skip to main content
research-article

Co-Design with Older Adults: Examining and Reflecting on Collaboration with Aging Communities

Published:18 October 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Co-design methods have involved older adults in the design process to fill the knowledge gap that younger adult designers might encounter when designing for an aging population. A focus of co-design means establishing equal and equitable relationships between users and designers. To understand the factors that contribute to equal collaborations between older adults and student designers, we conducted 12 co-design sessions with 16 older adults and 11 student designers. We examined their interactions by adapting a framework initially aimed to understand the child-adult design partnership. We also analyzed student designers' reflections to understand their experiences and learnings from designing with older adults. Our findings demonstrate that developing a design partnership is complex. The framework helped surface factors like sharing life experiences and role ownership that influenced balanced or unbalanced interactions. Through the student designers' reflections, we found that student designers identified challenges they encountered and the assumptions they had about the older adult population. We believe that immersing students in a co-design experience with older adults and leveraging reflection activities provides an educational and meaningful experience to the design students.

References

  1. Maria Beimborn, Selma Kadi, Nina Koberer, and Mara Muhleck. 2016. Focusing on the Human: Interdisciplinary Reflections on Ageing and Technology. In Ageing and Technology Perspectives from Social Science, Emma Dominguez-Rue and Linda Nierling (eds.). transcript-Verlag, 311--334. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839429570-015Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Cynthia L. Bennett and Daniela K. Rosner. 2019. The Promise of Empathy: Design, Disability, and Knowing the "Other." In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19), ACM, Glasgow, Scotland UK, 1--13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300528Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Farnaz Irannejad Bisafar and Andrea Grimes Parker. 2016. Confidence & Control: Examining Adolescent Preferences for Technologies that Promote Wellness. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), ACM, San Francisco, CA, 160--171. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820028Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Mark Blythe, Andrew Monk, and Jisoo Park. 2002. Technology biographies: field study techniques for home use product development. In CHI'02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 658--659. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/506486.506532Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Eva Brandt, Thomas Binder, Lone Malmborg, and Tomas Sokoler. 2010. Communities of Everyday Practice and Situated Elderliness as an Approach to Co-Design for Senior Interaction. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (OZCHI 2010), ACM, Brisbane, Australia, 400--403. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1952222.1952314Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Stacy M. Branham, Anja Thieme, Lisa P. Nathan, Steve Harrison, Deborah Tatar, and Patrick Olivier. 2014. Co-creating & identity-making in CSCW: Revisiting Ethics in Design Research. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), ACM, Baltimore, MD, 305--308. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2556420.2558859Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2016. Unpacking the Notion of Participation in Participatory Design. Comput. Support. Coop. Work CSCW An Int. J. 25, 6 (2016), 425--475. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-016--9259--4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. John M Carroll, Gregorio Convertino, Umer Farooq, and Mary Beth Rosson. 2012. The Firekeepers: Aging Considered as a Resource. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 11, 1 (2012), 7--15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0229--9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. John W Creswell and Cheryl N Poth. 2018. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sara J. Czaja and Chin Chin Lee. 2007. The impact of aging on access to technology. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 5, 4 (2007), 341--349. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0060-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Rikke Friis Dam and Teo Yu Siang. Define and Frame Your Design Challenge by Creating Your Point Of View and Ask "How Might We." Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/define-and-frame-your-design-challenge-by-creating-your-point-of-view-and-ask-how-might-we#: :text=?We use the How Might,perfect frame for innovative thinking."Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Rikke Friis Dam and Teo Yu Siang. 2020. Introduction to the Essential Ideation Techniques which are the Heart of Design Thinking. Retrieved March 4, 2021 from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/introduction-to-the-essential-ideation-techniques-which-are-the-heart-of-design-thinkingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jennifer L. Davidson and Carlos Jensen. 2013. Participatory Design with Older Adults?: An Analysis of Creativity in the Design of Mobile Healthcare Applications. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C '13), ACM, Sydney, NSW, 114--123. DOI:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2466627.2466652Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jennifer L. Davidson and Carlos Jensen. 2013. What health topics older adults want to track:A Participatory Design Study. In Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '13), ACM, Bellevue, WA, 1--8. DOI:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2513383.2513451Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. George Demiris, Debra Parker Oliver, Geraldine Dickey, Marjorie Skubic, and Marilyn Rantz. 2008. Findings from a participatory evaluation of a smart home application for older adults. Technol. Heal. Care 16, 2 (2008), 111--118. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-2008--16205Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Allison Druin. 1999. Cooperative Inquiry: Developing New Technologies for Children with Children. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '99), ACM, Pittsburgh PA, 592--599. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303166Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Allison Druin. 2002. The role of children in the design of new technology. Behav. Inf. Technol. 21, 1 (2002), 1--25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110108659Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Hugh Dubberly. 2004. How do you design? Retrieved from http://www.dubberly.com/articles/how-do-you-design.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Glen H. Elder, Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson, and Robert Crosnoe. 2003. The Emergence and Development of Life Course Theory. In Handbook of the Life Course, Jeylan T. Mortimer and Michael J. Shanahan (eds.). Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York, 3--19. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0--306--48247--2_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. R. Darin Ellis and Sri H. Kurniawan. 2000. Increasing the Usability of Online Information for Older Users: A Case Study in Participatory Design. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 12, 2 (June 2000), 263--276. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327590IJHC1202_6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Arthur D. Fisk, Wendy A. Rogers, Neil Charness, Sara J. Czaja, and Joseph Sharit. 2009. Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches (2nd ed.). CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Fl. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1201/b22189Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Pin Sym Foong. 2016. The Value of the Life Course Perspective in the Design of Mobile Technologies for Older Adults. In Mobile Communication and the Family. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 165--181. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978--94-017--7441--3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Rachel Franz, Leah Findlater, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2018. Lost in Transition: The Importance of Conceptualizing Aging as a Process in Accessibility Research. In CHI '18 Workshop on Designing Interactions for the Ageing Populations, ACM, Montreal, Canada, 53--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Susanne Frennert, Hakan Eftring, and Britt Ostlund. 2013. Older People's Involvement in the Development of a Social Assistive Robot. In Social Robotics. ICSR 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, G Hermann, M.J. Pearson, A Lenz, P Bremner, A Spiers and U Leonards (eds.). Springer International Publishing Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Andrew Furco. 1996. Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education. In Expanding Boundaries: Serving and Learning, B Taylor (ed.). Corporation for National Service, Washington, DC, 2--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Paula Gardner and Rio Alegre. 2019. ?Just like us": Increasing Awareness, Prompting Action and Combating Ageism Through a Critical Intergenerational Service Learning Project. Educ. Gerontol. 45, 2 (2019), 146--158. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2019.1584976Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Markus Garschall, Theodor Hamm, Dominik Hornung, Claudia Muller, Katja Neureiter, Maren Schorch, and Lex van Velsen. 2016. Challenges and Experiences in Designing for an Ageing Society. Reflecting on Concepts of (Age)ing and Communication Practices. In International Reports on Socio-Informatics, Volkmar Pipek and Markus Rohde (eds.). IISI- International Institute for Socio-Informatics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Irene A. Gutheil, Roslyn H. Chernesky, and Marian L. Sherratt. 2006. Influencing Student Attitudes Toward Older Adults: Results of a Service-Learning Collaboration. Educ. Gerontol. 32, 9 (October 2006), 771--784. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270600835470Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Lilit Hakobyan, Jo Lumsden, Dympna O'Sullivan, and Hannah Bartlett. 2013. Designing a Mobile Diet Diary Application with and for Older Adults with AMD: A Case Study. In 27th International British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Conference: The Internet of Things (HCI 2013), BCS L&D Ltd, 1--10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/hci2013.9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. John Halloran, Eva Hornecker, Mark Stringer, Eric Harris, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2009. The Value of Values: Resourcing Co-Design of Ubiquitous Computing. CoDesign 5, 4 (2009), 245--273. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880902920960Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Christina N. Harrington, Lauren Wilcox, Kay Connelly, Wendy Rogers, and Jon Sanford. Designing Health and Fitness Apps with Older Adults: Examining the Value of Experience-Based Co-Design. In Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth '18), ACM, New York, 15--24. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3240925.3240929Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Iolanda Iacono and Patrizia Marti. 2014. Engaging Older People with Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI '14), ACM, Helsinki, Finland, 859--864. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2670180Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Suhas Govind Joshi and Tone Bratteteig. 2016. Designing for Prolonged Mastery. On Involving Old People in Participatory Design. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 28, 1 (2016), 3--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Hilary R. Kalisch, Deanna R. Coughlin, Sharon M. Ballard, and Angela Lamson. 2013. Old Age Is a Part of Living: Student Reflections on Intergenerational Service-Learning. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 34, 1 (2013), 99--113. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2012.753440Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Finn Kensing and Jeanette Blomberg. 1998. Participatory Design?: Issues and Concerns. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 7, (1998), 167--185. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008689307411Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Sitawa R. Kimuna, David Knox, and Marty Zusman. 2005. College Students' Perceptions About Older People and Aging. Educ. Gerontol. 31, 7 (2005), 563--572. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270590962514Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Radoslaw Nielek, and Adam Wierzbicki. 2018. Guidelines Towards Better Participation of Older Adults in Software Development Processes Using a New SPIRAL Method and Participatory Approach. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE '18), ACM, Gothenburg, Sweden, 49--56. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3195836.3195840Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Herman Koppelman and Betsy Van Dijk. 2006. Creating a Realistic Context for Team Projects in HCI. In Proceedings of the 11th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITICSE '06), ACM, Bologna, Italy, 58--62. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1140124.1140142Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Diana Kuh. 2007. A Life Course Approach to Healthy Aging, Frailty, and Capability. Journals Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 62, 7 (July 2007), 717--721. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/62.7.717Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Jonathan Lazar and Doris Lidtke. 2002. Service-Learning Partnerships in the Information Systems Curriculum. In Managing IT/Community Partnerships in the 21st Century. 1--16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4018/978--1--93070--833--4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Young Shin Lee. 2009. Measures of student attitudes on aging. Educ. Gerontol. 35, 2 (2009), 121--134. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270802523577Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Ann Light, Tuck W Leong, and Toni Roberston. 2015. Ageing Well with CSCW. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW 2015), Springer International Publishing Switzerland, Oslo, Norway, 19--23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--20499--4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Stephen Lindsay, Daniel Jackson, Guy Schofield, and Patrick Olivier. 2012. Engaging Older People Using Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12), ACM, Austin, Texas, 1199--1208. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208570Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Jennifer Mankoff. 2006. Practical Service Learning Issues in HCI. In CHI '06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (CHI EA '06), ACM, Montreal, Qubec, Canada, 201--206. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125494Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Aqueasha Martin-Hammond, Sravani Vemireddy, and Kartik Rao. 2018. Engaging Older Adults in the Participatory Design of Intelligent Health Search Tools. In Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, ACM, New York, 280--284. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3240925.3240972Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Michael Massimi, Ronald M. Baecker, and Michael Wu. 2007. Using participatory activities with seniors to critique, build, and evaluate mobile phones. In Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS '07), ACM, Tempe, Arizona, 155--162. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1296843.1296871Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Judith C. McHenry, Kathleen C. Insel, Gilles O. Einstein, Amy N. Vidrine, Kari M. Koerner, and Daniel G. Morrow. 2015. Recruitment of Older Adults: Success May be in the Details. Gerontologist 55, 5 (2015), 845--853. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns079Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Sebastian Merkel and Alexander Kucharski. 2019. Participatory Design in Gerontechnology: A Systematic Literature Review. Gerontologist 59, 1 (2019), E16--E25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny034Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Lasserre Patricia. 2011. Service learning. In Proceedings of the 16th Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (WCCCE '11), ACM, Prince George, Canada, 12--16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1989622.1989626Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Alexander Peine, Ingo Rollwagen, and Louis Neven. 2014. The rise of the "innosumer"-Rethinking Older Technology Users. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 82, 1 (2014), 199--214. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.06.013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Jeffrey M. Penick, Marte Fallshore, and Adrian M. Spencer. 2014. Using Intergenerational Service Learning to Promote Positive Perceptions about Older Adults and Community Service in College Students. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 12, 1 (2014), 25--39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2014.870456Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Anne Marie Piper and James D. Hollan. 2008. Supporting Medical Conversations Between Deaf and Hearing Individuals with Tabletop displays. In Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '08), ACM, San Diego, California, 147--156. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460587Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Alisha Pradhan, Ben Jelen, Katie A Siek, Joel Chan, and Amanda Lazar. 2020. Understanding Older Adults' Participation in Design Workshops. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20), ACM, Honolulu, Hawaii. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376299Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Yvonne Rogers, Jeni Paay, and Margot Brereton. 2014. Never Too Old: Engaging Retired People Inventing the Future with MaKey MaKey. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14), ACM, Toronto, ON Canada, 3913--3922. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557184Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Wendy Roldan, Xin Gao, Allison Marie Hishikawa, Tiffany Ku, Ziyue Li, Echo Zhang, Jon E. Froehlich, and Jason Yip. 2020. Opportunities and Challenges in Involving Users in Project-Based HCI Education. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '2020), ACM, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1--15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376530Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Wendy Roldan, Ziyue Li, Xin Gao, Sarah Kay Strickler, Allison Marie Hishikawa, Jon E. Froehlich, and Jason Yip. 2021. Pedagogical Strategies for Reflection in Project-Based HCI Education with End Users. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021 (DIS '21), ACM, Virtual Event, 1846--1860. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462113Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Wendy Roldan, Schawnery Lin, Yuxin Xu, Andrea Sequeira, and Jennifer Turns. 2020. Visual Note-taking: Opportunities to Support Student Agency in Active Learning. In 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Online. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18260/1--2--35489Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design. CoDesign 4, 1 (2008), 5--18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Phoebe Sengers, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph "Jofish" Kaye. 2005. Reflective design. In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing Between Sense and Sensibility (CC '05), ACM, Arhus, Denmark, 49--58. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1094562.1094569Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Richard A Settersten. 2017. Some Things I Have Learned About Aging by Studying the Life Course. Innov. Aging 1, 2 (2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx014Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Andrew K. Shenton. 2004. Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects. Educ. Inf. 22, 2 (2004), 63--75. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004--22201Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Lucy Suchman. 2011. Anthropological Relocations and the Limits of Design. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 40, 2011 (2011), 1--18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.041608.105640Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Shahida Sulaiman, Siti Julia Mohd Shahrol, and Abd Rahman Abd Samad. 2020. Service Learning in Application Development Course: A Case Study of a Rural Community Engagement. In Proceedings of the 2020 9th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications (ICSCA 2020), ACM, Langkawi, Malaysia, 158--162. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3384544.3384601Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Jennifer Sumner, Lin Siew Chong, Anjali Bundele, and Yee Wei Lim. 2020. Co-Designing Technology for Aging in Place: A Systematic Review. Gerontologist (2020), 1--15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa064Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Stephen Uzor, Lynne Baillie, and Dawn Skelton. 2012. Empowering Seniors to Design Enjoyable Falls Rehabilitation Tools Stephen. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12), ACM, Austin, Texas, 1179--1188. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208568Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. John Vines, Rachel Clarke, and Peter Wright. 2013. Configuring Participation: On How We Involve People in Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13), ACM, Paris, France, 429--438. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142--694X(98)00026-XGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. John Vines, Gary Pritchard, Peter Wright, Patrick Olivier, and Katie Brittain. 2015. An Age-Old Problem: Examining the Discourses of Ageing in HCI and Strategies for Future Research. ACM Trans. Comput. Interact. 22, 1 (March 2015), 1--27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2696867Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Greg Walsh, Elizabeth Foss, Jason Yip, and Allison Druin. 2013. FACIT PD: A Framework for Analysis and Creation of Intergenerational Techniques for Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13), ACM, Paris, France, 2893--2902. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481400Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Greg Walsh and Eric Wronsky. 2019. AI + Co-Design: Developing a Novel Computer-supported Approach to Inclusive Design. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2019 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '19), ACM, Austin, Texas, 408--412. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3311957.3359456Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Jenny Waycott, Frank Vetere, Sonja Pedell, Lars Kulik, Elizabeth Ozanne, Alan Gruner, and John Downs. 2013. Older adults as Digital Content Producers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13), ACM, Paris, France, 39--48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470662Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Ron Weber. 2004. Editor's Comments: The Rhetoric of Positivism versus Interpretivism: A Personal View.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Jason C. Yip, Elizabeth Foss, Elizabeth Bonsignore, Mona Leigh Guha, Leyla Norooz, Emily Rhodes, Brenna McNally, Panagis Papadatos, Evan Golub, and Allison Druin. 2013. Children Initiating and Leading Cooperative Inquiry Sessions. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, ACM, New York, 293--296. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485796Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Jason C. Yip, Kung Jin Lee, and Jin Ha Lee. 2019. Design Partnerships for Participatory Librarianship: A Conceptual Model for Understanding Librarians Co Designing with Digital Youth. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 71, 10 (2019), 1242--1256. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24320Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Jason C Yip, Kiley Sobel, Caroline Pitt, Kung Jin Lee, Sijin Chen, Kari Nasu, and Laura R Pina. 2017. Examining Adult-Child Interactions in Intergenerational Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), ACM, Denver, CO, 5742--5754. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025787Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Co-Design with Older Adults: Examining and Reflecting on Collaboration with Aging Communities
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
          Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 5, Issue CSCW2
          CSCW2
          October 2021
          5376 pages
          EISSN:2573-0142
          DOI:10.1145/3493286
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 18 October 2021
          Published in pacmhci Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader