Empathic engineering: helping deliver dignity through design

Figures & data

Table 1. Example methods of generating empathy, based on direct contact.

Methods of direct contact	Details of the method
Focus groups	‘A research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher’ [27]. Critical user forums are a type of focus group that are typically smaller and are comprised of users with the most serious impairments [23] (p. 129).
Observation	A technique that requires the designer to watch potential users to uncover people’s needs and determining their actual behaviour in a realistic environment [28]. These can be lab-based or may take place in a real-world setting.
User trials	Observation of users interacting with specific products, to identify problems and prioritize changes [29].
Interviews	‘Provides individual views on user requirements from a range of users. Face-to-face approach enables in-depth questioning’ [30] (p. 605).

Table 2. Example methods of generating empathy, by representing users.

Methods of indirect contact: Representing users	Details of the method
Storytelling techniques	This is a blanket term for a range of methods such as personas, storyboards and role-playing [2].
Personas	A technique involving the creation of a fictitious but realistic character to ‘provide a method of summarizing user diversity, which also includes physical, social and cultural contextual factors’ [28] (p. 6).
Video	Videos and audio recordings of potential users in their own environment or interacting with products has the same benefits as observation, but does not require direct contact and results are clearly recorded for future use.
Measurement	This can include anthropometrics and physical capability measurements such as grip strength, as well as encouraging a designer to measure their own capabilities, which can provide some context to what their users might experience.
Population data	‘Estimating exclusion identifies the task steps where a product or prototype places the highest demands on the following user capabilities: vision; hearing; thinking; reach and dexterity’ [28] (p. 6).
Experience prototyping	‘Any kind of representation, in any medium, that is designed to understand, explore or communicate what it might be like to engage with the product, space or system we are designing’ [31] (p. 2).

Table 3. Example methods of generating empathy, by simulating users.

Methods of indirect contact: Simulating users	Details of the method
Simulation tools	Simulation tools work by ‘enabling designers to experience some of the effects of capability loss for themselves, e.g. through wearing equipment that restricts their abilities. This encourages greater empathy with users with capability loss, and aims to provide a deeper understanding of their needs than can be obtained from written descriptions’ [22]. These can include glasses, gloves and full body suits. See Figure 1 for an example.
Structured experience with simulators	Designers utilizing simulators such as the Cambridge Simulation Glasses and carrying out particular tasks to highlight to them the difficulties that users may experience.
Simulation software	The use of computer software to re-create the experience of someone with an impairment, either in a virtual environment or by overlaying an impairment over an existing 2D design, on-screen. These can include Inclusive CAD, HADRIAN, VICON, VERITAS and the Cambridge Simulation Software.

Figure 1. Cambridge simulation gloves and glasses.

Figure 2. Linking empathy tools to feelings of dignity.

Figure 3. The role of comparison in feelings of dignity.

Figure 4. Full conceptual framework.

Morgan, D.L., 1996, Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 129–152

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dong, H., Clarkson, P.J., Cassim, J., and Keates, S., 2005, Critical User Forums: An effective user research method for inclusive design. The Design Journal, 8, 49–59

 Google Scholar

Waller, S., Bradley, M., Hosking, I., and Clarkson, P.J., (2015), Making the case for inclusive design. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 297–303

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zitkus, E., Langdon, P., and Clarkson, P.J., (2012), How to support designers effectively with Knowledge about accessibility and inclusion. ICDHS 2012 - Design Frontiers: territories, concepts, technologies - 8th Conference of the International Committee for Design History and Design Studies, 1, 257–264

 Google Scholar

Maguire, M., 2001, Methods to support human-centred design, International journal of human-computer studies, 55, 587–634

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kouprie, M., and Visser, F.S., 2009, A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user's life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20, 437–448

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Buchenau, M., and Suri, J.F., 2000, Experience prototyping. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques Brooklyn, New York, 17th to 19th August 2000, 424–433

 Google Scholar

Goodman-Deane, J., Waller, S., and Clarkson, P.J., 2008, Simulating Impairment. Demonstration Presented at (re)Actor3/HCI

 Google Scholar