2012
DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2011.586305
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding Computer Users With Tetraplegia: Survey of Assistive Technology Users

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
33
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
33
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This method is suitable as it is a quick and easy approach that is able to collect relevant data from a cohort that spans multiple modules and it is an effective method for evaluating user interfaces and software (Caltenco et al 2012;Fitzpatrick et al 2011;Root and Draper 1983).…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method is suitable as it is a quick and easy approach that is able to collect relevant data from a cohort that spans multiple modules and it is an effective method for evaluating user interfaces and software (Caltenco et al 2012;Fitzpatrick et al 2011;Root and Draper 1983).…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This device allows one to perform the installation, favoring a greater number of subjects with tetraplegia. According to Caltenco et al (2012), the design of a good computer interface must present a balance between functionality, performance, cost and easiness of use.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, coverage of the qualitative aspects of new ATs, such as BCIs, in the scientific and technical literature is sparse. The few existing publications are limited to devices already on the market after completion of the design phase, with or without considering the end-users’ opinions [2,22]. This issue is critical considering that many ATs, often supported by public and private funds, never leave the laboratory where they are developed, and those that do leave the laboratory are abandoned at alarming rates (35–75%) [3–4].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%