Really quickly did some tasks before the end of Week 4 so that they wouldn't carry over into subsequent weeks.
Brain Training Research
I tried Elevate and Cognifit Brain Fitness.
Elevate is similar to previously tried games but with a few unique changes. The app sports a more graphically engaging interface, a focus on learning, and a focus on reading/writing comprehension. The movement between actions is very animated and the games are well-designed with memorable motifs. Each game is very forgiving with mistakes - with most games taking a pause to explore the rationale behidn the right answer. It was great to try a case with a different spin and the UX/UI design is inspiring for my project. I did find the learning focuses were not aligned with my idea, but it was interesting to try out nonetheless. Figure 1 below is shown as an example of the app's design as inspiration for my own project.
Figure 1. Elevate UX/UI, Elevate, 2023, https://elevateapp.com/
Cognifit Brain Training is the closest to my project out of all the cases. Some parts of the UX/UI are ideal for an older demographic, some are not ideal, and some aspects are not ideal even for a general demographic (in my non-professional opinion). I have a few comments to this case so I have separated them by bullet points.
Cognifit Remarks
The games are not well designed and force the player to play them in landscape mode even if the app is in portrait. This broke the app flow for me and highlights the importance of consistent UX/UI.
The app has no start-up brain assessment like the others but instead asks the user what they would like to train. This is an interesting thing to consider for my project. On one hand, it allows me to avoid having to code and theorise how a start-up assessment would affect my app. On the other hand, I may miss a key element other apps have that allow the user to feel involved and considered in the app's design.
I do like how the app displays it's game selection in a large format. I also like how the user can watch a human-led tutorial for the games. I've made a collage of these points shown below in Figure 2. I'm quite interested in these design decisions and expect to explore them in my own project.
Figure 2. Cognifit Brain Training Design Decisions, Cognifit, 2023, https://www.cognifit.com/
These sorts of considerations supported my idea to add a task for Week 5 called 'UX/UI Design Guideline' where I summarise my research into brain training and accessibility and pinpoint specifically what I want in my program.
Accessibility Research
I made another attempt at reviewing 'Cognition, technology and games for the elderly: An introduction to the ELDERGAMES Project' by Gamberini et al. (2006). Learning of the points made by Schieber (2003) in the text made me interested in reading the original source to clarify and continue my research.
I don't feel entirely comfortable with the amount of accessibility research I've done, as I believe that there is a deeper dive to be done. I may do this during my 'UX/UI Design Guideline' task, however, I feel quite stagnant with how long I have spent researching and planning. This is interesting to me, as I recall at the end of Week 3 being nervous about how fast I was moving in development.
I understand that this is a key part of a design process and my methodology, with three of the six co-design stages being 'planning' stages. However, when working on my last two projects for my computer science capstone and my summer project, my main issue was leaving practical development too late in the project. I then ran into dev issues that completely changed the scope. I'd like to avoid this by focusing on prototyping this week and leave further research to later in the process. As my 'Discover' stage moves forward throughout my entire process I can always take a step back into it to read and reframe the context.
Therefore, in favour of moving forward with my milestones and methodology I have decided to put this task to rest. Below are the key insights I found through my exploration, with all references as cited in Gamberini et al. (2006).
Key Insights
Schieber (2003) proposed 9 design criteria for people with age related visual issues. All of the following are relevant to my project:
increasing the illumination of environment or task context
increasing the levels of luminance contrast
minimizing the need to use a device excessively close to the eyes
adapting the font size
minimizing glare
minimizing the use of peripheral vision
adopting marking strategies to enhance motion perception
using great color contrast
optimizing the legibility of spatial forms using computer capabilities.
Schieber also proposed 9 design criteria for hearing difficulties, with few areas of relevance to my project. These points are incredibly relevant to my design of app and games for older adults.
Fisk et al. (2004), found that more than 50% of usability issues reported by the elderly could be solved by improving the design (25%) or by providing training (28%). They also identify five characteristics related to usability for older adults: learnability, efficiency, memorability, error recovery, and satisfaction.
Whitcomb (1990), after reviewing a variety of games for the elderly, found those unsuitable that had small objects on the screen, rapid reactions, or inappropriate sound effects.
Dickinson, Eisma, Gregor, (2003) as cited in Van de Watering, (2005) highlighted several solutions to elderly-related problems with WIMP (Window, Icon, Menu, Pointing Device) interfaces:
reduce interface complexity
minimise option trees
immediate screen selection feedback
maintain interface consistency
These are all great points to consider, and I will definitely be creating a more precise template for my project using these points in my 'UX/UI Guideline' task.
Low Fidelity Prototyping
I used the interface layout brainstorm that I created during the week to support my creation of a wireframe. This was done quickly in Figma to gather feedback.
Interface Wireframe, Own Work.
I made notes on the wireframe to discuss with peers, as I was still iterating my ideas. I made notes on considerations about scrolling, recognisability, ways of response, avatar display, and more. This may have been too early to do a wireframe based on my many ideas, but I like how easy it was to put something together that looks like this. There are more pages to be created, but I'm going to use this to spark discussion on Monday for a second round of concept feedback.
Ethics
There is some disparity between what I'm being told by lecturers towards what I can and can't do with ethics. There seems to be a common thread that is now being communicated, but the entire situation has left me uncomfortable. I feel that this is because the situation has left room for some people to be lifted up, and some to be talked down to. I've decided to stick to my own ethical ideals about my project and stop facilitating conversation, as it always leaves me exasperated.
My ethical ideals:
I won't name anyone in my blogs or Miro board.
I will avoid seeking conversation about my specific project with people outside the class.
I will seek technical and expert information without mentioning my project.
I will continue to volunteer to experience my context.
I will continue to exercise reciprocity where necessary.
I won't have any planned informal conversations with peers outside the class.
Class peer feedback is my best friend.
I feel that continuing with these ideals will allow me to progress my work in a safe way that I understand and feel comfortable with.
References
Cognifit. (2023). Cognifit Brain Training Design Decisions. https://www.cognifit.com/
Elevate. (2023). Elevate UX/UI. https://elevateapp.com/
Gamberini, L., Alcaniz, M., Barresi, G., Fabregat, M., Ibanez, F., & Prontu, L. (2006). Cognition, technology and games for the elderly: An introduction to ELDERGAMES Project. PsychNology Journal, 4(3), 285-308. http://www.psychnology.org/File/PNJ4%283%29/PSYCHNOLOGY_JOURNAL_4_3_GAMBERINI.pdf