Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea (대한인간공학회지)

Ergonomics Society of Korea (대한인간공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of Usability Evaluation Criteria for Senior-Friendly Autonomous Transportation Robot

  • Received : 2014.09.12
  • Accepted : 2014.10.27
  • Published : 2014.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the study is to develop quantitative usability evaluation criteria for senior-friendly autonomous transportation robot. Background: The Republic of Korea has become the most rapidly aging society, and is anticipated to enter the post-aged society in 2026. To raise the quality of life of a senior with limited mobility and to reduce the burden of caregivers, many high-tech assistive products with information technologies are developed nowadays. The senior-friendly autonomous transportation robot is one person robot vehicle to move a senior to the destination for hospitals, nursing homes or silver town complex. With built-in navigation system and environmental monitoring censors, it automatically seeks the path to the destination and avoids collision to obstacles and pedestrians on the way. Due to the early stage of the product, few usability studies in this field have been done, mostly on general service robots to assist seniors, power wheelchairs and delivery robots. ISO and KS standards for the service robots are focused on safety. Method: Based on the reference usability index, the early draft of the usability evaluation questionnaires was developed. After small group tests and interviews, the experts modified the initial draft to the Usability Evaluation Criteria for Senior-Friendly Autonomous Transportation Robot (UEC-SFATR). Result: UEC-SFATR consisted of 4 subscales - Safety, Controllability, Efficiency and Satisfaction. All of the 4 subscales of UEC-SFATR were passed the reliability criteria by 4 groups of seniors, divided by gender and familiarity of smart-devices. Conclusion: UEC-SFATR covers wider area of user experiences of the SFATR and is a good measurement tool to help both the users and developers of the robot. Application: This study provides guide to the future product development and product competitiveness evaluation by quantifying user experiences for the SFATR.

Keywords

References

  1. Amendments, US Rehabilitation Act. Section 508. PL., 1998.
  2. Ahn, Shinjyun, 3 Keywords of New Senior Generation, SERI Management Note, 96, Samsung Economic Research Institute, 2011.
  3. Arthanat, S., Bauer, S.M., Lenker, J.A., Nochajski, S.M. and Wu, Y.W., Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2(4), 235-48, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483100701343665
  4. Arthanat, Sajay, Yow Wu B. Wu, Stephen M. Bauer, James A. Lenker, and Susan M. Nochajski, Development of the Usability Scale for Assistive Technology-Wheeled Mobility: A preliminary psychometric evaluation. Technology & Disability, 21(3), 79-95, 2009.
  5. Bevan, Nigel, Carol Barnum, Gilbert Cockton, Jakob Nielsen, Jared Spool, and Dennis Wixon, The magic number 5: is it enough for web testing? Paper read at CHI'03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, 2003.
  6. Choi, Sookhi, The influence and impact of Aging Society in Korea and Japan, SERI Research Report, Samsung Economic Research Institute, 2007.
  7. Cutler, Stephen J, Voluntary association participation and life satisfaction: A cautionary research note. Journal of Gerontology, 28(1), 96-100, 1973. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/28.1.96
  8. Fleiss, J.L., The design and analysis of clinical experiments, 1986. New York, John Wiley& Sons, 2004.
  9. ISO, ISO. DIS 13482: Robots and robotic devices-Safety requirements-Non-medical personal care robot. Geneva, Switzerland:International Organization for Standardization, 2011.
  10. Jeong, Y.S. and Jeong, B.Y., Usability Evaluation Criteria for Mobile Navigation Using AHP. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, Vol. 32 (No. 5), pp.443-448, 2013. doi: 10.5143/JESK.2013.32.5.443
  11. JIS, X, 8341 Guidelines for older persons and persons with disabilities. In Information and communications equipment, software and services, 2004.
  12. Kim, Yeon Hee and Roh, Seungwan, Development of website usability test scale for reinforcement of design consulting, Journal of Korea Design Knowledge, 25(-), 67-78, 2013.
  13. Development of Usability Criterior for Senior Friendly Products, Korea Health Industry Development Institute, 2011.
  14. Lee, Eunghyuk, Service Robot for Home, IT Report, Korea Electronics Technology Institute, 2004.
  15. Lee, Hoyoung and Seo, Wooseok, Rethinking Cultural Capital and Inequality in the Digital Age, Journal of cultural policy, 23(-), 69-95, Korea Cultural Policy Institute, 2010.
  16. Massey, Anne P, Vijay Khatri, and Mitzi M Montoya-Weiss, Usability of Online Services: The Role of Technology Readiness and Context*. Decision Sciences, 38(2), 277-308, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00159.x
  17. Mayes, John T. and Chris J Fowler, Learning technology and usability: a framework for understanding courseware. Interacting with computers, 11(5), 485-497, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(98)00065-4
  18. Nielsen, Jakob, and Thomas K Landauer, A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Paper read at Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1993.
  19. Nielsen, J. Why you only need to test with 5 users. Alertbox, 2000. www.useit.com/alertbox/2000319.html (retrieved by Oct.14, 2014).
  20. Nunnally, Jum C, Ira H Bernstein, and Jos MF ten Berge, Psychometric theory, Vol. 226: McGraw-Hill New York, 1967.
  21. Richman, J., Makrides, L. and Prince, B., Research methodology and applied statistics, part 3: measurement procedures in research, Physiother Canada, 32(4), 253-257, 1980.
  22. Rogers, Wendy A, Beth Meyer, Neff Walker, and Arthur D Fisk, Functional limitations to daily living tasks in the aged: A focus group analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40(1), 111-125, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779480613
  23. Samsung Economic Research Institute. Three keywords of New Senior generation, 2011.
  24. Section 508 of The Rehabilitation Act: The Road to Accessibility, http://www.section508.gov (retrieved Oct 14, 2014).
  25. Standard, Korean. KS B 6935 Service robots - safety guidelines, 2006a.
  26. Standard, Korean. KS B 6936, Service robots - safety instructions, 2006b..
  27. Virzi, Robert A, Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 34(4), 457-468, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089203400407
  28. Wang, Rosalie H, Alex Mihailidis, Tilak Dutta, and Geoff R Fernie, Usability testing of multimodal feedback interface and simulated collision-avoidance power wheelchair for long-term-care home residents with cognitive impairments. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 48(7), 801-22, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2010.08.0147
  29. Wharton, Cathleen, John Rieman, Clayton Lewis, and Peter Polson, The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner's guide. Paper read at Usability inspection methods, 1994.