Towards an Integrated Evaluation of Usability, User Experience

and Accessibility in Assistive Technologies

Tatiany Xavier de Godoi Natasha Malveira Costa Valentim
Department of Informatics Departamento de Informática
Federal University of Paraná Universidade Federal do Paraná
Curitiba, Paraná Curitiba, Paraná
tatianyxdg@gmail.com natasha@inf.ufpr.br

ABSTRACT
The development of Assistive Technologies (AT) has been
growing and promoting the autonomy of their users, aiming at 1 Introduction
quality of life, accessibility, and inclusion. In this way, one of the
With the advancement of technology, solutions emerge that
main quality factors is the Usability, that aims at the user having
enable the creation of systems that allow improving the quality of
a good efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction when using the
life, through accessibility of individuals with special needs
technology. In order to improve the ATs usability, it is necessary
[7]. These systems enable you to expand skills across a range of
to go through the usability evaluation. In this paper, we present a
features and services. Known as Assistive Technology (At),
usability evaluation carried out with an AT using two different
this technology is defined, according to the Technical Aid
techniques, QUEST (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with
Committee - CAT [9] and Bersch [7], as an area of co-
Assistive Technology) and SUS (System Usability Scale). In this
aging, interdisciplinary characteristic, which encompasses
evaluation, regarding usability, we focused on the aspect of user
products, resources, methodologies, strategies, practices and
satisfaction. However, we perceived that we omitted some aspects
services. CAT [9] and Bersch [7] also add that an AT
that are relevant to consider in an AT. We also observed that
aims to promote functionality, related to the activity and
analyzing only the Usability concept will leave gaps in the quality
participation of people with disabilities, disabilities or reduced
criterion. This happens because an AT needs to be accessible and
mobility. The Aim of TA is to provide autonomy, through the
bring good experiences to the user. Therefore, we recommended
expansion of its functional skills to promote independence,
that to meet most of the requirements of the user and the AT,
quality of life, accessibility and inclusion. Therefore, developers
there must be an evaluation that involves the concepts of
should make the use of TA simpler and more appropriate to
usability, accessibility, and user experience together.
meet the requirements of people
CCS CONCEPTS with disabilities.
In order for these technologies to become more accessible to
CCS → Human-centered computing → Human computer this audience, it is necessary to consider aspects such as Usability,
interaction (HCI) → HCI design and evaluation methods User experience (User eXperience - UX) and Accessibility,
KEYWORDS because, if this does not occur, users may abandon the use
of ED [25]. Despite the great variability, some studies consider
Assistive Technology, Usability Assessment, Evaluation that the abandonment of ED is the result of a complex interaction
Technology. of four main factors [25]: (1) personal factors: age, gender,
ACM Reference format: diagnosis, own and social circle expectations, acceptance of
disability, emotional maturity/internal motivation, progression of
Tatiany Xavier de Godoi, Natasha Malveira Costa Valentim. 2019.
Towards an Integrated Evaluation of Usability, User Experience and disability, severity of disability, change in the severity of
Accessibility in Assistive Technologies. In 18th Brazilian Symposium on disability and use of multiple devices; (2) Factors related to the
Software Quality (SBQS), October 28– November 01,2019, Fortaleza, aid device: device quality and appearance of the device; (3)
Brazil. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 06 pages. Factors related to the environment of use: support to the social
https://doi.org/10.1145/3364641.3364669 circle, physical barriers, presence of opportunities and market
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or procedures for the devices; (4) Factors related
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full
toprofessionalintervention: users' opinions, instruction and
citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others training, correct provision and installation process, duration of
than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy delivery period, and follow-up service.
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org. Considering that the construction of Ed involves resources
SBQS'19, October 28-November 1, 2019, Fortaleza, Brazil and people involved, several Tecnologias of EVALUATION of
© 2019 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM. ED have been proposed. These Assessment Technologies in most
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-7282-4/19/10...$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3364641.3364669
 SBQS’19, October 28-November 1, 2019, Fortress Brazil T. X. Gandhi e N. M. C.
Valentine
sometimes have the objective of improving the Usability factor of
Além dos tipos de deficiências em que os usuários de TA
the AT and verifying whether the proposed AT was accepted by
podem ser classificados, Bersch [7] classificou a TA conforme sua
the target audience. This article presents a Usability assessment
categoria sendo: (1) Auxílios para a vida diária, (2) Comunicação
performed with a TA using two different techniques, QUEST
aumentativa (suplementar) e alternativa (CAA (CSA)), (3)
2.0(Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive
Recursos de Acessibilidade ao computador, (4) Sistemas de
Technology)[10] and SUS (SystemUsability Scale)[8].
controle de ambiente, (5) Projetos arquitetônicos para
In this Usability assessment, it focused on the aspect of user
Acessibilidade (6) Órteses e próteses, (7) Adequação Postural (8)
satisfaction. However, based on the results of the study, it was
Auxílios de mobilidade, (9) Auxílios para cegos ou com visão
noticed that some relevant aspectsto be considered in the
subnormal, (10) Auxílios para surdos ou com déficit auditivo e,
evaluation of ED were omitted in this evaluation. In addition, it
(11) Adaptações em veículos.
was observed that analyzing only the concept of Usability leaves
The use of reliable and reliable measurement toolshas a
a gap in the quality criterion of ED. This is because an TA needs
significant impact on the internal and external validity of research
to be accessible and needs to provide good user experience.
for product evaluation. For the field of AT, the need to establish
Therefore, this article also presents some recommendations that
tools to measure the results that reflect the impact of the use of ED
meet many user and TA requirements. In addition, it is suggested
is evident [13]. However, the underlying merit of these tools is
an evaluation that involves the concepts of Usability, Accessibility
dependent on their theoretical basis
and UX together.
[11] and a clear understanding of their respective domains of
In the following sections, the concepts related to the theme of
results [13]. That is, despite already having several existing
this research will be addressed. Subsequently, the preliminary
methodologies that evaluate a product, it is necessarythat there is a
study was presented to verify which criteria are used in existing
reliable Evaluation Technology and with relevant criteria for
Evaluation Technologies. The results of the study are then
users.
debatgone. Finally, the conclusions and future perspectives for
There are several questionnaires that are available as part of
this research are presented.
the Usability assessment, both for academic and professional use.
2 Basics and Related Work According to Preece [19] themost well-known usability
assessment questions that stand out as commercial
Usability, according to Nielsen [8], is "the ability to learn and
memorize a softwaresystem, its usage efficiency, its ability to products are: QUIS (QuestionnaireQuestionnaire for User
avoid and manage user errors and user satisfaction." Usability is Interaction Satisfaction),SUMI (SoftwareUsability
one ofthe most important factors ofquality, which according to Measurement Inventory),WAMMI (WebsiteAnalysis
ISO 9241-11[3], is the "extent that a product can be used by a
andMeasurMent Inventory)andSUS (SystemUsability Scale).
specific user to achieve specific objectives effectively, efficiently,
There are also specific evaluation questionnaires for At, such as
and satisfaction in a specific usage context."
QUEST (QuebecUser Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive
An important aspect to beaddressed in the concept of
Usability is its evaluation. According to Benyon [6], it is Technology)and ATD-PA
understood to evaluate by reviewing, experimenting or (AssistiveTechnologyDevicandPredisposition Assessment). All
testing a design idea, , a software,, a product or service these types of questionnaires are useful, but have different
and finding out if it meets some criteria. These criteria can purposes.
be, for example, Usability criteria. In this work, the SUS and QUEST were used for research
Therefore, to know what needs to be improved or corrected in 2.0. The SUS was chosen because it is one of the most popular
some idea of design,a software, a product orservice, according to Usability assessment methodsin the literature, mainly due to its
Wohlin [26] it is necessary to identify the areas for improvement desirable psychometry, including high reliability and validity
through some form of evaluation, and thus determine how these [5,8,15]. And QUEST 2.0 was chosen because it is one of the
areas of improvement can be addressed to deal with the identified standardized instruments designed to measure user satisfaction
problems. This area of improvement can be a specific problem, with a wide range of assistive technology devices [14,12].
such as a specific factorofUsability, User Satisfaction, or Usability The SUS [8] is a questionnaire that addresses a global view of
factors in general. subjective estimates of Usability. The questions consist of 10
Given the importance of evaluating a product, a process or a statements that use the likert scale format, where the intensity of
service, the importance of evaluating an ED is based. This agreement is measured within a five-pontos scale. Below, Figure 1
happens thinking about the fact that ED is intended for an presents examples of questions present in the SUS questionnaire
audience that has visual, auditory, mental, physical and/or translated into the Portuguese.
multiple differences and that need investigations regarding The QUEST aims to evaluate the user's satisfaction with THE
usability assessment. in several aspects, justifying the need for the effective use ofthese
devices [10]. The first version of QUEST contained 24 items, but
the updated version, called QUEST 2.0, has more refined
measurement properties, containing 12 items.
 Towards an Integrated Evaluation of Usability, User
SBQS’19, October 28-November 1, 2019, Fortress Brazil
Experience and Accessibility in Assistive Technologies

descrição de tudo o que acontece na tela, retornando feedback

sobre qual área da tela do dispositivo o usuário está tocando.
Além do mais, o recurso VoiceOver foi selecionado por
apresentar representatividade entre os recursos utilizados por
deficientes visuais, visto que é um recurso de fácil acesso pois
já vem disponível em aparelhos com o sistema operacional
iOS.
The participants who collaborated with the study were
graduate students from a computer department. Participants were
divided into two groups, which followed the same procedures to
test the VoiceOverfeature. For the evaluation of the review,one
Figure 1 - Example of SUS issues group used the SUS questionnaire and the other group used the
QUEST 2.0 questionnaire. Because VoiceOver is a resource
In each area, there is a scale of 1 to 5 to measure the degree of
for the visually impaired, participants were asked to put a
satisfaction. The first stage consists of eight items related to the
blindfold to simulate visual impairment.
use of ED (dimensions, weight, adjustments, safety, durability,
Considerando the ethical aspects, a free and informed consent
ease of use, comfort and effectiveness) and the second
term (TCLE) ensuring the confidentiality and privacy of the
stageconsists of four items related to devices and service provision
collected data was established. Other artifacts were previously
(delivery process, repairs and technical assistance, professional
defined to support the study, such as: a) the characterization
services and follow-up) [10]. Below, Figure 2 presents examples
questionnaire that contained questions to identify the previous
of questions present in the QUEST 2.0 questionnaire, translated
experience of users with AT, with the iOS system and the domain
into the Portuguese.
of participants with the cellular device;
b) the specification of sus and quest 2.0 techniques; c) the
instructions for the study prelimminar; and d) the post-study
questionnaire.
The post-study questionnaire was elaborated by the
researcher in order to obtain feedback from the participants
regarding the use of both questionnaires applied (QUEST 2.0
and SUS). The post-study questionnaire contains 5 statements
that use the Likert scale format, which will be described
below.
1. I found the questionnaire tiring.
Figure 2 - Example of QUEST 2.0 issues 2. I found the questionnaire confusing.
3 Preliminary Study 3. The questionnaire has questions irrelevant to the
assistive technology evaluated.
3.1 Planning 4. I believe that only with the feedback of the
questionnaire the assistive technology can be
The preliminary study conducted in this research sought to use
improved.
two techniques that evaluate the Usability of assistive
5. Through the questionnaire the author of the assistive
technologies measuring user satisfaction, and one usability
technologycan identify the flaws of assistive
assessment technique is more generic (SUS), and the other is more
technology.
specificfor assistive technologies (QUEST 2.0).
All participants had a mobile phone with iOS operating system
Planning is the first activity of the process, in which the scope
during the study, requiring the use of the iPhone 3GS model or
of the study is defined, preparation of the material, selection of
higher version, which feature the VoiceOverfeature, and a
subjects, training of subjects in the techniques and assignment of
stopwatch to track the time of performing certain activities. The
tasks to each subject. The researcher who carries out this planning
activities that participants should perform with the resources were:
activity is a master's student of a graduate program in Informatics
check the time, the percentage of the battery and switch between
at a federal public university.
the pages of the mobile phone to visualizeualizar /ouvir the
The study was carried out by evaluating the
applications.
VoiceOver1function, an Accessibility feature that interprets by
audio each action of the mobile device screen. VoiceOver is
proposed for the visually impaired, because through it you can
3.2 Run
hear the The preliminary study was conducted with one participant at
a time, with 04 participants in total. First, the participants were
1 https://www.apple.com/br/accessibility/iphone/vision/
presented with the Informed Consent form and asked to sign them.
After that, they were asked to fill out the
 SBQS’19, October 28-November 1, 2019, Fortress Brazil T. X. Gandhi e N. M. C.
Valentine
characterization questionnaire, according to data presented in
Tabela 3 - Resultado da aceitação sobre o SUS
Table 1. The possible answers to questions 1 and 3 of the
characterization questionnaire were: yes, no and i don't know. And
I I agree I agree
for question 2 was: very bad, bad, regular, good, and very good. Statement
I
disagree
Indife-
Partial- Strong-
strongl rente
Partiall mind minded
y
y- mind
Table 1 - Participant Characterization Data disagre
e

Participant 1.Had 2.Domain 3.IOS 1 1 0 0 1 0

previou with system 2 0 0 0 2 0
s mobile user 3 0 1 1 0 0
contact 4 0 1 0 1 0
phone
with TA 5 1 1 0 0 0
use
I Yes Good Yes
II No Very good Yes Regarding the SUS questionnaire, it is worth mentioning that
III Yes Very good I don't all participants partially agreed that the questionnaire is confusing,
know, i having some doubts when answering it. And that through this
don questionnaire alone it is not possible to identify the failures ofthe
IV Yes Good No assisted ecnologia, requiring more specific questions, because the
SUS questionnaire presents questions of User Satisfaction in a
The next step was to instruct participants to use voiceover very subjective way.
features.. That is, what are the main gestures that are
necessary for its use. Participants were also informed that they Table 4 - Acceptance result on QUEST 2.0
could ask the researcher questions at anytime of the study.
Participants were then asked to carry out I I agree I agree
I Indife-
some actions on your phone, such as viewing the time, seeing Statement
strongl
disagree
rente
Partial- Strong-
Partiall mind minded
the percentage of the battery, and switching between the pages y
y- mind
disagre
of the phone. e
After the use of the resource, participants were asked to answer 1 1 0 1 0 0
one of the Usability questionnaires. Two participants answered the 2 0 0 0 2 0
SUS questionnaire (participants III and 3 0 0 1 0 1
IV) and the other two participants (participants I and II) 4 1 0 0 0 1
answered QUEST 2.0. Em Then, all participants answered a
post-study questionnaire to evaluate usability questionnaires. It is possible to perceive through the answers of the
Below we will comment on the results. As the purpose and participants that QUEST 2.0 is not a tiring questionnaire, since it
scope of this article are restricted to the analysis of Evaluation has only 12 questions. However, some users reported that some
Technology(SUS and Quest), we will not enter into the merits of questions were confusing, as one participant reported: "I am
the data related to VoiceOver. evaluating a mobile applicationand there were issues related to
weight and dimensions, but this would refer to the mobile phone,
4 Results so I do not know if I should evaluate thinking about the phone as a
According to the perspectives of the participants, the set of THE or should ignore this issue, since a mobile application
impacting factors observed in this study are that: a) the SUS is something intangible".
questionnaire is not a questionnaire focused on assistive Thus, it was possible to observe through the application of
technology, and b) has more comprehensive questions. In QUEST 2.0 that this questionnaire has some irrelevant questions
addition, it was perceived ,(Table 3) by the answers of depending on the AT being evaluated (specific questions for
statements 3, 4 and 5, that from the use only of the SUS hardware), as is the case of At which are only software.
it is not possible to obtain feedback on the failures of the Inaddition, because it is a questionnaire focused only on user
AT . satisfaction it leaves to be desired in other factors. If there is a
With the QUEST 2.0 questionnaire, a specific questionnaire desire for an AT to meet more requirements, other evaluation
to assess ED, it was reported by the participants that there technologies are required.
were questions that did not fit into the proposed technology. In addition to the questionnairesthat are confused and
Therefore, the questionnaire became inadequate and confusing, apparently inadequate to assess ED, the questionnaires evaluate
because there were specific questions onthe part ofthe only one factor, not considering other factors equally relevant to
hardware,and the ta evaluated was software. promote quality in an AT
Tables 2 and 3 see the users' responses to the feedback with the
SUS and QUEST 2.0 questionnaire, respectively
 Towards an Integrated Evaluation of Usability, User
SBQS’19, October 28-November 1, 2019, Fortress Brazil
Experience and Accessibility in Assistive Technologies

5 Discussions mudança de uma pessoa e as diferenças nas circunstâncias

In view of theanalyses made in the study, it was perceived that durante e após uma interação com um produto [20]. Portanto, a
evaluating only the aspect of Usability/User Satisfaction is not UX não deve ser visto apenas como algo avaliável depois de
enough to qualify an AT. In this preliminary study, other concepts interagir com um objeto, mas também como um fator a ser
besides Usability were not worked, because the Evaluation considerado antes e durante a interação [23].
Technologiesused(SUS and QUEST) work only with the Usability In order to seek more evidence of the importance of the
factor. However, in our argumentation we consider other intersection of these 3 concepts, a search was carried out in the
important concepts within this context, such as UX and literature on Evaluation Technologies that address the aspects of
Accessibility, to have a more complete evaluation, bringing a Usability, UX and Accessibility together. However, evaluation
higher quality product. technologies were not found with these three concepts together.
The User Experience according to ISO 9241-210 [3], is Thus, with the limitation of scope in the search performed, it is
defined as "the perception and responses of a person resulting verified that discussions about this type of evaluation technology
from the use or anticipation of the use of a product". According to may not be highlighted in the literature and, however,it is an
Arhippainen [4], UX is considered as the user's emotions and opportunity for future work, as well as a possible research
expectations with the context of use, whereaffective aspects and hypothesis to face the challenge of abandoning assistive
personalexperiences stand out. technologies. Based on the investigation conducted with SUS and
THE ISO/IEC 25010 standard [2] considers Accessibility QUEST 2.0, we argue that to ensure that AT is not abandoned and
as "the degree to which a product or system can be used by meets most users' needs clearly and objectively, Usability should
people with a wide range of characteristics and capabilities to be considered in conjunction with UX and Accessibility.
achieve a particular goal in a specific context of use". Savidis and
6 Threats to Validity
Stephanidis [21] add that Accessibility "is a sequence of input and
output actions that leads to the successful task of an interactive There are several types of threats to the validity of the
system, considering the specific functional limitations and skill,in resultsof the according to Wohlin [26], which can be internal,
addition to other contextual factors". icas, além de outros fatores external, construct, and completion. As an intern we can
Usability, UX and Accessibility are concepts that are mention the different behaviors in different groups, that is, one
correlated, since for some researchers Usability is considered as group learns a new method in shorter time than the other
part of UX [23]. Moreover, according to the definition of WAI because of the learning city cover,being able to learn how to use
[24] itis assumed that Accessibility is a subset of Usability (that is, AT more quickly. This problem was circumvented using the
that Accessibility is concerned only with problems for a subset of characterization questionnaire and correctly balancing the
users), while the definition of ISO 9241-171 [1] suggests that groups.
Usability is a subset of Accessibility(that is, that Accessibility As an example of external validity, we can mention the effect
encompasses as many users as possible). of not having a number or a representative population of the
It is believed that the concepts of Usability, UX and population that one wishes to generalize. In this study, this is a
Accessibility should be presented together, because they form an threat to the validity and limitation of the study. The target
intersection, and that if in an evaluation the link of criteriais audience of the AT evaluated in the study were visually impaired.
considered, one meets a majority of the users' requirements, However, due to the unavailability of pessoas with this type of
avoiding more failures. deficiency, it was not possible to evaluate with this type of user. In
It can be seen that these concepts are related, and that in relation to the number of participants, in the future, it is intended
general Usability is interested in the functionality of technology to replicate this study with a larger number of participants. In
and the results of interactions. Ux, on the other hand, cares relation to representativeness, it is intended to evaluate in future
about how the user feels using technology and accessibility with studies with visually impaired users.
the suitability and conditions of use of the technology. As a threat to construct validity, we can mention interaction of
Torres and Marroni [22] also add that Usability aims to satisfy different treatments, for example, if the participant is involved in
a specific audience, thatfico, ou is, the consumer who wants to more than one study. The users of this study were participating in
reach when defining the product design. Thus allowing the work different studies for a discipline of federal universidade.
with the peculiarities appropriate to this target audience, Therefore, we cannot affirm that the different studies have not
associated with factors such as age group, socioeconomic level, influenced the performance of users.
gender and others. Accessibility will allow the projected user base As threats of completion, it is feared that elements outside the
to be reached to its maximum extent. And UX is generally preliminary study can cause disturbances in the outcome, such as
understood as inherently dynamic, given the emotional and noise. As the study was conducted in a university laboratory, there
internal state in constant were other people in the laboratory, so to get around the situation
was asked to be silent.
 SBQS’19, October 28-November 1, 2019, Fortress Brazil T. X. Gandhi e N. M. C.
Valentine
7 Conclusion Agradecimento
This study presented two Usability Assessment Thanks to the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher
Technologies under the user satisfaction indicator, aiming to Education Personnel Brazil (CAPES) - Financing Code 001.
evaluate an ED in a preliminary study. The Evaluation
Technologies (QUEST 2.0 and SUS) were chosen, due to References
their preponderances and popularity in the literature and, [1] ISO 12207:1995. (2002). International Standard: Information Technology.
because both have the same indicator, the user satisfaction Software Life Cycle Processes. Amendment Amd.1:2002. ISO, Geneva,
Switzerland.
indicator. [2] ISO/IEC 25010 (2011) Systems and software engineering - SquaRE -Software
The main contribution of the study is the identification of a product Quality Requirements and Evaluation: System and Software Quality
Models.
new gap that can be filled in the future, in the context of the [3] ISO 9242-11. 2018. Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 11:
evaluation of ED, through the combinationof the perspective of Usability: Definitions and concepts.
Usability, UX and Accessibility, and these must be worked [4] Leena Arhippainen and Marika Tähti. 2003. Empirical evaluation of user
experience in two adaptive mobile application prototypes. In MUM 2003.
together, one complementing the other. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous
It is expected, therefore, to contribute with software engineers Multimedia. Linköping University Electronic Press, 27–34.
[5] Aaron Bangor, Philip Kortum, and James Miller, (2008). An empirical
and AT evaluators, using the Evaluation Technologythat evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer
understands the 3 concepts in sets(Usability, UX and Interaction.
Accessibility) to optimize their time so that in a single Evaluation [6] David Benyon Human-Computer Interaction. 2011. Heloísa Coimbra de Souza;
Technology can achieve several factors at the same time, and be technicalreview: Illana de Almeida S. Council.
[7] Rita bersch. 2008. Introduction to assistive technology. Porto Alegre:
able to find and / or avoid failures inthe softwares assistive CEDI 21.
tenologies. Some exploratory factors considered by an Evaluation [8] John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability
Technology could be usability factors (user satisfaction, evaluation in industry 189, 194 (1996), 4–7.
effectiveness, efficiency), UX (emotion, perception) and [9] CAT-Technical Aid Committee. 2007. Minutes of Meeting VII of
Accessibility (ability to use). December 2007 of the Technical Aid Committee. Special Secretariat for
As future perspectives, quantitative and qualitative analyses Human Rights of the Presidency of the Republic (CORDE/SEDH/PR).
will be carried out with a larger number of participants. Moreover, [10] Louise Demers, Rhoda Weiss-Lambrou, and Bernadette Ska. 2002. The Quebec
User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an
a Systematic Mapping of the Literature (MSL) is being carried overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability 14, 3 , 101–105.
out seeking to select journal articles and conferencesto identify [11] Dave Edyburn and Roger O Smith. 2004. Creating an Assistive Technology
Outcomes Measurement System: Validating the Components. Assistive
gaps in theliterature, as indicated by Mafra [16]. This knowledge Technology Outcomes and Benefits 1, 1 , 8–15
obtained through secondary studies aimsto acquire knowledge and . [12] Alberto Jardón et al. (2011). Usability assessment of ASIBOT: a portable robot
evidence as foundations for the definition of an Evaluation to aid patients with spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive
Technology, 6(4), 320-330.
Technology covering the concepts ofUsability, UX and [13] James Lenker, Marcia J Scherer, Marcus J Fuhrer, Jeffrey W Jutai, and Frank
Accessibility. DeRuyter. 2005. Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used
in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technology.
de Subsequently, an investigation and analysis of the [14] Elisa Holz et al. (2013) Brain–computer interface-controlled gaming:
existing Evaluation Technologies that were found in the MSL Evaluation of usability by severely motor restricted end-users. Artificial
will be carried out in order to identify which aspects these intelligence in medicine, v. 59, n. 2, p. 111-120.
[15] James Lewis, and Jeff Sauro (2009, July). The factor structure of the system
technologies address, such as asp ectos within Usability,
usability scale. In International conference on human centered design (pp. 94-
UX or Accessibility, identifying which user is applied, 103). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
which category of The TA, and weaknesses and strengths [16] Sômulo Nogueira Mafra (2006). Definition of a perspective-based
in order to bring together a set of features to be incorporated reading technique (OO-PBR) supported by experimental studies.
into the creation evaluation technology. [17] Michael McRoberts. 2015. Arduino Basic-2nd edition: All about the popular
Next, a literature review will be made focusing on the Arduino microcontroller. Novatec Publisher.
[18] Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Usability engineering. Elsevier.
context of a specific audience that could benefit from a [19] Jenny Preece and Diane Maloney-Krichmar. 2005. Online communities:
specific type of ED, and these two factors will be defined from Design, theory, and practice. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.
a gap identified in the MSL described above, to give a [20] Virpi Roto, Marianna Obrist, and Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila. 2009. User
experience evaluation methods in academic and industrial contexts. In
further focus objectives of the Evaluation Technology, Proceedings of the Workshop UXEM, Vol. 9. Citeseer, 1–5.
and thus propose an Evaluation Technology. [21] Anthony Savidis and Constantine Stephanidis. 2004. Unified user interface
design: designing universally accessible interactions. Interacting with
And infact, feasibility and observation studies will be carried computers 16, 2, 243–270.
out in order to determine whether the application of the proposed [22] Elisabeth Fatima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni. 2004. Multi-million
technology is feasible and improve the researchers' understanding digitalcontent: the focus on usability and accessibility. Information science 33.
of the proposed technique (technique or technology) and enable its [23] Arnold Vermeeren, Effie Lai-Chong Law, Virpi Roto, Marianna Obrist, Jettie
Hoonhout, and Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila. 2010. User experience
refinement. evaluation methods: current state and development needs. In Proceedings of the
Thenext steps of the research will be: (1) Systematic Mapping 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: ACM, 521–530.
[24] WAI. 2006. Complete list of web accessibility evaluation tools. How it was
of literature (MSL), (2) Research and Analysis of Existing published. disponível em: www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/complete.
Technologies, (3) Literature Review, (4) Technology Proposal, (5) [25] R Wessels, B Dijcks, M Soede, GJ Gelderblom, and L De Witte. 2003. Non-
Feasibility Studies and Observation. use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technology
and disability 15, 4, 231–238.
[26] Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn
Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in software engineering.
Springer Science & Business Media.