Is it harder for older people to create and track passwords than younger people? Maybe not. But there could be a difference in the way the two groups deal with the issues. A research study comparing a group of older people with a group of younger people provided surprising results. Older people had no problem creating and remembering passwords because they devised their own memory strategies.
The most reported concerns were the same for both age groups. They were remembering passwords, the security of passwords and systems, making strong passwords, and requirements being too complex. Older people were more concerned about being locked out of their accounts due to forgetting the password.
Some of the simple strategies for password creation by younger people resulted in less secure passwords. But older people had more difficulty in creating strong passwords.
Length and strength
The first surprising result was that on password length, older participants reported having little difficulty with this aspect of password creation, while young participants had considerable difficulty. However, on a follow-up opened ended question, many more older people elaborated on their difficulties, which included the use of special symbols and difficult making strong passwords.
On the other hand, young participants most often expressed difficulty in re-using previous passwords. These findings are generally in line with results from others that older people were using familiar words and phrases for passwords. Perhaps this avoided the complexity of combinations of characters, numbers and symbols.
Many online services require a secure account, usually password protected. Creating and tracking these accounts and passwords is difficult for everyone. This is a vitally important issue as online accounts now give access to many healthcare, financial and support services.
This study used an online questionnaire to investigate the behaviours, problems, and strategies for creating and using password-protected online accounts with a sample of 75 older UK participants (aged 65 to 89). They were compared with a similar sample of young UK participants (aged 18 to 30).
The results were surprising with unexpected differences between the groups, but many similarities. For example, older participants had no difficulties creating passwords of the right length, whereas young participants had difficulties in that task.
Older participants had many more complex strategies for creating and remembering passwords. Young participants relied more on re-using old passwords with small changes which then probably caused difficulties remembering them. These results suggest we need to rethink the approach to better supporting older people in password creation and use, taking a more universal design approach, supporting all users with a range of options.
How much does software design impact the way women and men perform tasks? Seems there is a gender bias. A study found the amount of thinking required (cognitive load), aesthetics, and emotional design could affect task performance. The level of usability, however, has little significance when it comes to gender.
Gender is not factored into the design for usability or performing tasks. Female users are poorly represented in software development which means males are designing for themselves.
Language processing and visual perception are notably different in females and males. Technology applications usually need additional cognitive processing determined by emotional perception. They also need retained working and memory details. So if men are the ones designing software, they will build in a bias towards their cognitive strengths. Consequently, women deal with increased cognitive load when using software applications.
Reducing gender bias in software design
The study introduces the key theories and the study design. Twenty-three females and seventeen males were participants in the study. Statistical analyses support the findings. Cognitive load and emotional design was found to have more of an impact than aesthetics for females. Consequently, software design should aim to reduce cognitive load. Men were not significantly impacted on either variable indicating the design suited their them – hence the bias.
Stereotypes have a major role to play so particular colour schemes, icons and language are ineffective. Minimalist design principles are recommended to minimise distraction to keep attention on the task. Another recommendation is to make it clear what the next step in the task is the sequence. The key point is to integrate psychological and biological differences into technology applications.
Most software designers are men, while women are usually linked with the aesthetic aspect of software design.
Software design is critical to the development of software, but literature suggests a gender bias. This bias might be causing differences in task performance between males and females. Applying cognitive load theory, emotional design theory and Aesthetic-Usability Effect we explore the differences between women and men.
The study was performed on two groups that possessed comparable educational backgrounds and professional experiences. The investigation encompassed two tasks aimed at evaluating performance in both professional and domestic contexts.
The study identified disparities among females, including high perception of cognitive load and lack of emotional design. It emphasizes the importance of incorporating phycological cognitive differences in design and ensuring inclusive design personas in software development.
Addressing the cognitive and emotional aspects of software design will reduce task performance discrepancies. It shifts the misbelief that task performance discrepancies are attributable to gender-based intellectual differences, rather than deficiencies in software design.
Overcoming bias in AI
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is entering our everyday lives with increased speed and sometimes without our knowledge. But it is only as good as the data it is fed, and the worry about bias is a concern for marginalised groups. AI has the potential to enhance life for everyone, but that requires overcoming bias in AI development. In his article, Christopher Land argues for more advocacy and transparency in AI.
The power of machine learning comes from pattern recognition within vast quantities of data. Using statistics, AI reveals new patterns and associations that human developers might miss or lack the processing power to uncover.
Designing for the average is fraught with problems. Statistical averages do not translate to some kind of human average. That’s because statistics don’t measure human diversity. That’s why AI processes are at risk of leaving some people behind. But in gathering useful data there are some privacy issues.
AI shows great promise with robot assistants to assist people with disability and older people with everyday tasks. AI imaging and recognition tools help nonvisual users understand video and pictures.
Christopher Land outlines how AI and machine learning work and how bias is introduced into AI systems if not prevented. He also has some recommendations on strengthening legal protections for people with disability. The paper is not technical. Rather it explains clearly how it works, where it’s used, and what needs to be done.
Bias in artificial intelligence (AI) systems can cause discrimination against marginalized groups, including people with disabilities. This discrimination is most often unintentional and due to a lack of training and awareness of how to build inclusive systems.
This paper has two main objectives: 1) provide an overview of AI systems and machine learning, including disability bias, for accessibility professionals and related non-development roles; and 2) discuss methods for building accessible AI systems inclusively to mitigate bias.
Worldwide progress on establishing legal protection against AI bias is provided, with recommendations on strengthening laws to protect people with disabilities from discrimination by AI systems. When built accessibly, AI systems can promote fairness and enhance the lives of everyone, in unprecedented ways.
Diversity and inclusion in AI
An Australian book chapter takes a comprehensive and practical approach to how equity and inclusion should be considered throughout development. This should be done at both governance and development levels by applying inclusive design and human-centred design to the AI ‘ecosystem’.
Established public transportation systems are built on roads and rail: buses, trams and trains with fixed routes. Digital technology has brought some disruptive features to the mobility landscape. Rideshare, demand-responsive transport, and Mobility as a Service are examples of systems that rely on digital technology. Digital mobility users are a diverse group but what about those who are left out?
The rapid advancement of digital technology has led to a shift of travel habits. New business models have emerged along with transport patterns. But what if you can’t use this technology?
The race for improvements in digital services is good news for experienced users, but such improvements are lost on others. Exclusion arises from online only services, access to a suitable device, and ability to use the technology. Prior experience or negative attitudes are also a barrier to inclusion.
According to the literature, the main reasons for digital exclusion are:
Age – being older is related to lower levels of tech use
Income level – affordability of devices
Gender – women underestimate their skills
Education level – correlated with digital skills
Place of residence – rural / urban divide
Disability – physical ability to use transport and apps
Migrant status – linguistic and cultural differences
Can personas explain diversity for designers?
In a case study, researchers found that only about 10% of the population uses the new mobility solutions regularly. So they devised 8 personas to see if this was a way of helping designers improve their applications.
Their research paper explains how the they devised the personas based on population data. They claim this is a new method for developing personas specifically for analysing the digital divide in mobility. While 90% of people had no problem using the internet regularly, around 15% had serious issues with mobility related technology.
The researchers were able to identify “pain points” for users and highlight the main limitations users have while using digital mobility solutions. Peoples’ motivations and attitudes also play an important role in the uptake of this technology.
Addressing digital exclusion requires an understanding of the factors leading to it. In this paper, we explore to what extent new digital mobility solutions can be considered inclusive. First we take into account the diverse perspectives of the users of transport services.
We present a set of personas which are derived from a population survey of a Barcelona metropolitan area. From this we gained an understanding of end user needs and capabilities in digital mobility. Overall, roughly 15% of this population cannot access and effectively use digital technologies, thereby hindering their use of many digital mobility services.
This work provides information about the diversity of potential users by analysing different stories and travel experiences of the personas; this in turn can inspire decision makers, developers, and other stakeholders along the design process. The methodological approach for developing personas could be also potentially useful for mobility service providers and policymakers who aim to create more inclusive and user-centred transport ecosystems that meet the needs of diverse users.
Much is discussed about older people and digital exclusion, but this ageist thinking leaves young people out of the discussion. Hence the stereotype of young people being more digitally literate than older cohorts. Not all young people or older people are all the same. Often they have more in common than not. Access to digital devices and digital news and information is a problem for both groups. It just depends on the individual, their background, culture, education and experiences, not their age.
The challenge is to consider young people’s diverse backgrounds in digital design. Digital exclusion restricts social and democratic participation.
A literature review by three researchers in Portugal offer some insights and challenges to the digital media world. Digital media play an important role in young people’s development and learning processes. However, not all young people are the same and some media can also become sources of exclusion.
Gender, race, and socioeconomics intersect
Gender, race, and socioeconomic, cultural, and educational backgrounds intersect and interact leading to compound disadvantages. Too often younger people are seen as well-equipped to consume digital media without considering diversity. Not all young people have attributes that make them more tech-capable. But what is more important is how young people engage with media and how they connect with the world.
Links between young people, news and citizenship
The researchers focused on studies that link young people, news, and their digital citizenship. We need to know more about how young people think, behave and feel, and what they expect from news. Access to news is essential for understanding and participating in democracies. It is part of the quest for enhancing inclusive citizenship.
Researchers suggest there is an “academic urgency to study, both quantitatively and qualitatively, young people and their diversity profiles in media consumption and production in their daily contexts…”
Social and digital exclusion affects each individual’s life and social connection. Stigmatisation, and the gap between those with access to technology and education and those who lack digital citizenship competencies, is evident.
There is an urgent need for research to consider the particularities of the individuals who make up groups rather than focusing on assumed similarities. Diversity is broad and challenging, but focusing on it contributes to understanding the cultural, social, and ideological forces that shape society, its groups, and individuals. We are each all the better for understanding each other.
YouNDigital aims to study youth, their engagement with news, and digital citizenship dynamics. One of the core elements of the project is a digital newsroom, a space for meeting and exploring digital citizenship and news, considering the significant disparities that characterise individuals in this group.
To better understand the target groups and to support the decisions regarding the development of the youth‐led digital newsroom, the research team carried out a systematic literature review focused on youth, digital citizenship, diversity, and different methodological approaches.
We explore the outcomes of the systematic literature review, and delve into the data gathered in one of the subclusters (Diversities). Findings underscore the challenges of inclusivity and diversity. There is a need for tailored media and digital literacy interventions that consider cultural differences, socioeconomic factors, and evolving technological landscapes.
There are difficulties, as well as the positive results, in using digital tools and strategies to trigger learning and motivational processes for diverse audiences. Digital tools that rely on media creation, creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration can promote the empowerment and inclusion of youth from distinct backgrounds, bridging the gap between their realities and citizenship experiences.
The findings point out that involvement in collaborative, immersive, and participatory processes anchored on sustained literature review processes can encourage distancing preconceptions while bringing them closer to research participants. The article contributes to discussions regarding the potential and the challenges of considering youth’s diverse backgrounds through pillars such as co‐creation or inclusive design. Mitigating youth social and digital exclusion to enhance democratic participation is an urgent matter.
Are personal robots the next best thing for companionship for older people – is this what they want? A study carried out in the UK used three types of robot – abstract, pet, and human-like. Publicly available videos of the robots were used in the study. As with all laboratory and simulated studies there is no guarantee that the results will play out in real life. Nevertheless, it offers a guide of older people’s attitudes to personal robots.
In terms of companionship, older people liked the pet personal robot the most. The pet-like robot responds to human movement and sounds. Image of MiRo pet-like personal robot.
The participants were over the age of 60 years and living in the community, not residential care. The three types of robot were Afobot, MiRo, and Sanbot. Afobot is similar to Siri and Alexa in assisting with activities. MiRo is designed to interact at an emotional level and to respond to actions such as hand clapping and stroking. Sanbot is a human-like robot with a head, arms and a screen and uses face and voice recognition.
Participants viewed publicly available videos of the three robots and then answered a questionnaire. The purpose of the study was to measure the attitudes of older people to the three types of personal robots. The researchers note that as the study participants were “young old”, attitudes might not be attributable to those 70 years and older.
The researchers caution the results because participants did not interact with the robots face to face. This means they were not able to explore the robot’s behaviour and their own reactions. The study was conducted online towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is important to have a way of measuring older people’s attitudes to personal robots and how they might support them. 249 older people in the UK viewed videos of three different types of robots (abstract, pet, and humanoid). They rated their attitudes to each using a questionnaire.
Analysis revealed three components to attitudes to the personal robots, They were: Positive User Experience; Anxiety and Negative Usability; and Social Presence. There were significant differences between the three personal robots with the pet robot receiving the most positive attitudes.
These results help understand which robots may be useful in helping older people choose appropriate robots to support themselves.
Why do some people appear unable to take in what is happening around them in an emergency? Being able to act quickly requires a good sense of the situation. However, not everyone has a sense of emergency awareness. Consequently they find decision-making difficult and fail to act appropriately. A Norwegian study has investigated a universal design approach to mitigate this lack of awareness.
In an emergency, sight, hearing, use of hands and ability to concentrate can all be impaired. Smoke, dust, cold, noise and paralysis from fear can affect anyone’s ability to think clearly. Smart phone apps are a good way of reaching people quickly with important information, but do they account for likely cognitive and physical changes?
The issues and solutions for “situational disability” are outlined in a technical paper from Norway. It raises our awareness that individuals are likely to behave in unexpected ways during a disaster. With an increased rate of climate-based disasters, and the move to digital information systems, this is a timely study. The underlying concern of how people respond is an important one. The paper shows that universal design principles can guide the way in compensating for a lack of emergency awareness.
The full title of the article is, Towards Situational Disability-aware Universally Designed Information Support Systems for Enhanced Situational Awareness.
Emergency Design: Designing as you go
Designing FOR an emergency IN an emergency requires a different design approach to existing tried and true methods. When urgency is the driver of design, processes and methods need a re-think. COVID-19 is a clear case of designing for an emergency during the emergency. So how can “designing-as-you-go” be done?
Designs for emergencies, such as wars or an earthquake, are usually devised before the event. Or they are designed after the event in preparation for future events. The COVID pandemic arrived without notice and few countries were prepared. Hence the need to design for the emergency while it is happening.
A different approach
A case study from Brazil shows how a totally different design approach was required. Rather than using standard methods the researchers took an organic approach to the problem. It was basically designing on the run. The process encouraged the inclusion of people who are often marginalised. While history tells us that Brazil is has not fared well during the pandemic, the study still has value for future situations.
Their approach is based on qualitative techniques. They relied on the knowledge of local people and processes of working together in a horizontal rather than hierarchical format. This approach also allowed participants to see how they could deal with the current situation as well as improvements for the longer term.
“As a path, we point out the importance of identifying areas of convergence of interests, the creation of win-win policies and the daily encouragement of a culture of collaboration at the differing levels.”
The title of the paper is Design amid Emergency. It charts what they did, how they did it and what they learned from the process. Identifying areas of common interest and developing win-win policies to encourage a culture of collaboration was key. In summary, they found the co-creation design process the key to success. It can lead to improved quality of life in both the short and longer term. It also helps to embed resilience within the population.
The government saw the value of co-design with citizens. It remains to be seen if they actually follow through on this networking approach to solving issues.
From the abstract
This article presents the process for the “Design of services under the COVID19 emergency social protection plan”. It was drawn up by a team of researchers and designers from Porto Alegre in collaboration with the Porto Alegre City Government. The focus was on the provision of essential benefits to homeless and other vulnerable people during the pandemic.
The process was developed for the designers involved: without prior notice, within very short time frames and completely remotely, using only digital platforms. As such, the process was developed to respond to the emergency and amid the emergency. The objective of the article is to discuss how to design amid emergency.
The experience was guided by the methodological principles of action research and research through design. In addition to presenting the design results solutions aimed at the short, medium and long term. This article highlights the need to aim for the recognition of difference, the suggestion of alternative views, social innovation, the systemic transformation of society and sustainability.
Digital technology is here to stay but not everyone has the talent for it. Gregg Vanderheiden says there is a difference between digital skill and digital talent. Skill is something you can learn, but talent, like a sporting or musical talent is inherent. So this might explain why some people find websites, smartphones and computers difficult to master.
Vanderheiden explains that low digital affinity is not the same as intelligence. Some very bright people have trouble using digital interfaces. This is like being tone deaf and being unable to sing in tune. Or unable to be athletic because of poor coordination.
Image: Professor Gregg Vanderheiden
Consequently, as the digital world expands into all sections of life, some people will face limitations to their independence in everyday activities. People who rely on digital assistive technologies such as screen readers, and read and write programs are likely to be further challenged by technology.
Making it easier to use computers
Computers and technology have transformed the lives of many people with disability. This is largely due to additional technologies loaded onto their computers and smartphones. However, unlike others, unless they take their computer everywhere with them, they cannot access computers in libraries and at school. That is, unless they have a computer dedicated to them which probably means others can’t use it. Vanderheiden has a solution.
Morphic is an extension to Windows and Mac operating systems to make it easier to use a computer. Morphic is open source software with a great add-on. What if the settings for your home computer were able to follow you around in the Cloud? And what if it gave you confidence you wouldn’t “break” the computer?
“Assistive Technology on Demand” or AToD, is a companion service to Morphic. It allows users to have the assistive technologies they need on any computer at any place, any time. When you log out of the computer, your settings disappear and the computer goes back to the original settings.
New employees can set up on their first day at work
If computer fails or is lost, a new one can be set up in no time
IT departments can save time – all computers can have AT when needed without needing to install anything
With one click Morphic retrieves your assistive settings and when you leave the computer your settings completely disappear. That leaves the computer free for others to use in the library, university, or school. It is also good for people who struggle with technology because their device can be set up specifically for their requirements. This could be something as simple as creating one click to join the family Zoom meeting.
A one page review of Vanderheiden’s keynote from 2020 explains in more detail how it works. At the AAATE 2023 conference, Vanderheiden describes the roll-out to 7000 computers in major universities. AT users now have the ability to access computers in the same way as their peers. This gives them a new level of digital equity so they can better compete and succeed in all aspects of life, work and education.
Tech and older adults
The stereotype of grandchildren helping grandparents with their phone or remote controller is often perpetuated by older people themselves. Skill in using phones and websites depends on the motivations for using them. Younger people can have different interests from older adults meaning they use different apps and software. This doesn’t mean tech and older adults don’t belong together.
“Grandma cannot use her phone because it was not designed for her. Ubiquitous mass-market tools should not present obvious and avoidable hurdles to everyday users.” Robert Schumacher.
The stereotype is not based inevidence, and it might not be the tech that’s the barrier – poor vision or hand dexterity can also cause problems with using phones and computers.
It’s about mental models
According to Schumacher, the main difference between younger and older generations is when their mental models of how things work was formed. He explains how these mental models can widen any gap in understanding in how things work. Every generation has its own mental models of the world.
Schumacher’s article discusses more on this topic and how to remedy the situation. More testing with older adults is essential. Their mental models aren’t the same as the developer’s – what’s intuitive for a seasoned tech user is not intuitive for everyone. However, it doesn’t mean older people are averse to using technology or too “stuck in their ways” to learn.
The concept of designing tech from the perspective of mental models is a factor in a research project for autonomous vehicles. As concepts evolve, eventually the need to design in-vehicle interfaces will be minimal with presets for each rider. In the meantime, touchscreens and audio controls will still be needed. These need to be co-designed with users to develop prototypes.
Barriers to digital use are caused by a complex web of intersecting factors. Gender identity is just one of them. Age, education, socioeconomic status, race, physical and cognitive disadvantage all have a role to play. Focusing on one dimension of inclusion does not account for all the complexities. That’s the conclusion two researchers came to after looking at Microsoft, Apple, and Google websites.
The big software industry players have enthusiastically promoted their commitment to inclusive design. But how inclusive are they?
A paper discussing aspects of their inclusive practice from a gender perspective reveals that it is only a partial response. That’s because gender intersects with many other identities such as age, capability, and ethnicity.
“Regardless of efforts to promote inclusivity mainly in terms of gender, the intersectionality of identities is frequently overlooked and ignored in design.”
Microsoft, Apple, Google and Meta
The paper covers the issues of intersectionality and imagery, which is followed by tech industry case studies. Here is a brief overview:
Microsoft’s manual does a great job in explaining why there is a need for inclusive design. However, it is focused on disability and the images maintain the male/female binary. It covers theoretical and practical aspects.
Apple’s site has a detailed description of what the company thinks about inclusive design. It goes further than Microsoft on accessibility an introduces language use and stereotypes. Apple does not provide designers with many practical tools on how to do universal design.
Google acknowledges the need for equity and inclusion in their products by giving voice to the most underrepresented groups throughout the production process. They have a list of diversity segments for designers to consider.
Meta has implemented several key strategies in its design process to create inclusive products. The company is evolving to recognise the importance of accessible and inclusive products for all users. Meta conducts user research on a regular basis to gather feedback for improvements.
Guidelines for gender inclusion
The research resulted in guidelines for designing gender-inclusive tools in technology. They are applicable to both academia and industry. They are also useful for anyone responsible for the look, feel and accessibility of their organisation’s website and digital products.
Consider intersectionality: avoid simplifying people to one-dimensional characters. People have complex identities, which go beyond belonging to one specific gender, race, or sexuality group.
Avoid propagating stereotypes: attaching typical looks, occupations, and traits to a person based on their gender, race, or sexuality, contributes to social stereotypes that aggravate misogyny, racism, and homophobia.
Overcome the gender-binary: avoid producing text and images that reinforce the gender binary and social stereotypes, regarding appearance, jobs, preferences, or skills.
Make your text, tone, and imagery consistent and inclusive: it is necessary to maintain efforts for inclusivity throughout your copy, visuals, communication, and products.
Show the diversity of each community: make a conscious effort to illustrate how multi-colored communities are, instead of simplifying them to stereotypes.
Involve people with that particular identity: diversity and inclusion should be taken seriously. There’s no better person than the one with that particular identity to tell you about their concerns and challenges.
Avoid concentrating on a single mode of communication: adapt your copy, images, and communication to different languages, cultures, and levels of complexity.
Provide training in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: help your business or organization by providing constant training and mentorship.
The need for inclusion stems from the fact that the composition of the IT sector reflects a workforce that is not diverse enough. This can result in blind spots in the design process, leading to exclusionary user experiences. The idea of inclusive design is becoming more prevalent. In fact, it is becoming a general expectation to create software that is useful for and used by more people.
With a focus on intersectionality, inclusive user experience (UX) seeks to actively and consciously integrate minority, vulnerable, and understudied user groups in the design.
UX that is based on inclusive design and aims to overcome social disadvantages in all of their intersectional complexities. These arise from gender, sexual orientation, age, education, dis/ability, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity, among others. At the same time, gender-inclusive design has challenges and limitations: the idea of gender inclusion in design is not yet a reality.
Our research investigates academic literature, as well as tech industry practices, like the websites of Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Meta. Our analysis shows that intersectionality suffers even when inclusivity is considered. We also offer guidelines for factors that might be explored for a more inclusive design.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is entering our everyday lives with increased speed and sometimes without our knowledge. But it is only as good as the data it is fed, and the worry about bias is a concern for marginalised groups. AI has the potential to enhance life for everyone, but that requires overcoming bias in AI development. In his article, Christopher Land argues for more advocacy and transparency in AI.
The power of machine learning comes from pattern recognition within vast quantities of data. Using statistics, AI reveals new patterns and associations that human developers might miss or lack the processing power to uncover.
Designing for the average is fraught with problems. Statistical averages do not translate to some kind of human average. That’s because statistics don’t measure human diversity. That’s why AI processes are at risk of leaving some people behind. But in gathering useful data there are some privacy issues.
AI shows great promise with robot assistants to assist people with disability and older people with everyday tasks. AI imaging and recognition tools help nonvisual users understand video and pictures.
Christopher Land outlines how AI and machine learning work and how bias is introduced into AI systems if not prevented. He also has some recommendations on strengthening legal protections for people with disability. The paper is not technical. Rather it explains clearly how it works, where it’s used, and what needs to be done.
Bias in artificial intelligence (AI) systems can cause discrimination against marginalized groups, including people with disabilities. This discrimination is most often unintentional and due to a lack of training and awareness of how to build inclusive systems.
This paper has two main objectives: 1) provide an overview of AI systems and machine learning, including disability bias, for accessibility professionals and related non-development roles; and 2) discuss methods for building accessible AI systems inclusively to mitigate bias.
Worldwide progress on establishing legal protection against AI bias is provided, with recommendations on strengthening laws to protect people with disabilities from discrimination by AI systems. When built accessibly, AI systems can promote fairness and enhance the lives of everyone, in unprecedented ways.
Diversity and inclusion in AI
An Australian book chapter takes a comprehensive and practical approach to how equity and inclusion should be considered throughout development. This should be done at both governance and development levels by applying inclusive design and human-centred design to the AI ‘ecosystem’.
Do stereotypes of older people affect how digital technology is designed? A team of researchers found that ageism influences digital design in negative ways. However, they found co-design partnerships overcame ageist attitudes and produced needed and used digital technologies.
Ageism can have a detrimental role in how digital technologies are designed. Participating with older people in the design process has the additional benefit of countering stereotypes. Image shows a group of older people on a desert camping expedition.
Older people said the “ultimate partnership” in co-designing is to involve them from the beginning through to the end of the design process. Sharing control over design decisions was an important part of the process. They are more than informants – they are equals who have valuable contributions.
The researchers noted that although this vision of co-design is shared by designers, it is not always the case in practice.
Image shows older people working together on a workshop question.
Older people in the study also said that ageism emerges in implicit and explicit language about ageing. And ageist images can influence the design process. Consequently, the researchers say it is important to view the diversity of older people.
Co-design with older people
How and when to involve older people in digital design is also important. Understanding co-design with older people has the potential for avoiding insufficient prototyping, biases and errors in the design process.
There is a gap between the ideal of involving older persons throughout the design process of digital technology, and actual practice.
Twenty-one older people participated in three focus groups. Participants experienced ageism in their daily lives and interactions with the designers during the design process. Negative images of ageing are potential influencing factor on design decisions. Nevertheless, positive experiences of inclusive design pointed out the importance of “partnership” in the design process.
The “ultimate partnership” in co-designing is to involve older people from the beginning, iteratively, in a participatory approach. Such processes were perceived as leading to successful design outcomes, which they would like to use, and reduced intergenerational tension.
Older people and internet use
2020 has been a year of digital connectedness. Many of us relied on the internet to keep working and stay connected to family and friends. Access to virtual health services turned out to be important too. But access to the internet and digital connection wasn’t available to everyone. It’s assumed that older people are unable or unwilling to use digital communications. The assumptions by others about the capabilities of older people doesn’t help. It reinforces a negative mindset in both older people and their younger family members.
Understanding older people’s relationship with the internet was the subject of a survey in rural Queensland. 1500 households were surveyed and asked about the general adoption of internet use. Within this survey, respondents were asked to indicate their understanding of older people’s relationship with the internet. Researchers found three general assumptions: older people aren’t interested in the internet, and they generally can’t use it. However, family members did believe the internet would be useful for older people.
If family members act on these assumptions they are unlikely to assist older members of the family to use the internet to communicate with others. If society continues to assume older people incapable or disinterested in internet communications it will lead to reinforcing the digital divide.
The researchers conclude that distinctions should be drawn between older people in rural areas and the tendency to apply urban norms to this population.
The title of the article is, Perceptions of older age and digital participation in rural Queensland. It is academically dense in parts but the issue is clear. Older people will be unable to join with younger cohorts in independently using internet technology if we continue to apply these assumptions.
Abstract
Participation is thought to build and sustain individual and community resilience. What constitutes participation today significantly involves networked digital communications. With Australia’s ageing population set to increase exponentially, and with a growing concentration of older people living outside of larger cities and towns, a need exists to address how participation in later life is understood and facilitated. Coupled with the need for regional communities to find relevant change processes that build resilience, this multidisciplinary paper highlights variations in perception about older people’s digital abilities in regional Queensland.
Following the general increase in appeal of digital devices to older people, defined here as those aged over 65, the paper suggests that how older people’s digital connectedness progresses is foundationally influenced by the speculative, antithetical and potentially ambivalent perceptions of others. In doing so, we seek to understand rural connectedness in later life through a suite of literacies informing digital participation.
