Cited by 61Technology Use by Older AdultsAging and Gerontology ResearchInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Understanding age and technology experience differences in use of prior knowledge for everyday technology interactions

O'brien, Marita A., Rogers, Wendy A., Fisk, Arthur D.·2012·ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing

Abstract

Technology designers must understand relevant prior knowledge in a target user population to facilitate adoption and effective use. To assess prior knowledge used in naturalistic settings, we systematically collected information about technologies used over 10-day periods from older adults with high and low technology experience and younger adults. Technology repertoires for younger adults and high technology older adults were similar; differences reflected typically different needs for kitchen and health care technologies between the age groups. Technology repertoires for low-technology older adults showed substantial technology usage in many categories. Lower usage compared to high-tech older adults for each category was limited primarily to PC and Internet technologies. Experience differences suggest preferences among low-technology older adults for basic technology usage and for working with people rather than technologies. Participants in all groups were generally successful using their everyday technologies to achieve their goals. Prior knowledge was the most common attribution for success, but external information was also commonly referenced. Relevant prior knowledge included technical, functional, strategy, and self knowledge. High tech older adults did not report more problems than younger adults, but they did attribute more problems to insufficient prior knowledge. Younger adults attributed more problems to interference from prior knowledge. Low-tech older adults reported fewer problems, typically attributing them to insufficient prior knowledge or product/system faults. We discuss implications for further research and design improvements to increase everyday technology success and adoption for high-tech and low-tech older adults.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2141943.2141947

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'brien, M. A., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
Published
2012-03
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
1-27
ISSN
  • 1936-7228 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-7236
OpenAlex
W1975167942
Cited by
61
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
12.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R01 AG15019, P01 AG017211)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
prior knowledge, older adults, technology experience, everyday technology use, age differences, technology adoption, self-knowledge, technical knowledge, kitchen technology, health technology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review