A review: accessible technology through participatory design

References

• Benktzon M. Designing for our future selves: the Swedish experience. Appl Ergon. 1993;24(1):19–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verza R, Carvalho MLL, Battaglia MA, et al. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Mult Scler. 2006;12(1):88–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressman RS. Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach. 7a ed. New York (NY): Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. p. 976.
   Google Scholar
• Halskov K, Hansen NB. The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002–2012. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2015;74:81–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines. Assessing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews (AQASR). Austin, TX: SEDL: Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research; 2013. p. 73.
   Google Scholar
• Quantisle Ltd. Free reference manager and research manager - Qiqqa [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2019 Aug 24]. Available from: http://www.qiqqa.com/
   Google Scholar
• Pine BJ, Gilmore JH. Welcome to the experience economy. Harv Bus Rev. 1998;76(4):97–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alcántara E, Artacho MA, Martínez N, et al. Designing experiences strategically. J Bus Res. 2014;67(6):1074–1080.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N. User experience - A research agenda. Behav Inf Technol. 2006;25(2):91–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmet P, Hekkert P. Framework of product experience. Int J Des. 2007;1(1):57–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J. Design for experience. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 211. (Human–Computer Interaction Series).
   Google Scholar
• Pullman ME, Gross MA. Ability of experience design elements to elicit emotions and loyalty behaviors. Decis Sci. 2004;35(3):551–578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Press M, Cooper R. The design experience. London: Routledge; 2003. p. 224.
   Google Scholar
• Shedroff N. Experience design 1.1. Experience Design Books; 2009. p. 308.
   Google Scholar
• McLellan H. Experience Design. CyberPsychology Behav. 2000;3(1):59–69.
   Google Scholar
• Norman DA. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York (NY): Basic Books; 2004. p. 272.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey J. Experience and nature. LaSalle, IL: Open Court; 1929.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders EB-N. From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In: Design and the social sciences. London: CRC Press; 2002. p. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Lee Y. Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign. 2008;4(1):31–50.
   Google Scholar
• Bergvall-Kåreborn B, Ståhlbrost A. Participatory design: one step back or two steps forward? In: Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design 2008. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Indiana University; 2008. p. 102–111. PDC ’08).
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy J, Wright P. Technology as experience. Interactions. 2004;11(5):42.
   Google Scholar
• Xiao A, Zeng S, Allen JK, et al. Collaborative multidisciplinary decision making using game theory and design capability indices. Res Eng Design. 2005;16(1-2):57–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasr N, Leon B, Mountain G, et al. The experience of living with stroke and using technology: opportunities to engage and co-design with end users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(8):653–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yen WT, Flinn SR, Sommerich CM, et al. Preference of lid design characteristics by older adults with limited hand function. J Hand Ther. 2013;26(3):261–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarmiento Pelayo MP. Co-design: a central approach to the inclusion of people with disabilities. Rev Fac Med. 2015;63(3Sup):149–154.
   Google Scholar
• Manzini E. Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. London: The MIT Press; 2015. p.256.
   Google Scholar
• Cortés E, Cruz A. Generative Design as Tool for Social Innovation : A Methodological Approach. Back to Futur [icdhs 10th + 1 Conf Proc B. 2015. (October):44–8.
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl M. Experience design: technology for all the right reasons. Synth Lect Human-Centered Informatics. 2010;3(1):1–95.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper A, Reimann R, Cronin D. About face 3: the essentials of interaction design. 3a ed. Indianapolis (IN): Wiley Publishing, Inc.; 2007. p. 648.
   Google Scholar
• Bacha JA. Mapping use, storytelling, and experience design. J Bus Tech Commun. 2018;32(2):198–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl M, Eckoldt K, Diefenbach S, et al. Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. Int J Des. 2013;7(3):21–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Kose S. From barrier-free to universal design: an international perspective. Assist Technol. 1998;10(1):44–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Story MF. Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design. Assist Technol. 1998;10(1):4–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarkson J, Coleman R, Hosking I, et al. Inclusive design toolkit. University of Cambridge. Cambridge: Engineering Design Centre; 2007. p.350.
   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
• Scherer MJ. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disabil Rehabil. 1996;18(9):439–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Lane JP. Assessing consumer profiles of ‘ideal’ assistive technologies in ten categories: An integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Disabil Rehabil. 1997;19(12):528–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones J, Pal J. Counteracting dampeners: understanding technology amplified capabilities of people with disabilities in Sierra Leone. ACM Int Conf Proceeding Ser. 2015. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Arnau Ripollés MS, Toboso Martín M. La discapacidad dentro del enfoque de capacidades y funcionamientos de Amartya Sen [Disability within Amartya Sen’s capabilities and operations approach]. Araucaria Rev Iberoam Filos Política y Humanidades. 2008;Año 10(20):64–94.
   Google Scholar
• Velarde Lizama V. Los modelos de la discapacidad: un recorrido histórico [The models of disability: a historical journey.]. Rev Empres y Humanismo. 2016;XV(1):115–136.
   Google Scholar
• Johnstone J. Technology as empowerment: a capability approach to computer ethics. Ethics Inf Technol. 2007;9(1):73–87.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum MC. Creating capabilities. Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Oosterlaken I. Design for development: a capability approach. Des Issues. 2009;25(4):91–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaertner W. Amartya sen: capability and well‐being. In: Nussbaum, Sen, editor. The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993. p. 62–66.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderheiden GC. Universal design and assistive technology in communication and information technologies: alternatives or complements? Assist Technol. 1998;10(1):29–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John C. What is co-design? | Design for Europe [Internet]. Design for Europe. 2015. [cited 2018 Nov 19]. Available from: http://designforeurope.eu/what-co-design.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders EB-N. Generative tools for co-designing. In: Scrivener SAR, Ball LJ, Woodcock A, editors. Collaborative design. London: Springer London; 2000. p. 3–12. 
   Google Scholar
• Madden D, Cadet-James Y, Atkinson I, et al. Probes and prototypes: a participatory action research approach to codesign. CoDesign. 2014;10(1):31–45.
   Google Scholar
• Abellard P, Abellard A, Gangloff J, et al. Atoll: an elderly housing co-design software tool. Nonpharmacol Ther Dement. 2012;3(2):97–103.
   Google Scholar
• Güldenpfennig F. Tailor-made Accessible Computers: An Interactive Toolkit for Iterative Co-Design. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction - TEI ’18. New York: ACM Press; 2018. p. 231–6. (TEI ’18).
   Google Scholar
• Williamson T, Kenney L, Barker AT, et al. Enhancing public involvement in assistive technology design research. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(3):258–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5(1):36–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Riemer-Reiss ML, Wacker RR. Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. J Rehabil. 2000;66(3):44–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Shaw S, Wherton J, et al. SCALS: a fourth-generation study of assisted living technologies in their organisational, social, political and policy context. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e010208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger PL, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Group; 1967. p. 219.
   Google Scholar
• Jones PH. Systemic design principles for complex social systems. In: Metcalf GS, editor. Social systems and design. Tokyo: Springer Japan; 2014. p. 91–128.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff K. On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “design is making sense (Of Things). Des Issues. 1989;5(2):9.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy J, Wright P, Wallace J, et al. The experience of enchantment in human–computer interaction. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2006;10(6):369–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodbury EZ. Auto-mobile : disabled drivers in New Zealand (PhD thesis). University of Otago; 2013.
   Google Scholar