References
- Agree, E. M. (2014). The potential for technology to enhance independence for those aging with a disability. Disability and Health Journal, 7(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.09.004
- Albrecht, G. L., & Devlieger, P. J. (1999). The disability paradox. High Quality of Life against All Odds. Social Sciences and Medicine, 48(8), 977–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00411-0
- Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340602100204
- Amundson, R. (2010). Quality of life, disability and hedonic psychology. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(4), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2010.00437.x
- Bajcar, B., Jach, K., & Borkowska, A. (2017). The usability of system and user’s emotions during work with interface designed for disabled: The pilot study. In K. Blashki (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction, Multi Conference on Computer Science and Information System (pp. 46–53). IADIS Press.
- Bajcar, B., Borkowska, A., Dzidowski, A., Jach, K., Kuliński, M., Krzos, P., & Piwińska, J. (2017). Raport z testów systemu Face Controller [Face Controller Testing Report]. Wrocław University of Science and Technology Report, SPR 8. http://www.tnm.org.pl/facecontroler/2017/02/15/raport-z-testow-systemu-face-controller/
- Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776
- Borkowska, A., & Jach, K. (2016). Pre-testing of polish translation of system usability scale (SUS). In J. Świątek, Z. Wilimowska, L. Borzemski, & A. Grzech (Eds.), Proceedings of 37th International Conference on Information Systems Architecture and Technology – ISAT 2016 – Part I (pp. 143–153). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46583-8_12
- Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 4–7). Taylor and Francis.
- Brooke, J. (2013). SUS: A retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(2), 29–40. Retrieved from https://uxpajournal.org/sus-a-retrospective/
- Byra, S. (2016). The disability paradox – Does it really exist? Selected contexts and topics for discussion. Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny [Pedagogical Quarterly], 239(1), 120–138.
- Cabrera, R., Molina, A., Gómez, I., & García-Heras, J. (2017). Kinect as an access device for people with cerebral palsy: A preliminary study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 108(December), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.07.004
- Caltenco, H. A., Breidegard, B., Jönsson, B., & Andreasen Struijk, L. N. (2012). Understanding computer users with tetraplegia: Survey of assistive technology users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.586305
- Chen, C. L., Wu, C. Y., Chen, H. C., Hong, W. H., Liu, W. Y., Wong, A. M. K., & Hsu, H. C. (2006). Application of a novel integrated pointing device apparatus for children with cerebral palsy. Chang Gung Medical Journal, 29(4), 380–387. http://cgmj.cgu.edu.tw/2904/290405.pdf
- Couper, M. P. (2000). Usability evaluation of computer-assisted survey instruments. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 384–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930001800402
- Drum, C. E., Horner-Johnson, W., & Krahn, G. L. (2008). Self-rated health and healthy days: Examining the ‘disability paradox’. Disability Health Journal, 1(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2008.01.002
- Dunn, D. S. (2015). The social psychology of disability. Oxford University Press.
- Dunn, D. S. (2016). Teaching about psychosocial aspects of disability. Emphasizing person–environment relations. Teaching of Psychology, 43(3), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316649492
- Elliott, T. R., Kurylo, M., & Rivera, P. (2002). Positive growth following acquired physical disability. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 687–698). Oxford University Press.
- Fellinghauer, B., Reinhardt, J. D., Stucki, G., & Bickenbach, J. (2012). Explaining the disability paradox: A cross-sectional analysis of the Swiss general population. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-655
- Felzer, T., MacKenzie, I. S., Beckerle, P., & Rinderknecht, S. (2010). Qanti: A software tool for quick ambiguous non-standard text input. In K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. Zagler, & A. Karshmer (Eds.), Computers helping people with special needs. ICCHP 2010, Part II, LNCS 6180 (pp. 128–135). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14100-3_20
- Fouché, R. C. (2017). Head mouse: Generalizability of research focused on the disabled to able bodied users. In Proceedings of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists (SAICSIT ’17), New York, NY, USA: ACM article 14, 1–10. doi:10.1145/3129416.3129442
- Face Controller. (May 2019). http://www.face-controller.com
- Goryńska, E. (2005). Przymiotnikowa skala nastroju UMACL. Matthewsa, G., Chamberlaina, A. G., Dylana, M. S. Podręcznik. [ Mood Adjective Checklist UMACL G. Matthews, A. G. Chamberlain, D. M. Jones. Manual]. Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
- Hazlett, R. L., & Benedek, J. (2007). Measuring emotional valence to understand the user’s experience of software. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(4), 3006–3014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.005
- International Organization for Standardization. (2000). ISO 9241–9. 2000. Ergonomics requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices.
- International Organization for Standardization. (2002). ISO 9241-11:2002. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 11: Guidance on usability.
- International Organization for Standardization (2018). ISO 9241-11:2018. Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts.
- Irwin, C. B., & Sesto, M. E. (2012). Performance and touch characteristics of disabled and non-disabled participants during a reciprocal tapping task using touch screen technology. Applied Ergonomics, 43(6), 1038–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.03.003
- Jach, K., Bajcar, B., & Borkowska, A. (2017a). The adaptation of the device assessment questionnaire ISO 9241-9 in the polish samples. In Z. Wilimowska, L. Borzemski, & J. Świątek (Eds.), Proceedings of 38th International Conference on Information Systems Architecture and Technology –ISAT 2017 –Part III (pp. 253–262). New York, USA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67223-6_24.
- Jach, K., Bajcar, B., & Borkowska, A. (2017b). The effectiveness and user satisfaction in the interface designed for disabled users: The pilot study. In K. Blashki (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction, Multi Conference on Computer Science and Information System (pp. 27–34). Lisbon: IADIS Press.
- Jaeger, P. (2009). Persons with disabilities and intergenerational universal usability. Interactions, 16(3), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1516016.1516031
- Jansky, L. J., & Huang, J. C. (2009). A multi-method approach to assess usability and acceptability: A case study of the patient-reported outcomes measurement system (PROMIS) workshop. Social Science Computer Review, 27(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439308326298
- Jensen, M. P., Moore, M. R., Bockow, T. B., Ehde, D. M., & Engel, J. M. (2011). Psychosocial factors and adjustment to chronic pain in persons with physical disabilities: A systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(1), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.09.021
- Keates, S., Hwang, F., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P. J., & Robinson, P. (2002). Cursor measures for motion-impaired computer users. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/638249.638274
- Kjeldsen, J. E. (2007). An on-screen keyboard for users with poor pointer control. In: C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction: Applications and Services. UAHCI’07 (pp. 339–348). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
- Koenig, H. G. (2000). Positive emotions, physical disability, and mortality in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48(11), 1525–1526. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.2000.48.11.1525
- Kortum, P. T., & Bangor, A. (2013). Usability ratings for everyday products measured with the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 29(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2012.681221
- Leporini, B., & Paternò, F. (2003). Criteria for usability of accessible web sites. In N. Carbonell & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), User Interfaces for All, LNCS 2615 (pp. 43–55). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36572-9_3
- Lewis, J. R. (2018). The system usability scale: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(7), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307
- Li, Y., Nam, C. S., Shadden, B. B., & Johnson, S. L. (2010). A P300-based brain–computer interface: Effects of interface type and screen size. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 27(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.535753
- MacKenzie, I. S., & Felzer, T. (2010). SAK: Scanning ambiguous keyboard for efficient one-key text entry. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 17(3), 1–39. Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806923.1806925
- Matthews, G., Jones, D. M., & Chamberlain, A. G. (1990). Refining the measurement of mood: The UWIST mood adjective checklist. British Journal of Psychology, 81(1), 17–42. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02343.x
- McKenzie, S. I. (2014). Human-computer interaction: An empirical research perspective. Morgan Kaufman.
- Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
- Olsen, J. (2018). Socially disabled: The fight disabled people face against loneliness and stress. Disability & Society, 33(7), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1459228
- Ostroff, E. (2011). Universal design: An evolving paradigm. In W. F. E. Preiser & K. H. Smith (Eds.), Universal design handbook (pp. 34–42). McGraw-Hill.
- Persson, H., Åhman, H., Yngling, A. A., & Gulliksen, J. (2015). Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: Different concepts—one goal? On the concept of accessibility—historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(4), 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0358
- Polacek, O., Mikovec, Z., Sporka, A. J., & Slavik, P. (2011). Humsher: A predictive keyboard operated by humming. The Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp.75–82). ASSETS ’11. New York: ACM.
- Polacek, O., Sporka, A. J., & Slavik, P. (2017). Text input for motor-impaired people. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-015-0433-0
- Roibás, A. C. (2008). Understanding the influence of the users’ context in AmI. Social Science Computer Review, 26(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439307307699
- Rosenbaum, P. L., Palisano, R. J., Bartlett, D. J., Galuppi, B. E., & Russell, D. J. (2008). Development of the gross motor function classification system for cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(4), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.02045.x
- Saariluoma, P., & Jokinen, J. P. P. (2014). Emotional dimensions of user experience: A user psychological analysis. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 30(4), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.858460
- Schulz, R., & Decker, S. (1985). Long-term adjustment to physical disability: The role of social support, perceived control, and self-blame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(5), 1162–1172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1162
- Sebold, K., & Renner, G. (2019). Usability von eingabehilfsmitteln und ansteuerungsmöglichkeiten im bereich der unterstützten kommunikation. Die Rehabilitation, 58(5), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0645-9154
- Sheskin, D. J. (2003). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. CRC Press.
- Simpson, R., Koester, H. H., & LoPresti, E. (2010). Research in computer access assessment and intervention. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 21(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2009.07.006
- Smith, D. M., Schwarz, N., Roberts, T. R., & Ubel, P. A. (2006). Why are you calling me? How study introductions change response patterns. Quality of Life Research, 15(4), 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-4529-5
- Smith, D. M., Sherriff, R. L., Damschroder, L., Loewenstein, G., & Ubel, P. A. (2006). Misremembering colostomies? Former patients give lower utility ratings than do current patients. Health Psychology, 23(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.6.688
- Summa, S., Basteris, A., Betti, E., & Sanguineti, V. (2015). Adaptive training with full- body movements to reduce bradykinesia in persons with Parkinson ’s disease: A pilot study. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 12(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0009-5
- Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510395592
- Trewin, S., Marques, D., & Guerreiro, T. (2015). Usage of subjective scales in accessibility research. Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (pp. 59–67). Lisbon, Portugal: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2700648.2809867
- Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., Schwarz, N., & Smith, D. (2005). Misimagining the unimaginable: The disability paradox and health care decision making. Health Psychology, 24(4), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S57
- United Nations General Assembly. (2007). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: Resolution/adopted by the general assembly. 2007, A/RES/61/106, 24 January 2007. United Nations (UN) General Assembly.
- Uppal, S. (2006). Impact of the timing, type and severity of disability on the subjective well-being of individuals with disabilities. Social Science and Medicine, 63(2), 525–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.01.016
- Vigouroux, N., Vella, F., Truillet, P., & Raynal, M. (2004). Evaluation of AAC for text input by two groups of subjects: Able-bodied subjects and disabled motor subjects. Adjunct Proceedings of the 8th ERCIM Workshop User Interfaces For All. http://www.ui4all.gr/workshop2004/publications/adjunctproceedings.html
- Wehmeyer, L. M. (2013). Beyond pathology: The positive psychology and disability. In L. M. Wehmeyer (Ed.), The oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 3–6). Oxford University Press.
- Wobbrock, J. O., Fogarty, J., Liu, S. Y., Kimuro, S., & Harada, S. (2009). The angle mouse: Target-agnostic dynamic gain adjustment based on angular deviation. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1401–1410). New York: ACM Press.
- Wobbrock, J. O., & Gajos, K. Z. (2008). Goal crossing with mice and trackballs for people with motor impairments: Performance, submovements, and design directions. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 1(1), 1–37. Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1145/1361203.1361207
- World Health Organization (WHO) (2001). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Resolution WHA 54.21, World Health Organization.