The Enchanted Neighborhood: Using Metaphorical Devices for the Inclusion of Seniors in the Co-designing Process Stefan Göllner!, Jan Lindenberg!, Peter Conradie", Jaclyn Le#, Florian Sametinger!, 1. Design Research Lab at Deutsche Telekom Laboratories, Technical University of Berlin, Ernst Reuter Platz 7, 10587 Berlin, Germany 2. University of Applied Sciences Potsdam, Germany 3. Köln International School of Design, Germany
ABSTRACT Set in Berlin with the objective of exploring the potential for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) services in urban communities, the project Networked Neighborhood is conceived on the backdrop of two concurrent trends: (1) the growing senior citizen demographic and (2) calls for more socially and environmentally-sustainable living. The project is therefore mainly focused on facilitating sharing between neighbors, with seniors playing a significant role in the ideation process. A core motivation of the project is to find suitable ways to engage seniors in the research and design process. The researchers initiated an innovation workshop on future ICT solutions with senior residents that promote local sharing activities. The paper, which introduces a design game based on “metaphorical-tools” that was designed and tested in this workshop, moreover summarizes and discusses the results and experiences that were derived from the collaboration with the participants and reflects on the advantages of using metaphors in the collaboration with senior participants. Keywords Urban Neighborhoods; Participatory Design; Aged Society; Inclusion; Social Design INTRODUCTION Due to demographic changes, most developed countries will be faced with aging societies in the near future. In the context of ICT, this leads to the question: how to design for “older users” of communication technology? Aging is not a uniform process and does not affect everyone in the same way; hence, it is not possible to characterize or segment senior citizens into stereotypical terms. Aside from disabilities and common diseases related to aging, senior citizens vary widely in terms of experiences, expectations, interests and attitudes. Mutual aid, the informal exchange of services, and the joint use of goods signify the traditional characteristics of residential neighborhoods, which especially applies to urban communities. Highdensity cities with rich diversity of people traditionally provide an excellent setting for sharing interactions. The quality of this setting becomes increasingly relevant with age. As a result of a shrinking radius of activity and the rising importance of close social connections, a well-connected environment becomes more important in later life and can positively affect both physical and mental health. Keeping in line with the concept of universal design, which emphasizes including a wide spectrum of users, we did not initially approach the demographic group directly; rather, we first addressed the local neighborhood as a setting that is most relevant for the everyday life of older residents, which consequently also affects conditions of everyday life for all residents. We chose to consider age not primarily as a constraint, but as a condition that brings forth certain opportunities: older and retired residents spend more time within their neighborhood than younger residents and have more spare time available. Due to lower fluctuation of mobility (Motel et al., 2000 cited in Oswald, et al., 2005), they typically tend to be more knowledgeable about the immediate environment and the existing local social networks. They are equipped with better resources and can profit most from activities of mutual
help and sharing. Seniors benefit most from sharing systems (Boyle, 1999; Cahn, 2000; as cited in Collom, 2008), since many have an increased need for mundane services, such as services exchanged in time banking; therefore, seniors are important possible actors in neighborhood sharing systems, both as “users” and “producers” of networked infrastructures. This leads to the questions: how can ICT based solutions contribute to improving and augmenting the use of existing local sharing networks, and how can they be better interlinked with the common sharing practices in local environments? Motivation Previous projects dealing with the implementation of ICT in local communities have indicated that it is essential to give the residents ownership in the envisioned projects (Foth, 2004). A top-down approach, whereby a designer or developer conceives a system and passes it down to those who will eventually use it, is thus not appropriate if a long-term acceptance and involvement is to be achieved. Instead, the user needs to be involved in deciding what the requirements for such a system should be (Schuler & Namioka, 1993). In light of this, a participatory design approach is essential, starting from the earliest stages; however, the inclusion of technology-illiterate stakeholders in a design process dealing with technical concepts presents itself with some difficulties. Seniors form part of such a group. As previous research indicates: many seniors are not confident in discussing technology (Marquié, et al., 2002); can be negative about technology (Czaja & Lee 2003, cited in Eisma, et al., 2003); generally have conservative attitudes towards technology (Cutler & Kaufman 1975, cited by Rama, et al., 2001); and the technical terminology used also poses a hurdle (Eisma, et al. 2004). To overcome these issues, it is vital to reassess the participatory design methods used when designing collectively with seniors. Designing ICT services within a neighborhood context requires participation, which can be problematic if technological novices are involved as active co-designers. By developing design games that utilize non-technical elements that signify technological capabilities, we hypothesize that thereby seniors, and other technologically illiterate groups, can be involved as equal participants. In the rest of the paper, we illustrate the use of metaphorical devices as a method to represent ICT functionalities in a co-designing process and as a promising approach to include seniors in ideation and development of innovative scenarios. Exploring sharing and communication practice Preceding the participatory design process, ethnographic observations in residential neighborhoods and interviews with experts on the topic of sharing were undertaken to get a contextualized understanding of existing sharing and communication practices and the needs, constraints and opportunities that could be derived from those. To get a deeper understanding of established sharing practices, we approached and interviewed members of several time banking associations in Berlin. Our attempt was to understand the motivations of the participants, which services and objects are likely to be shared, and how this sharing is organized within a local currency system. Time banking participants offered a spectrum of services ranging from mundane tasks such as transport, home repair, house sitting, babysitting and grocery shopping; to highly specialized services such as language tutoring, filing taxes, yoga instructions and computer repair. Our encounters with the time banks led us to assemble the identified sharing activities into card-sets for later use during participatory session, differentiating between objects and services. During a series of neighborhood observations in Berlin, we explored the usage of common communication interfaces such as doorbell plates, front doors and mailboxes in residential walk-up apartment buildings. In reference to Newman's Defensible Space Theory (1996), these interfaces can be understood as thresholds that mediate transitions and interaction between the public space of the street and the semi-private/semi-public space of the corridor, staircase or courtyard, which finally leads to the private space inside of the single apartments.
Figure 1. During the field research in the neighborhood setting, a wide spectrum of different strategies of communication and sharing was observed Many of the thresholds that we observed showed traces of creative misuse and adaption: handwritten notices in corridors, stickers on mail boxes, and post-it notes on doorbell plates and doors expressed the need of the neighbors to communicate. The observations illustrated how existing infrastructures restrict and limit the appropriation of thresholds for the purpose of communication: observed “official” communication interfaces like bulletin boards or the standard labeling of doorbell plates and apartment doors rather prevent communication than promoting new ways of appropriation that could support existing sharing practices. The following communication characteristics illustrate the different aspects of communication that we observed during the observations at the various thresholds: Synchronous and asynchronous communication: The sense of immediacy and direct feedback afforded by tools such as telephones or intercom systems, can be contrasted with asynchronous communications such as notes on doors. One-to-one and one-to-many communication: In many instances, handwritten notes were visible in the neighborhood that addressed either specific single individuals, like the postmen, or were aimed towards a bigger group, like for example all fellow residents. Peer-to-peer and centralized communication: While peer-to-peer sharing activities could not directly be observed in the neighborhoods, the case of a “sharing box” stood out as a special occurrence: a centrally-located box, where unneeded things, assumed to be useful for others, could be left. Bottom-up and top-down communication: Most bulletin boards that were found in semi-public corridors were protected behind glass and were solely operated by the landlord or housing company. In contrast to this stood the often seemingly self-imposed labeling of doorbell nameplates and mailboxes by the residents themselves.
A design game using “metaphorical tools” Our investigations on the creative appropriation of existing thresholds served as a promising starting point for a design-game that could facilitate a co-creation process. The observations in the neighborhoods and the interviews at the time banking clubs confirmed our intention to involve senior residents in an innovation process, which asked how a setting should be created that allows participants to inform the design process and contribute to a design for new ICT based solutions to sharing. In this context, the use of design games poses as a promising method for co-designing that encourages playful collaboration and often employs the usage of design artifacts. Design games have the potential to drive collaborative exploration while lessening the power differences between participants through the usage of rules established in the design games (Johansson & Linde, 2005). Ehn also stresses the potentials of design games for the constitution of what he calls “design things” meaning situational settings that allow both researchers and participants to collaboratively enter a complex context. He also relates design games to the boundary objects introduced by Star (1989) as cited in Ehn (2008). The context of local neighborhoods set a number of constraints that must be dealt with in a design: the context touches the private space of residents. The tool should, therefore, allow contribution of personal objectives on a neutral basis. In preliminary interviews with senior neighbors it was noted that people regard personal experiences as being too ordinary to mention. As mentioned previously: many seniors have had only limited experience in talking about technology; therefore, the deriving challenges for the setup of the game were: 1. Helping participants feel comfortable in entering discussions that probe for insights into the use of private space 2. Helping the participants speak freely about things they themselves regard as being too ordinary to be mentioned 3. Enabling technologically less-literate people to ideate scenarios for future ICT application in the context of sharing. To circumvent the lack of technological understanding, we found that use of metaphors is beneficial in that it allows easier understanding, and in the context of co-designing with seniors, it allows the participants to freely discuss unfamiliar technology (Hofmeester & Wixon 2010). The benefit of using elastic metaphors is that they are malleable and not confined to real-world, physical constraints; the metaphors maximize the participants' cognitive potential in that they can utilize the metaphors as they see fit (Khoury, 2004). The project marries two extremes: on the one hand the cognizance and familiarity of daily life with its existing infrastructures, with the unfamiliarity of future technologies on the other hand. Hence we introduced the idea of “metaphorical tools” in the design game. The opportunities of the application of metaphorical tools are: they are open for interpretation allowing equal understanding and defamiliarization from existing reservations in the context of technology use. Additionally, we expected that the use of the metaphorical tools elicit positive response from the participants, as these objects have a playful nature that is necessary for effective collaboration with older people (Newell, et al., 2007). Thus metaphorical tools act as rhetorical devices by establishing a general common understanding about certain meanings among the participants (McHardy, 2009). The tools thereby are often limited in functionality and relate to past experiences primarily shared by older participants. The set of metaphorical tools that we assembled for the workshop derived from various origins: a first group was labeled as strange and displaced objects, unfamiliar in a current neighborhood setting but linking to common stereotypes of simplistic communication devices, e.g.: carrier pigeons, pneumatic tubes, walkie-talkie; a second group derives from toy-like, low-tech objects, e.g., tin can telephone, blackboards, megaphones; the third group refers to magical objects common in fantasy contexts like fairy tales, legends and fiction literature, e.g., magic mirror, crystal ball, magic hood.
Figure 2. A selection of the metaphorical tools that were developed during the research process. Even though participants were free to adapt the functionality of the various metaphors, these were embedded with certain qualities and capabilities. Three headlines served for allocating the tools when introducing the method in the workshop: “privacy and security”, “communication and networking” and “display and presentation”. Privacy/Security tools: e.g. Steel Door, public Safe, magic hood, magic key, burn-after-reading sheet: The preceding investigations showed that any service sharing scenario like walking a dog, or domestic aid, demands a certain access to private or at least semi private realms that neighbours need to concede for enabling the activity. The first section of tools allows controlling the access to these areas by offering temporary keys, intelligent locking mechanisms or masking options. Communication/Networking tools: e.g. walkie talkie, pneumatic tubes, megaphone, carrier pigeons: The second group of tools introduces different ways for individuals and groups to get in contact for initiating and maintaining relations that are fundamental in a sharing context. The tools offer a spectrum of direct and indirect, personal and mediated communication forms. Communication tools suggest a direct linking of parties involved in a sharing scenario or more complex one to many or many to many communication functionalities. Display Presentation tools: e.g. blackboard, baby monitor, crystal ball, periscope, object-beamer. The third group typifies different interfaces that allow the publication of a demand to certain interest groups or a single person. The presentation devices open the discussion on how to address recipients located both in private and public locations and thereby point to the location where sharing activities takes place and how they are mediated. Presentation devices in the public /semi public realm may raise questions about the location where a communication takes place, but also how to handle vandalism and maintenance of a sharing infrastructure. The introduced tools are additionally well characterized by very limited or technically restricted input and output modalities while including language based, text-based forms of communication.
Figure 3. Different stages of the co-design session during the workshop Practical Application: co-design workshop with seniors The design game using metaphorical tools was tested in a workshop setting, where seniors were involved in a co-design session focused on innovative scenarios of neighborhood sharing. The predominantly female participants were members of a local club situated in a central Berlin neighborhood that offers computer training for seniors, who have very limited experience in the use of information technologies. The overall tone of the design-games setting was informal, but a fairly strict timetable was kept. After a brief presentation detailing the project background, participants were separated into two groups of four, each containing one male and three females. One of the groups dealt with the sharing of services whilst the other one focused on the sharing of objects. Two researchers accompanied each group: the first was leading and moderating the discussions while a second researcher recorded observations and documented the results. Both groups were each given a set of 16 “sharing-cards“, pertaining to the sharing of services or objects. The participants were dealt the cards and asked to place them into a quadrant of a matrix with two axises, from Important to Unimportant on the y-axis and from Easy to Difficult on the x-axis. The participants took turns placing the cards into an appropriate quadrant as they saw fit. Decisions for positioning the services or objects were both based on individual assignments and results of group discussions. Hence the richness of the discussion and the strength of the single arguments were regarded more important than simply consensus among the participants. Services and objects, which the groups decided were missing, were added onto blank cards and then brought into the discussion. The next phase focused on identifying the needs and opportunities that the participants saw in a sharing concept for their own benefit. Following this, participants were asked for constraints that were expected in possible, practical implementation. After finishing the task, participants chose to continue on the quadrant containing Important and Difficult items. Subsequently, the remaining quadrants were set aside and all focus was placed on the cards within the chosen quadrant.
At this point the card set of “metaphorical-tools� was presented to both groups, containing the selection of toy-like objects, unconventional objects and magical objects. The researchers introduced each tool with a brief, verbal explanation and suggested a possible application; however, participants were encouraged to add other modes of use if they saw further possible applications and meanings. In a group discussion, it was decided which of the focused sharing scenarios have a potential to be enriched by the implementation of one or more of the metaphorical objects. During the process, the consolidation of sharing-cards, opportunities and constraints, and metaphorical objects led to a number of scenarios that the group denominated and summarized. Finally both groups including the researchers presented the resulting concepts to each other and identified overlaps and specifics of the respective approaches. DISCUSSION AND RESULTS The local set-up of the computer club and the circumstance of utilizing a preexisting regular meeting not only simplified establishing contact to the group, it also ensured having participants with an openminded attitude towards the use of ICT. Moreover the residential proximity of the participants revealed similar experiences regarding the topic of sharing within the neighborhood. The card sorting process of the sharing-cards introduced the workshop to participants in an open and playful way. Previous collaborative design sessions demonstrated that without a thorough introduction, it is challenging for the participants to get involved and come up with their own solutions. Hence the aim of sorting the cards was not only to achieve a distinct understanding of what was important to share, but also to introduce the basic idea of sharing and to create a common problem space, as a more general topic of concern. Once this problem space was identified, participants treated the constraints as a starting point rather than an obstacle serving as an impossible obstruction in ideation, which triggered them in turn to suggest more distinct opportunities for enhancing sharing within the neighborhood. Initially in this phase of the workshop, the participants drew upon several individual experiences and shared vivid anecdotes that they connected to the topic, which reinforced their feelings of strong personal involvement in the ideation process. Many of the participants shared biographical similarities: all participants spent most of their lifetime in the former East Berlin, where resources were limited and sharing was a common practice. All participants were, for example, familiar with home-based tool-storage that had been accessible to the residents, cohabiting in high-rise apartment buildings. The participants also intensely supported the idea of sharing within the neighborhood, but they stressed that the exchange across different houses can only work when personal relations have already been established. It became clear that for the participants, face-to-face awareness was a key success factor for all sharing scenarios. The openness toward ICT usage was positive, although they expected technology-driven solutions to rather reduce their local communication than enhancing it. Discussion of shared services and tools The types of objects that people were willing to share varied widely. Items deemed as personal were not so readily shared, and if so, only shared with selected individuals. The washing machine was a clear example of this. The group responded favourably to the idea that rarely used house tools are very suitable to be shared within a neighbourhood and pointed out gardening tools that they actually shared in their suburban garden communities. Perceived responsibility was factored into both the ease and importance of the services. Activities involving technology (the usage of computers, DVD players, scanners, etc.) were regarded to be more difficult to share relative to other activities; though not due to the value of the items but because of inexperience and lack of knowledge with the handling of the items. The participants especially stressed issues of trust and privacy. Application of magic tools to sharing scenarios The introduction of the metaphorical tools elicited a positive initial response from the participants: the individual tools were intensely discussed and quickly adopted. Due to the nature of the metaphorical tools, both groups did not concern themselves with problems that could act as barriers to idea creation, such as funding or vandalism. Instead they focused on how the playful tools could be appropriated to
help solve the constraints identified by sharing particular objects or services. Introducing the metaphorical tools in the neighbourhood setting to create the concept of an alternative reality was a way for the participants to de-familiarize themselves from their underlying, preconceived notions of what technological interfaces should “normally� be like and how they should function. Instead, participants could adapt the tools to conform to their needs. Additionally, the ambiguity of the objects opened them up to interpretations, and participants did not feel restrained by the limitations, lack of knowledge, or inexperience with existing technology. Discussion of workshop results Through the creation and use of abstract magical interfaces, participants were able to envision various scenarios and concepts that promote sharing activities in a neighbourhood context. By combining different metaphors, solutions for some identified difficulties that accompany and restrict potential sharing activities were created. Below we illustrate how problems identified during the participatory session were solved by applying the magic metaphors as generative tool, whilst reflecting back on the three types of applications that introduced the method to the participants. Participants articulated the differences in privacy levels amongst neighbours as opposed to neighbours and outsiders. These privacy and security concerns were solved by invoking the magical nature of other display and interactive metaphors to restrict the access of information to unauthorised parties. Thus, through ad-hoc adaption of the existing metaphors, new features were quickly added, or removed, supporting participants in solving some of the mentioned privacy concerns. An apprehension towards tools, such as x-ray glasses or crystal balls, that would enable the invasion of private space without consent was also expressed: this evoked a strong feeling of spying. To overcome this, participants chose to use alternative communication channels and display tools with a more transparent application such as two-way magic mirrors, or blackboards. Our participants were particularly interested in free, geographically limited communication channels. These could be applied in a direct, one to one fashion, such as soliciting a direct request for help to carry groceries up the stairs using a tin can telephone, or requesting forgotten ingredients using a walkie talkie, another example of closed, geographically limited communication. As such, participants re-engineered walkie talkies and tin can telephones to fit their expressed communication needs, without the fear of suggesting something deemed technologically impossible. One respondent expressed the problem encountered with excess food. This lead to the suggestion of using a pneumatic tube system enabling the quick redistribution of food in a one to many, decentralised fashion.
Figure 4. Some combinations of sharing-cards, metaphorical tools and user statements resulting in different sharing scenarios. Participants placed display metaphors such as the magic mirrors or black boards (augmented with input facilities) strategically to prevent unequal access. It was, for example, suggested that such devices could be placed in the hallway, as a communal access point that enables access to all inhabitants. The fictional character of these magic mirrors, even when interpreted as a display, had the favourable effect that concerns for vandalism, theft, or misuse was taken into consideration in the
early ideation phases. The simple nature of a prominently placed black board was regarded as extremely positive, because of the familiarity and the immediate and transparent character of communication that it suggests. Once again, such a black board could be adapted in an ad-hoc fashion as new needs or concepts are discovered. As illustrated, our participants were assisted in engaging in the ideation process through adopting but also reinterpreting the attributes of the magic metaphors. The fictional nature of the metaphors assisted participants in overcoming the stumbling blocks associated with idea generation, such as vandalism, etc. By examining the created concepts as a result of the workshop, more practical concepts will be created in the subsequent phase of the project. Participants should then be involved in refining the created ideas and take part in reflecting the constraints that determine a practical implementation of the concepts. CONCLUSION The point of origin for our investigations presented in this paper is the societal shift deriving from demographic changes that will affect many societies in the future. To reiterate, we stated that ICT in an urban context is often not connected to the physical networks that seniors maintain. The outcomes of our investigations underline that new formats of user involvement are needed to better meet the needs of senior residents and to achieve cross-generational solutions that are suitable for future cohabitation. By addressing seniors in this project, we are mindful not to stigmatize them as needy or socially excluded. Instead, we involved them in a respectful manner that emphasized their special knowledge and the value in their retrospective view on the social context of sharing. We showed that applying metaphorical objects could lower psychological barriers that limit technologically less-literate people in the involvement in co-design. Though participants in the workshop were not complete strangers to technology, they were unfamiliar with much of the terminology surrounding technology. By attracting them with metaphorical terms that they felt familiar with, we were able to incorporate them much more intensively in the process; however, we also learned that a lack of exposure or understanding of new technology could serve as an asset during the design process in that it allows one to discover unexpected application of technology. The local setting of the workshop at this point became an important element of inquiry: people cohabiting a neighbourhood share specific experiences and knowledge that also affects the potentials and limitations of possible solutions and should be taken into consideration. We translated the insights of the participative sessions into a set of concepts that incorporate the objections and suggestions that were articulated by the participants through applying the metaphorical objects in the discussions about future technologies. Participants will be presented with these results in the same participatory fashion for the further specification. The findings we made are not necessarily senior-focused in potential application; seniors just represented experts for the subject we addressed. These results should be transferable for usage with other groups as well, who also are technically less literate. But furthermore, our research tries to open the gates for the application of a metaphor-based approach to universal design on a methodological level; hence, we consider this method of involvement an appropriate way to enable seniors to participate in an innovation process that could serve for the whole society.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the following institutions in Berlin for their support during the research project: Senior Computer Club Fischerinsel, Quartiersmanagement Donaustraße, Quartiersmanagement Moabit-West. REFERENCES 1.
2. 3. 4. 5.
6.
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Collom, E., 2008. Engagement of the Elderly in Time Banking: The Potential for Social Capital Generation in an Aging Society. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 20(4), 414-436. Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/08959420802186282&magic=cros sref||D404A21C5BB053405B1A640AFFD44AE3. Ehn, P., 2008. Participation in Design Things. Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference,. Available at: http://medea.mah.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/121.pdf. Eisma, R. et al., 2004. Early user involvement in the development of information technology-related products for older people. Universal Access in the Information Society, 3(2), 131–140. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/74dm0q6bxwybcafy.pdf. Eisma, R. et al., 2003. Mutual inspiration in the development of new technology for older people. In Proceedings of Include 2003. London. Foth, M., 2004. Encouraging residents to take social ownership of an online community network through PAD: Participation, Animation, Design. In Community Network Analysis Conference, Brighton, Mar. Brighton: Citeseer. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.107.440&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Hofmeester, K. & Wixon, D., 2010. Using metaphors to create a natural user interface for microsoft surface. In Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI EA '10. Atlanta: ACM Press, pp. 4629-4643. Available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1753846.1754204. Johansson, M. & Linde, P., 2005. Playful collaborative exploration: New research practice in participatory design. Journal of Research Practice, 1(1), Article M5. Available at: http://webzone.k3.mah.se/k3peli/texts/johansson_linde.pdf. Khoury, G. & Simoff, S., 2004. Elastic Metaphors: Expanding the Philosophy of Interface Design. In Selected papers from conference on Computers and philosophy-Volume 37. Canberra: Australian Computer Society, Inc., p. 71. Available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1082145.1082156. Marquié, J., Jourdan-Boddaert, L. & Huet, N., 2002. Do older adults underestimate their actual computer knowledge? Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(4), 273 - 280. McHardy, J., 2009. Make-Shift Ciopfaspovs: an Exploration of Users in Design. In P. Bertram & M. Botta Proceedings of the Swiss Design Network Symposium 2009. Swiss Design Network, pp. 180-194. Newell, A. et al., 2007. Methodologies for involving older adults in the design process. In Proceedings of HCII 2007, 5. Beijing: Springer, pp. 22-27. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/53T5026735V65721.pdf. Newman, O., 1996. Creating Defensible Space, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16391968. Oswald, F. et al., 2005. Ageing and person–environment fit in different urban neighbourhoods. European Journal of Ageing, 2(2), 88-97. Rama, M.D., Ridder, H.D. & Bouma, H., 2001. Technology generation and age in using layered interfaces. Gerontechnology, 1(1), 25-40. Available at: http://www.gerontechnology.info/Journal/pdf.php?a=3. Schuler, D. & Namioka, A., 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices, CRC / Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/Participatory-Design-Principles-DouglasSchuler/dp/0805809511.
FURTHER INFORMATION www.design-research-lab.org