Dawe, M. 2006. Desperately seeking simplicity: how young adults with cognitive disabilities and their families adopt assistive technologies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 22-27, 2006). R. Grinter, T. Rodden, P. Aoki, E. Cutrell, R. Jeffries, and G. Olson, Eds. CHI '06. ACM, New York, NY, 1143-1152. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1124772.1124943
Dawe talks about the potentially conflicting priorities of goals of teachers, parents, etc. How might the goals of those actually using the technology (those with the cognitive disabilities themselves) conflict with what their parents or teachers or other caregivers want? [+]
Increased social interaction is certainly integral to any individual's maturation. With that in mind, how could Nick's communication devices (pg 1151) be adjusted to 'mature' alongside its user ("Simple to Use and Able to Evolve with Child's Abilities)? After all, Nick introducing himself to a variety of people will likely lead to personal relationships in which he may need to express himself with more complexity. [+]
Dawe presents several design criteria for successful AT's. How does this list compare to Norman's criteria for good technology? [+]
Yeah, this is a bit too obviously a "Sam Question". But I like it anyway.
Do you think the ethnographic technique used in this article could be a successful way to study other kinds of technology? What are its strengths and weaknesses? What technologies seem better or worse suited for the technique? [+]
The article mentions several times that 35% of AT devices are not successfully adopted, how does this compare to devices used by the general public? [+]
Okay, this is a question we can't really answer (at least not easily). Nonetheless, it's an important and thoughtful question. Maybe our visitor can provide some info.
Dawe says that designers need to take into account the desires of the caregivers when designing a new technology, but is it really fair to expect designers to take into account all caregivers desires when those desires are conflicting as on page 1148 when parents complain about complexity and teachers about simplicity? (Even if these complaints are about different technologies, it stands to reason that some people are going to think a technology is too difficult to use and others are going to think it's too easy.) [+]
Has this research or other research like it led to better or more usable ATs? [+]
Given that designers don't even pay attention to Norman (okay, some do, but ...), I think it's doubtful. An important question to ask, but not one that we can really discuss. (You could use Science Citations or the ilk to see what work cites this.)
Dawe states that there is a "need for a very simple interface
and low learning curve" (pg 1147) and "it has to be able to be
expanded upon" (pg 1148).
Im wondering how all three of these goals can be met in physical
devices with physical interfaces... it seems to me that these
requirements almost demand virtual and customizable interfaces. is it
realistically possible to meet all these goals with non-virtual
interfaces?
I have a six year old cousin who was diagnosed with Duchenne
Muscular Dystrophy a few years ago. I know that the MDA (muscular
dystrophy association) is very good about helping families get the
medical equipment they need in a very timely and cost effective manor.
Are there similar organizations for Downs Syndrome, Autism, and the
like? Are they good about helping to purchase needed technologies?
From the article, I got the hint that they're not... Perhaps the best
way to go about combating this problem is through organizations similar
to the MDA. [+]
I expect that a Google could answer this a bit. I'm also not sure what we could do with this question in class. (So I thought this was a less-good question.) But our guest said that it's a really good question, even though the creation of such organizations is much more difficult these days.
How does the needs of parents and teachers in regard to desired
technology differ from what mainstream society wants from technology?
They identified three major areas: "portability, simple yet evolving
functionality, and ease of upgrade and replacement"-- how do these
needs diverge from popular consumption of technology? [+]
What percentage of people use the more technical ATs and what percentage
of people find other options that turn out to be more usable? [+]
In the conclusion, Dawe states, "This approach led to the
observation that that much of what families are using is repporposed
or appropriated technology that was not intended to be AT, but has
been found to functionally assist with the impairment." This is
similar to [RS]'s method of helping his son communicate,
correct? The son communicates with a keyboard and it has increased his
communication to a huge degree. Is that an example?
I've talked to [RS], and his son uses AT hardware and software.
I'm not too familiar with disability studies, but already on page
1144 I take issue with the idea of lumping all of the 20 million
people with cognitive disabilities into a single category and then
assess what those people need from "technology." Wouldn't the
technology needed by someone with Alzheimers differ from someone with
Down syndrome?
I had a little bit of a problem with the parents who didn't want to
take the time to set up complicated devices to help their children. I
understand that technology is better if it is easy to use, but these
technologies are attempting to aid people with very complex problems.
Is the expectation that the technology be easy to use really more
important than how effective it is at helping the person with the
disability?
I don't really think that we're in the position to judge these parents. It can also be very difficult to ask for help in our culture, so barriers should be low.
It seems to me that there is a disconnect between guidelines two and three for assistive technologies. How can a balance be struck between making a technology with the ability to evolve with its user and making something that is simple and easy to replace?
Like most engineering problems, building assistive technology requires balancing different requirements. Certainly, such balances are struck elsewhere. For example, many aspects of the iPhone are simple, iPhones evolve with the user (you add apps), and it's relatively easy (just not cheap) to replace an iPhone, provided you've made backups.
I tended to think of assistive technologies in terms of grand objects such as wheelchairs but it is obvious to me now that simple things like card reminders are considered assistive technologies. Beyond what is discussed in the report, I was wondering what other objects could be considered assistive technologies beyond the obvious ones?
I have a longer paper on assistive technologies that I can dig out for you, but this might be a good question for our guest speaker.
I wonder how effective improvements can be made to AT devices when accurate feedback is nearly impossible to receive. From my understanding, the users of the cognitive AT devices lack the ability to express how well a device is working. The parents and teachers can observe the child using the device, but don't really know if the child isn't using the device because it is too difficult or if the child just doesn't want to use it.
I expect that parents understand a bit more about their children than you're giving them credit for.
When they were talking about Nick, explaining that he needed a communication device, his mother said they liked the LightWriter because it was the most portable and it had the most functions. Wouldn't this make it harder for his son to learn how to use the device?
This strikes me as one of those disconnects between what people really want and what they think they want (a disconnect that Norman mentioned).
Considering that this was an experiment to learn more about AT for the
cognitively disabled, were there any interviews conducted on the direct
user of the technology or were all interviews conducted on the teachers
and parents of the users? Should there not be more input from the person
who is actually using the devices?
If simpler technologies are generally more popular and useful, do more
families turn to these and is there a trend with that?
On pg 1144 Dawe states that "each individual has a unique set of
abilites, and an effective technological tool must match the
individual's needs in order to augment his or her abilities."
While I agree with this statement, I can also see this as a major
challenge to businesses that manufacture assistive technologies. In
order to make individualized technology, manufacturers will need to
specialize in machine learning and/or intensive data collection. Both
of these areas require heavy technology expertise. How many
businesses are able to think about their long term interests and thus
invest in such technology rather than short term profit maximization?
On page 1147 the article discusses the importance of portability, to what extent can good design improve portability? And how much is dependent on improved technology?
In the reading one issue some families had with their AT devices occurred in the adoption process of the new machine. Regardless of the actual design of the machine itself, perhaps new technology should be used to improve this process and the institutions, such as medicare and the device manufacturers, to better assist parents and teachers. The author seems to put all the responsibility on the designer for the device not being effective, when we have learned this semester that many individuals and groups are involved with the design, production and integration of a new technology.
From what Dawe writes, it sounds like insurance companies are neither reliable nor consistent with giving aid to those with cognitive disabilities. Why might this be? And how might it change?
It seems that one of the main problems with assistive technology devices is that the designers either make them too complex to learn or too simple to be useful. Dawe suggests "incremental configuration" (p.1149), customization, and updating software as potential solutions for this problem. Are there any devices that you can think of that could become more useful through one of these solutions?
Where is the line between assistive technology and "regular" technology?
Melissa Dawe says that her studies were between families in the middle class, which parents held a variety of occupations, and their children attended to public school. Can this be influential on why for these families the adaptation of the assistive technologies has been so hard? (Assuming that they might not have a lot of experience with complex technologies)
One of the mothers also said that an ideal device should have the capability of becoming more complex during time so that they are still advancing with the system. How can designers do that?
I understand the research methods (pages 1144-1145), but why did Dawe decide to study children aged 13-23? Surely there is much to be learned from how assistive technologies are viewed by toddlers or young children with disabilities. It seems that this demographic could even point towards how the parents or caretakers of such individuals explain to the child why they require the assistance they receive. I would expect that children aged 13-23, regardless of cognitive disabilities, would have a more realistic awareness about their aiding technologies. [-]
I'm not sure that this question would benefit our discussion much. We need to deal with the subjects in this study, rather than other potential studies.
;
