Design guidelines for interactive multimedialearning environments to promote socialinclusion

D. J. BROWN{{*, H. M. POWELL{, S. BATTERSBY{, J. LEWIS{,N. SHOPLAND{ and M. YAZDANPARAST{

{ Greenhat Interactive Research Team, Department of Computing, Nottingham TrentUniversity, Newton Building, Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK

{ Interact21, 1, Empire Court, Albert Street, Redditch B97 4DA, UK

Abstract

Purpose: There is a continuing need for guidelines to aid in thedesign of Interactive Multimedia Learning Environments(IMLE) to promote effective learning. The project introducedin this paper looks at an important subset of this problem, thedesign of interactive learning environments to promote socialinclusion.Method: A consortium of six partners contributed towarddefining learning material to develop a range of work basedskills, including horticulture, IT and catering. These were thendeveloped into IMLE prototypes. Formative evaluation ofthese prototypes then revealed a range of usability problems,which were grouped into generic types and frequency ofoccurrence.Results: The most important and frequently occurringproblems were used to distil a set of design guidelinesfor the development of effective IMLE. The results fromthis usability content analysis were also used to refine theinitial prototypes to improve their usability and effective-ness.Conclusions: These guidelines, termed the Greenhat DesignGuidelines, can be adopted for use by all multimediadevelopers aiming to promote the social inclusion ofvulnerable or socially disadvantaged groups of people. Therefined IMLE can be accessed via the Greenhat Server toimprove the employment-related skills of socially excludedpeople.

Introduction

The aim of the ¯exible learning systems (FLS) projectis to develop a range of IMLE to be used by socially

excluded people for the development of real employ-ment opportunities. This project is funded under theEuropean ADAPT programme, which aims to up-skillthose at risk of redundancy using information andcommunication technologies (ICT). This is one ofseveral European initiatives aimed at producing rehabi-litation and associated technologies, in response to astrong North American market created through Dis-ability Act Legislation.1

The use of ICT in supporting people, who for avariety of reasons face social exclusion, in an industrialsetting is not a new idea.2 Areas of employment skilldevelopment tackled within the FLS project includehorticulture, catering, IT and self-determinism. Theseskills have been identi®ed as being valuable to peoplewhose jobs are threatened, where they can be used tosustain employment.

The Greenhat Research Team, within the Departmentof Computing, at the Nottingham Trent University(NTU), has implemented the FLS package. This is acollaborative project, with national partners within theUK including Mencap, Thrive, Wigan and LeighCollege, Kaleidoscope and the Welsh Centre for Learn-ing Disabilities.

This consortium represented the needs of a wide rangeof people who for various reasons face social exclusion.Our collective de®nition of social exclusion is that therisk of non-participation is high if:

1. they are young and their parents are poor orunemployed;

2. they are members of certain minority ethnic groups;and* Author for correspondence; e-mail: david.brown@ntu.ac.uk

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, 2002; VOL. 24, NO. 11-12 , 587 ± 597

Disability and Rehabilitation ISSN 0963±8288 print/ISSN 1464±5165 online # 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/10.1080/0963828011011135 1

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

3. they are in particular circumstances that createbarriers to participation:

. they have a learning di� culty;

. they have a physical disability;

. they are carers;

. they are teenage parents;

. they are homeless;

. they are or have been in care; and

. they have a mental illness.3

This is a wide de®nition and places considerable chal-lenge on any design team attempting to cater for therange of needs within such a grouping of people. Itappears that poverty plays a major part in social exclu-sion. Percy-Smith4 points out, however, that poverty isnot the only problem. DuVy in Walker and Walker5

agrees, stating that social exclusion also encompassesan individual’s inability to participate eVectively ineconomic, social, political and cultural life, and, in somecharacterizations, alienation and distance from main-stream society.

Social exclusion is a problem that can start early in anindividual’s life. According to BBC1’s televisionprogramme Eyes of a Child Update, up to 600 childrenare excluded permanently or temporarily every schoolday in Britain.6 The vast majority are either tutored athome, placed in referral units, or eventually return tomainstream education. In response the UK governmenthas set up the social exclusion unit, established and runfrom the Cabinet o� ce.7 The primary focus of the unit ison those who are disadvantaged , have low aspirations,are at risk of dropping out, failing to achieve, or notmaking a successful transition to further education,training or employment.

In order to develop eVective IMLE to promoteemployment-based skills in socially excluded people,a methodology which embraces user centred designshould be adopted. It was decided that a methodol-ogy, previously developed by the Greenhat Researchteam at NTU, could be adapted for use. This metho-dology had been successfully employed to guide thedevelopment and evaluation of the virtual city, aseries of virtual learning environments to teach inde-pendent living skills to people with learning disabil-ities. The methodology itself had undergone severaliterations over a number of years, paying increasingattention to user-centred design, developing the roleof virtual tutors to scaVold learning, and distillingguidelines for developing virtual environments tosupport the learning of people with a learningdisability.8±13

It was, however, judged to be too speci®c to the needsof people with a learning disability, although it wasconsidered to be a useful starting point, especially thecomponents advocating strong user centred design.The adapted methodology design was also heavily in¯u-enced by guidelines such as the World Wide Web acces-sibility initiative14 and universal design.15

Method

Some of the partners involved in the project had beenpreviously involved in joint projects to develop paperbased learning materials and packages to promoteemployment based skills. These packages were seen asbeing a useful starting point in developing interactivemultimedia based learning materials to help sustainemployment. Their use also contributed to the designof the adapted methodology, culminating in a projectmethodology for the development and evaluation ofthe FLS project presented in ®gure 1.

USABILITY CONTENT ANALYSIS

In line with our development methodology, a processof formative evaluation was undertaken with 12 of theIMLE prototypes. These included food hygiene proto-types for teaching catering skills, introduction tocomputer hardware and basic Microsoft prototypes forteaching IT skills, together with amenity horticultureprototypes and key skills prototypes to teach land basedskills and skills that support employability respectively.This formative evaluation process was interleavedthroughout the project life cycle, with the results beingused to inform the ongoing development process.Usability content analysis questionnaires were devised,to pinpoint usability di� culties in the prototypes at anearly development stage. These questionnaires concen-trated on issues such as navigability, aesthetics and thelanguage level of prototypes.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY

The formative evaluation meetings were held at threemonthly intervals throughout the project life cycle. Thesewere in reality expert review sessions, with testers drawnfromthe FLSconsortium.Theexperimental methodologyfor the usability content analysis of each prototype was:

. Form two testing sub-groups of six members each,drawn from the testing meeting members, with nomore than two members from each partner in theconsortium.

D. J. Brown et al.

588

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

. Assign a member of the testing group to record pointson the usability questionnaires.

. Set ®ve tasks as group activity within each IMLE pro-totype.

. Record usability problems.

. Feedback these usability problems to the whole test-ing meeting.

. Isolate commonly occurring usability problems ex-perienced by both testing groups across all IMLEprototypes.

. Distill design guidelines from the most commonly oc-curring usability problems.

Results

THE GREENHAT EDUCATIONAL SERVER

The FLS tutors (formed from the re®nedIMLE prototypes) are available online at http://www.̄ exiblelearning systems.net, via the Greenhat Edu-cational Server at NTU. The philosophy of making thesematerials freeware is that, as with most Computer AidedLearning (CAL) packages aimed at the rehabilitation ofsocially excluded people, the prime aim is to promotetheir maximum accessibility. EVective delivery is a

crucial phase in producing educational multimediasystems, and failure to do so is the single greatest causeof system failure.16 Free online delivery is an ideal deliv-ery mechanism, as an alternative to expensively distribu-ted CD-ROM based systems.

Some examples of screenshots from some of the 30FLS tutors (in total) produced as part of the FLSproject are shown in ®gure 2.

An example of usability content analysis is nowsummarized, illustrating how the Basic Food HygieneTutor was evaluated (one of the 12 IMLE fully eval-uated in this way). Two testing sub-groups wereformed, each given a range of tasks to carry out with-in the Basic Food Hygiene Tutor. Usability problemswere recorded on questionnaires by a nominatedrecorder within each group. Subsequent analysis ofthese questionnaires, triangulated with other verbalfeedback, allowed the collation of a range ofcommonly occurring usability problems to be groupedgenerically. When this process was carried out for 12of the IMLE prototypes (IT, Horticulture, Cateringand Key Skills tutors), it became possible to spotthe frequently re-occurring usability problems, andfrom these distill a set of design guidelines. Theseguidelines will optimize the design of IMLE to

ResultsDesign guidelines Professional

evaluation

Usabilitycontentanalysis

IMLE specification

Figure 1 The development methodology for the Flexible Learning Systems project to promote the development of employment-related skills in

socially excluded people.

Design guidelines to promote social inclusion

589

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

promote the employment prospects of sociallyexcluded people.

FORMATION OF TESTING SUB-GROUPS

The testing sub-groups were selected in line with theprocedure speci®ed in the methods section. These areshown in table 1 for the usability content analysis ofthe basic food hygiene tutor.

FOOD HYGIENE USABILITY TASKS

A range of tasks were set for each of these testing sub-groups, within the basic food hygiene multimedia tutor.These included:

. food handlers, including the various people who comeinto contact with food as it is being produced;

. food poisoning symptoms;

. how food is poisoned (poisonous plants, chemicalsand germs);

. review of learning objectives; and

. the interactive test.

RECORDED USABILITY PROBLEMS

Table 2 illustrates the usability problems that the two-testing sub-groups (A and B) experienced in using theprototype food hygiene tutor. Some comments havebeen moved from their original sections (where placedby the nominated recording person) to other, moreappropriate sectionsÐindicated by appending its formersection number. Items in bold indicate that they wereaddressed in revision of the prototype, items in italics

Figure 2 Some screenshots from the IMLE to promote the employment skills of socially excluded people: (a) the Horticultural Tutor; (b) the Food

Hygiene Tutor; (c) the Self-Determism Tutor; and (d) the IT Tutor.

Table 1 The testing sub-groups for the usability content analysis ofthe Basic Food Hygiene Tutor

Group A Group B

Joe Guthrie (M) Jacqui Lewis (M)Simon Veasey (K) Tim Clamp (K)Mahsa Yazdanparast (NTU) Steven Battersby (NTU)Christine Massey (W&L) Angeline Sudworth (W&L)Neil Kelly (TH) Chris Martin (TH)Heather Powell (NTU) Nick Shopland (NTU)

Key: M=Mencap; K=Kaleidoscope; NTU=Nottingham Trent Uni-

versity; W&L=Wigan and Leigh College; and TH=Thrive.

D. J. Brown et al.

590

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

are comments that required no action, all other itemshave been taken into account for future work, but couldnot be addressed within the original development plantime scale.

FEEDBACK ON COMMONLY OCCURRING USABILITY

PROBLEMS AND SUGGESTED PROTOTYPE REVISIONS

The following points summarize the usabilityproblems recorded in table 2, together with the corre-sponding suggested re®nements to the basic foodhygiene prototype based on these usability results.

Graphics

. Replace the background graphic for non-copyrightmaterial. Varied backgrounds would be better. A lotgoing on one page, background and images `merge’.

. Larger, clearer icons and buttons are required. Placecontrols centrally.

. Hazard symbols are good, but could they be larger?

. More 3-D, animated and actual images are required.Pictures and videos would be better than line drawings.

. Graphical indicators instead of numerical total re-cording user performance are required at the end ofuser interactions.

The overall recommendations were to replace thebackground with something less likely to `clutter’ thescreen, and introduce additional backgrounds to re¯ectthe intention to make all IMLE modular. Other recom-mendations were to modify, enlarge and centralize thecontrol buttons, and to add sounds for mouse-overs.Replace a proportion of the line-drawn graphics withphotographic or other images was also a suggestedre®nement.

Text

. Highlight keywords.

. More movement is required. Text needs to be interest-ing and provide an impact, but not be busy.

. Adopt a linear, textual approach. Text may work bet-ter if edited into shorter and more structured sections.It should be `chunked’ per topic, in a modular ap-proach. Could be more ¯exible and allow more userdirection. A lot of material covered, feels lengthy.Section (a7) is large, without much real informationconveyed.

. `How food is poisoned’ is too busy, present steps oneby one instead.

. The overall recommendations were to highlight key-words and pace screen text with narration and anima-tion of the text. Other suggested changes were tobreak up some of the lengthy and busy areas, and at-tempt to modularize the prototype along the lines ofits main content sections.

Sounds

. the `well done’ sound eVect is overdone;

. place reminders and voice cues on buttons;

. use diVerent voices for diVerent purposes. Use diVer-ent voices to break the monotony of sound tracks,and use voices of both genders;

. voiceover script needs to match the text; and

. have an option to turn sound on and oV. Do not makecomprehension reliant on the use of sound alone.

The overall recommendations for this type of usabilityproblem were to review use of sound and to introduceone or two other speakers, with additional sound eVects.The IMLE should also allow the user to disable sounds.

Interactions

. the game playing and `move on’ interaction optionsare not clear; and

. the `type in name’ interaction option is unclear.

The overall recommendation was to rationalize themovement through the prototype and correct inap-propriate interactions.

Additions

. a user guide is required at the start of the prototype(to introduce navigation and interactions options);

. help and contact numbers need to be listed;

. a minimum hardware speci®cation needs to be de-®ned and clearly announced. Advice should be givenif the system is not up to speci®cation;

. other I/O methods need to be oVered, such as a touchscreen, joystick, and keyboard interaction options; and

. feedback should be also available to the user in ahardcopy as well as electronic format, as evidenceof achievement.

The overall recommendations included devising aguide to introduce users to the key navigation and inter-action paradigms, the addition of help contact informa-

Design guidelines to promote social inclusion

591

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Table 2 Recorded usability content analysis for the Basic Food Hygiene Tutor

1. Navigation

Larger, clearer icons/buttons (A & B)Place controls centrally (B)User guide at the start (introduce navigation & interactions) (B)Need user guide at start; include guide to interactive events (B)-5Help/contact numbers (A)Play game & move on options not clear (A)Type in name interaction unclear (A)Reminders/voice cues on buttons (B)User initialisation; choose how screen is to look (e.g. text/Widget) (B)Embedded tutor/character (assistant) (B)

2. I/O Methods

Other methods: touch screen, joystick and keyboard (A & B)Voice activation (B)

3. Aesthetics

Varied backgrounds would be better (A)Highlight keywords (A)Hazard symbols goodÐcould be larger? (A)Pictures & videos instead of line drawings (A)More 3-D/animated/actual images (B)Graphical instead of numerical total at end of interaction (A)A lot going on one pageÐbackground/images `merge’ (B)Needs to be interesting with impact but not busy, e.g. Germs text movement (B)More movement (A)Use different voices to break monotony (A)-4Corporate common buttons/presentation (A)More fun elements (A)Too much text bias (B)

4. Linguistics

Voiceover script needs to match text (B)`How food is poisoned’Ðtoo busyÐpresent one by one (A)-3Use different voices for different purposes (A)`Well done’ overdoneÐsounds for pass/fail (A)-3Too many `well done’s’ (B)-5Package is text heavy (B)Simplistic in parts Milk from a cow; show contamination at different stages (A)-8

5. Pedagogic structures

FeedbackÐhardcopy? (B)Hard copy element for feedback (B)-2Paper evidence (A)-9Paper contentÐmain points (A)-9Text copy needs to be made computer friendly (B)Feedback how to reward & how often (B)Strategy for review where there is misunderstanding alternative approaches (A)Feedback interactivity/reinforcement to what extent? (B)Applause good (as reinforcement) (B)

6. Package size

A lot of material covered; feels lengthy (B)Large section (a7) without much information (A)-7Not sure until video played (A)

Continued

D. J. Brown et al.

592

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

tion and identi®cation of the minimum speci®cation forrunning the IMLE, plus some troubleshooting tips.Other recommendations included developing a rangeof alternative joystick and keyboard interaction possibi-lities, as well as developing some printable supportmaterial.

Design guidelines

As each of the IMLE prototypes underwent usabilitycontent analysis (12 packages), of which the basic foodhygiene tutor was one such prototype, a set of the mostfrequently occurring usability problems encountered bythe testing groups emerged. From this process a set ofdesign guidelines were distilled, to guide the furtherdevelopment of IMLE to promote the social inclusionof individuals by the development of the employment-related skills.

The formation of these design guidelines was heav-ily in¯uenced by ethos and presentation of the WorldWide Web accessibility guidelines to promote theaccessibility of the web by people with sensory, cogni-tive and physical impairments. Each of the guidelines,

collectively termed the Greenhat Design Guidelines,are now presented as design recommendations forprogrammers and designers of interactive learningpackages in a series of priority levels. The lower thepriority number, the more imperative the need tofollow the guideline to ensure accessibility. This setof design guidelines also states the design considera-tions needed to achieve the key objectives of promot-ing the development of employment-based skills. Theguidelines are divided into sections. Each sectioncontains an introduction and a list of key points inorder of priority.

PRIORITY LEVELS

Each design point is given a level of priority based onits potential impact on accessibility. These priorities arespelled-out in detail on the following pages.

Within Priority 1 a software developer or designer ofinteractive learning material must satisfy this designpoint. This is a basic requirement to achieve accessibil-ity, otherwise a range of socially excluded people will®nd it impossible to access information.

Table 2 (Continued)

7. Interaction level

Could be more ¯exible/modular (B)Could be more ¯exible & allow more user direction (B)-8Linear, textual approach (B)-8Interactive approach/storyboards need developing between W&L and NTU (A)-8Does ask user questions (B)Does have gaming element (B)

8. Material covered

May work out better if shorter/more structured; `chunked’ per topicÐmodular approach (B)-6

9. Flexibility

Turn sound on/offÐnot reliant on sound (A)Optional signing (A)

10. System requirements

Minumum speci®cations need to be de®ned and clearly announced (A)Advice if system not up to speci®cations (A)

11. Additional considerations

Replace background graphic for non-copyrigh t material (NS)

Design guidelines to promote social inclusion

593

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Within Priority 2 a software developer or designer ofinteractive learning material should satisfy this designpoint. This is required to achieve wide accessibility andenjoyment of the IMLE. Otherwise a range of sociallyexcluded people will ®nd it di� cult to access informa-tion and ®nd the IMLE of little educational use in devel-oping work-based skills.

Within Priority 3 a software developer or designer ofinteractive learning material may address this designpoint. If these points are implemented then the IMLEwill be an accessible and enjoyable learning tool forsocially excluded people.

The main sections of the Greenhat Design Guidelinesare now introduced, derived from a process of usabilitycontent analysis on a range of IMLE aimed at promotingemployment and related key skills. It should be noted thatthis is the ®rst draft (version 1.0) of these design guide-lines, and subsequent evaluation of other IMLE aimedat the development of employment and other skills suchas independent living, numeracy and literacy, will providericher and wider feedback, and broaden their potentialscope of application. Indeed, the Greenhat ResearchTeam, together with Interact21, has begun work to devel-op a range of IMLE to develop numeracy, literacy and ITskills in socially excluded people which will be accessedvia a range of cyber cafes within disadvantaged areas.

ACCESSIBILIT Y ISSUES

This section de®nes the design issues concerned withcreating an accessible product for people with a widerange of physical and cognitive disabilities. Some issuesin this section may be applicable to other sections.

Priority 1

. Provide simple user interaction mechanisms for navi-gation. i.e. single-click mouse.

. Provide a speech alternative of all buttons and keytext within the IMLE.

Priority 2

. Provide an icon, text and speech for all buttons.

. Provide speech representation of text and images inall IMLE.

. Try to set a limit of up to two sentences of text foreach page of the IMLE.

. More complex user input should only be included inan `Advanced Topics’ section and then only kept toa minimum.

Priority 3

. Provide the user with a choice of input devicesÐmouse, joystick, keyboard.

. Provide an option to display sign language.

. Provide an option to turn any sound on or oV.

NAVIGATION

Navigation should be clear and consistent so that theuser feels comfortable with the IMLE. It must also be¯exible so users of diVerent abilities can progress atdiVerent speeds throughout the IMLE. The navigationalelements can vary to match the aesthetics of theirmodule as long as they conform to some basic rules.

Priority 1

Each IMLE requires:. a menu that allows the user to jump to any module in

any order; and. an exit button to exit the application.

Each module within the IMLE requires:

. contents that allow the user to jump to any topic inany order; and

. an exit button to return to the IMLE menu.

Each page within the module requires (except gamesand VR):

. a next button to progress to next page;

. a back button to progress to previous page; and

. an exit button to return to the module contents.

Where the software can automatically progressthrough the pages of the IMLE:

. this must be at a speed suitable for people with lit-eracy di� culties; and

. provide explicit prompts when the IMLE requiresuser input to progress.

Priority 2

. disable navigation buttons during compulsory learn-ing objectives;

. provide an optional user-guide on how to navigatethrough the package;

D. J. Brown et al.

594

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

. provide an index that allows the user to jump to anytopic; and

. provide an option to turn on or oV the automaticpage progression.

Priority 3

. Provide hot-keys for fast navigation between topicsand pages for teachers and tutors using the IMLEwith a user.

PEDAGOGIC STRUCTURE

A teacher or tutor may accompany the user, or alter-natively they may use the IMLE alone, especially if it isused online. The IMLE needs to perform pedagogictasks such as reinforcement, re¯ection and reward sothat the user is aware that they are making progress.

Priority 1

. provide regular rewards, and compliment the userwhen they have successfully completed a task;

. provide reinforcement, re¯ect areas covered so far; and

. provide tests to ensure the user has learnt the appro-priate lessons.

Priority 2

. module reinforcementÐrecap the subjects learnt;

. progress indicationÐchange the look of the contentsto re¯ect topics covered thus far;

. topic reinforcementÐrecap the key points;

. provide regular rewards;

. re¯ect users’ varying abilities in a range of options; and

. provide an option for the production of hard copies.Allow the printout of results, rewards and certi®cates.

Priority 3

Users’ initial interactions within the IMLE can beused to determine their abilities. The IMLE could thenrecon®gure itself to present to the user an appropriateinterface and set of learning objectives appropriate totheir ability.

Buttons are an integral part of the navigationalelement of each IMLE. As they are the primary interfacewith the user it is crucial they conform to some basic

rules. See also the section on accessibility on otherdesign guidelines on buttons.

Priority 1

. the appearance of the button should have a clearmeaning; and

. its purpose should be unambiguous .

The button’s properties should be consistent through-out the IMLE in terms of:

. screen position;

. shape;

. size;

. colours;

. provide an indication when the cursor is over a but-ton (e.g. button lights up); and

. provide large buttons, to make them easier to selectfor those with ®ne motor skills di� culties.

Priority 2

. buttons should be a minimum size of 80 pixels radiusor square;

. provide an exit button in top right hand corner ofeach screen;

. provide a next button in bottom right hand corner ofeach screen;

. provide a back button in the bottom left hand cornerof each screen; and

. grey-out buttons when they are disabled or not se-lected.

Priority 3

. The appearance of buttons should match the aes-thetics of the IMLE.

. Each button should have an icon with text underneathor a textual hint. The icon provides meaning for userswith literacy di� culties. The text provides aid forusers with a visual disability using screen readers, en-abling them to understand the function of the button.

. The cursor should change to a pointing hand whenplaced over a button.

HOTSPOTS

A hotspot is any selectable area that the user can clickin order to navigate or perform an action.

Design guidelines to promote social inclusion

595

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Priority 1

. Provide an indication of when the cursor is over theselectable area.

Priority 2

. Provide speech representation for all hotspots.

. Provide text representation near the hotspot or a tex-tual hint on mouse over.

. Hotspots should be of a reasonable size, larger thanthe image if necessary. This allows tolerance for userswith ®ne motor skills di� culties.

AESTHETICS

Aesthetics aVect the visual quality of the IMLE,which in turn can aVect user motivation. Some elementsmust be consistent so that the user feels comfortablewith the IMLE, while other elements must vary so thatthe product is exciting and enjoyable to learn from.

Priority 1

. There should be a maximum of three sentences perpage. If necessary split text over two pages.

Priority 2

. The screen background should be consistent withineach topic in the IMLE.

. Screen backgrounds should have similar ``look’’throughout the module covered in the IMLE.

. Vary the voices used for speech. Keep a gender bal-ance in the voices used.

. Vary the graphic media types between vector gra-phics, photo images, video assets and 3-D draw ob-jects.

Priority 3

. highlight keywords in any text; and

. record speech from people with abilities similar tothose of the users.

GAMES

Games are an exciting way to learn and to re¯ectupon and evaluate what has been learnt. For users withlearning disabilities it is essential that the game is easy to

play and rewarding. Similarly, it is important that gamesdo not require too much dexterity otherwise their usewill exclude users with physical disabilities.

Priority 2

. Games should be fun and exciting to play for allusers.

. Provide regular rewards within each game, in alterna-tive ways so that all users can receive them.

. Clicking games are easier than dragging games, espe-cially for those with a physical disability.

SCREEN PROPERTIES

This refers to the overall screen properties of theIMLE.

Priority 1

. IMLE are designed to be viewed on screens with aminimum requirement of 8006600 resolution.

Priority 2

. IMLE design should be centred on higher screen reso-lutions.

. Provide a black surround on screens with higher reso-lutions if full screen.

Priority 3

. Provide full screen.

Conclusions

A programme of expert design and evaluation incollaboration with some of the UK’s leading providersof learning materials to socially excluded groups, hasproduced a series of IMLE to promote the developmentof employment skills. Usability content analysis of 12 ofthe prototype IMLE revealed data on usabilityproblems. Analysis of these usability results has allowedthe distillation of the Greenhat Design Guidelines(version 1.0). It is the intention that other softwaredevelopers and interactive learning material producerscan use these guidelines. The primary objective of theguidelines is to make any IMLE aimed at promotingsocial inclusion both accessible and eVective.

Version 1.0 of the guidelines has been derived fromthe usability content analysis of IMLE with an employ-

D. J. Brown et al.

596

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

ment focus. Currently IMLE are being developed by theGreenhat Research Team to promote the developmentof literacy, numeracy, travel and independent livingskills. A similar process of evaluation will reveal afurther range of usability problems, which can be gener-ically grouped and used to extend the potential applica-tion and more mature versions of these designguidelines.

With the focus on the accessibility of IMLE topromote social inclusion, a careful eye must also be kepton what happens to the software after design. A majorstumbling block for all computer-aided learningpackages is at the distribution stage. The situation canonly be more hazardous when designing for groups ofpeople who are socially excluded, and are likely to bedoubly disadvantaged through poverty. A number ofstrategies have been developed within the FLS projectincluding the formation of a social ®rm, employingpeople who are socially excluded to manufacture anddistribute the learning materials on a `not for pro®t’basis. Other strategies include distributing the IMLEboth online, as well as o‚ine, as freeware form availablefrom http://www.̄ exiblelearningsystems.net .

These are not the sole set of evaluation results fromthe FLS project. Whilst this paper has concentrated onthe usability content analysis of the IMLE and distilla-tion of design guidelines, the Welsh Centre for LearningDisabilities has evaluated their e� cacy in a work-basedenvironment. The results of this evaluation study, todetermine whether the IMLE can help sustain employ-ment prospects for socially excluded people should becross-referenced with the results from this study.

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the award from the

European Union Adapt Programme. Thanks also to colleagues whose

contribution to this work is also gratefully acknowledged. These

include Mencap, Thrive, Wigan and Leigh College, Kaleidoscope and

the Welsh Centre for Learning Disabilities.

References

1 Carruthers S, Humphreys A, Sandhu, J. Rehabilitation technologyin the United States and its impact upon the creation of a viableEuropean industry sector. In: E Ballabio et al. (eds) RehabilitationTechnology: Strategies for the European Union, IOS Press, 1993;189±193.

2 Barkvik S, Martensson P. Development and adaptations inindustrial work for people with intellectual disabilities. In: I Porrerand E Ballabio (eds) Improving the Quality of Life for the EuropeanCitizen. IOS Press, 1998; 122±125.

3 Ogden C. Teaching numeracy to the socially excluded. Under-graduate thesis, Department of Computing, The Nottingham TrentUniversity, 2001.

4 Percy-Smith J. Policy Responses to Social Exclusion. Buckingham:Open University Press 2000.

5 Walker A, Walker C. Britain Divided. London: CPAG Ltd, 1997.6 Eyes of a Child Update, 2001, BBC1, 7 March 2001.7 DFEE web site; http://www.dfee.gov.uk/.8 Standen PJ, Cromby JJ, Brown DJ. Playing for real. Journal of

Mental Health Care 1998; 1(12): 412±415.9 Brown DJ, Neale H, Cobb SV, Reynolds H. The development and

evaluation of the virtual city. Internationa l Journal of VirtualReality 1999; 4(1): 28±41.

10 Neale H, Brown DJ, Cobb SVG, Wilson JR. Structured evaluationof VE for special needs education. Presence: Teleoperators andVirtual Environments 1999; 8(3): 264±282.

11 Brown DJ, Standen PJ. The tutoring role of mentors working withadults and elderly people with learning disabilities using virtualenvironments. Journal of Cyberpsycholog y and Behaviour 1999;2(6): 593±599.

12 Brown DJ, Standen PJ, Proctor T, Sterland W. New advances indesign methodologies and guidelines for the production of virtuallearning environments for use by people with cognitive disabilities.In: Press in Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, MITPress, 2001.

13 Standen PJ, Brown DJ, Cromby J. The eVective employment ofvirtual environments in the education and rehabilitation ofstudents with intellectual disabilities. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 2000, 32(3): 289±299.

14 World Wide Web Accessibility Initiative 2001; http://www.w3.org/WAI/

15 Waters C. Universal Web Design. Indianapolis, Indiana, USA: NewRiders Publishing, 1997.

16 Boyle T. Design for Multimedia Learning, Prentice Hall Europe,1997; 218.

Design guidelines to promote social inclusion

597

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

SUN

Y S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew Y

ork

at S

tony

Bro

ok o

n 10

/30/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.