A comparison of methods currently used in inclusive design.
Inclusive design has unique challenges because it aims to improve usability for a wide range of users. This typically includes people with lower levels of ability, as well as mainstream users. This paper examines the effectiveness of two methods that are used in inclusive design: user trials and exclusion calculations (an inclusive design inspection method). A study examined three autoinjectors using both methods (n=30 for the user trials). The usability issues identified by each method are compared and the effectiveness of the methods is discussed. The study found that each method identified different kinds of issues, all of which are important for inclusive design. We therefore conclude that a combination of methods should be used in inclusive design rather than relying on a single method. Recommendations are also given for how the individual methods can be used more effectively in this context.
Engineering Design Centre, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK. Electronic address: jag76@cam.ac.uk.
Joy
J
Goodman-Deane
Engineering Design Centre, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK.
James
J
Ward
Engineering Design Centre, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK.
Ian
I
Hosking
Engineering Design Centre, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK.
P John
PJ
Clarkson
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D004867:Equipment Design / Q000379:methods*; D006804:Ergonomics / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007267:Injections / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012648:Self Care / Q000295:instrumentation*; D016526:Workload; D055815:Young Adult
Exclusion; Inclusive design; Methods