The order and priority of research and design method application within an assistive technology new product development process: a summative content analysis of 20 case studies

References

• Conway M. Occupational Therapy and inclusive design: principles for practice. Oxford: Blackwells; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. WHO global disability action plan 2014–2021. Better health for all people with disability [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 1]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/199544/1/9789241509619_eng.pdf?ua=1
   Google Scholar
• Norman DA. The design of everyday things. New York (NY): Basic books; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan PW. Designing pleasurable products: an introduction to the new human factors. London: CRC Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Plowright D. Using mixed methods: frameworks for an integrated methodology. Los Angeles (CA): Sage; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Allison B, O’Sullivan T, Owen A, Rice J, Rothwell A, Saunders C. Research skills for students. London: Kogan Page; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Jones J. Design methods: seeds of human futures. London: Wiley-Interscience; 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Cross N, Roy R. Engineering design methods. New York (NY): Wiley; 1989. 4 p.
   Google Scholar
• O’Flynn RK, Waldmann T. Intelligence, creativity and decisions in product design. In: Karwowski W, Soares M, Stanton AN, editors. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in consumer products. New York (NY): CRC Press; 2011. 112 p.
   Google Scholar
• Martin B, Hanington B. Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly (MA): Rockport; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in Education. 6th ed. Abingdon: Routledge; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Ex Libris Software [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/
   Google Scholar
• Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273–286.
   Google Scholar
• Torrens G. Understanding the product user: the implementation of a user-centred design approach by student industrial designers when designing for elderly and disabled people. Design J. 2000;3:15–330. Bloomsbury (formerly Berg), London.
   Google Scholar
• Torrens G, McDonagh-Philp D, Newman A. Getting a grip. Ergon Des. 2001;9:7–13.
   Google Scholar
• Torrens GE. Universal design: empathy and affinity. In Karwowski, W, Soares, M, M, Stanton, A, N, editors. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in consumer products. CRC Press; 2011. p. 233–248.
   Google Scholar
• Torrens GE. Assistive technology product to universal design: a way forward. Design for All India. 2012;7:182–205.
   Google Scholar
• Torrens GE. Design for ageing and disability at key stage 4: an introduction to the nature of designing, available teaching materials and resources [Internet]. Natl Assoc Design Educ J. 1998 Dec 2 [cited 2017 Jan 30]. Available from: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/15774
   Google Scholar
• Torrens GE, Hann J, Webley M, et al. Hand performance assessment of ten people with rheumatoid arthritis when using a range of specified saucepans. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:123–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrens GE, Marshall R, Burkitt J, et al. Using modularity to produce more competitive assistive technology products, Proceedings of the 13th Irish Manufacturing Committee, Limerick, Ireland; 1996. p. 797–804.
   Google Scholar
• Torrens GE, Newton H. Getting the Most from Working with Higher Education: a review of methods used within a participatory design activity involving KS3 special school pupils and undergraduate and post-graduate industrial design students. Design Technol Educ. 2013;18:58–71.
   Google Scholar
• Torrens GE, Smith NCS. Evaluation of an assistive technology product design using a paired comparisons method within a mixed methods approach: a case study evaluating preferences for four types of cutlery with 34 upper limb impaired participants. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;8:340–347.
   Google Scholar
• Torrens GE, Williams G, Huxley R. Can you open this jar for me please: a pilot study of the physical nature of jar opening, Contemporary Ergonomics 2001. In: McCabe, PT, Hanson, MA Robertson, SA, editors. Taylor and Francis, Ergonomics Society Annual Conference. UK, Taylor & Francis, London; 2001. p. 83–89.
   Google Scholar
• Choi YM, Sprigle SH. Approaches for evaluating the usability of assistive technology product prototypes. Assist Technol. 2011;23:36–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim HK, Han SH, Park J, et al. The interaction experiences of visually impaired people with assistive technology: a case study of smartphones. Int J Ind Ergonom. 2016;55:22–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kairy D, Rushton PW, Archambault P, et al. Exploring powered wheelchair users and their caregivers’ perspectives on potential intelligent power wheelchair use: a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:2244–2261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fábio R, Zilli GM, Sebben D, et al. A case study on assistive technology for visual impairment individuals: adaptations in household appliances. J Control Autom Electr Syst. 2014;25:228–236.
   Google Scholar
• Paredes H, Fernandes H, Martins P, et al. Gathering the users’ needs in the development of assistive technology: a blind navigation system use case. In: Stephanidis C, Antona M, editors. International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. p. 79–88.
   Google Scholar
• Shinohara K, Tenenberg J. A blind person's interactions with technology. Commun ACM. 2009;52:58–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner L, Powell L, Page M. An appraisal of a selection of products currently available to older consumers. Appl Ergon. 1993;24:35–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirbilek O, Demirkan H. Universal product design involving elderly users: a participatory design model. Appl Ergon. 2004;35:361–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keates S, Clarkson PJ, Harrison LA, et al. Towards a practical inclusive design approach. Proceedings of the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability. New York (NY): ACM; 2000. p. 45–52.
   Google Scholar
• Black K, Williamson D. Designing inclusive physical activities and games. In: Roibás AC, Stamatakis E, Black K, editors. Design for sport. Farnham: Gower; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• British standard. BS7000-6:2005, Design Management systems. Managing inclusive design. Guide; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• The Design Council. A study of design process. London: Design Council [Internet]. 2007. [cited 2016 Aug 14]. Available from: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/ElevenLessons_Design_Council%20(2).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fondahl JW. A non-computer approach to the critical path method for the construction industry [Internet]. 1962 [cited 2016 Aug 1]. Available from: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015000453970;view=1up;seq=9
   Google Scholar
• Agree EM, Freedman VA. A quality-of-life scale for assistive technology: results of a pilot study of aging and technology. Phys Ther. 2011;91:1780–1788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker C, Pistrang N, Robert E. Research methods in clinical psychology: an introduction for students and practitioners. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Bazeley P. Qualitative data analysis with NVIVO. London: Sage; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Bernsen J. Design, the problems comes first. Copenhagen: Danish Design Council; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Birley G, Moreland N. A practical guide to academic research. London: Taylor & Francis; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Bourner T. The research process: four steps to success. In: Greenfield T, editor. Research methods: guidance for postgraduates. London: Arnold; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Bramston D. Idea searching, basics in product design series. London: Thames Hudson; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Bray J, Wright S, editors. The use of technology in the care of the elderly and the disabled: for the Commission of the European Communities. London: Pinter; 1979.
   Google Scholar
• British standard. BS EN ISO 9999:2002. Technical aids for persons with disabilities—Classification and terminology; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• British standard. 2011. BS EN ISO 9999:2011. Assistive products for persons with disabilities—Classification and terminology.
   Google Scholar
• Bruce C. Supervising literature reviews. In: Zuber-Skerritt O, Ryan Y, editors. Quality in postgraduate education. London: Kogan Page; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A. Quantity and quality in social research. Abingdon: Routledge; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A, Cramer D. Qualitative data analysis for social scientists. Abingdon: Routledge; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Burns RB. Introduction to research methods. London: Sage; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Buxton B. Sketching user experiences, getting the design right and the right decision. San Francisco (CA): Morgan Kaufman; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Cadamuro A. What remains? Strategy creativity series. Eindhoven: Design Academy; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Clarkson J, Coleman R. History of inclusive design in the UK. Appl Ergon. 2015;46:235–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarkson J, Coleman R, Hoskin I, et al. Inclusive design toolkit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Coolican H. Research methods and statistics in Psychology. 4th ed. London: Hodder Arnold; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J, Plano Clarke V. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand oaks (CA): Sage; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Crilly N. Product Aesthetics, representing designer intent and consumer response. [PhD thesis] [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005 [cited 2016 Sep 2]. Available from: http://publications.eng.cam.ac.uk/326484/
   Google Scholar
• Covington GA, Hanah B. Accessing by design. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Crimp M. The market research process. 3rd ed. Hemel Hempstead, NY: Prentice Hall; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Christophersen J, Norske stats husbank, editors. Universal design: 17 ways of thinking and teaching. Oslo: Husbanken; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Cross N. Design participation, London: Academy; 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Crozier R. Manufactured pleasures, physiological responses to design. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Cushman WH, Rosenberg DJ. Advances in human factors/ergonomics. 14: Human factors in product design. New York (NY): Elsevier; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Dant T. Material culture in the social world. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Dominic P, Demel J, Lawbaugh W, et al. Tools and tactics of design. New York (NY): John Wiley & sons; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Dormer P. The art of the maker, skill and its meaning in art, craft and design. London: Thames and Hudson; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Duarte N. Resonate, present visual stories that transform audiences. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Edel DH. Introduction to creative design. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson J. Planning of environments for people with physical disabilities using computer aided design. Lund: University of Lund Press; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Evans B, Powell J, Talbot R. Changing design. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Eysensk MW, Keane MT. Cognitive psychology: student handbook. 5th ed. Hove: Psychology Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Fink A. Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper. 3rd ed. London: Sage; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Furr RM, Bacharach VR. Psychometrics: an introduction. 2nd ed. Thousand oaks (CA): Sage; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Garner S. Writing on drawing: essays on drawing practice and research. Bristol: Intellect; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Goldsmith S. Designing for the disabled. 3rd ed. London: RIBA; 1963.
   Google Scholar
• Gorman KP. Qualitative research for the information professional: a practical handbook. 2nd ed. London: Facet; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Hass U, Brodin H, Andresson A, et al. Assistive technology selection: a study of participation of users with rheumatoid arthritis. IEEE Trans Rehab Eng. 1997;5:263–275.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hart C. Doing a literature search: releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Gray C, Malins J. Visualizing research, a guide to the research process in art and design. Farnham: Ashgate; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Green WS, Jordan PW. Human factors in product design, current practice and future trends. London: Taylor & Francis; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Greer B, Mulhern G. Making sense of data and statistics in psychology, Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Guest G, MacQueen K, Namey E. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand oaks (CA): Sage; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley M. What's wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. London: Routledge; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Handicapped Persons Research Unit. The concerned technology, electronic aids for those with special needs. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle upon Tyne Polytechnic; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes S, Stidder G. Equity and Inclusion in physical education and sport. Abingdon: Routledge; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkes B, Abinett R. The engineering design process. Wellington Pitman; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmeester K, Charon de Saint Germain E. Presence, New media for older people. Amsterdam: Netherlands Design Institute; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• IDEO. Human centred design toolkit. Palo Alto: IDEO; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Jones JC. Essays in design. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Jones JC. Designing designing. London: Architecture design and technology Press; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan PW. Designing pleasurable products. London: Taylor & Francis; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan PW. How to make brilliant stuff that people love and big money out of it. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Karwowski W, Soares M, Stanton N, editors. Human factors and ergonomics in consumer product design: Methods and Techniques. Boca Ranton: Taylor & Francis; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Keates S, Clarkson J. Countering design exclusion: an introduction to inclusive design. London: Springer Verlag; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkwood BR. Essentials of Medical Statistics. Onsey Mead: Blackwell Science; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Klein B. Design matters. London: Secker and Warburg; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Kroemer KHE, Grandjean E. Fitting the task to the human: a textbook occupational ergonomics. 5th ed. London: Taylor & Francis; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar S. Biomechanics in ergonomics. London: Taylor & Francis; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Kuniavsky M. Observing the user experience: a practitioners guide to user research. San Francisco (CA): Morgan Kaufmann; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Neville TM, Henry DB, Neville BD. Science and technology research writing strategies for students. Maryland: Scarecrow Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Noble I, Bestley R. Visual research: an introduction to research methodologies in graphic design. Case Postel: AVA; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Norman DA. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions. 1999;6:38–43.
   Google Scholar
• Norman DA. Emotional design, why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic books; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Norman DA. The design of future things. New York: Basic books; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Langford J, McDonagh D. Focus groups supporting effective product development. London: Taylor & Francis; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Laurel B. Design research methods and perspectives. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Leahy J. Target consumer involvement, an integral part of successful new product development. Res Technol Manage. 2013;4:52–58.
   Google Scholar
• Macia JL, Plasencia OT. Subjective experience gathering techniques for interaction design: subjective psychological exploration techniques based in the constructivism paradigm for informational and inspirational purposes. Cataluña: University of Cataluña; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie C, Iberall T. The grasping Hand: advances in Psychology, 104. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• McDonagh D, Hekkert P, van Erp J, et al., editors. Design and emotion: the experience of everyday things. London: Taylor & Francis; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Margolin V. Design discourse, History, theory, criticism. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Milton A, Rogers P. Research methods for product design. London: Laurence King; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Moggeridge B. Designing interactions. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Milosevic D. Project management toolbox: tools and techniques for the practicing project manager. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research: qualitative research methods series 16. 2nd ed. Thousand oaks (CA): Sage; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison J, Twyford J. Design capability and awareness. Harlow: Longman; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Myers DG. Social Psychology. 7th ed. New York (NY): McGrawHill; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Pacey A. The culture of technology. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Karwowski W, Soares M, Stanton N, editors. Human factors and ergonomics in consumer product design: Uses and Applications. Boca Ranton: Taylor & Francis; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Pheasant S, Haslegrave CM. Bodyspace, anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work. 3rd ed. London: Taylor & Francis; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering M. Stereotyping, the politics of representation. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Pirkl JJ. Trandgenerational design, products for an ageing population. New York (NY): van Norstrand Rehinhold; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Plos O, Buisine S, Aoussat A, et al. A Universalist strategy for the design of assistive technology. Int J Ind Ergonom. 2012;42:533–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poggenpohl S, Sato K. Design integrations: research and collaboration. Bristol: Intellect; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Potter N. What is a designer: education and practice, a guide for students and teachers. London: Studio Vista; 1969.
   Google Scholar
• Poulson D, Ashby M, Richardson SJ, editors. USERfit. A practical handbook on user centred design for assistive technology. HUSAT Research Institute for the European Commission [Internet]. 1996 [cited 2016 Nov 7]. Available from: http://www.education.edean.org/index.php?row=3&filters=f16&cardIndex=21
   Google Scholar
• Poynor R. Design without boundaries, visual communication in transition. London: Booth-Clibborn; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Pruitt J, Adlin T. The persona lifecycle, keeping people in mind throughout product design. San Francisco (CA): Elsevier; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Pugh S. Total design, methods for successful product engineering. London: Addison-Wesley; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Pullin G. Design meets disability. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Rexfelt O. User-centred product development in practice. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Robson C. Real world research. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley& Sons; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Rose G. Visual methodologies. London: Sage; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe PRW, editor. Telecommunicaitons for all, COST 219. Brussels: Commission of the European Union; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Rowntree D. Statistics without tears: A primer for non-mathematicians. London: Pelican; 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Schifferstein HN, Hekkert P, editors. Product experience. Kidlington: Elsevier; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Sekuler R, Black R. Perception. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Shah SGS, Robinson I. Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. J Int Tech Health Care. 2007;23:131–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman D. Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. London: Sage; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data. 3rd ed. London: Sage; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data, methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Slack L. What is product design? Essential design handbooks. Mies: Rotovision; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Sparks E. Advances in Military textiles and personal equipment. Oxford: Woodhead; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Stanton NA, Young MS. A guide to methodology in ergonomics, designing for human use. London: Taylor & Francis; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Steenbekkers LPA, van Beijsterveldt CEM, editors. Design-relevant characteristics of ageing user: Series ageing and ergonomics 1. Delft: Delft University Press; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Stringer ET. Action research. 2nd ed. California: Sage; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Teddlie C, Tashakkori A. Foundations of mixed methods research, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioural sciences. Thousand oaks (CA): Sage; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Thackara J. In the bubble: designing in a complex world. Cambridge (MA): MIT press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• The Design Council. Definitions of Design. London: Design Council; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• The Design Council. Royal Designers on design. London: Design Council; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Tichauer ER. The biomechanical basis of ergonomics, anatomy applied to the design of work situations. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Visocky OGJ, Visocky OGK. Designer’s research manual: succeed in design by knowing your clients and what they really need. Beverly: Rockport; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Lidwell W, Holden K, Butler J. Universal principles of design: 100 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design. Gloucester (MA): Rockport; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson JR, Corlett N, editors. Evaluation of human work. 2nd ed. CRC Press. London: Taylor & Francis; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Papanek V. Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change, St Albans: Paladin; 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Green RA. The Delphi technique in educational research [Internet]. SAGE Open. 2014 [cited 2016 Nov 7]. p. 4. Available from: http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/2158244014529773.full-text.pdf+html
   Google Scholar
• Edwards C. The Bloomsbury Encyclopaedia of Design. London: Bloomsbury Academic; 2016. p. 158.
   Google Scholar
• Tutton WM. Exploring, evaluating and improving the development process for military load carrying equipment. [PhD thesis] [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2014 Aug 26]. Available from: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/6032/5/2010@Tutton%20Thesis_FINAL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A. Social research methods. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. 401 p.
   Google Scholar
• Torrens GE. An evaluation of the potential order and priority of research methods, design methods and design heuristics within an Assistive Technology new product development process, [PhD thesis]. 2015 [cited 2016 Sep 2]. Available from: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/18588/1/Thesis-2015-Torrens.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Torrens GE, Gyi DE. Towards the integrated measurement of hand and object interaction [Internet]. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Product Safety Research, US Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, USA; 1999 [cited 2017 Jan 31]. p. 217–226. Available from: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/15776
   Google Scholar
• Coleman R, Clarkson J, Dong H, Cassim J. Design for inclusivity: a practical guide to accessible, innovative and user centred design. Aldershot: Gower; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Usabilitynet. Usabilitynet [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 2]. Available from: http://www.usabilitynet.org/home.htm
   Google Scholar
• Inclusive design tool kit. Inclusive design tool kit [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 2]. Available from: http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/betterdesign2/
   Google Scholar
• Usability-NET. Usability-NET. [Internet] 2016. [cited 2 Sep 2016]. Available from: http://www.cap.lboro.ac.uk/usability_net/
   Google Scholar
• EDeAN. EDeAN [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Aug 2]. Available from: http://www.edean.org/
   Google Scholar