Skip to main content
Log in

Designing desirability in an augmentative and alternative communication device

  • Long paper
  • Published:
Universal Access in the Information Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses work carried in the context of a study addressing the design and development of a wearable communication aid for people who are illiterate and cannot speak. People with such disabilities often depend on electronic augmentative and alternative communication devices for interpersonal communication. A central theme of the paper, however, is that such products, and products intended for people with disabilities more generally, have characteristics that inadequately attend to users’ needs—in particular many devices pay insufficient regard to the psychological and sociological impact the devices have upon their users. The paper briefly discusses an empirical case study targeted to design and develop the Portland Communication Aid (PCA). The process of establishing user requirements, and in particular the notion of designer-facilitated participatory design, is discussed. The resulting prototype of the PCA is briefly explained along with a discussion of the importance of product semantics in the design of assistive technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allen JL (2002) Some problems of designing for augmentative and alternative communication users: an enquiry through practical design activity. PhD Thesis. Loughborough University, Loughborough

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allen JL (2004) Beyond functionality—product semantics in assistive device design. In: Keates S, Clarkson J, Langdon P, Robinson P (eds) Designing a more inclusive world. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 101–110

    Google Scholar 

  3. Buchanan R (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues 8(2):5–21

    Google Scholar 

  4. Collingsworth J (1993) Design for disability: a handbook for students and teachers. London Guildhall University, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Csikszentmihalyi M, Rochberg-Halton E (1981) The meaning of things—domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dewey J (1938) Experience and education. The MacMillan Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Galer M (1983) Methodology for the evaluation of aids for the disabled. Institute for Consumer Ergonomics, Loughborough

    Google Scholar 

  8. Goffman E (1973) Stigma—notes on the management of spoiled identity. Penguin Books Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hogan P (1994/95) Introducing the European Institute for Design and Disability. Usertalk 4(Winter):2–3

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jonas W (1993) Design as problem-solving? or: here is the solution—what was the problem?. Design Studies 14(2):157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jonkers HL (1980) Aids for the physically disabled: consumer conclusions drawn from a cost-benefit analysis. In: Bray J, Wright S (eds) The use of technology in the care of the elderly and the disabled. Francis Pinter, London, pp 167–178

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jordan PW (1999) Inclusive design. In: Green WS, Jordan PW (eds) Human factors in product design: current practice and future trends. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 171–181

    Google Scholar 

  13. Krippendorff K, Butter R (1984) Product semantics: exploring the symbolic qualities of form. In: Innovation, the Journal of the Industrial Designers Society of America, Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 4–9

  14. Light J, McNaughton D, Parnes P (1986) A protocol for the assessment of the communication interaction skills of non speaking severely handicapped adults and their facilitators. Blissymbolics Communication Institute, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  15. McConkey R, McCormack B (1983) Educating people about disability. Souvenir Press (Educational & Academic) Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  16. Murphy J (1993) The advantages and disadvantages of high tech AAC devices with voice output. In Fifth Annual European Minspeak Conference. Mansfield, pp 55–65

  17. Murphy J, Collins S (1994) Advantages and disadvantages of AAC Systems. Communication Matters 8(3):5–7

    Google Scholar 

  18. Murphy J, Marková I, Moodie E, Scott J, Boa S (1995) Augmentative and alternative communication systems used by people with cerebral palsy in Scotland: demographic survey. Augmentative Alternative Communication 11(1):26–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nicolle C, Poulson DF, Richardson SJ (1995) A methodology for defining user requirements for rehabilitation and assistive technology. In: Porrero IP, de la Bellasca RP (eds) The European context for assistive technology—Proceedings of the 2nd TIDE Congress. IOS Press, Paris, pp 37–40

    Google Scholar 

  20. Poulson DF, Ashby MC, Richardson SJ (eds) (1996) USERfit: a practical handbook on user-centred design for assistive technology. ECSC-EC-EAEC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ring ND (1980) Communication aids for the speech impaired. In: Bray J, Wright S (eds) The use of technology in the care of the elderly and the disabled. Francis Pinter, London, pp 79–82

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stanton N, Baber C (1996) Factors affecting the selection of methods and techniques prior to conducting a usability evaluation. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland IL (eds) Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 39–48

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas D (1982) The experience of handicap. Methuen & Co Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathon Allen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allen, J. Designing desirability in an augmentative and alternative communication device. Univ Access Inf Soc 4, 135–145 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0117-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0117-2

Keywords

Navigation