Designing electronic graphic symbol-based AAC systems: a scoping review. Part 2: application of human-centred design

References

• Choi YM. Managing input during assistive technology product design. Assist Technol. 2011;23(2):65–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Couvreur L, Goossens R. Design for (every)one: co-creation as a bridge between universal design and rehabilitation engineering. CoDesign. 2011;7(2):107–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrens GE. Dialogue appropriate to assistive technology product design: a taxonomy of communication formats in relation to modes of sensory perception. J Des Econ Innov. 2017;3(4):262–276.
   Google Scholar
• Steen M. Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign. 2011;7(1):45–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tönsing KM, Bartram J, Morwane R, et al. Designing electronic graphic symbol-based AAC systems: a scoping review. Part 1: system description. Disabil Rehabil Assit Technol. 2022 [cited 2022];
   Google Scholar
• Andzik NR, Chung YC. Augmentative and alternative communication for adults with complex communication needs: a review of single-case research. Commun Disord Q. 2022;43(3)182-194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowe B, Machalicek W, Wei Q, et al. Augmentative and alternative communication for children with intellectual and developmental disability: a mega-review of the literature. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2022;34(1):1–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch Y, McCleary M, Smith M. Instructional strategies used in direct AAC interventions with children to support graphic symbol learning: a systematic review. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2018;34(1):23–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo MJ, Prodan V, Meda NN, et al. High-technology augmentative communication for adults with post-stroke aphasia: a systematic review. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017;14(5):355–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JM, Inglebret E, Jones C, et al. Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augment Altern Commun. 2006;22(2):85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorcroft A, Scarinci N, Meyer C. “I’ve had a love-hate, I mean mostly hate relationship with these PODD books”: parent perceptions of how they and their child contributed to AAC rejection and abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(1):72–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moorcroft A, Scarinci N, Meyer C. A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to the provision and use of low-tech and unaided AAC systems for people with complex communication needs and their families. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(7):710–731.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pampoulou E, Fuller DR. Introduction of a new AAC symbol classification system: the multidimensional quaternary symbol continuum (MQSC). JET. 2021;15(4):252–267.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M. Matching person and technology. New York (NY): Institute for Matching Person and Technology; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Boster JB, McCarthy JW. Designing augmentative and alternative communication applications: the results of focus groups with speech-language pathologists and parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(4):353–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang D, Park W. Design heuristics set for X: a design aid for assistive product concept generation. Des Stud. 2018;58:89–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• York CS, Fabrikant KB. High technology. In: Wendt O, Lloyd LL, Quist RW, editors. Assistive technologies: principles and applications for communiction disorders and special education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing; 2011. p. 221–264.
   Google Scholar
• Light JC, Drager KDR. Improving the design of augmentative and alternative technologies for young children. Assist Technol. 2002;14(1):17–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ogletree BT, McMurry S, Schmidt M, et al. The changing world of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): examining three realities faced by today’s AAC provider. Perspect ASHA SIGs. 2018;3(12):113–122.
   Google Scholar
• Brischetto A. From user-centred design to human-centred design and the user experience. In: Tosi F, editor. Design for ergonomics. Cham : Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 47–59. (Springer series in design and innovation 2661-8192 TA-TT-)
   Google Scholar
• Sanders EB, Jan Stappers P. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign. 2008;4(1):5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Tosi F. Design for ergonomics. NV-1 onl. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020 (Springer series in design and innovation; 2).
   Google Scholar
• Moggridge B. Designing interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Shekhovtsova V, Veretelnikov D, Lebediev V. Aspects of human-centered design application in control information systems. In: Dodonov A, Fedasyuk D, Korchenko A, et al, editors. Computer and information systems and technologies. Kharkiv: Press of the Kharkiv National University of Radioelectronics; 2020. p. 78–79.
   Google Scholar
• Spinuzzi C. The methodology of participatory design. Tech Commun. 2005;52(2):163–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damodaran L. User involvement in the systems design process-a practical guide for users. Behav Inf Technol. 1996;15(6):363–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell’Era C, Landoni P. Living lab: a methodology between user-centred design and participatory design. Creat Innov Manag. 2014;23(2):137–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marti P, Bannon LJ. Exploring user-centred design in practice: some caveats. Know Techn Pol. 2009;22(1):7–15.
   Google Scholar
• Waller A, Balandin SA, O'Mara DA, et al. Training AAC users in user-centred design. Paper presented at: Accessible design digital world conference; 2005 August 23-25; Dundee, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Pullin G, Treviranus J, Patel R, et al. Designing interaction, voice, and inclusion in AAC research. Augment Altern Commun. 2017;33(3):139–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light J, Page R, Curran J, et al. Children’s ideas for the design of AAC assistive technologies for young children with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2007;23(4):274–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sucharew H, Macaluso M. Methods for research evidence synthesis: the scoping review approach. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(7):416–418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Pract. 2005;8(1):19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KR. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(69):1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin E, Cupeiro C, Pizarro L, et al. “Today I tell” a comics and story creation app for people with autism spectrum condition. Int J Human Computer Interact. 2019;35(8):679–691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen J. Designing desirability in an augmentative and alternative communication device. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2005;4(2):135–145.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd-Graber J, Nikolova S, Moffatt K, et al. Participatory design with proxies: developing a desktop-PDA system to support people with aphasia. Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst Proc. 2006;1:151–160.
   Google Scholar
• de Faria Borges LCL, Filgueiras LVL, Maciel C, et al. The life cycle of a customized communication device for a child with cerebral palsy: contributions toward the PD4CAT method. J Braz Comput Soc. 2014;20(1):10.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes GR, Hirano S, Marcu G, et al. Interactive visual supports for children with autism. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2010;14(7):663–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Mascio T, Tarantino L, Cirelli L, et al. Designing a personalizable ASD-oriented AAC tool: an action research. In: Di Mascio T, Vittorini P, Gennari R, et al., editors. Methodologies and intelligent systems for technology enhanced learning, 8th International Conference. MIS4TEL 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 804. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 1–11
   Google Scholar
• Hill K. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) research and development: the challenge of evidence-based practice. Int J Comp Proc Lang. 2006;19(04):249–262.
   Google Scholar
• Mendes M, Correia S. Combining research, theory and end user experiments for suitable AAC apps. Assist Technol Res Ser. 2013;33:340–346.
   Google Scholar
• Williams K, Moffatt K, McCall D, et al. Designing conversation cues on a head-worn display to support persons with aphasia. In: Begole B, Kim J. editors. CHI'15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York (NY): ACM; 2015 April 18-23; Seoul, Korea. p. 231–40.
   Google Scholar
• Hine N, Arnott JL, Smith D. Design issues encountered in the development of a mobile multimedia augmentative communication service. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2003;2(3):255–264.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung KLKH, Lam THW, Cheung KLKH. A mobile augmentative and alternative communication (MAAC) application for disabilities. In: Biekiewicz M, Verdier C, Plantier G, et al., editors. BIOSTEC 2014: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies- Volume 5; 2014 March 3-6; Loire Valley, France. Setubal (Portugal): SCITEPRESS; 2014. p. 188–95.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Arifi B, Al-Rubaian A, Al-Ofisan G, et al. Towards an arabic language augmentative and alternative communication application for autism. In: Marcus A, editor. Design, user experience, and usability health, learning, playing, cultural, and cross-cultural user experience. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 333–341.
   Google Scholar
• de Oliveira K, Junior J, Silva J, et al. VoxLaps: a free symbol-based AAC application for Brazilian Portuguese. In: Antona M, Stephanidis C, editors. Universal access in human-computer interaction. Toronto: Springer; 2016. p. 129–140.
   Google Scholar
• Hervás R, Bautista S, Méndez G, et al. Predictive composition of pictogram messages for users with autism. J Ambient Intell Human Comput. 2020;11(11):5649–5664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirotomi T. An AAC system designed for improving behaviors and attitudes in communication between children with CCN and their peers. In: Antona M, Stephanidis C, editors. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 530–541.
   Google Scholar
• Babic J, Slivar I, Car Z, et al. Prototype-driven software development proceb for augmentative and alternative communication applications. In: Plank T, editor. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Telecommunication; 2015 July 13-15; Graz, Austria. Graz (Austria): Graz University of Technology; 2015. p. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Daemen E, Dadlani P, Du J, et al. Designing a free style, indirect, and interactive storytelling application for people with aphasia. In: Baranauskas C, Palanque P, Abascal J, et al., editors. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). Berlin: Springer; 2007. p. 221–234.
   Google Scholar
• Mahmud AA, Limpens Y, Martens J-B. Expressing through digital photographs: an assistive tool for persons with aphasia. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2013;12(3):309–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Sedano F, Conde-González MA, Fernández-Llamas C, et al. The use of a new visual language as a supporting resource for people with intellectual disabilities. In: Zaphiris P, Ioannou A, editors. Learning and collaboration technologies technology in education. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 202–214. (Lecture notes in computer science; 10296).
   Google Scholar
• Jafri R, Almasoud AM, Alshammari RMT, et al. A low-cost gaze-based Arabic augmentative and alternative communication system for people with severe speech and motor impairments. In: Stephanidis C, Antona M, Gao Q, et al., editors. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). Berlin (Germany): Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 279–290.
   Google Scholar
• Karita T. Development of a communication aid app with iOS devices to support children/persons with speech disabilities. J Adv Comput Intell Inform. 2017;21(2):371–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooke J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan P, Thomas B, McLelland I, Weerdmeester B, editors. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996. p. 189–194.
   Google Scholar
• Kirakowski J, Corbett M. SUMI: the software usability measurement inventory. Br J Educ Technol. 1993;24(3):210–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Silva DP, Amate FC, Basile FRM, et al. AACVOX: mobile application for augmentative alternative communication to help people with speech disorder and motor impairment. Res Biomed Eng. 2018;34(2):166–175.
   Google Scholar
• Redström J. Making design theory. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Wieringa R. Design science methodology. In: Kramer J, Bishop J, Devanbu P et al., editors. Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE ’10; 2010 May 1-8; Cape Town, South Africa. New York (NY): ACM Press; 2010. p. 493.
   Google Scholar
• Persson H, Åhman H, Yngling AA, et al. Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts—one goal? On the concept of accessibility—historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2015;14(4):505–526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunst CJ, Trivette CM, Hamby DW, et al. Systematic review of studies promoting the use of assistive technology devices by young children with disabilities. Vol. 5. Asheville: Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Lubas M, Mitchell J, De Leo G. User-centered design and augmentative and alternative communication apps for children with autism spectrum disorders. SAGE Open. 2014;4(2):215824401453750.
   Google Scholar
• Tao G, Charm G, Kabacińska K, et al. Evaluation tools for assistive technologies: a scoping review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(6):1025–1040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waller A. Telling tales: unlocking the potential of AAC technologies. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019;54(2):159–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health - Child and youth version (ICF-CY). Geneva: World Health Press; 2007. p. 351.
   Google Scholar
• Dada S, Kathard H, Tönsing K, et al. Severe communication disabilities in South Africa: challenges and enablers. In: Halder S, Czop Assaf L, editors. Inclusion, disability and culture. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International; 2017. p. 169–193.
   Google Scholar
• Pillay M, Kathard H. Decolonizing health professionals’ education: audiology and speech therapy in South Africa. African J Rhetor. 2015;7:195–227.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman DR, Light J. Augmentative & alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 5th ed. Baltimore (MD): Brookes Publishing; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Light J. Interaction involving individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems: state of the art and future directions. Augment Altern Commun. 1988;4(2):66–82.
   Google Scholar
• Black R, Waller A, Turner R, et al. Supporting personal narrative for children with complex communication needs. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact. 2012;19(2):1–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legel M, Grove N, Soto G, et al. How was your day? My film, My story! teaching method. Paper presented at: AACcess all areas: 18th Biennial Conference of the International Society of Augmentative and Alternative Communication; 2018 23-26 July; Goldcoast, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon-Rice P, Soto G. Co-construction as a facilitative factor in supporting the personal narratives of children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Commun Disord Q. 2011;32(2):70–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlgren Sandberg A, Smith M, Larsson M. An analysis of reading and spelling abilities of children using AAC: understanding a continuum of competence. Augment Altern Commun. 2010;26(3):191–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith M. Literacy and augmentative and alternative communication. Burlington, MA: Elsevier; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Smith M. Speech, language and aided communication: connections and questions in a developmental context. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(3):151–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Tetzchner S. The semiotics of aided language development. Cogn Dev. 2015;36:180–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pino A, Kouroupetroglou G. ITHACA: an open source framework for building component-based augmentative and alternative communication applications. ACM Trans Access Comput. 2010;2(4):1–30.
   Google Scholar
• van Kleeck A. Home talk and school talk. Leader. 2007;12(13):23–24.
   Google Scholar
• Norrie CS, Waller A, Hannah EFS. Establishing context: AAC device adoption and support in a special-education setting. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact. 2021;28(2):1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allsop MJ, Holt RJ, Levesley MC, et al. The engagement of children with disabilities in health-related technology design processes: identifying methodology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(1):1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Uthoff SAK, Zinkevich A, Boenisch J, et al. Collaboration between stakeholders involved in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) care of people without natural speech. J Interprof Care. 2021;0(0):1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, Drager K. AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: state of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun. 2007;23(3):204–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beringer A, Tönsing K, Bornman J. The self-determined and partner-predicted topic preferences of adults with aphasia. Aphasiology. 2013;27(2):227–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettit LK, Tönsing KM, Dada S. The perspectives of adults with aphasia and their team members regarding the importance of nine life areas for rehabilitation: a pilot investigation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2017;24(2):99–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullin G, Hennig S. 17 Ways to say yes: toward nuanced tone of voice in AAC and speech technology. Augment Altern Commun. 2015;31(2):170–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould JD, Lewis C. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun ACM. 1985;28(3):300–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNaughton D, Light J. The iPad and mobile technology revolution: benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 2013;29(2):107–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregor S, Hevner AR. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MISQ. 2013;37(2):337–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dada S, Murphy Y, Tönsing K. Augmentative and alternative communication practices: a descriptive study of the perceptions of South African speech-language therapists. Augment Altern Commun. 2017;33(4):189–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar