• Small text Medium text Large text
  • Default colours Black text on white background Yellow text on black background
Cardiac-eu.org

D2.2 Influence Map on Inclusise HCI Research and Development Priorities

What type of research is missing that could

facilitate development of inclusive HCI?

Executive Summary

The aim of this deliverable is to report on the second Structured Dialogic Design Process (SDDP-2) of the CARDIAC Coordination Action, which was held in San Sebastian between the 28th-29th of June 2011, and before and after virtually, on the theme of “What type of research is missing that could facilitate development of inclusive HCI?”

The report describes the consultation phases leading up to the event, the two-day co-laboratory itself as well as the two virtual sessions held after the meeting in San Sebastian. An initial analysis of the results and influence tree is presented. These results and influence tree will be taken up and further analyzed by WP3 and will form part of the overall analysis and roadmap to be drawn up in Deliverable 3.2 “Trends on inclusive user interface design” due in month 36.

Partner EHU was responsible for the organization of the SDDP as leader of WP3 and partner CNTI was responsible for its implementation as leader of WP2.

Introduction

The main aim of the coordination action CARDIAC is to generate research agenda roadmaps and a technology transfer roadmap using the SDDP methodology.

This deliverable reports on the first such SDDP co-laboratory on the theme of technology research in response to the specific triggering question of  “What type of research is missing that could facilitate development of inclusive HCI?”

The consultation process held via the CARDIAC Wikispace http://userinteraction-sdd-cardiac.wikispaces.com/) as well as the process for selecting the relevant stakeholders is described in Deliverable 1.1 “Report with background material needed to support SDDP-1 Meeting”. This deliverable will therefore focus essentially on phase 5 of the process, i.e.:

-           Collection and clarification of the ideas received in response to the triggering question
-           Clustering of the responses
-           Results of the voting by participants
-           Structuring of the responses through exploration of the links between mechanisms
-           Presentation and initial analysis of the resulting influence tree.

The face-to-face part of the event lasted two days and was held between the 28-29th of July 2011 in San Sebastian, Spain. Two weeks ahead of the meeting the twenty-one participants were given the opportunity of submitting their initial responses to the Triggering Question via the CARDIAC Wikispace.  Three remote sessions were then held after the meeting to complete the structuring using the software Elluminate LiveTM. The CARDIAC Wikispace was also used to gather further clarifications and analysis of the results.  On the wiki one may also find recorded videos with the participants discussing their idea contributions.

A further in-depth analysis of the results will be carried out in WP3 and will form part of the overall analysis and roadmap to be drawn up in Deliverable 3.2 “Trends on inclusive user interface design” due in month 36.

Background information on Structured Dialogic Design

The Science of Structured Dialogic Design is a deeply reasoned, rigorously validated methodology for dialogic design, which integrates knowledge from mixed participants in strategic design settings. It is especially effective in resolving multiple conflicts of purpose and values and in generating consensus on organizational and inter-organizational strategy.

Structured Dialogic Design can be seen as a branch of systems sciences with applications in social sciences with its roots in cybernetics, application of systems sciences in social contexts and the science of complex systems, which emerged in the early 1970s. Dr John Warfield is credited with the application of the principle of Interpretive Structural Modelling in the analysis of complex socioeconomic systems, which became a major consensus method in the application of SDD.  It was however, Dr. Aleco Christakis and his group that are credited for the formulation of the science of Structured Dialogic Design in its present form.

During the past decade, we have witnessed an exponential growth in the number of dialogues organized using what is known as the science of structured dialogic design. An increasing number of facilitators, workshop organizers, participants, scientists, and lay people show great interest in learning more about this science.

The Cyprus Neuroscience and Technology Institute has a long history and experience using this methodology in a range of domains, from education to civil conflict and have in the past utilized the process to great effect in two COST Actions (COST 298 and COST 219ter).

 Missing research that could facilitate development of inclusive HCI

Following a two-month consultation with the stakeholders via the Cardiac Wikispace1, the following Triggering Question was formulated:

What type of research is missing that could facilitate development of inclusive HCI?

The consultation was put in place in order to prepare participants for the SDDP meeting, inform them about the methodology2 and encourage them to begin thinking about their contributions. 57 responses were formulated on the Wikispace ahead of the meeting, some of which came from people who were not able to attend the meeting itself. Many of these ideas made it to the influence tree and the full list given in Annex 1.

During the first SDDSM the CARDIAC partners and participants engaged for two days in a structured dialogue focusing on the above mentioned Triggering Question. The Lead facilitator of the SDDSM, Dr. Yiannis Laouris, served as the person coordinating the process.  Cogniscope3   Operator was Mrs. Georgina Siitta-Achilleos.

Three remote sessions were held after the meeting to complete the structuring using the software Elluminate LiveTM. This web conferencing program was developed by Elluminate Inc. to implement synchronous events4. Elluminate “rents” out virtual rooms or vSpaces where virtual schools and businesses can hold classes and meetings. This virtual space was the means by which all participants got together in order to be able to work on the virtual SDDSM. The image of the SDDSM software CogniscopeTM could be viewed by all remote participants; functions such as raising hand, voting “yes” or “no”, video, and chatting made this virtual SDDSM possible. A screen-shot of this environment is shown in the next image.  A video clip of the process is available on-line5.

The participants of the co-laboratory shared 75 ideas/mechanisms in response to the question. Each idea appears with a detailed explanation in Table 1 - Ideas with Clarifications.

During the following stage, the participants categorized their ideas, in the following clusters:

Cluster 1: Beyond HCI                                    
Cluster 2: Cognitive Interaction                        
Cluster 3:  Innovative User Interfaces            
Cluster 4: Accessibility resource materials     
Cluster 5: Adaptive User Interfaces               
Cluster 6: Methodologies                                   
Cluster 7: Knowledge sharing                                              
Cluster 8: n/a                                                    
Cluster 9: n/a                                                
Cluster 10: Universal Remote Console           
Cluster 11: Ubiquitous Computing   
Cluster 12: Simplification
Cluster 13: Social Interaction
Cluster 14: Human Factors
Cluster 15: n/a
Cluster16: Research on adoption of accessibility
Cluster 17: User profiles
Cluster 18: Design Tools
                                                           

Cluster List:

Cluster 1: Beyond HCI
1: Research to get rid of HCI [Pier-Herjan]
8: To do research on tangible artifacts to promote e-inclusion of people with special needs in technologically mediated environment [Rocio]
16: New interaction metaphors and paradigms for computing [Adamantios]
19: Research on inclusive user-interaction in ambient intelligence environments [Sifis]
21: Consider not only the interface as it appears but the entire interaction dialogue [Pier]
39: Promote ubiquitous computing and programming tools [Sifis-Eddie]
43: Identify where research is needed to obtain universal access in ambient inteligence environments [Kjell]

Cluster 2: Cognitive Interaction
2: Research aiming at avoiding cognitive barriers in the design of Human Machine Interfaces [Helmut]
32: Support research that looks how to reduce the complexity of user interaction whilst retaining functionality [Patrick]
45: Research on the cognitive load associated with various user interfaces [John]
65: Interface design - knowledge of computer paradigms (Steve)
66: Interface design: input and output [Steve]

Cluster 3: Innovative User Interfaces
3: Development of new haptic interfaces and methods for haptic usability[Kjell-Gerhard]
13: Support research on novel human-machine interfaces for recreational activities [Patrick-Sifis]
23: Development of sophisticated brain-computer interfaces for people with special needs [Kjell]
31: Promote research into the cost of eye-tracking and tongue piercing based interfaces [Mary]
36: Non-visual interfaces for all (mainstreaming of non visual computing) [Adamantios]
44: Accessible telecommunications technologies for people with no or little speech [Gunela]
72: Dynamic composition complex interfaces (mash-up of services) [Roberto]
73: Accessibility of IPv6 enabled consumer appliances [Gunela]
74: Support research on accessible interaction with robots [Patrick]

Cluster 4: Accessibility resource materials
4: Design clearing house for inclusive HCI [Gunela]
10: Facilitate the creation of digital accessible materials to non accessibility experts [Cristina]
26: To develop more specific and clear accessibility guidelines for application developers [Jon]
34: Research on how to enforce accessibility in consumer goods [Ginger]
54: Research on how to increase and widen accessibility in professional education [Ginger]
60: To promote common research on user needs and preferences to be used by all e-inclusion projects [Jon]
61: Ways to move from purchase to lease or renting accessibility and assistive technology (exploring market, policy and technology challenges) [Gregg-Adamantios]

Cluster 5: Adaptive User Interfaces
5: Development of practical adaptive user interfaces [John]
6: Research of the use of context awareness to adapt user interfaces [Jon]
9: To promote research that closes the gap between interfaces for inclusion [Leonor]
15: Delivery of the interface - based on personalization, customization, adaptation and open APIs (such as REST) - to many more varied platforms [Simon-RobertH]
22: Support the research in detecting the behavior, emotions and intentions of the user without the conscious control by the user [Helmut]
35: Support research on how affective computing can assist accessibility interfaces [Simon-Mary]
41: Use reasoning (AI) techniques for personalization [Pier]
50: Promote research on inclusive HCI for highly dynamic impairments [Ilse]

Cluster 6: Methodologies
7: Promote research in methodologies and tools for HCI accessibility evaluation, including, monitoring and benchmarking [Julio-Gehard]
29: Research methodologies that efficiently collect data about users including existing HCI quantitative tools (like needs, skills, interests, limitations) [Cristina]
47: Research on methodologies to analyse collaborative accessibility and undertake collaborative user- and usage centered design [Rocio-Gerhard]
63: Research on automated evaluation aids [Gregg]

Cluster 7: Knowledge Sharing
69: New mechanisms for international collaborations [Gregg]
71: Research on sharing accessibility knowledge with developing countries [Gerhard]

Cluster 8:
11: Promote tools for decision making in the user-centered design process [Ilse]

Cluster 9:
12: Promote research on the role of inclusive HCI to support self-management in health care [Mary]
20: Create a paradigm that avoids the traps of either forcing all to use a single new technology or for all content to be rewritten (interesting to study the growth of the web) [Stefan]
53: Research into how AT can provide better than typical results (e.g. cyber-human) [Stefan]

Cluster 10: Universal Remote Console
14: Develop and enforce standardized and harmonized remote HCIs [Ginger-Tim]
27: To do research on how to use mobile technologies as a universal middleware in public and private environments [Rocio]
46: Promote interoperability among devices and services to enhance accessibility [Julio]

Cluster 11: Ubiquitous Computing
17: Research and development on provision of accessible interfaces inclusive products and services in an ubiquitous manner [Roberto]

Cluster 12: Smplification
62: Digital literacy stepping stones [Gregg]
70: Research on how to make accessibility simpler to deliver, apply, configure, support and use and explain to policy makers [Gregg]

Cluster 13: Social Interaction
30: Make social media inclusive [Ilse]

Cluster 14: Human Factors
24: Training programs for disability representatives to effectively participate in R & D processes [Gunela]
25: Research on who could be excluded from using novel user interfaces [John]
28: Research about the exclusion that has been created by HCI [Leonor]
38: Research on mid to long term interaction by disabled and elderly people [Gerhard]
40: Promote methodologies to include the human diversity in user interface design [Julio]
48: Create a meaningful use of HCI clearly supporting activities [Leonor]
49: Research that promotes inclusive practices of professionals responsible to develop new products or services [Cristina]
52: Support research on the implications for people with disabilities of the use of biometric systems for identification and security [Patrick]
55: Identify human factors barriers to health, education and participation of low income groups [Simon]
64: Basic research needs to be made on AT abandonment/adoption [Stefan]
67: Usable accessibility [Steve]

Cluster 15:
37: R&D on text normalization, simplification, personalization and evaluation [Roberto]

Cluster 16: Research on adoption of accessibility
42: Research on reasons why existing knowledge and standards on accessibility are not known or applied by HCI developers [Helmut]

Cluster 17: User profiles
57: Further research on static and adaptive user interaction profiles [Roberto]

 Cluster 18: Design Tools
75: Create development environment for accessibility solutions [Gregg]

 After having clustered all their ideas, the participants cast votes for the five ideas that they each felt were most important.

The following ideas received votes:

19: (5 Votes) Research on inclusive user-interaction in ambient intelligence environments [Sifis]
32: (5 Votes) Support research that looks how to reduce the complexity of user interaction whilst retaining functionality [Patrick]
15: (4 Votes) Delivery of the interface - based on personalization, customization, adaptation and open APIs (such as REST) - to many more varied platforms [Simon-RobertH]
52: (4 Votes) Support research on the implications for people with disabilities of the use of biometric systems for identification and security [Patrick]
61: (4 Votes) Ways to move from purchase to lease or renting accessibility and assistive technology (exploring market, policy and technology challenges) [Gregg-Adamantios]
63: (4 Votes) Research on automated evaluation aids [Gregg]
69: (4 Votes) New mechanisms for international collaborations [Gregg]
2: (3 Votes) Research aiming at avoiding cognitive barriers in the design of Human Machine Interfaces [Helmut]
7: (3 Votes) Promote research in methodologies and tools for HCI accessibility evaluation, including, monitoring and benchmarking [Julio-Gehard]
14: (3 Votes) Develop and enforce standardized and harmonized remote HCIs [Ginger-Tim]
35: (3 Votes) Support research on how affective computing can assist accessibility interfaces [Simon-Mary]
40: (3 Votes) Promote methodologies to include the human diversity in user interface design [Julio]
41: (3 Votes) Use reasoning (AI) techniques for personalization [Pier]
44: (3 Votes) Accessible telecommunications technologies for people with no or little speech [Gunela]
64: (3 Votes) Basic research needs to be made on AT abandonment/adoption [Stefan]
71: (3 Votes) Research on sharing accessibility knowledge with developing countries [Gerhard]
3: (2 Votes) Development of new haptic interfaces and methods for haptic usability [Kjell-Gerhard]
4: (2 Votes) Design clearing house for inclusive HCI [Gunela]
6: (2 Votes) Research of the use of context awareness to adapt user interfaces [Jon]
10: (2 Votes) Facilitate the creation of digital accessible materials to non accessibility experts [Cristina]
11: (2 Votes) Promote tools for decision making in the user-centered design process [Ilse]
13: (2 Votes) Support research on novel human-machine interfaces for recreational activities [Patrick-Sifis]
21: (2 Votes) Consider not only the interface as it appears but the entire interaction dialogue [Pier]
27: (2 Votes) To do research on how to use mobile technologies as a universal middleware in public and private environments [Rocio]
29: (2 Votes) Research methodologies that efficiently collect data about users including existing HCI quantitative tools
45: (2 Votes) Research on the cognitive load associated with various user interfaces [John]
46: (2 Votes) Promote interoperability among devices and services to enhance accessibility [Julio]
47: (2 Votes) Research on methodologies to analyse collaborative accessibility and undertake collaborative user- and usage centered design [Rocio-Gerhard]
57: (2 Votes) Further research on static and adaptive user interaction profiles [Roberto]
72: (2 Votes) Dynamic composition complex interfaces (mash-up of services) [Roberto]
1: (1 Votes) Research to get rid of HCI [Pier-Herjan]
5: (1 Votes) Development of practical adaptive user interfaces[John]
12: (1 Votes) Promote research on the role of inclusive HCI to support self-management in health care [Mary]
17: (1 Votes) Research and development on provision of accessible interfaces inclusive products and services in an ubiquitous manner [Roberto]
20: (1 Votes) Create a paradigm that avoids the traps of either forcing all to use a single new technology or for all content to be rewritten (interesting to study the growth of the web) [Stefan]
23: (1 Votes) Development of sophisticated brain-computer interfaces for people with special needs [Kjell]
25: (1 Votes) Research on who could be excluded from using novel user interfaces [John]
28: (1 Votes) Research about the exclusion that has been created by HCI [Leonor]
31: (1 Votes) Promote research into the cost of eye-tracking and tongue piercing based interfaces [Mary]
34: (1 Votes) Research on how to enforce accessibility in consumer goods [Ginger]
36: (1 Votes) Non-visual interfaces for all (mainstreaming of non visual computing) [Adamantios]
37: (1 Votes) R&D on text normalization, simplification, personalization and evaluation [Roberto]
38: (1 Votes) Research on mid to long term interaction by disabled and elderly people [Gerhard]
39: (1 Votes) Promote ubiquitous computing and programming tools [Sifis-Eddie]
48: (1 Votes) Create a meaningful use of HCI clearly supporting activities [Leonor]
49: (1 Votes) Research that promotes inclusive practices of professionals responsible to develop new products or services [Cristina]
54: (1 Votes) Research on how to increase and widen accessibility in professional education [Ginger]
55: (1 Votes) Identify human factors barriers to health, education and participation of low income groups [Simon]
70: (1 Votes) Research on how to make accessibility simpler to deliver, apply, configure, support and use and explain to policy makers [Gregg]
74: (1 Votes) Support research on accessible interaction with robots [Patrick]
75: (1 Votes) Create development environment for accessibility solutions [Gregg]

Out of the population of 75 proposed ideas, 50 received one or more votes. This is described scientifically by the parameter of Spreadthink4 or divergence (ST or D respectively), whose value in this case is 64% of disagreement. According to numerous studies, the average degree of Spreadthink is 64%. Spreadthink is defined as (V-5)/(N-5) where N is the total number of ideas and V is the number of ideas that received one or more votes.

Based on experience we can conclude that the participants showed divergence in their ideas regarding the issue, which is higher than the average. This suggests that the participants do not yet demonstrate a high amount of consensus and they might continue to interpret the issue in a different manner.

The results of the voting procedure were used in order to select ideas for the following structural process. The participants were able to structure 38 (out of the 50 ideas which received votes). The resulting “Tree of Influences” demonstrates the most influential ideas i.e. those, which could have the greatest impact. The tree is made up of 4 levels of influence, 33 ideas (R) and 101 connections (K).

The ‘tree of influences’ or roadmap is made up of 5 different levels. Only one idea is cycled together with another (32 and 41) which means that these pair of mechanisms were found to influence each other, to receive and to exert influences from and to the same factors. It is also interesting to note the location of the various ideas according to the amount of votes received.

This can be explained by the fact that the ideas that manage to encapsulate widely held aspirations, expressing the ultimate collective aim or vision may well receive the most votes but then require other more practical issues to be resolved before they can be achieved.

The more practical ideas, which may or may not have received the most votes, are often located towards the foot of the roadmap (level IV-V). These ideas have the greatest degree of influence and the rest of the analysis will therefore concentrate on these ideas. This phenomenon is known as erroneous priorities effect.

The collective wisdom of the participants revealed that the following four mechanisms were probably the most influential and that the stakeholders should give these a higher priority:

The four mechanisms that lie at the root of the influence tree are:

Level I:           
21: Consider not only the interface as it appears but the entire interaction dialogue
32: Support research that looks how to reduce the complexity of user interaction whilst retaining functionality
41: Use reasoning (AI) techniques for personalization
29: Research methodologies that efficiently collect data about users including existing HCI quantitative tools (like needs, skills, interests, limitations)
69: New mechanisms for international collaborations

 Conclusions

In the following paragraphs the conclusions are discussed from three different perspectives: (a) conclusions with respect to; (b) conclusions related to the applicability of the SDDSM   process; and (c) conclusions regarding the outcomes of the implementation of the SDDSM   process.

The application of a virtual SDDSM used after the first CARDIAC SDDSM (some phases implemented face-to-face and some virtually using IT communication tools) is relatively new in the literature. The authors have some experience from previous applications5,6,7,8,9    and what can be said is that these additional remote structuring sessions proved very helpful and constructive in completing the structuring of the influence tree. However, it has to be said that it would be more difficult to run these remote sessions without the participants having had a face-to-face session first or at least being familiar with the methodology. It is definitely a tool that could be used for the drafting of the next two research agenda roadmaps.

With respect to the goals of the co-laboratory from the perspective of the implementation of the SDDSM process, the following is noted:

1.   A list of 75 ideas was generated in response to the Triggering Question.  This is considered satisfactory, since the average reported in the literature is 64.

2.   The ideas were clarified and discussed throughout the SDDSM, thus enabling participants to achieve a better understanding of the views of other members and greatly expand their own and others’;

3.   The ideas were clustered in 18 categories in an interactive manner, thus providing opportunities for further and deeper clarifications of salient distinctions between separate ideas. The process is crucial for what we call “evolutionary learning” (i.e., during the process participants “lose” connection to their own personal ideas and stereotypes in favor of a collective and shared thinking);

4.   Participants voted for 50 of the ideas that they considered most important. They subsequently managed to “structure” 38 of these ideas and produce an influence map;

5.   The influence map produced in response to the Triggering Question, containing 33 ideas in the form of the Tree of Influence or roadmap comprised of 5 levels;

6.   The participants had time to discuss and reflect on the influence map and in general agreed that the arrows in the map made sense to them;

7.   More importantly, the structured dialogue process empowered the consortium team to identify the most influential research that is missing that could facilitate development of inclusive HCI and to assign to different members the role of carrying the discussions forward via the CARDIAC Wikispace and starting the analysis of how implement the various mechanisms.

In sum, the application of the SDDSM   process supported the Consortium to identify potential mechanisms that ensure successful technology transfer in accessible and assistive ICT products and services.

The issue itself of what type of research is missing that could facilitate development of inclusive HCI is a very complex issue involving a wide range of stakeholders from many different areas. The results show that the SDDSM   methodology is well suited to this kind of multi facet problem with interconnected issues where it can be a useful tool to harness the collective wisdom of a wide range of stakeholders and bring new perspectives and approaches to a given problem. Of course the methodology itself will only generate the raw data in the form an ‘Influence Tree” or roadmap and further input and analysis is needed from the participants to find a way forward. The possibilities of using such a tool with a complex triggering question and the initial analysis can form a basis for the continuing discussion of types of research that is missing that could facilitate development of inclusive HCI.

Table 1: Ideas with Clarifications

1: Research to get rid of HCI [Pier-Herjan]

2: Research aiming at avoiding cognitive barriers in the design of Human Machine Interfaces [Helmut]

3: Development of new haptic interfaces and methods for haptic usability [Kjell-Gerhard]
Many haptic artifacts has been developed so far for instance to be used by blind people. Similar techniques should be developed for other categories of disabilities, e.g. people with cognitive and motor impairments. Furthermore haptic usability, its user centered design, evaluation and accessibility in general should be investigated.

4: Design clearing house for inclusive HCI [Gunela]
A clearing house is an online information transaction process for bringing together a wide cross-section of design methods, relevant standards and existing products as well as ongoing research. A design clearing house for inclusive HCI will draw together valuable information online so that companies can quickly and clearly understand inclusive HCI. Commercial companies have limited time to develop interfaces and to encourage them to use inclusive design practices, a central place online with impartial information would be valuable.

5: Development of practical adaptive user interfaces [John]
An adaptive user interface automatically charges based on the behavior of the user.  These interfaces have worked well in the laboratory, but have sometimes been problematic for applications such as public access terminals.

6: Research of the use of context awareness to adapt user interfaces [Jon]

7: Promote research in methodologies and tools for HCI accessibility evaluation, including, monitoring and benchmarking [Julio-Gehard]
Even if the Web is far from being universally accessible, it is one of the environments were accessibility requirements are better known. The reason is the availability of accessibility guidelines to help the designer and the evaluator. They also allowed the creation of semiautomatic accessibility evaluation methods and tools. A similar set of clear and unambiguous accessibility guidelines would help to advance in accessible HCI evaluation.

8: To do research on tangible artifacts to promote e-inclusion of people with special needs in technologically mediated environment [Rocio]
- [Wikipedia] Tangible user interface is a UI in which a person interacts with digital information through the physical environment (i.e. to give physical form to digital information).
- New Human Machine Interfaces to support people with special needs promoting their eInclusion and engagement in public spaces (e.g. tangible artifacts for accessing knowledge in a museum could improve informal learning).

9: To promote research that closes the gap between interfaces for inclusion [Leonor]
Create multimedia interfaces instead of speech technology, eye tracking tec. Etc. Having in mind or based on the multimodal human abilities /capabilities.

10: Facilitate the creation of digital accessible materials to non accessibility experts [Cristina]
The HCI can be accessible but if the contents produce are not the accessibility will be compromised. So there is a need to create tools to help authors to produce material/contents that are accessible to all, if they don’t have the skills to do that.

11: Promote tools for decision making in the user-centered design process [Ilse]
A lot of methods and tools are available to guide the user centred design process in the early stage of the process. For example methods are available for participatory and co-design. These methods are suitable until the prototype stage. To take the step from prototypes to implementation in real life situations additional tools are necessary. There is a need for tools that facilitate the decision making process between different stakeholders in the final stages of the user centred design process. These tools should guarantee equality between the inputs from all stakeholders, facilitate cooperation and provide guidelines to look for alternatives and compromises when requests from stakeholders are not aligned.

12: Promote research on the role of inclusive HCI to support self-management in health care [Mary]

13: Support research on novel human-machine interfaces for recreational activities [Patrick-Sifis]

14: Develop and enforce standardized and harmonized remote HCIs [Ginger-Tim]

15: Delivery of the interface to many more varied platforms [Simon-RobertH]
It is my belief that we are seeing a convergence of devices and the people who use them along with a divergence of the devices themselves. This means that developers must make their applications more flexible, more customizable, and more personalized – in effect more open – if they are to deliver these applications to the many different types of devices – and interfaces on those devices – without creating additional work by building an application for each individual device. Assistive technologies can, and will, take advantage of this flexibility and openness and become just another device to which flexible applications, content, and interfaces need to be delivered. By understanding that assistive technology is really just extreme adaptation we can implicitly encourage developers to create openness not previously experienced when the only platform for delivery was a closed predictable desktop environment;

16: New interaction metaphors and paradigms for computing [Adamantios]
There is always a need for exploring new metaphors and paradigms for improving user interaction with other users or machines. Though this area concentrated much interest and research in the 90s, nowadays it seems as if it not any more attractive. Quite wrongly, according to my opinion, as it is the one that may help us find genuinely new ways for defining problems and not only ‘solving’ ones: we still live under the long shadow of the desktop metaphor. Even in augmented reality world assumptions, it is again a desktop metaphor that is underlying.  Furthermore, and having in mind how much inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary approaches are praised, there is no other natural place for breeding such an approach than the research for new interface and interaction metaphors.  Of course, a difficulty in defining a new metaphor or implementing it is how literally one does this: do we have to stick to a one-to-one mapping between the original metaphor and its implementation? Is it ok if we just pirate some ideas and concepts and put this as an add-on to dominant interface metaphors?  If the aim is to start thinking out of the box, research on interface metaphors is perhaps the most obvious step to take!

17: Research and development on provision of accessible interfaces inclusive products and services in an ubiquitous manner [Roberto]
Today, many disabled people, elderly people, and other citizens have its personal devices (e.g. their PC or mobile) with its interfaces configured according to their needs and preferences (e.g. larger fonts, high-contrast colors etc.) and, when needed, with their preferred Assistive Technologies (ATs) installed (e.g. a screen reader). However, when trying to use another device (e.g. a PC in a library), they have to change the configuration of them and/or to install their ATs in order to be able to use them. If they do not know or cannot do it, this may prevent them from using these devices.

This research trend aims to make use of the potential of the cloud technologies to enable anyone to interact with any device by using their preferred interfaces and AT. This is one of the research lines of the GPII initiative (http://gpii.net/).

If succeed, in the future, when someone goes into any one of the libraries for the first time the staff can take them over to any available computer and activate the personalization wizard on the web.  The staff can then walk away and this friendly, and actually fun, program goes through and talks (using speech, captions, and sign language) and shows the person different access features and technologies and finds out what works best for them. When that’s done, it automatically stores what the person needs somewhere where they can use it anywhere, any time. Now when that person sits down to any computer, at any of the libraries, the computers automatically and instantly change into the form that they need [Source: GPII website].

18: [DELETE] Research on collaborative accessibility [Gerhard]

19: Research on inclusive user-interaction in ambient intelligence environments [Sifis]
Although a great deal of research is already dealing with “smart” environments and Ambient Intelligence technologies, it is important not to shift the focus away from the user aspects involved. In that respect, research on issues related to accessible user interaction in these so-called “Smart environments” is needed, focusing on people with disabilities and older people. Emphasis on the technological side could be placed for example on adaptive and adaptable User Interface design, on ubiquitous computing, and so on. Apart from the technological aspects however, other issues affecting user interaction in smart environments, including ethical issues, socio-cultural, economic and educational characteristics, user abilities and functional limitations, privacy, security and safety concerns should be further investigated. It is obvious that all such issues have a direct effect on technological development. It is crucial however, for the successful deployment of inclusive Human Computer Interaction that the development of new technologies, interaction paradigms, design methodologies and tools, all address these issues.

20: Create a paradigm that avoids the traps of either forcing all to use a single new technology or for all content to be rewritten (interesting to study the growth of the web) [Stefan]
Currently many proposals for universal accessibility of the web and documents in general fall into one of two traps:
- All content must be re-written to a new spec that is universally accessible by existing software.
- Any existing content can be accessed but only with this reader/software.
We could call these two problems the authoring and the reader problem. Any realistic solution will have components of both approaches (e.g. a standard for content and a minimum functionality requirements for software). Even when an attempt is made to skirt the two problems they will often come back into the research in a back door. This is a big problem on the level of web 2.0 and semantics vs. presentation, and it needs both clever and standards based solutions.

21: Consider not only the interface as it appears but the entire interaction dialogue [Pier]

22: Support the research in detecting the behavior, emotions and intentions of the user without the conscious control by the user [Helmut]

23: Development of sophisticated brain-computer interfaces for people with special needs [Kjell]
The ultimate aim of this research is to be able to put a hat on and communicate with the computer. This may however happen some years in the future. The research should reveal which special needs that will benefit from these kinds of interfaces. It is anticipated that it may be of special importance to persons with cognitive, sensory and motor disabilities.

24: Training programs for disability representatives to effectively participate in R & D processes [Gunela]
People with disabilities need to be included in the design process based on the disability movement's motto: "Nothing about us without us". To make this possible, disability representatives need to have in-depth training and support to understand how R & D processes operate so they can contribute effectively both in product design and standards committees. There have been training programs in the past but these need to be evaluated to find the most effective method for ongoing mentoring for a successful and sustainable process.

25: Research on who could be excluded from using novel user interfaces [John]
Companies designing products with new interfaces need to know, before the product is on the market, who will find their interface difficult or impossible to use.  This needs to be matched against the target market for their new product.

26: To develop more specific and clear accessible guidelines for application developers [Jon]

27: To do research on how to use mobile technologies as a universal middleware in public and private environments [Rocio]
- [Wikipedia] Middleware is computer software that connects software components or people and their applications. That means software that provides a link between separate software applications.
- The idea is trying to make mobile devices (mobile phones, PDAs, tablet PCs, etc.) adaptable to different environments.
- People with special needs could have their user profile in the cloud, which could be used, for example: To adapt his/her mobile device to the environment in different locations, To export & import from one mobile device to another one.

28: Research about the exclusion that has been created by HCI [Leonor]
In what extension HCI creates exclusion? Why, when and how people are excluded by HCI? The term people include not just disabled people but everyone that may be excluded because they are not able to adapt themselves to new ways to perform an activity or a task. Changing frequently the people way of thinking or performing leads to the abandonment of technology?

29: Research methodologies that efficiently collect data about users including existing HCI quantitative tools (like needs, skills, interests, limitations) [Cristina]

30: Make social media inclusive [Ilse]
Social media has changed the way we communicate and interact with each other and has the potential to have a positive impact on the lives of a wide range of people. It is important to make it possible for everybody to experience the positive impact. However little research has been conducted on how inclusive social media is and what can be done to ensure that social media is inclusive. It is especially important at this stage since social media is still under development and at this point in time accessibility can be integrated and influence the design of social media in stead of providing accessibility afterwards.

31: Promote research into the cost of eye-tracking and tongue piercing based interfaces [Mary]

32: Support research that looks how to reduce the complexity of user interaction whilst retaining functionality [Patrick]

33: [DELETE] Extend quantitative tools from HCI to inclusive design [Stefan]
Many of the HCI evaluative tools need to be adapted to specific disabilities, often by a researcher without the tie to validate the new wording/scales. These can span tools designed for users with full sets of typical sensory abilities to evaluation of effort by persons with cognitive disabilities. Careful ‘porting’ and evaluation of the resultant tests – in the very same way the current tests were evaluated – are necessary.

34: Research on how to enforce accessibility in consumer goods [Ginger]

35: Support research on how affective computing can assist accessibility interfaces [Simon-Mary]
While still novel, measures of stress – based on say Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) – have been, and are becoming, increasing common measures in experiments to quantify human behavior, particularly anxiety frustration disorientation and hesitation. However, what is the possibility of using GSR (along with predictive task models) to quantify interaction problems and automatically adapt the interface such that stress is reduced and interactivity progresses faster. Even if we are not able to adapt the interface automatically and directly we may still be able to understand the areas of frustration that are common among different user groups and change the interface such that these areas of stress are reduced.

36: Non-visual interfaces for all (mainstreaming of non visual computing) [Adamantios]
Visual channel is powerful - we all accept this. And nowadays that we have fast internet and the ability to transfer high quality video, support sophisticated graphical interfaces and exploit as much as possible this channel, why not do it? However this is only the one side of the coin.   The modern individuals who are continuously on the move depend, as expected, too much on the visual channel: while walking, in the metro or train, or driving on the motorway people send and receive messages, read emails or documents, google or browse on the internet. To do all this, they depend on visual information that is provided by some small(er) or big(ger) visual displays. Why not give a chance to some new form of mainstreaming non visual interaction? Why not have people reading their emails or their newspaper while not - actually - reading them? Why not have people editing a document while not having visual access to it? Why not have people googling for information or searching for a restaurant for tonight while not looking at some screen (big or small)?  One supporting argument for this is to think about the super rich people who are always accompanied by custody of secretaries and aides who take care of all their stuff. Interaction there goes through them and they usually dictate their wishes or are told about the findings.

37: R&D on text normalization, simplification, personalization and evaluation [Roberto]
Research on technologies for text processing aimed at facilitating the information handling by both the end-users and the services based on linguistic processing:

  • Text normalization and simplification: E.g. easy-reading text personalization (not only static texts but also online user-generated texts: such as for social participation in social networks).
  • Text simplification to improve: multi-lingual conversion (national languages), sign language conversion, etc.

 

38: Research on mid to long term interaction by disabled and elderly people [Gerhard]
Many elderly people have acquired some disability over period of 5 to 20 years. This research is about understanding the user’s capabilities and the changes in their interaction over a longer period of time und order to understand the need for adaption’s or applications in adaptive systems. Typically this requires to acknowledge some form change of technology, to analyze the interaction and methods to ensure persistence of the user’s profile in the new technology.

39: Promote ubiquitous computing and programming tools [Sifis-Eddie]
[A synthesis of clarifications from Iosif, Eddie V. and Gregg Vanderheiden]
Research would need to focus on computers that do not appear to be computers. That is to say, the post-desktop model of Human Computer Interaction. Ubiquitous computing could overcome the prejudices and inability of any user. Technological determination is not the way to facilitate the development of inclusive HCI. Research into developing computers with appropriate programming tools could provide “machines that fit the human environment instead of forcing humans to enter theirs” (J. York and P.C. Pendharkar 2004).
This is an important question and is the future of computing. In the future we will be having things we would not think of as computers like we do now. We will have information appliances in one sense, but in a broader sense we will really have devices so much as will have services. We will simply turn to whatever objects are near us and use them to access services that will be available in the cloud, Or in the environment, or all around us.
It is actually hard for us to conceive of what it will be like. But we need to start thinking differently if we want to really begin doing serious research and get ahead of the curve.

40: Promote methodologies to include the human diversity in user interface design [Julio]
Most current User Centred methodologies are not able to cope with the features of all people. Designers wanting to produce accessible Human-Machine interaction systems need sound methodologies and commercial tools to do it. Most designers are used to advanced design environments, therefore, in order to be adopted by the industry; these methodologies must be sound and usable in large scale software development projects.

41: Use reasoning (AI) techniques for personalization [Pier]

42: Research on reasons why existing knowledge and standards on accessibility are not known or applied by HCI developers [Helmut]

43: Identify where research is needed to obtain universal access in ambient intelligence environments [Kjell]
Quite a lot of work is going on to obtain ambient intelligent services using different artifacts. Ambient services for people with special needs have however not been addressed much so far. It has to be identified where more research is needed and relevant research has to be carried out.

44: Accessible telecommunications technologies for people with no or little speech [Gunela]
People with no or little speech (sometimes called complex communication needs) may have cerebral palsy combined with severe physical disabilities or have had a laryngectomy, an acquired brain injury or a stroke. As a result they have limited possibilities in using telecommunications technologies, such as the mobile phone. It is the combination of physical impairments that present challenges in finding ways for them to seamlessly link telecommunications with their alternative and augmentative communication devices. As this is often an overlooked group of people with disabilities, research is needed.

45: Research on the cognitive load associated with various user interfaces [John]
With interfaces provided in more than modality, the different interfaces may impose different cognitive demands on the user.  For instance, it is easy to get ‘lost’ with auditory output of a complex interface which was designed for visual presentation.

46: Promote interoperability among devices and services to enhance accessibility [Julio]
Many services available to people with disabilities have very different interfaces that are frequently incompatible among them. The idea behind this proposal is to make compatible and interoperable all the equipment available to each user. The ideal scenario is to provide access to all services by means of a single interface (well adapted to the user). This interface would be available in the different devices that are handled by each user (supposedly well adapted to the features and needs of the specific user).  That may require promoting the definition or adoption of a common/standard middleware as accessible interoperability framework.

47: Research on methodologies to analyze collaborative accessibility and undertake collaborative user- and usage centered design [Rocio-Gerhard]
Social approach to better collecting end users’ requirements and opinions, as well as evaluating prototyped UI solutions, (for example, using web 2.0 facilities).
Collaborative approaches to web accessibility start by identifying barriers by disabled people themselves and raising the social pressure for example on website administrators. Best practice examples of such collaborative approaches are web sites (e.g. IBM’s work, or the FixTheWeb initiative) used for “fast and easy” reporting accessibility issues of online services and content but also detailed information about how to fix problems. Similarly, a geographical information system for mobility impaired people may allow to collaborate actively by identifying wheelchair accessible/non accessible locations. A system may allow collaborative correction of speech recognition captioning of audio recording for educational purposes, and whose editing of captions could be provided voluntarily by hearing class mates when funding for professional captioning was not available. All these are existing good examples for Web 2.0 services improving accessibility through “crowd sourcing”. If such approaches will scale up to the extent and quality of commercial services like Facebook and large voluntary organizations such as Wikimedia is unclear and requires further analysis, involvement of end user organizations and implementations.

48: Create a meaningful use of HCI clearly supporting activities [Leonor]
Why some products and services are not been used? Why some products and services failed?

49: Research that promotes inclusive practices of professionals responsible to develop new products or services [Cristina]
It is important that we can find ways to motivate professionals to use the knowledge and inclusive practices (e.g.  standards, research findings, etc. ) to develop  new products or services, or else the accessibility and usability will always have problems.

50: Promote research on inclusive HCI for highly dynamic impairments [Ilse]
Patients in hospitals who have a temporary impairment need products that support them. In a noisy environment everybody has a hearing disability. Persons with co morbidity can have a changing need for example every day, every week, every month. A person can also have a ‘bad day’ and corresponding different needs. Main characteristic of the examples mentioned above is that they are often highly dynamic. Research is needed to investigate how these persons could be served. In addition dynamic impairments are dependent on different situations therefore context awareness needs to be incorporated into the solution.  The solution will broaden the target group for inclusive products which can be interesting for manufacturers.

51: [DELETE] Support research on emotional interaction [Mary]

52: Support research on the implications for people with disabilities of the use of biometric systems for identification and security [Patrick]

53: Research into how AT can provide better than typical results (e.g. cyber-human) [Stefan]
This is in two dimensions.

  • Disabled person with prosthetics / orthotics may achieve goals that ‘typically’ ambled cannot (e.g. ‘the blade runner’ south African athlete)
  • Assistive technology may enable both typically ambled persons to perform tasks that the context at the time may make impossible to complete ordinarily (e.g. using a computer in the dark with Jaws)

This positive side of the assistive technology domain needs formal principled research, beyond what the military is doing now.

54: Research on how to increase and widen accessibility in professional education [Ginger]

55: Identify human factors barriers to health, education and participation of low income groups [Simon]
The opportunities created by digital technologies are not enjoyed by the whole of society; indeed, there is a strong correlation between digital exclusion and social exclusion. There are significant and untapped opportunities to use technology better on behalf of citizens, communities, and digitally disenfranchised groups. However, to achieve inclusion, systems must be created seeing the human factor as a part of an integrated solution from the outset, not as an adjunct but also not as a focus. In addition, the multiplicity and ubiquity of devices and their interfaces are key to successful inclusion, and systems must be tailored to what users actually require and will use; as opposed to what organizations and government require and use. For instance, uses on low income may not be able to afford general-purpose computational facilities and therefore it may be more appropriate to deliver applications and content via other mediums such as mobile devices, games consoles, digital television, or other as yet undefined applications and devices. Only by making sure there is access to, what now seems to be compulsory digital interactivity in areas such as education and health care, can we make sure that the next generations have better chances than the current one.

56: [DELETE] User interface as a service (exploring market and technology challenges) [Adamantios]

57: Further research on static and adaptive user interaction profiles [Roberto]
This research line aims to change the paradigm of the interfaces design from “one-size-fits-all” to “one-size-fits-one”.  Its objective is twofold:
- Adaptive interfaces. The user interfaces will not only adapt to the user needs and preferences, but also will adapt to:

    • Time changing user needs (e.g. due to highly dynamic impairments)
    • Context information (e.g. indoors, outdoors)
    • User behavior (e.g. presenting common operations of the user or changing the interface for a simpler one when the user seems to be confused)
    • Temporal constraints (e.g. in a sunny day some Automatic Teller Machines’ interfaces may use high contrast colors)
    • Etc.

- Interaction profiles. Medically based categories of disabilities do not provide useful information about the needs of the individual. Many people “fall through the cracks” or feel that their needs are stereotyped according to one classificatory category when ICT access solutions are delivered according to traditional disability groupings. A classification of being “blind” does not indicate whether they are Braille literate, have any tactile sensation in their fingers, what language they speak, whether they have good hearing, whether they have residual sight, color or light sense. As such the category does not provide useful information for configuring an ICT system. The variety of needs that are grouped under the classification “blind” can be vast.
Recognizing that persons with disabilities are one of the most heterogeneous groups of users and that individuals with disabilities are likely to be constrained in their ability to adapt to a stereotypical characterization of their access requirements, a new approach to inclusive design was developed which enabled users to create their own individualized personal profile from an extensible list of common functional descriptors. This enables a one-size-fits-one response from a system that is able to transform, augment or choose from a pool of diverse resources. This approach was first specified in the IMS AccessForAll standard and later in the ISO24751 multi-part standard [Source: proposal of FP7 IP project: “Cloud4all”, selected by the evaluators and currently under negotiation].

58: [DELETE] Research on the methods for haptic usability [Gerhard]

59: [DELETE] Research on inclusive interfaces for entertainment [Sifis]

60: To promote common research on user needs and preferences to be used by all e-inclusion projects [Jon]

61: Ways to move from purchase to lease or renting accessibility and assistive technology (exploring market, policy and technology challenges) [Gregg-Adamantios]
In the recent years we talk about software-as-a-service while for several decades now we are all used to the concept of leasing a car or equipment or a house. So it seems that it is high time that we make the transition towards new ways to move from purchase to lease or renting accessibility and assistive technology.  Why own a communication aid if you can lease one? And why own a navigation system for blind or elderly while renting one as a service?   Social insurance agencies may also have their own views on this – it may prove more cost-efficient for them both for the long run and for an immediate introduction; however there is need for exploring market, policy and technology challenges and dynamics.  Finally accessibility matters here again: if you leave the ownership model to move to the leasing or renting, you need intuitive accessibility in the offered solutions as your users don’t regard anymore the learning of the system as an asset. As long as you may use a system for a few days or weeks, it needs to be easy-to-use and make the life of the user easy regarding manipulation and maintenance.

62: Digital literacy stepping stones [Gregg]

63: Research on automated evaluation aids [Gregg]

64: Basic research needs to be made on AT abandonment/adoption [Stefan]
There are only a handful of papers on AT abandonment, mostly form the 90’s. In order to fully address the distressing level of AT abandonment (40-70%) a principled, longitudinal research agenda of this phenomenon, segmented by AT and user type and compared to similar non-AT systems needs to be set out on. The implications of the resultant body of knowledge could potentially deeply affect AT form design to marketing.

65: Interface design - knowledge of computer paradigms (Steve)

66: Interface design: input and output [Steve]

67: Usable accessibility [Steve]

68: [DELETE] Standards for accessibility [Tim]

69: New mechanisms for international collaborations [Gregg]

70: Research on how to make accessibility simpler to deliver, apply, configure, support and use and explain to policy makers [Gregg]

71: Research on sharing accessibility knowledge with developing countries [Gerhard]
Few researchers in developing countries such as Thailand or China are investigating accessibility in their culture, using their own language and develop an understanding of the processes involved in creating a sustainable impact. Often the economics is much more demanding low budget solutions.  The development of eScience has shown in the past an approach to create distributed research groups. Developing countries may become involved in research on accessibility of training material is provided, best practice approaches described and pitfalls are expressed.

72: Dynamic composition complex interfaces (mash-up of services) [Roberto]
This is an emerging trend linked to the automatic generation of personalized interfaces that requires of more research. It focuses on the automatic generation of personalized interfaces by using a mash-up of Web services.

A use case is shown below: “Mario is a Spanish blind person traveling abroad. When interacting with a public eKiosk, he indicates that his preferred language is Spanish and that he requires a screen reader. The eKiosk have installed software for automatic generation of personalized interfaces enhanced with the possibility of using mash-up of services. In order to provide the most suitable interface to Mario, the eKiosk’s software composes a personalized interface by making use of its personalization capabilities, and two Web Services (WS): one WS provides automatic translation among different languages, and other WS provides screen reading services”.

73: Accessibility of IPv6 enabled consumer appliances [Gunela]
IPv6 will be the new Internet addressing protocol and we will see a large take-up of IPv6 by ISPs in the near future as the current IP addresses are being depleted. There is a potential that an increasing number of consumer appliances will have unique IP addresses which can automatically connect to the Internet for maintenance and communications. The day of the Internet-enable fridge and washing machine may be coming. Already in Japan, rice cookers are connected to the Internet. People use rice cookers daily and if an elderly person hasn't used their rice cooker, a message is sent to their relative and/or a service centre that they may need assistance. It is an opportunity to research inclusive HCI in a wide range of IPv6-enabled consumer appliances.

74: Support research on accessible interaction with robots [Patrick]

75: Create development environment for accessibility solutions [Gregg]

 

Participants

 Mrs. Gunela  Astbrink
Is based in Australia and is the Principal of GSA Information Consultants an organization specializing in conducting research and policy development in many facets of ICT for people with disabilities. She has 20 years of international experience in research and policy with a focus on regulatory processes to benefit people with disabilities.

Dr-Ing  Helmut  Heck
Coordinates R&D projects at the Research Institute for Technology and Disability at Evangelische Stiftung Volmarstein, Forschungsinstitut Technologie und Behinderung in Germany. His current interests relate to computer/robotic applications, human-machine-interaction for people with disabilities, accessibility of IT systems, as well as AAL.

Ms  Ilse  Bierhoff
Is a research project manager at Smart Homes, an independent expert centre for smart houses and smart living based in the Netherlands.  She graduated as human-technology engineer and has specialized over the past 8 years in user centered design and technology for older persons. Her main activities at Smart Homes are in the field of the use of smart home technology for independent living and more efficient care delivery.

Dr    John  Gill
Has worked for over 37 years in the area of scientific and technological research for people with disabilities. Based in the U.K. his research has included the design of fonts, public access terminals, tactile communication, orientation systems, automated production of braille and large print, and access to telecommunication systems and services.

Prof. Julio   Abascal
Is Professor of the Computer Architecture and Technology Department at the University of the Basque Country located in Northern Spain. He co-founded the Laboratory of Human-Computer Interaction for Special Needs that has participated in several R&D projects at national and international level.

Prof. Kjell  Åge  Bringsrud
Is employed as an Associate Professor in the research group for distributed multimedia systems at the Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway.

Prof.  Leonor  Moniz   Pereira
Is a doctor in the area of special education and rehabilitation and is a professor at the Faculdade de Motricidade Humana at the Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal.

Prof.  Patrick   Roe
Works with the Acoustic Group of the Laboratoire d’Electromagnétisme et d’Acoustique (LEMA) at EPFL, one of the two ‘Ecoles Polytechniques Fédérales’ in Switzerland. He has worked as a senior researcher on several European projects including the three COST219 Actions, where he acted as Chairman for five years of the COST 219ter Action “Accessibility for All to Services and Terminals for Next Generation Networks”.

Prof.  Pier   Luigi    Emiliani
Works at the Institute of Applied Physics (IFAC) in Florence, Italy. The IFAC Department on Information Theory and Processing is involved in research on the theory and applications of signal and image processing and information technology (communications, biomedicine, non-destructive testing, user interface and aids for disabled persons).

Mr.  Robert  Hecht
Works with the Swedish Post and Telecom Agency and is intimately involved in the process of public procurement.

Mr.   Sifis   Klironomos
Is member of the Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory and Centre for Universal Access and Assistive Technologies of ICS-FORTH – Hellas, one of the largest research centers of Greece.  Laboratory carries out research activities focused on developing user interfaces for interactive applications and services that are accessible, usable, and ultimately acceptable for all users.

 

Contributors via the Wikispace, ahead of the SDDP in Cyprus, who were not able to attend the meeting:

- Christian Bott, ELUMO GmbH
- John Doran, Hewlett Packard

 

Methodology: The Process of Structured Dialogic Design

The term “Structured Dialogue” is sometimes used to simply denote a dialogue more organized than the simple “talking” and exchange of ideas.  In contrast the Structured Dialogic Design10    (SDDSM)) process is a methodology, which supports the generation of truly democratic and structured dialogue amongst teams of stakeholders with diverse views and perspectives. It is particularly effective in the resolution of complex conflicts, interests, and values, and in achieving consensus based on a common understanding and strategy. It is grounded on 6 complex systems and cybernetics axioms and 7 laws from systems science; it has been grounded both scientifically and empirically in hundreds of settings on a global scale for the past 30 years. Scientists and practitioners worldwide are guided by the Institute of 21st Century Agoras11.

The Cyprus team has extensive experience in the application of the methodology. They have utilized it in many public debates in order to facilitate organizational and societal change. For example, they have utilized it in many European networks of experts. The COST219ter12 is a network of scientists from 20 countries (18 European, the USA, and Australia) who were interested in exploring the question of how new technologies ambient intelligence and next generation networks can make their services more useful to people with special needs. The COST29813 network also aims to make broadband technologies more accessible to the wider public.  The scientific communities of Cost219ter and Cost298 utilized SDD in order to outline the obstacles, which inhibit the application of the above technologies on a wider scale. Based on the results of the SDDs, they designed corresponding strategies for the next 3 years. Insafe14 is a European network of 27 Safer Internet Centers who used SDDs in many meetings in order to identify the inhibitors, produce a vision of the future, and agree on a plan of action. More information is available on the CyberEthics Cyprus Safer Internet website15.

The UCYVROK16 network utilized SDDSM   in order to determine the reasons for which young people in Europe do not participate in European programs. The results were presented to the European Parliament. The SDDSM methodology was also used in order to ease the dialogue between Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots since 1994. This dialogue culminated in the creation of a peace movement. Many reports are still being utilized by the network, and are available on the program’s page17.

SDDSM was designed especially so that it can assist non-homogenous groups in tackling complex problems within a reasonable and restricted time frame. It facilitates the annexation of contributions by individuals with vastly different views, contexts, and aspirations, through a process that is structured, conclusive, and the product of cooperation.

A team of participants, who are knowledgeable of a particular situation, generate together a common outline of ideas based on a common understanding of the current problematic situation and a future ideal one. SDDSM promotes the focused communication between participants and supports their ownership of the solution as well as their actions towards implementing it.

Structure and Process in a typical SDD Co-Laboratory

When facing any complex problem the stakeholders can ideally approach it in the following way:

1.   Develop a shared vision of an ideal future situation. This ideal vision map serves as a magnet to help the social system transcend into its future state.

2.   Define the problematique, also known as the wall of inhibitors i.e., develop a common and shared understanding of what are the obstacles that prevent the stakeholders’ system from reaching its ideal state.

3.   Define actions/options and produce a roadmap to achieve the goals.

The three phases are implemented using exactly the same dialogue technique. Each phase leads to similar products:

1.   A list of all ideas and their clarifications [SDDSM   is a self-documenting process].

2.   A cluster of all ideas categorized according to their common attributes [using a bottom-up approach].

3.   A document with the voting results in which participants are asked to choose ideas they consider most important [erroneous priority effect = most popular ideas do not prove to be the most influential!]

4.   A map of influences. This is the most important product of the methodology. Ideas are related according to the influence they exert on each other. If we are dealing with problems, then the most influential ideas are the root causes. Addressing those will be most efficient. If we deal with factors that describe a future ideal state, then working on the most influential factors means that achieving the final goal will be easier/faster/more economic, etc.

In the following, the process of a typical SDDSM   session, with its phases, is described in more detail.

First     The breadth of the dialogue is constrained and sharpened with the help of a Triggering Question.

This is formulated by a core group of people, who are the Knowledge Management Team (KMT) and is composed by the owners of the complex problem and SDDSM   experts. This question can be emailed to all participants, who are requested to respond with at least three contributions before the meeting either through email or wikis.

Second            All contributions/responses to the triggering question are recorded in the Cogniscope IITM   software.  They must be short and concise: one idea in one sentence! The authors may clarify their ideas in a few additional sentences.

Third   The ideas are clustered into categories based on similarities and common attributes. If time is short, a smaller team can do this process to reduce time (e.g., between plenary sessions).

Fourth All participants get five votes and are asked to choose ideas that are most important to them. Only ideas that receive votes go to the next and most important phase.

Fifth    In this phase, participants are asked to explore influences of one idea on another. They are asked to decide whether solving one problem will make solving another problem easier. If the answer is a great majority an influence is established on the map of ideas. The way to read that influence is that items at the bottom are root causes (if what is being discussed are obstacles), or most influential factors (if what is being discussed are descriptors of an ideal situation or actions to take). Those root factors must be given priority.

Sixth    Using the root factors, stakeholders develop an efficient strategy and come up with a road map to implement it.

Further Information on the science SDDSM

The interested reader who might want to find out more about the underlying science of structured dialogic design may begin by researching the terms “Lovers of Democracy”, “Hasan Ozbekhan”, “Aleco Christakis”, “Club of Rome”, “Structured Dialogic Design”, “Cyprus Civil Society Dialogue”, etc.  Available are also two books co-authored by the Father of the science: 18,   19. A number of wikis are also dedicated to the science: 20, 21, 22.  Selected publications include a Description of the technology of Democracy 23.

There are several publications of the Cyprus group, which describe the application of SDDSM    in the Cyprus peace-building process: 24, 25, 26.  Furthermore, two recent publications provide an easy-to-comprehend introduction to the methodology and the ethical considerations associated with its application 27, 28.


References

1.  Wiki created to serve as collaborative environment for the 2nd SDDSM, http://userinteraction-sdd-cardiac.wikispaces.com/

2. Laouris, Y. and Christakis, A. (2007). Harnessing collective wisdom at a fraction of the time using Structured Dialogic Design Process in a virtual communication context Int. J. Applied Systemic Studies, 1(2), 131–153.

3. CogniscopeTM, http://sddinternationalschool.wikispaces.com/Cogniscope+and+WebScope

4.  Warfield, N. (1995). Spreadthink: Explaining ineffective groups. System Research, 12:5-14.

5. Video clip describing Facilitator’s roles and process in a virtual SDDSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZYxejQcfzo

6.  Laouris, Y. and Michaelides, M. (2007). What obstacles prevent practical broadband applications from being produced and exploited? In: Towards an inclusive future Impact and wider potential of information and communication technologies, Roe Patrick (Ed), Chapter 7: pp: 281-299. Available on-line:  http://www. tiresias.org/cost219ter/inclusive_future/inclusive_future_ch7.htm

7. Laouris, Y., Michaelides, M. and Sapio, B. (2008). A Systemic Evaluation of Obstacles Preventing the Wider Public Benefiting from and Participating in the Broadband Society. Observatorio Journal, 5, 21-31.

8. Laouris Y., Underwood, G., Laouri, R., Christakis A. (2010). Structured dialogue embedded within a hybrid WiKi - synchronous communication technologies environment in the service of distance learning In: Using Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, Veletsianos G. (Ed), Distance Education series, Athabasca University, Canada Chapter 8: 153-173.

9.  Laouris & Michaelides 2007 users, Brussels: COST Action 298. Chapter 14: 171-180.

10. See relevant article in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_dialogic_design)

11. www.globalagoras.org

12. www.tiresias.org/cost219ter

13. www.cost298.org

14. www.saferinternet.org
15. www.cyberethics.info

16. http://ucyvrok.wetpaint.com

17. www.civilsocietydialogue.net

18. Christakis, A.N. and Bausch, K. (2006). How People Harness Their Collective Wisdom and Power to Construct the Future in Co-Laboratories of Democracy. Information Age Publishing, Inc.

19. Flanagan, T. R, and Christakis, A. N., (2009). The Talking Point: Creating an Environment for Exploring
Complex Meaning. Information Age Publishing Inc.

20. A wiki for dialogue community support “Transformation Dialogues”, http://blogora.wetpaint.com

21. SDD International school of Structured Dialogic Design,http://sddinternationalschool.wikispaces.com

22. Lovers of Democracy; Description of the technology of Democracy,http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy

23. Schreibman, V., Christakis, A., New Geometry of Languaging and New Technology of Democracy,http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/NewAgora.htm

24. Laouris, Y. (2004). Information technology in the service of peace building: The case of Cyprus. World Futures, 60, 67–79.

25. Laouris, Y., Michaelides, M., Damdelen, M., Laouri, R., Beyatli, D., & Christakis, A. (2009). A systemic evaluation of the state of affairs following the negative outcome of the referendum in Cyprus using a structured dialogic design process. Systemic Practice and Action Research 22 (1), 45-75.

26.  Laouris, Y., Erel, A., Michaelides, M., Damdelen, M., Taraszow, T., Dagli, I., Laouri, R. and Christakis, A. (2009). Exploring options for enhancement of social dialogue between the Turkish and Greek communities in Cyprus using the Structured Dialogic Design Process. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22, 361–381.

27. Laouris, Y. (2010) The ABCs of the Science of Structured Dialogic Design. Int. J. Applied Systemic Studies (in press).  Available on line at: http://sddinternationalschool.wikispaces.com/file/view/TheScienceOfDialogue2010421_FWC_Version.pdf

28.  Laouris, Y., Laouri, R. and Christakis, A. (2008). Communication praxis for ethical accountability; The ethics of the tree of action. Syst Res Behav Sci 25(2), 331–348.

 

ANNEX I
Ideas Generated before the SDD in San Sebastian

1.  Tools for decision making in the user centered design process (Ilse)
2.  Personalization and open interfaces (Robert)
3.  Accessible user interaction in “smart environments”(Sifis)
4.  Universal access in ambient intelligence environments (Brings)
5.  Inclusive 3D interfaces (Ilse)
6.  New design methodologies for accessible user interfaces (Julio)
7.  Guidelines and tools for UI accessibility manual and automatic evaluation (Julio)
8.  Research on the role of inclusive HCI to support self management in healthcare (Ilse)
9.  Continue to support research on means of controlling interfaces (Patrick)
10.  Support research on gathering further understanding of user behavior and interaction with machines (Patrick)
11.  Continue to support research on brain-machine interfaces (Patrick)
12.  Support research on easily adaptable and customizable user interfaces (Patrick)
13.  Support research in assistive communication technologies (Patrick)
14.  Support research on novel interfaces for musical instruments (Patrick)
15.  Even the price of Assistive Technologies (cespadinha)
16.  Facilitate the creation of digital and text materials accessible to non-accessibility expert professionals (cespadinha)
17.  Take the "human side" in the design of human-machine interfaces more serious (Helmut)
18.  Avoid to build up mental/cognitive barriers in the design of HMI (Helmut)
19.  Development of sophisticated adoptive brain-computer interfaces (Brings)
20.  Development of new haptic interfaces (Brings)
21.  Universal Remote Control (John)
22.  Interface design: Input and output (Edward)
23.  Interface design: Usable Accessibility (Edward)
24.  Interface design - knowledge of computer paradigms (Edward)
25.  Human - Machine and Human – Human (Robert)
26.  Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (John)
27.  How inclusive is social media? (Ilse)
28.  Ubiquitous Computing and Programming Tools (Eddie)
29.  Support research on the development of assistive and adaptive user interfaces (Patrick)
30.  Support research that looks into how to reduce the complexity of user interfaces whilst retaining their functionality (Patrick)
31.  Support research on novel usable human-machine interfaces for recreational activities (Patrick)
32. Support research on emotional interaction (Patrick)
33.  Support research regarding the extraction of knowledge about the activities of the user from low-level sensor data (Patrick)
34.  Continue to support research regarding interaction with robots (Patrick)
35.  Support research on self-configurable user interfaces (Patrick)
36.  Support research on the implications for people with disabilities of the use of biometric systems for identification and security (Patrick)
37.  Support research on implants that enhance brain/cognitive function (Patrick)
38.  Support research on the ethics of embedded tools collecting personal user information (Patrick)
39.  Support research on user profiling (Patrick)
40.  think broader than HCI; think HEE (Herjan)
41.  Speed of Use (John)
42.  Promote research in eye tracking based interfaces (Julio)
43.  Inclusion of universal accessibility requirements and methodologies in mainstream commercial UI development tools (Julio)
44.  Promote the definition or adoption of a common/standard middleware as accessible interoperability framework (Julio)
45.  Promote research in BCI if and only if it is specifically focussed to people with disabilities and tested with real users (Julio)
46.  Minimum set of functionality (Robert)
47.  Research on inclusive HCI for highly dynamic impairments (Ilse)
48.  Adaptive interfaces with company touch (Robert)
49.  Adaptive interfaces (John)
50.  HCI and Medical Devices - The Gap (MN3)
51.  Ways to lower the barriers faced by new AT developers (Gregg)
52.  Create development environments for accessibility solutions (Gregg)
53.  Research on Evaluation Wizards (Gregg)
54.  Mechanisms for International Collaboration in access Research and Development (Gregg)
55.  Mechanisms for International Collaboration in access Research and Development (Gregg)
56.  Standards for Accessibility (Tim)
57.  Research on how to make accessibility simpler to deliver, apply, configure, support, and use (Gregg)

 

ANNEX II
Voting Results on Mechanisms that received 1 vote

25: (11 Votes) Research on who could be excluded from using novel user interfaces [John]
74: (8 Votes) Support research on accessible interaction with robots [Patrick]
5: (8 Votes) Development of practical adaptive user interfaces [John]
39: (5 Votes) Promote ubiquitous computing and programming tools [Sifis-Eddie]
70: (5 Votes) Research on how to make accessibility simpler to deliver, apply, configure, support and use and explain to policy makers [Gregg]
75: (5 Votes) Create development environment for accessibility solutions [Gregg]
12: (5 Votes) Promote research on the role of inclusive HCI to support self-management in health care [Mary]
23: (4 Votes) Development of sophisticated brain-computer interfaces for people with special needs [Kjell]
54: (4 Votes) Research on how to increase and widen accessibility in professional education [Ginger]
34: (3 Votes) Research on how to enforce accessibility in consumer goods [Ginger]
36: (3 Votes) Non-visual interfaces for all (mainstreaming of non visual computing) [Adamantios]
55: (2 Votes) Identify human factors barriers to health, education and participation of low income groups [Simon]
31: (2 Votes) Promote research into the cost of eye-tracking and tongue piercing based interfaces [Mary]
20: (1 Votes) Create a paradigm that avoids the traps of either forcing all to use a single new technology or for all content to be rewritten (interesting to study the growth of the web) [Stefan]
28: (1 Votes) Research about the exclusion that has been created by HCI [Leonor]
37: (1 Votes) R&D on text normalization, simplification, personalization and evaluation [Roberto]
48: (1 Votes) Create a meaningful use of HCI clearly supporting activities [Leonor]
1: (1 Votes) Research to get rid of HCI [Pier-Herjan]
17: (0 Votes) Research and development on provision of accessible interfaces inclusive products and services in an ubiquitous manner [Roberto]
49: (0 Votes) Research that promotes inclusive practices of professionals responsible to develop new products or services [Cristina]