in its current iteration could also do considerably

more to empower the user and increase personal independence.

In terms of Ideas, users were quick to suggest that new product developments

should focus on improved functionality, often with the qualification that any

new features must also look good as well as being functional. In terms of Behav-

iours, themain observations focussed on issues of Functionality, Empowerment

and Aesthetics; here the workarounds that the users employed in place of using

the correct equipment (from amedical perspective) included using an undersized

chair as it was considered more aesthetically pleasing, and not using the device’s

anti-tip features as, to the users, they gave the impression of stabilisers.

Again then, these insights are arguably only born out of direct user involve-

ment within the design process. In terms of product ideation, this interaction

and input is most effective during the early stages to maximise the efficiency of

prototypical design development, and to drive design projects towards

capturing the finalised design solution.

4 General discussionDesign must not only consider how usable or user-friendly a product is but

also how people feel when using that product or how that product, in turn,


Figure 3 Frequency of

construct occurrence

624

makes them feel when using it. The goals of interaction designers are to create

interactive technologies that are enjoyable, pleasurable, motivating, and satis-

fying, and these aims are largely dependent upon users’ acceptance of technol-

ogy, their perceptions of the technology and their level of engagement with it.

Literature indicates that significant proportions of users found mobility aids

either difficult or risky to use (Mann, Ottenbacher, Fraas, Tomita, &

Granger, 1999). If users ideas of how interaction is likely to occur based on

the products design do not transfer well (the design of the device misleads

them), it is likely to result in poor product performance and ultimately product

abandonment (Phillips & Zhao, 1993). Research has shown that many

disabled people with assistive technologies have been poorly trained and often

the devices selected were inappropriate (Gitlin, 2002). This may be a contrib-

utory factor that makes products difficult and unsafe to use, and has undoubt-

edly contributed towards negative consumer perceptions of product

interaction.

4.1 Context of use and prior experienceBoth these studies take account of the context of use and the environment

within which the products may ultimately be used. The significance of the par-

ticipants’ individual prior experience was perhaps more pronounced in the

latter study exploring the development of wheelchair design for active users.

This heightened consideration of users and focus upon user involvement has

the potential to reduce development cost and create more immediately usable

and rewarding products. These factors will hopefully adjust the perception of

user centred design being seen merely as an expensive and unnecessary luxury

(Grudin, 1991).

4.2 Encouraging acceptance and overcoming stigmaMembers of the active wheelchair user group felt stigmatised by features that

identified them as less-able and this also had implications upon mental health

and self-esteem. Participants indicated that aesthetics took precedence over

almost all other considerations, often even over functionality. Furthermore,



participants were reluctant to use functions that addressed their clinical needs

if they felt that they detracted from the overall aesthetic or made them look

more disabled. Participants own ideas for new product developments were

often made with the qualification that any feature or functionality must also

look good.

Similar to the concept of ‘Persuasive Design’ suggested by Girling (2012), in

this instance, there appears a reciprocal need to challenge and overcome peo-

ples thinking towards designed artefacts; it is apparent that to overcome the

stigma the participants themselves associate with walker and wheelchair use,

the design teams would have to encourage the use and acceptance of the assis-

tive technology by showing clear examples of what value it might add to their

overall user experience and daily lives. Further, finalised features and designs

must be capable of making the product appear trendy, stylish, and desirable,

to the widest possible demographic, including those with or without

impairment.

4.3 New concept generation and ideationIdeation also came from outside the experimental aspects of the investigations.

Discussion with a less able-bodied member of the mobility aid’s participatory

design group who experienced Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), revealed the

extent to which their mobility and movement were directly influenced by their

limited knowledge of access to rest rooms and toilets. Therefore, developing a

mobility aid with the functionality to detect, indicate, and navigate the user to

the nearest rest room facilities would be considered extremely incentivising. By

directly increasing the user’s mobility and confidence to travel and negotiate

busy and potentially congested environments, the benefit of using the device

would outweigh any negative perceptions of assistive technology use, and

actively encourage product adoption. Arrival at train stations and airports

is also associated with increased levels of stress (Koslowsky, Kluger, &

Reich, 1995) and an often equal sense of urgency; therefore proposing a solu-

tion that can be developed to guide people through such cognitively and phys-

ically challenging environments easily, may be an effective way of encouraging

the use and acceptance of such technology.

Liaison with two leading supermarkets in the UK revealed that older users

were not considered as a specific demographic in the design of their stores,

so any way in which the shopping experience can be improved for older users,

independently, has to be beneficial. Evidence from the participatory design

group interactions indicated that store design and particularly the provision

of seating were felt to be insufficient for older users. Presumably allowing cus-

tomers to rest between purchases is insufficiently cost effective. Perhaps

another way of conveying the potential benefits of the proposed technology

may be to develop the concept of a smart shopper or product finder. This might

allow users to enter their shopping requirements and be guided in the most


626

efficient manner to the product, thus reducing the time and energy expended.

Furthermore, this technology could potentially provide extra product infor-

mation if desired and make shopping suggestions based upon previous pur-

chases. This could be particularly relevant when shop displays are altered or

products are relocated to different areas of the store. It might also indicate

to the user when a product was out of stock; minimising the time and effort

spent attempting to locate products that are not available. This would have

the added benefit of reducing the cognitive and physical demands placed

upon the consumer and would allow users to apply their cognitive resources

to other tasks.

This approach of involving users heavily at the requirements gathering stage

and accurately projecting the potential of technology to enhance their lives ap-

pears to be gaining acceptance. It was certainly appreciated by one of the par-

ticipants within the active wheelchair user group who stated that in 40 years of

wheelchair use nobody had ever asked him for his thoughts, opinions, or sug-

gestions, for an improved design solution.

5 ConclusionThis article has attempted to outline how the participatory design approach to

product research and development can be inclusively applied within the pro-

cess of requirements gathering and design insight acquisition. The argument

that ‘Users don’t always know what they want’ has been shown not to hold

merit within the context of design and design teams hold an equal responsibil-

ity to credibly portray the potential benefits of novel and new technologies to

users (Madrigal & McClain, 2011). This helps users visualise, understand, and

comprehend, the capability new technology offers. In a similar way to that in

which Personas and Scenarios help designers imagine and contextualise users,

users may also require assistance to imagine and conceptualise bespoke prod-

ucts designed with them in mind.

5.1 Commercialisation through design insightThe inclusion of users throughout the design process is key to the enhanced

adoption of finalised design solutions, and in these requirements elicitation ex-

ercises, the exploration of user needs has also been successful in capturing,

creating, and driving features and ideas for new products. Making such con-

cepts easier to trust and believe in, and identifying the value such products

add to specific activities should, as in the examples provided, increase the

adoption of the developed technology and at least overcome some of the

stigma associated with the materialisation and use of assistive technology

products.

A thorough understanding of user capabilities, often only available by direct

user involvement in the participatory design process, is paramount. If we

consider the demographics involved across these studies; namely older



individuals and wheelchair users, it is clear that individual capability will have

significant implications for the physical design of any supporting system or as-

sistive technology. Consideration, also, of the context of use is imperative as

many subsequent devices will, themselves, be used to help users achieve mul-

tiple aims whilst users engage in a myriad of other tasks.

5.2 Designing for an ageing demographicThese issues are exacerbated when considering different demographics, some

of whom may possess reduced cognitive and physical capability due to natural

atrophy or as a result of trauma. For example, ageing is associated with mac-

ular degeneration, and cataracts and glaucoma are common age-related causes

of visual impairment. Therefore the need to focus at different distances should

be minimised as much as possible as older adults also have difficulty adjusting

focal distances (Nichols, Rogers, & Fisk, 2006). Glare, too, is problematic for

older adults, as the ageing eye is slower to adapt to light and dark differences in

ambient lighting, and similar effects occur regarding audition: losses of higher

frequencies are common, therefore higher frequency sound should be avoided

in any system or product that older adults might use. The efficiency of selec-

tively deploying attention also decreases with age, adversely affecting perfor-

mance and therefore designers should carefully consider the implications of

their designs, particularly in environments that present multiple stimuli

(Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977). These factors alone will have a direct impact

upon the physical design of assistive technologies. Any display system incorpo-

rated must be of sufficient size and must accommodate older individual’s vi-

sual abilities (Rogers & Fisk, 1997). Screen or display illumination, if used,

must also be considered due to the variation of environments in which such

a device might be operated, and the design of manemachine interface itself

must be sympathetic to the fact that manual dexterity often decreases in old

age and impacts upon ease of use for older people (Osman, Maguire, &

Tarkiainen, 2003).

5.3 Intuitive design facilitates unconscious useIf there was one outstanding research aim, it would be that the use and design

of supporting technologies will become so intuitive users will become almost

unaware or unconscious of using such support systems or devices. This can

only truly be achieved by involving real users throughout the design process

and particularly during the crucial initial explorations into current and poten-

tial use of existing products. As a preliminary exploration into design insight

acquisition through user involvement, the methodology presented was success-

ful in gleaning relevant data that might inform the development of rehabilita-

tive or assistive technology.

That the methodologies described were capable of identifying differences in in-

dividual approaches to use, potential future uses, and differences in terms of

user perception and experience, was a significant additional feature. As


628

mentioned, the real value of this approach is the method by which individual

insights are gained rather than generalising on an overview of occurrences

from such a small sample. What has been attempted is to show how transfer-

able this approach is, and to highlight how it can assist in identifying interac-

tional issues, regardless of technology, domain area, or individual context.

5.4 Using design insights to enhance current design thinkingThe key findings regarding the comments and behaviour employed by individ-

uals in the studies revealed that wheelchair users are currently dissatisfied with

the level of consideration they are provided with in design terms. This is indi-

cated in their responses regarding the look and feel of the devices used and how

these could and should be improved, with particular emphasis on product aes-

thetics. This appears to be a common theme across both demographics, as

members of the mobility aid’s participatory design group also raised concerns

over products that might enhance other people’s awareness of their reduced

capability. There was a consensus that to increase future product usage and

adoption, this practice must be avoided. This paper has highlighted how

adopting a participatory design approach has the potential to increase usabil-

ity regardless of age or impairment, reduce subsequent manufacturing, retool-

ing and operational costs, whilst widening the market for existing or potential

products, designs, and artefacts.

Close liaision with target demographics and potential users then, can help de-

signers and product manufacturers realise new avenues, inspired directly from

user involvement in the design and development process. As in the examples

portrayed, these users are often acutely aware of problems with existing tech-

nology or designs, and including them at these early stages of product redesign

and discussion, can lead directly to generating new concept ideas. There is also

a commercial benefit in receiving product feedback as it can heighten and

improve the user experience of existing products, and this carries increasing

value in terms of product differentiation in gloablised and competitive mar-

kets. As a whole, this article presents methodologies that can help designers

formulate better approaches to design and development. This approach and

knowledge is also of value to marketing professionals, as it aids designers

and developers produce products that are applicable to a wider proportion

of the population, products that work more effectively out-of-the-box, and

thereby have the potential to increase sales revenue, product engagement,

and long-term adoption.

6 Key insights, limitations and future researchOne of the key insights gained from the participatory approach, and consistent

across both studies, was the potential psychological impact design has upon

user self-esteem. That the approaches used were able to identify and draw

out this important and influential information is perhaps the articles biggest

contribution, coupled with understanding the effects this can have upon



product uptake and adoption. Users will not adopt, enjoy, or potentially buy,

products that stigmatise them and emphasise their disability, but they are

capable and qualified to suggest ways in which such stigmatising effects might

be minimised. This in turn, can increase a products commercial potential as

well as increase product use, uptake and adoption.

Limitations of this work may include the reliance upon lead users in the wheel-

chair study to provide core feedback and ideation. Again, it is acknowledged

that for true empirical integrity, these lead users who are arguably at the

extreme end of the user group should be counterbalanced by less able wheel-

chair users who may experience a different range of issues. The importance

of inter-coder reliability during thematic analysis may also have been under-

stated. However, efforts were made to acknowledge and multiple references

provided from which expert knowledge may be sought to ensure experimental

rigour is maintained.

Both authors are actively involved in user centric and user centred design, and

acknowledge the importance of considering users as individuals, with individ-

ual needs, capabilities, and desires, throughout the design process. Participa-

tory and inclusive design approaches are at the core of their research and

are applied in on-going living-lab projects in Italy, and in commercial research

and design activity in the United Kingdom. Both authors maintain an interest

in the cognitive, social, and cultural, aspects of Information Communication

Technology and product interaction design. The Devices for Assisted Living

project continues to develop, with great advances having been made in terms

of monitoring and mapping individual behaviour in shared space. This new

knowledge will be incorporated into the development of the mobility aid’s pre-

diction engine in the near future, and helps to determine how such an approach

may be transferred to more ecologically valid environments and settings that

were envisaged for the future work involving older adults. Further to this

work, commercial design and research contracts have been commissioned in

the UK, in which the participatory and inclusive design approaches outlined

will be performed to enhance subsequent product adoption and engagement.

The output of this analysis highlighted how design insights can be gleaned

even an early stage of exploration. This knowledge can be translated into

further research avenues, used to identify problematic areas of existing prod-

uct interaction that are ripe for redesign, or used in the creation of novel inter-

face features to advance and lead the market.

ReferencesChi, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide.

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271e315.Design Council. (2010). Design industry research report. [online] Available at.

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/knowledge-resources/design-industry-

research-2010.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0142-694X(14)00050-7/sref1



http://https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/knowledge-resources/design-industry-research-2010

http://https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/knowledge-resources/design-industry-research-2010

630

Etchell, L., & Yelding, D. (2001). Inclusive design: products for all consumers.Research Institute for Consumer Affairs (RICA): Consumer Policy Review,14(6), 193.

Freudenthal, D. (2001). Age differences in the performance of information

retrieval tasks. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(1), 9e22.Girling, R. (2012). Persuasive design. http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669055/de-

signs-next-frontier-nudging-consumers-into-making-better-life-choices.

Gitlin, L. (2002). Assistive technology in the home and community for older peo-ple: psychological and social considerations. In M. J. Scherer (Ed.), Assistivetechnology matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation (pp.

109e122). American Psychological Association.Grudin, J. (1991). Obstacles to user involvement in software development, with

implications for CSCW. International Journal of ManeMachine Studies, 34,

435e452.Hands, D., Avons, S., & Davidoff, J. (2001). Recency and duration neglect in tele-

vision picture quality evaluation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 639e657.Hansen, J., Percival, J., Aldred, H., Brownsell, S., & Hawley, M. (2007). Attitudes

to telecare among older people, professional care workers and informal carers:a preventative strategy or crisis management? Universal Access in the Informa-tion Society, 6(2), 193e205.

Hirsch, T., Forlizzi, J., Hyder, E., Goetz, J. A., Kurtz, C., & Stroback, J. (2000).The ELDer project: social, emotional, and environmental factors in the designof eldercare technologies. In Design, 2000 (pp. 72e79).

International Standards Organisation (ISO). (2010). Ergonomics of humanesys-tem interaction e Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems:ISO 9241-210. Geneva, Switzerland.

Jarke, M., Bui, X., & Caroll, J. (1998). Scenario management: an interdisciplinaryapproach. Requirements Engineering, 3(4), 155e173.

Keates, S., & Clarkson, J. (2003). Countering design exclusion e An introduction toinclusive design. London: Springer-Verlag.

Koslowsky, M., Kluger, A., & Reich, M. (1995). Commuting stress: Causes, ef-fects, and methods of coping. New York: Plenum Publishing.

Langdon, P., Lewis, T., & Clarkson, J. (2010). Prior experience in the use of do-

mestic product interfaces. Universal Access in the Information Society, 9(3),209e225.

Lewis, T., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, J. (2006). Investigating the role of experience

in the use of consumer products. Designing accessible technology. London:Springer-Verlag 189e198.

Lindgaard, G., Dillon, R., Trbovich, P., White, R., Fernandes, G., & Lundah, S.(2006). User needs analysis and requirements engineering: theory and practice.

Interacting with Computers, 18(1), 47e70.Madrigal, D., & McClain, B. (2011). Users don’t always know what they want.

http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2011/03/the-dangers-of-design-by-

user.php.Mann, W., Ottenbacher, K., Fraas, L., Tomita, M., & Granger, C. (1999). Effec-

tiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintain-

ing independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly. Archivesof Family Medicine, 8(3), 210e217.

Mayhew, D. J. (1999). The usability engineering lifecycle. California: Morgan

Kaufmann Publishers.Muller, M. (2002). Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In J. Jacko, &

A. Sears (Eds.), The human computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals,








http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669055/designs-next-frontier-nudging-consumers-into-making-better-life-choices

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669055/designs-next-frontier-nudging-consumers-into-making-better-life-choices
















































http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2011/03/the-dangers-of-design-by-user.php

http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2011/03/the-dangers-of-design-by-user.php











evolving technologies and emerging applications. Mahwah, NJ, USA: LawrenceErlbaum.

Nichols, T., Rogers, W., & Fisk, A. (2006). Design for aging. In G. Salvendy(Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (3rd ed.). (pp. 1418e1445)Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. California: Academic Press.Osman, Z., Maguire, M., & Tarkiainen, M. (2003). Older users requirements for

location based services and mobile phones. Humanecomputer interaction withmobile devices and services. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 352e357.

Phillips, B., & Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment.

Assistive Technology, 5(1), 36e45.Population Trends. (2010). UK population changes. [online] Available at. http://

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8191962/UK-population-ageing-slower-

than-most-of-Europe.html.Pullin, G. (2011). Design meets disability. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Rogers, W., & Fisk, A. (1997). ATM design and training issues. Ergonomics

Design, 5(1), 4e9.

Sanders, E. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. InJ. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences (pp. 1e9). London: Taylor& Francis.

Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human informa-tion processing: 1. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review,84, 1e66.

Sharma, V., Simpson, R., LoPresti, E., Mostowy, C., Olson, J., Puhlman, J., et al.(2008). Participatory design in the development of the wheelchair convoy sys-tem. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 5, 1e10.

Teague, R., de Jesus, K., & Nunes-Ueno, M. (2001). Concurrent vs. post-task us-ability test ratings. In Proceedings of computerehuman interaction (CHI ’01)(pp. 289e290). ACM Press.

Tinsley, H., & Weiss, D. (2000). Interrater reliability and agreement. In

H. E. A. Tinsley, & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate sta-tistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 95e124). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Manage-ment Science, 32(7), 791e805.

Wilkinson, C. (2011). Evaluating the role of prior experience in inclusive design.

(Unpublished PhD thesis). Engineering Department, University of Cambridge.Wilkinson, C., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, J. (2013). Exploring prior experience

and the effects of age on product interaction and learning. In Proceedings ofthe 15th international conference on human computer interaction. 21e26 July

2013, Las Vegas, USA.

















http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8191962/UK-population-ageing-slower-than-most-of-Europe.html







































applying user centred and participatory design approaches to commercial product development

Documents