Geospatial assistive technologies: potential usability criteria identified from manual wheelchair users

References

• Flagg JF. Wheeled mobility demographics. In: Bauer S, Buning ME, editors. Profile on wheeled Mobility. Buffalo (NY): RERC on Technology and Transfer, University at Buffalo; 2009. p. 7–29.
   Google Scholar
• Smith EM, Giesbrecht EM, Mortenson WB, et al. The prevalence of wheelchair and scooter use among community-dwelling Canadians. Phys Ther. 2016;96:1135–1142.
   Google Scholar
• Vivre avec une incapacité au Québec [Internet]. Québec (QC): Institut de la statistique du Québec; 2010 [cited 2017 Nov 13]. Available from: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/sante/etat-sante/incapacite/incapacite-quebec.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Meyers AR, Anderson JJ, Miller DR, et al. Barriers, facilitators, and access for wheelchair users: substantive and methodologic lessons from a pilot study of environmental effects. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:1435–1446.
   Google Scholar
• ACCESSNOW. Brief description: Search for specific locations with the accessibility features you require. Join our community by rating new locations on our map with tags and descriptions. Filter the map to discover places with specific accessibility features. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: http://accessnow.me
   Google Scholar
• AXSMAP. Brief description: Find (e.g. burger, coffee, spa) Near (address, city) Locate me. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: http://www.axsmap.com
   Google Scholar
• KEROUL. Tourism and culture for people with restricted physical ability. Brief description: Québec for all is a database of over 1,700 tourism and cultural organizations and businesses certified fully or partially accessible by Kéroul, spread across 21 regions of Québec. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: http://www.keroul.qc.ca/en/accessible-road-travelers.html
   Google Scholar
• WHEELMAP. Brief description: mark and find wheelchair accessible places anywhere in the world and free of charge. It's easy with our signaling system. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: https://wheelmap.org/map#/?zoom=14
   Google Scholar
• AccesSig, un GPS pour éviter tous les obstacles sur la voirie. Brief description: This is a revolutionary tool for smart phone holders. The Innovation Mobility Handicap Resource Centre (CEREMH) has developed an accessible route calculator. This GPS takes into account all obstacles encountered by people moving in wheelchairs. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: http://www.faire-face.fr/2014/07/07/accessig-un-gps-pour-éviter-tous-les-obstacles-sur-la-voirie/
   Google Scholar
• MOBILISIG. Brief description: researchers with advanced expertise in rehabilitation, cognitive geomatics and augmented reality are mobilizing to develop a multimodal (visual, tactile and auditory) technology for mobility assistance for people moving in Wheelchair. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: http://mobilisig.scg.ulaval.ca
   Google Scholar
• Beale L, Field K, Briggs D, et al. Mapping for wheelchair users: route navigation in urban spaces. Cartogr J. 2006;43:68–81.
   Google Scholar
• Sobek AD, Miller HJ. U-Access: a web-based system for routing pedestrians of differing abilities. J Geograph Syst. 2006;8:269–287.
   Google Scholar
• Karimanzira D, Otto P, Wernstedt J. Application of machine learning methods to route planning and navigation for disabled people. In: Hamza MH, editor. Proceedings of the 25th IASTED international conference on Modeling, identification, and control; 2006 Feb 06–08; Lanzarote, Spain. Anaheim (CA): ACTA Press; 2006. p. 366–371.
   Google Scholar
• Holone H, Misund G, Holmstedt H. editors. Users are doing it for themselves: pedestrian navigation with user generated content. In: Begain KA, Bohnert TM, editors. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Next Generation Mobile Applications, Services and Technologies; 2007 Sep 12-14, Cardiff, UK. Los Alamitos, California, Washington, Tokyo: IEEE Computer Society; 2007. p. 91–99.
   Google Scholar
• Volker T, Weber G. RouteCheckr: personalized multicriteria routing for mobility impaired pedestrians. Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility; 2008 Oct 13–15; Halifax, NS. New York (NY): ACM; 2008. p. 185–192.
   Google Scholar
• Kasemsuppakorn P, Karimi HA. Personalised routing for wheelchair navigation. J Loc Based Serv. 2009;3:24–54.
   Google Scholar
• Kasemsuppakorn P, Karimi HA, Ding D, et al. Understanding route choices for wheelchair navigation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10:198–210.
   Google Scholar
• Premont ME, Vincent C, Mostafavi MA, et al. A scoping review of usability measures and criteria for mobile user interfaces and their potential applicability to geospatial assistive technologies for wheelchair users. Disabil Rehab: Assist Tech. 2019;1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Harding J. Usability of geographic information-Factors identified from qualitative analysis of task-focused user interviews. Appl Ergon. 2013;44:940–947.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5:36–45.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:1321–1331.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein R, Everson JM. Assistive technology for individuals with sensory impairments. In: Flippo KF, Inge KJ, Barcus JM, editors. Assitive technology: a resource for school, work, and community. Baltimore (MD): PH Brookes; 1995. p. 105–132.
   Google Scholar
• Sprigle S, Abdelhamied A. The relationship between ability measures and assistive technology selection design and use. In: Gray DB, Quatrano LA, Lieberman ML, editors. Baltimore (MD): Designing and using assistive technology: the human perspective; 1998. p. 229–248.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman-Deane J, Langdon P, Clarkson J. Key influences on the user-centred design process. J Eng Design. 2010;21:345–373.
   Google Scholar
• Kroemer KHE. Extra-ordinary ergonomics. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Chua SL, Chen DT, Wong A. Computer anxiety and its correlates: a meta-analysis. Comput. Human Behav. 1999;15:609–623.
   Google Scholar
• Salzer MS, Brusilovskiy E, Prvu-Bettger J, et al. Measuring community participation of adults with psychiatric disabilities: reliability of two modes of data collection: University of Pennsylvania. Rehabil Psychol. 2014;59:211–219.
   Google Scholar
• Rushton PW, Routhier F, Miller WC, et al. French-Canadian translation of the WheelCon-M (WheelCon -M-F) an evaluation of its validity evidence using telephone administration. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37:812–819.
   Google Scholar
• Rushton PW, Miller WC, Kirby RL, et al. Measure for the assessment of confidence with manual wheelchair use (WheelCon-M) version 2.1: reliability and validity. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:61–67.
   Google Scholar
• Deslauriers JP. Recherche qualitative: guide pratique. Montréal (QC): McGraw-Hill; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Huberman MA, Miles MB. Data management and analysis methods. In: Denzin NY, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. London/New Delhi: SAGE Publications; 1994. p. 428–444.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Maren JM. Méthodes de recherche pour l’éducation. Montréal/Bruxelles: Presses de l'Université de Montréal et de Boeck; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• QDA Miner Lite. QDA Miner qualitative and mixed-methods research software; Provalis research. Version 1.4.6 2016. [cited 2019 Jun 05]. Available from: https://provalisresearch.com/products/qualitative-data-analysis-software/
   Google Scholar
• Krefting L. Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45:214–222.
   Google Scholar
• Hoehle H, Aljafari R, Venkatesh V. Leveraging Microsoft's mobile usability guidelines: Conceptualizing and developing scales for mobile application usability. Int J Hum-Comput St. 2016;89:35–53.
   Google Scholar
• Lin HX, Choong YY, Salvendy G. A proposed index of usability: a method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems. Behav Inf Technol. 1997;16:267–278.
   Google Scholar
• Kirakowski J, Corbett M. SUMI: the software usability measurement inventory. Br J Educ Technol. 1993;24:210–212.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JR, Hardzinski ML. Investigating the psychometric properties of the Speech User Interface Service Quality questionnaire. Int J Speech Technol. 2015;18:479–487.
   Google Scholar
• Wu J, Chen Y, Lin L. Empirical evaluation of the revised end user computing acceptance model. Comput Hum Behav. 2007;23:162–174.
   Google Scholar
• Lund AM. Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interf. 2001;8:3–6.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JR, Utesch BS, M. DE. UMUX-LITE: when there's no time for the SUS. In: Brewster S, Bodker S, editors. CHI '13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2013 Apr 27–May 2; Paris, FR. New-York: ACM; 2013. p. 2099–2102.
   Google Scholar
• Arthanat S, Bauer SM, Lenker JA, et al. Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:235–248.
   Google Scholar
• Igbaria M, Zinatelli N, Cragg P, et al. Personal computing acceptance in small firms: a structural equation model. MIS Quart. 1997;21:279–305.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (quest). Assist Technol. 1996;8:3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil. 2002;14:101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Hoehle H, Venkatesh V. Mobile application usability: conceptualization and instrument development. Misq. 2015;39:435–472.
   Google Scholar
• Ryu YS, Smith-Jackson TL. Reliability and validity of the mobile phone usability questionnaire (MPUQ). JUS. 2006;2:39–53.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum-Comput Int. 1995;7:57–78.
   Google Scholar
• Sauro J, Lewis JR. Quantifying the user experience: practical statistics for user research. Waltham (IN): Morgan Kaufmann publications, Elsevier Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Santos ME, Polvi J, Taketomi T, et al. A usability scale for handheld augmented reality. In: Rynson L, Dinesh M, editors. VRST '14: Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Virtual Realty Software and Technology; 2014 Nov 11–13; Edinburgh, UK. New York (NY): ACM; 2014. p. 167–176.
   Google Scholar
• Chin JP, Diehl VA, N. KL Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: O’Hare JJ, editor. ACM CHI'88 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 1988 May 15–19; Washington, DC. New York (NY): ACM; 1988. p. 213–218.
   Google Scholar
• Sauro J. SUPR-Q: a comprehensive measure of the quality of the website user experience. Jus 2015;10:68–86.
   Google Scholar
• Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Hum–Comput Int. 2008;24:574–594.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Davis F. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci. 2000;46:186–204.
   Google Scholar
• Findstad K. The usability metric for user experience. Interact Comput. 2010;22:323–327.
   Google Scholar
• Bargas-Avila JA, Lötscher J, Orsini S, et al. Intranet satisfaction questionnaire: development and validation of a questionnaire to measure user satisfaction with the Intranet. Comput Hum Behav. 2009;25:1241–1250.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 2003;27:425–478.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Thong J, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quart. 2012;36:157–178.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JR, Mayes DK. Development and psychometric evaluation of the emotional metric outcomes (EMO) questionnaire. Int J Hum-Comput Int. 2014;30:685–702.
   Google Scholar