People with dementia may miss out on the benefits of using technology, because they often find it difficult to use. Usability testing is one method to identify barriers and areas for improvement in technology. Unfortunately, usability testing is often not conducted with people with dementia, independent of their caregivers. Difficulty recruiting local participants with dementia who regularly use technology further compounds the problem. Remote methods have been proposed as one approach to recruiting hard-to-reach populations. Currently, it is unclear how to effectively conduct remote summative usability testing with people with dementia. We recruited 15 participants. Five took part in the pilot study and 10 participated in the main study. We identify best practices and make suggestions for remote summative usability tests with people who have mild to moderate dementia, independent of caregivers. We discuss our findings in three sections: (1) logistics for planning remote summative usability testing, (2) approaches for conducting remote summative usability testing, including modifications of research methods, and (3) considerations when evaluating findings from remote summative usability sessions. We also present modified usability testing methods we developed to meet the unique needs of users with mild to moderate dementia, and summarize lessons learned and new directions for research on this topic.

No abstract

Purpose: Customizing the accessibility and ease-of-use settings of a computer can improve the overall user experience for people with and without disabilities. However, the adoption of such settings remains poor. This study investigates why various factors may influence people as they personalize and when they choose to integrate those changes into everyday use. Methods: To better understand how these factors may impact people’s personalization process, we conducted a series of interviews involving 15 people with and without disabilities across several months in 2020 when computer usage became required due to the COVID-19 lockdown. We used grounded theory to analyze 49 semi-structured interviews with participants. During these interviews, people reflected upon: past attempts at personalization using built-in accessibility or ease-of-use features of their Operating System (OS) or other assistive technologies (AT), current customization activities using the personalization software, Morphic, and future opportunities for personalization systems and features. Results: We identified several barriers, facilitators, and perpetuating factors that can influence why and when people choose to adopt and integrate their personalization changes. We also outline the overall personalization lifecycle, which illustrates when various factors may impact computer personalization. Conclusion: Personalization activities are complex and easily affected by an ecosystem of influential factors that surround them. When paired with the three design considerations and ten lessons learned from this qualitative study, the overall personalization lifecycle may be useful during the design and development of future personalization systems or features for people with and without disabilities.