Usability/Accessibility Testing
UW-Madison Hospital
April 5th-10th, 2005
The design team applied for human subjects testing on November 8, 2004 and after several revisions, we were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) on March 3, 2005. Testing was performed between April 5th-10th, 2005 in room G5/170 of the University of Wisconsin – Hospital. The testing called for a maximum of ten participants with certain disabilities including: Blind, Low Vision, Deaf, Parkinson’s disease, Stroke, Heart Failure, Diabetes, and Obese. We also called for four control subjects to ensure testing fairness.
We were interested in testing the general accessibility of the bike and hopefully obtain useful feedback from our participants. Prior to initiating testing, each subject was required to fill out a consent form and a general health survey. We then demonstrated the proper way to use the bike including proper entrance/exit and possible adjustments so that user can provide accurate feedback about all of the bike’s components. If they wanted to, they could have pedaled on the bike for a few minutes. After testing, each participant was asked to rank each of the bike’s components on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being the highest). The results were tabulated and are displayed below.
It was found that most participants found the prototype readily accessible. Because of the small number of participants in both the controls and experimental group, the standard deviation was quite high. Based on the results on the ability to enter and exit the prototype, both groups found it easy to access the device and exit upon completion of exercise. The seat assist is used to help users stand from a fully seated position, thus nearly all subjects liked the idea of implementing the seat assist. Furthermore, the lighted foot pedals was another positive point brought up by our participants. Since it was activated wirelessly upon sitting, it is very easy for the subjects to relate to people with low vision to find the foot pedals. Lastly, most subjects liked the idea that we added the arm exercise to the bike. They felt that it gave them more variability in their exercise by allowing upper and lower body workouts.
One of the main feedbacks that we received was that it was hard to adjust the pistons for the arm exercise. Because we had to change the actual design of the pistons, it became harder for users to adjust the pistons. Especially since we have two pistons on each side of the prototype, and that one of the pistons on each side is close to the ground, users found it difficult to adjust them without restraining themselves from not falling off the bike.
Our experimental group definitely pointed out that having a bike with dual independent upper and lower body exercise is the first of its kind. In addition, they appreciated added components such as the seat assist, power seats, and the simplified user interface. Our control group liked the newly designed bike we created and were able to see it being useful for people with various disabilities.
IRB Documents
Website Author: Jonathan S. Millin Last Updated: May 23rd, 2005