Cited by 15Technology Use by Older AdultsUsability and User Interface DesignInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Intuitive Interaction and Older People

Open access
Blackler, Alethea, Popovic, Vesna, Mahar, Doug, Reddy, Gudur Raghavendra, Lawry, Simon·2012·Proceedings of DRS

Abstract

Older people often struggle with using contemporary products and interfaces. They show slower, less intuitive interaction with more errors. This paper reports on a large project designed to investigate why older people have these difficulties and what strategies could be used to mitigate them. The project team found that older people are less familiar with products that they own than younger ones, while both older and middle aged people are less familiar with products that they do not own than younger ones. Age-related cognitive decline is also related to slower and less intuitive performance with contemporary products and interfaces. Therefore, the reasons behind the problems that older people demonstrate with contemporary technologies involve a mix of familiarity and capability. Redundancy applied to an interface in the form of symbols and words is helpful for middle aged and younger old people but the oldest age group performed better with a words only interface. Also, older people showed faster and more intuitive use with a flat interface than a nested one, although there was no difference in errors. Further work is ongoing in order to establish ways in which these findings can be usefully applied in the design process.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21606/drs.2012.10

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • The redundancy approach was less effective for the oldest age group (73+), showing faster task times and better intuitiveness only for middle-aged people (40-59).

    “The redundancy approach was shown as less effective for the oldest age group (73+), showing faster task times and better intuitiveness only for middle aged people (40-59).”

    From Intuitive Learnability of Touch Gestures for Technology-Naive Older Adults (2015) · cites this paper as Blackler et al., 2012

  • In the simplicity approach, older people took less time to complete the task in an interface with a flat structure than in an interface with a nested structure.

    “In the simplicity approach, older people took less time to complete the task in an interface that used a flat structure when compared with an interface with a nested structure.”

    From Intuitive Learnability of Touch Gestures for Technology-Naive Older Adults (2015) · cites this paper as Blackler et al., 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blackler, A., Popovic, V., Mahar, D., Reddy, G. R., & Lawry, S.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology
Venue
Proceedings of DRS
Published
2012-07-01
ISSN
2398-3132 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W171754148
Cited by
15
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.67
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of DRS (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • USC Research Bank (University of the Sunshine Coast) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
older adults, intuitive interaction, age-related cognitive decline, product familiarity, interface design, redundancy, flat interface, usability, age differences in technology use

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