K. Nordby et al. (eds.), Human- Computer Interaction
`© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 1995
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1023
`Page 1
`
`

`

`395
`
`An adaptable userinterface
`
`
`
`Figure 1 --Emulated Videophone with additional text exchange and picture display/annotation
`functionality.
`
`In order to study the relative contribution that
`different media make to the successful exchange of
`information, and to study the accessibility of
`different media for people with disabilities, a
`number of goals wereset.
`
`1) To be able to construct interfaces where the
`users, particularly users with disabilities, would see
`one single “application” on the screen of the
`computer. Although each function (i.e.
`video
`exchange, text exchange and picture display and
`annotation) was handled through a separate window,
`this was not supposed to be apparent to the user.
`This was designed to avoid confusion arising from
`information being handled by one window being
`obscured by another window.
`
`2) To develop a system that could be readily altered
`to move,resize or hide the part of the interface that
`handled a particular medium.
`
`3) To develop an interface where parts of the
`display area could be allocated to additional
`software elements that would provide a user with
`disabilities with additional assistance, for example
`an on-screen keyboard.
`
`The flexibility of the resulting system allows the
`layout of the screen to be altered to reflect the needs
`of the user and the information to be exchanged.
`It
`is possible to restore to each window its
`conventional boundary features. This allows each
`window to be resized and repositioned. Once a new
`layout is approved, it can be frozen and the window
`boundary features removed.
`The parameters
`governing each layout can be storedfor later re-use,
`
`so task or user specific layouts could be recalled,
`and the same system tailored to the needs of a
`variety ofdifferent users.
`
`This became particularly important when the needs
`of users with disabilities were considered. Many
`people have a complex mix of physical and sensory
`impairments that not only result in difficult in
`speaking, but also affect their ability to use a
`conventional computer keyboard orpointing device.
`For this reason, a set of devices and software were
`assembled that could be added to the basic system
`to adapt the service interface to allow it to be made
`useable.
`
`Because information could be exchanged in a
`number of media, and because each mix of
`impairments and the resulting disabilities are unique
`to each user, it is impossible to predict in advance
`exactly how the system should be adapted. Forthis
`reason, a structured approach to testing the
`possibility of providing access to the emulated
`service was devised. This is described below.
`
`PILOT STUDY
`
`Method
`Six attenders at a rehabilitation day care facility
`agreed to take part in the pilot study to test the
`service and to adapt
`the interface to makeit
`accessible to them.
`In each case, the following
`procedure wasfollowed:
`
`1) A conversation scenario was constructed that
`involved the user in a discussion about a visit to
`New York State in the USA. The scenario was
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1023
`Epic Games Ex. 1023
`Page 2
`Page 2
`
`

`

`396
`
`Part Five
`
`Case Studies: Application and Practice
`
`loosely scripted, in that the data to be exchanged
`and the media to be employed were given, but the
`users were free to “package” their questions and
`responses as they wished. A memberofthe research
`team took the role of the “travel agent” throughout
`the study.
`
`2) Each user in the study had previous experience
`of text processing and drawing and painting
`applications on the Macintosh (the preferred
`machineat the rehabilitation centre). A number of
`the users had taken part in earlier studies involving
`the use of the text telephone. None had any
`experience of using a videophone. They wereall
`given hands on training in the use of the various
`functions of the system, including a practice run
`through the scenario script. Then an attempt was
`made to run through the script as a “real”
`conversation. Where a user encountered a problem,
`a “helper” (another memberof the research team)
`handled that part of the conversation. The problems
`were logged.
`
`The experience of using the service was
`3)
`analysed.
`Each problem encountered was
`considered, and an adaptation to the hardware or an
`additional software assistive function was proposed.
`The user interface layout was re-designed to
`accommodate any changes that were necessary.
`
`4) The system, complete with adaptations was
`tested with the users. If problems remained, the last
`step was repeated once more.
`
`SUBJECTS
`The subjects in this study had the following
`disabilities that affected their ability to use the
`emulated service.
`
`the ability to use hands.
`
`6) Subject D: Pre-lingually profoundly deaf with
`the consequence that speech is very difficult to
`understand.
`
`Results
`In all cases it was foundthat the user interface could
`be adapted so that the users could handle every part
`of the conversation script. This was achievedafter a
`maximum of two attempts to adapt the interface.
`
`The problems encountered and the adaptations made
`for each subjectare listed below.
`
`1) Subject R: Without adaptation, this user was
`unable to take part in a conversation using any
`functional part of the service. Adaptation of the
`service involved adding a switch interface that
`triggered an on-screen scanning array. The on-screen
`scanning array scans through objects in the scan
`window. The scan can be started by a switch press
`and stopped when the scan markeris over the object
`that
`is desired.
`In this case, a full set of
`alphanumeric and punctuation characters were
`provided in addition to a set of mouse emulation
`functions. This allowed the user to type and to
`perform mouse functions on the screen objects,
`simply by pressing a switch with a movement of
`the head. This was so slow that text prediction
`software was also added tothe service interface.
`
`The text prediction software presented the user with
`a list of the most predictable words that matched a
`character typed by the user.
`If the required word
`wasin the list, it was selected. If not the nextletter
`was typed. Considerable keystroke savings, and
`hence time savings can be made using this
`technique.
`
`1) Subject R: Cerebral Palsy, resulting in severe
`loss of speaking abilities and no useable control of
`The addition of on-screen assistive techniques meant
`hand movements.Ris able to use head movements
`that the layout of the screen had to be altered to
`accommodate the additional elements. This was
`to press a switch.
`accompanied by a reduction in the size of elements
`such as the video window andthe text telephone
`window. The effect of this on conversation fluency
`and effectiveness is a matter for further study.
`
`2) Subject E: Cerebral Palsy resulting in major loss
`of speaking ability and little useable control of
`hands. E uses her chin to control a motorised
`wheelchair through a set of switches.
`
`I: Advanced muscular dystrophy,
`3) Subject
`resulting in majorloss of strength and severe loss of
`speaking abilities.
`I is able to write, but with
`difficulty.
`
`4) Subject G: Cerebral Palsy, resulting in major
`loss of speakingabilities and reduced ability to use
`hands. G employs an assistive speaking device to
`generate speech and can slowly use a keyboard and
`mouse.
`
`5) Subject J: Impairment unknown,but has speech
`that is difficult to understand and some reduction in
`
`2) Subject E: This user was unableto type or use a
`mouse, but could use a rollerball mounted so thatit
`could be operated with movements of the chin. The
`roller ball was equipped with two buttons. Theleft
`hand one was configured to act as a conventional
`button and the right hand one was configured to
`stay “down” when it was used, allowing screen
`elements to be dragged. Typing was provided by
`adding an on-screen keyboard.
`Items on the
`keyboard were selected by clicking the pointer on
`them.
`In order to improve speed and typing
`accuracy, text prediction was added. The layout of
`the interface for this user is shown in figure 2
`below.
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1023
`Epic Games Ex. 1023
`Page 3
`Page 3
`
`

`

`An adaptable user interface
`
`397
`
`” fue Reais foasret Gpiions
`
`font
`
`sponen Resse Het
`
`:
`
`1: Helle
`2: Help bg
`3: Helpful
`4: Hell
`: Helpless
`
`Figure 2 - Emulated Videophonewith adaptations for subject E
`
`3) Subject I: The adaptation employed for this user
`consisted of an on-screen keyboard and text
`prediction.
`
`4) Subject G: This user did not need any adaptation
`to the interface. The siting of the keyboard, mouse
`and the assistive speaking device was critical.
`Because of reduced hand movement control, a
`rollerball was tried, but this proved to require too
`fine motor control for this user.
`
`5) Subject J: The only adaptation made to the
`system was the addition of the text prediction,
`added in the space below the picture window.
`
`6) Subject D: Again, the only adaptation made to
`the system wasthe addition of the text prediction.
`
`As a result of these adaptations, all the users were
`able to complete all parts of the conversation
`without any assistance.
`It was found that
`the
`interface could be configured to suit each user in a
`matter of minutes by recalling saved layouts.
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`This exercise demonstrated the need for an adaptable
`interface that could be tailored to the needs of
`different users, and it showed that it is possible for
`people with quite severe disabilities to participate
`independently in a multimedia conversation.
`
`Having verified that the basic emulated service tool
`operated as required and that the interfaces can be
`adjusted, stored and retrieved when required, a
`number of aspects of the interface to multimedia
`conversation services can now be explored usingthis
`tool. These include:
`
`1) The usefulness of different media to a
`conversation or collaborative task, and how this
`usefulness can be affected by the absolute and
`relative positions or sizes of the “media spaces”
`within the interface.
`
`2) The value of being able to customise the
`appearance of the interface and its elements
`according to task or personal preference, and being
`able to recall task or user dependentlayouts.
`
`3) Interaction between people in a conversation or
`collaborative task, particularly when one or more
`participants have difficulty handling an information
`medium. Issues such as those that govern the
`suitability of another medium to convey the same
`information,the effect that this difficulty has on the
`richness of the information being conveyed, and the
`types of assistance that the remote partner can give
`the person with a disability can all be explored.
`
`It is the intention of the authors to utilise this tool
`to explore someofthese issues.
`REFERENCES
`
`[1] Blattner M. M. and Dannenberg R. B., (1992)
`“Multimedia Interface Design”, Addison-Wesley
`Publishing Company
`
`[2] Schneiderman B., (1992) “Designing the User
`Interface”, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
`
`[3] Weisbecker A., Machate J. and Koller F., (1993)
`“Guidelines & Rules for Development of MADE
`Multimedia Applications”, FhG-IAO, Deliverable of
`Esprit Project 6307 (MADE1)
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1023
`Epic Games Ex. 1023
`Page 4
`Page 4
`
`