shown that an innovative and novel use of pervasive
technology has improved usability compared to the
small keyfobs. SmartATRS thereby meets a
functionality metric defined by Metsis et al. (2008),
stating that “an assistive technology must perform
correctly in order to serve its purpose”.
The user feedback obtained at the Mobility
Roadshow highlighted the need to improve the
usability of the keyfobs. A SmartATRS prototype
was developed that provided a smartphone
independent solution that integrated a relay board
and embedded web server into the standard ATRS
system architecture. The SUS results proved that
SmartATRS by touch had ‘Excellent’ and borderline
‘Best Imaginable’ usability, compared to the keyfobs
that achieved ‘OK’ usability. Completing NASA
TLX on the interaction methods showed that
SmartATRS by touch was less mentally and
physically demanding than keyfobs. Despite joystick
control having higher levels of demand than touch, it
was concluded to also be an improved interaction
method over keyfobs. Safety of ATRS was enhanced
through an emergency stop function that allowed all
functions to be immobilised with a single command
button, producing dramatically reduced emergency
stop times than keyfobs.
The development of SmartATRS has been an
initial step to creating a SmartPowerchair. In order
to achieve this, future user evaluations will be
conducted to identify the most suitable pervasive
computing technologies to apply. Through the
successful integration of such technologies, a
SmartPowerchair is anticipated to further enhance
the quality of life and independence of people with
disability.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the experimentation
participants, Keith Whittington and Jane Merrington
for their support with the experimentation.
REFERENCES
Adebesin, F., Kotzé, P. and Gelderblom, H, 2010. The
Complementary Role of Two Evaluation Methods in
the Usability and Accessibility Evaluation of a Non-
Standard System. In: The 2010 Annual Research
Conference of the South African Institute for
Computer Scientists and Information Technologists:
proceedings of the 2010 Annual Research Conference
of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists
and Information Technologists Bela-Bela, South
Africa, October 11-13, 2010. New York, NY: ACM
Press. 1-11.
Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T. and Miller, J.T, 2008. An
Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale.
International Journal of Human–Computer Intera-
ction, 24 (6), 574-594.
Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T, 2009. Determining
What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an
Adjective Rating Scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4
(3), 114-123.
Brook, J, 1996. SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale.
In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A.
and McClelland, I.L., eds. 1996. Usability Evaluation
In Industry. London: Taylor and Francis, 189-194.
Cofré, J.P., Rusu, C., Mercado, I., Inostroza, R. and
Jiménez, C, 2012. Developing a Touchscreen-based
Domotic Tool for Users with Motor Disabilities. In:
2012 Ninth International Conference on Information
Technology: New Generations: proceedings of the
2012 Ninth International Conference on Information
Technology: New Generations Las Vegas, NV, April
16-18, 2012. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Dynamic Controls, 2014. iPortalTM Dashboard [online].
Christchurch, New Zealand: Dynamic Controls.
Available from: http://www.dynamiccontrols.com/
iportal/ [Accessed 10 December 2014].
Elap Mobility, 2011. A Successful Mobility Roadshow
2011 [online]. Accrington: Elap Mobility. Available
from: http://www.elap.co.uk/news/a-successful-mobili
ty-roadshow-2011/ [Accessed 10 December 2014].
Gallagher, B. and Petrie, H, 2013. Initial Results from a
Critical Review of Research for Older and Disabled
People. In: The 15th ACM SIGACCESS International
Conference on Computers and Accessibility:
proceedings of the 15th International ACM
SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and
Accessibility Bellevue, Washington, WA, USA,
October 21-23, 2013, New York, NY: ACM Press. 53.
Gao, A., Miller, T., Spletzer, J.R., Hoffman, I. and
Panzarella, T, 2008. Autonomous docking of a smart
wheelchair for the Automated Transport and Retrieval
System (ATRS). Journal of Field Robotics, 25 (4-5),
203-222.
ISO 9241-11, 1998. Ergonomic Requirements for Office
Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) - Part 11:
Guidance on Usability. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization. ISO 9241-11.
Kleiner, K, 2008. Robotic wheelchair docks like a
spaceship. New Scientist [online], 30 April 2008.
Available from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/
dn13805-robotic-wheelchair-docks-like-a-spaceship.
html [Accessed 10 December 2014].
Metsis, V., Zhengyi, L., Lei, Y. and Makedon, F, 2008.
Towards an Evaluation Framework for Assistive
Technology Environments. In: The 1st International
Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to
Assistive Environments: proceedings of the 1st
international conference on PErvasive Technologies
EvaluatingtheUsabilityofanAutomatedTransportandRetrievalSystem
65