skip to main content
10.1145/1357054.1357250acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Improving the performance of motor-impaired users with automatically-generated, ability-based interfaces

Published:06 April 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

We evaluate two systems for automatically generating personalized interfaces adapted to the individual motor capabilities of users with motor impairments. The first system, SUPPLE, adapts to users' capabilities indirectly by first using the ARNAULD preference elicitation engine to model a user's preferences regarding how he or she likes the interfaces to be created. The second system, SUPPLE++, models a user's motor abilities directly from a set of one-time motor performance tests. In a study comparing these approaches to baseline interfaces, participants with motor impairments were 26.4% faster using ability-based user interfaces generated by SUPPLE++. They also made 73% fewer errors, strongly preferred those interfaces to the manufacturers' defaults, and found them more efficient, easier to use, and much less physically tiring. These findings indicate that rather than requiring some users with motor impairments to adapt themselves to software using separate assistive technologies, software can now adapt itself to the capabilities of its users.

References

  1. Akamatsu, M., MacKenzie, I. S., and Hasbroucq, T. A comparison of tactile, auditory, and visual feedback in a pointing task using a mouse-type device. Ergonomics, 38, 4 (1995), 816--827.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bergman, E. and Johnson, E. Towards Accessible Human-Computer Interaction. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bigham, J. P., Kaminsky, R. S., Ladner, R. E., Danielsson, O. M., and Hempton, G. L. Webinsight:: making web images accessible. Proc. Assets '06. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 2006, 181--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Carter, S., Hurst, A., Mankoff, J., and Li, J. Dynamically adapting GUIs to diverse input devices. Proc. Assets '06. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 2006, 63--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Dawe, M. Desperately seeking simplicity: how young adults with cognitive disabilities and their families adopt assistive technologies. Proc. CHI'06. (2006), 1143--1152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Fichten, C., Barile, M., Asuncion, J., and Fossey, M. What government, agencies, and organizations can do to improve access to computers for postsecondary students with disabilities: recommendations based on Canadian empirical data. Int J Rehabil Res, 23, 3 (2000), 191--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Gajos, K., Christianson, D., Hoffmann, R., Shaked, T., Henning, K., Long, J. J., and Weld, D. S. Fast and robust interface generation for ubiquitous applications. Proc. Ubicomp'05. Tokyo, Japan, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Gajos, K. and Weld, D. S. Supple: automatically generating user interfaces. Proc. IUI'04. ACM Press, New York, NY, 2004, 93--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Gajos, K. and Weld, D. S. Preference elicitation for interface optimization. Proc. UIST '05. ACM Press, New York, NY, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gajos, K. Z., Wobbrock, J. O., and Weld, D. S. Automatically generating user interfaces adapted to users' motor and vision capabilities. Proc. UIST'07. ACM Press, New York, NY, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Harada, S., Wobbrock, J. O., and Landay, J. A. Voicedraw: A voice-driven hands-free drawing application. Proc. ASSETS'07. ACM Press, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hornof, A., Cavender, A., and Hoselton, R. Eyedraw: a system for drawing pictures with eye movements. Proc. ASSETS'04. ACM Press, New York, NY, 2004, 86--93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hwang, F., Keates, S., Langdon, P., and Clarkson, J. Mouse movements of motion-impaired users: a submovement analysis. Proc. Assets '04. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 2004, 102--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. International Organization for Standardization. 9241-9 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)-Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Keates, S., Langdon, P., Clarkson, J. P., and Robinson, P. User models and user physical capability. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12, 2 (2002), 139--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Koester, H. Abandonment of speech recognition by new users. Proc. RESNA03. Atlanta, Georgia, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Law, C., Sears, A., and Price, K. Issues in the categorization of disabilities for user testing. Proc. HCII'05. 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Littell, R., MIlliken, G., Stroup, W., and Wolfinger, R. SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mankoff, J., Dey, A., Batra, U., and Moore, M. Web accessibility for low bandwidth input. Proc. Assets '02. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 2002, 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Nichols, J., Myers, B. A., Higgins, M., Hughes, J., Harris, T. K., Rosenfeld, R., and Pignol, M. Generating remote control interfaces for complex appliances. Proc. UIST'02. Paris, France, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Phillips, B. and Zhao, H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol, 5, 1 (1993), 36--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Savidis, A. Dynamic software assembly for automatic deployment-oriented adaptation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 127, 3 (2005), 207--217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Savidis, A., Antona, M., and Stephanidis, C. A decision-making specification language for verifiable user-interface adaptation logic. International Journal of Software Engineering And Knowledge Engineering, 15, 6 (2005), 1063 -- 1094.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Savidis, A. and Stephanidis, C. Inclusive development: Software engineering requirements for universally accessible interactions. Interacting with Computers, 18, 1 (2006), 71--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Schuster, C. and Von Eye, A. The relationship of anova models with random effects and repeated measurement designs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 2 (2001), 205--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Stephanidis, C. User interfaces for all: New perspectives into human-computer interaction. In C. Stephanidis, ed., User Interfaces for All, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001. 3--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Vermunt, J. K. Log-linear Models for Event Histories. Sage Publications, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilcoxon, F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1, 6 (1945), 80--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Winship, C. and Mare, R. D. Regression models with ordinal variables. American Sociological Review, 49, 4 (1984), 512--525.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Improving the performance of motor-impaired users with automatically-generated, ability-based interfaces

        Recommendations

        Reviews

        Mariana Damova

        A contribution in the field of assisted computing for motor-impaired individuals, this paper presents experiments and evaluates the results from the use of two systems especially designed "to adapt user interfaces to the actual abilities of individual users with motor impairments." The purpose of the reported research is to verify usability and to compare acceptance by users of automatically generated user interfaces with that of commercially standard Windows user interfaces. The paper advances the idea that automatically generated interfaces are an important alternative to human-crafted interfaces because of the high cost of the latter and the variety of requirements for users with special needs. Creating cheaper and more easily adaptable interfaces is a step toward allowing all users equal access to computer facilities and regular activities. SUPPLE, one of the evaluated systems, uses "the ARNAULD preference elicitation engine to model a user's preferences regarding how he or she likes the interfaces to be created." The other evaluated system, SUPPLE++, "models a user's motor abilities directly from a set of one-time motor performance tests." The experiments are performed by 11 motor-impaired participants, with various conditions, and six able-bodied participants. The authors establish that all users perform better and prefer the ability-based interfaces; the preference-based interfaces rank second, and the standard baseline ones rank third. The paper shows, with a very detailed description of the methods and the calculation of the results, that evaluation takes place according to several parameters, such as widget manipulation time, interface navigation time, total time, error rate, and the following subjective criteria: ease of use, attractiveness, tiredness-producing, and efficiency. The ability-based and the preference-based interfaces score better than the baseline in all criteria except for attractiveness. The motor-impaired users were 8.4 to 42.2 percent faster with the ability-based interfaces. This study presents interesting insight in an intriguing field. The very promising results give hope that such applications will become fully accessible and usable after the prototypes become real systems. Supplied with extensive background research, comments, and illustrative pictures and graphs, this paper would be appropriate for those interested in applications for motor-impaired individuals and in interesting technological advances in general. Online Computing Reviews Service

        Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

        Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI '08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2008
          1870 pages
          ISBN:9781605580111
          DOI:10.1145/1357054

          Copyright © 2008 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or 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 citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 6 April 2008

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '08 Paper Acceptance Rate157of714submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader