Page 37 - IJPS-10-2

International Journal of
Population Studies Design and usability evaluations of a course

2.2. Usability testing availability may be limited in apartments on the lower

Identifying potential user difficulties is a critical step before floors in multi-dwelling buildings due to building density
evaluating immediate intervention outcomes in real-world or balconies, reducing the amount of light entering a room.
homes. The study had a user-centered iterative design Several recruitment methods were used, including
approach that is stepping through one design version after participating at senior community events; posting flyers
another (Nielsen, 1993). For every version, we conducted at the public library, a senior citizen meeting point, fitness
a usability evaluation of the course content accessed on the center and in thrift shops; interacting with local branches
digital platform and made revisions based on the findings of organizations (SeniorNet and the Swedish National
(Figure 3). The study used a mixed-methods approach Pensioners’ Organization) who sent emails to their
(Mason, 2006), including questionnaires, interviews, members; and interacting with personal networks. All
direct observations, and interactions with the participants participants but one had retired from work. Participants
to uncover user problems and identify possibilities for had work experience in health care, education, editorial
improvement. work, and/or coaching domains. All participants
considered themselves to be experienced Internet users.
2.2.1. Participant characteristics One of the participants informed us later in the process
Round 1. Three experts on pedagogy, design for older that she lived in a house, but she was not excluded from
adults, and/or interaction design were invited through participation to ensure a sufficient number of participants.
professional networks to independently assess the usability Participant characteristics are provided in Table 1.
of the course on their laptops. Two were employed by a
university and one by a municipality. 2.2.2. Test environment
Round 2. Six participants representing intended users Usability testing sessions took place in a full-scale model
(aged 70 and above) were invited for similar usability of a one-bedroom apartment situated in a laboratory at the
testing in a second round. The number of participants was university. The reason for choosing a test apartment was
considered sufficient for identifying usability problems, to mimic course participation in one’s own home. Figure 4
based on the findings by Nielsen (2012). The inclusion shows the test environment, which enabled manipulations
criteria of this study were as follows: age 70 or above, living of the lighting conditions and direct video observation to
in a one-person household in an apartment, speaking identify any problems when participants experimented
Swedish, having access to a computer and smartphone, with the test kit included in the course material.
and being an internet user. The reason for only enrolling 2.2.3. Procedures
residents living in apartments was because it can be more
challenging for tenants to change fixed luminaires in the (A) Round 1
bathroom and kitchen, finishes, structural elements, or Before arrival on the first testing occasion, the experts received
technical infrastructure. In rented apartments, the tenant written instructions and information about the study’s aim.
must repair and cover the repair costs of any alterations. In They had also received standardized instructions for course
tenant-owned apartments, the tenant has to seek approval enrolment provided by the university. The course was
from the board if they want to make any exterior changes, accessed through self-registration in a two-step process. First,
such as mounting solar screens. In addition, daylight the experts received a username (unless they already had one

Figure 3. Procedure based on the principle of iterative design. Two usability rounds were conducted, including two different sets of samples – three experts
in the first round and six older adults in the second. Every participant independently evaluated the course content on their laptops on three occasions
(lasting 2 h) in the test apartment. The arrow symbol indicates the refinement of course content before the second round.

Volume 10 Issue 2 (2024) 31 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.378