Datorbaserat planeringsverktyg vid anpassning av bo- och arbetsmiljöer för fysiskt rörelsehindrade

Författare

Summary, in English

Computer based planning tool for adaptation of living and working environments of physically disabled persons. When adapting living and working environments according to the needs of physically disabled users it is important to optimize design solutions already during the planning process. Therefore it is quite advantageous if the end-user can be involved in the design process to present her or his personal knowledge and ideas. In Scandinavia, and many other countries, the planning process in cases of adapting living or working environments for disabled, normally is managed by an ergotherapeut. To achieve an optimal result, in addition to the ergotherapeut and the handicapped person himself, a planning team should be formed, consisting of family members, work-colleagues, nursing staff plus architect and civil engineers, etc.

Earlier case studies by Eriksson & Johansson (1996) indicated that the use of computer based planning tools could facilitate the involvement of the different groups and their mutual understanding and communication. However, the commercially available softwares, which were used, were not sufficiently adapted to this kind of planning process from a user’s perspective. Therefore the development of a software prototype (‘Magrathea’) adapted for the needs of and the interaction between all the different participants in such planning processes, became part of the present project. The usability aspect has been in focus because of the heterogenous user group and since many potential users have little experience in using computers. As a base for further development of the prototyped software a test and evaluation of ‘Magrathea’ was performed.

The software prototype uses a 3-D-modelled environment where interaction occurs in real time (direct visual response). The prototype is based on QuickDraw 3D application interface running on Power Macintosh, however a PC-version is being developed in parallel. The user can move in the 3D-environment by the use of ‘walkthroughs’ and manipulate different objects. Visual angle and perspective can be changed by moving a ‘camera’. Objects can be manipulated by mouse or numerical keys. Rotation of objects is obtained by +/-keys. Parts of objects can be manipulated by keys. The size of objects can be changed by feeding of numerical data in an object information window. Objects are stored in an ’Object library’, divided in subject categories to facilitate search. The library contains 3D-models of people, movement aids, furniture and equipment for living and working environments. Distances can be displayed in figures when measured by a mouse-controlled ‘measuring tape’. 2D-prints of the simulated 3D-environment can be obtained by saving a ‘photograph’ of any chosen perspective.

To test the software prototype the REAL-model (Löwgren 1993) was used. According to this the usability of a system is defined by its Relevance (fulfilment of user needs); Efficiency (time and task performance by user); Attitude (user’s subjective assessment); and Learnability (ease of initial learning and remembering over time). The test was performed on two potential user groups; 5 ergotherapeut students (AT-group) and 4 physically disabled persons(RT-group). Each test-person (having similarly limited computer use experience) performed two tests and an interview.

The first test had a duration of two hours, including a 45 min standardized introduction by the test manager, during which the test-person was allowed to ask questions and to practice using the software. After a brief pause 12 standardised tasks had to be solved using the software. Basic functions tested were; moving an object horizontally; rotating an object and part of an object; measure distance; take ‘photograph; change visual angle and perspective; using and searching the Object library. The last task was a ‘think-loud-task’ while the test-person was furbishing a bathroom for a wheel-chair bound person.

The second test was performed three weeks later. 9 tasks similar to test on-tasks were performed. Results were compared with test I in order to check remembering over time. Finally, an interview concerning usability aspects was performed. Results show that the AT group performed equally well in both tests (96%). The RH-group scored 81% I test I and 77% in test II. Both groups needed more time to solve the tasks in test II, and were using the manual more frequently. These findings might indicate a remembering-over-time problem. The most problematic tasks were finding correct rotation tools for objects and parts of objects. In addition to this, especially in test II, by mistake the camera was rotated instead of the object. In the RH-group there were also some visual conspicuity difficulties due to similar colouring of object and background. In the think-loud task, comments for both test groups showed that they were focusing the problems of the wheel-chair bound person in connection with the environment instead of describing how they were using the software, which was what they were expected to comment upon. Interviews showed enthusiasm in the At-group to be able to use such a tool in their future professional work. The RH-group perceived it as a valuable possibility to help them plan and change their own physical environment.

Avdelning/ar