Cited by 18Technology Use by Older AdultsDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesUsability and User Interface Design

Implementing Accessibility Settings in Touchscreen Apps for People Living with Dementia

Open access
Joddrell, Phil, Astell, Arlene J.·2019·Gerontology

Abstract

Background: Accessibility options within apps can enable customisation and improve usability. The consideration of accessibility for people living with dementia has not been explored but is necessary to prevent a “digital divide” in our society. This study set out to examine whether the introduction of accessibility settings for people with dementia in two mainstream gaming apps (Solitaire and Bubble Explode) could improve the user experience. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of tailored accessibility settings for people living with dementia by comparing the gameplay experience with and without the settings and measure the impact on their ability to initiate gameplay, play independently and experience enjoyment. Methods: Thirty participants were recruited to test one of the two apps that had been adapted to include accessibility features. These features were derived from an analysis of gameplay in a previous study, from which the design of the present study was replicated. The results were compared with those from the earlier study (i.e., pre-adapted apps). Results: The accessibility features significantly improved usability in Solitaire, which had been the more problematic of the two apps when evaluated in its pre-adapted form. Bubble Explode retained the high level of usability without further improvements. Initiation of gameplay was significantly improved in the adapted version of Solitaire, with no significant differences to progression or enjoyment for either app. Conclusions: This study represents the first implementation of accessibility settings for dementia in mainstream apps, whilst demonstrating the feasibility and positive impact of the approach. The findings reveal core principles of touchscreen interaction and design for dementia that can inform future app development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000498885

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Joddrell, P., & Astell, A. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
Venue
Gerontology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2019
Volume
65
Issue
5
Pages
560-570
ISSN
  • 0304-324X (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0003
OpenAlex
W2941774355
Cited by
18
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gerontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Toronto
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
dementia, accessibility settings, digital divide, usability, solitaire, user experience, older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Dementia, Female, Humans, Male, Video Games, Computers, Handheld, Pleasure, Mobile Applications

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