| Literature DB >> 35409528 |
Angel Jaramillo-Alcázar1, José Arias1, Israel Albornoz1, Alex Alvarado1, Sergio Luján-Mora2.
Abstract
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) covers a range of neurodevelopmental disorders that begin in early childhood and affects developmental activities. This condition can negatively influence the gaining of knowledge, skills, and abilities, such as communication. Over time, different techniques and methods have been put into practice to teach and communicate with children with ASD. With the rapid advancement in the field of technology, specifically in smartphones, researchers have generated creative applications, such as mobile serious games, to help children with ASD. However, usability and accessibility have not been often taken into account in the development of this type of applications. For that reason, in this work we considered that both, usability and especially accessibility are a very important differentiators for the quality and efficiency of mobile serious games. Our approach has two important contributions, the incorporation of accessibility as a fundamental requirement in the development of a mobile serious game and the proposal of a method for the development of this type of applications for children with ASD, a method that can be used by other developers.Entities:
Keywords: ASD; accessibility; autism; disabilities; educational; impairments; learning; serious games; sustainability
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35409528 PMCID: PMC8997419 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19073844
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1User-Centered Design Phases.
Figure 2Serious Game Development Method [39].
Figure 3Prototype Design Tabs.
Figure 4Registration and Login Screens.
Figure 5Serious Game Flow: (1) Registration, (2) Login, (3) Create a Child, (4) Play, (5) Results, (6) Communication.
Figure 6Child Creation and List of Children Screens.
Figure 7Home and Main Categories Screens.
Figure 8Food Category Levels and PECS and Voice Assistant Screens.
Figure 9Question and Results Screens.
Figure 10App Architecture design.
MARS Evaluation of SimpleTEA by five evaluators.
| Variables | Ev. 1 | Ev. 2 | Ev. 3 | Ev. 4 | Ev 5. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| E1. Entertainment | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| E2. Interest | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | |
| E3. Customization | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | |
| E4. Interactivity | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| E5. Target Group | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | |
|
| F6. Performance | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| F7. Ease to use | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | |
| F8. Navigation | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | |
| F9. Gestural Design | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | |
|
| A10. Layout | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| A11. Graphics | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | |
| A12. Visual Appeal | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | |
|
| I13. Accuracy of app description | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| I14. Goals | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | |
| I15. Quality of information | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | |
| I16. Quantity of information | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | |
| I17. Visual Information | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | |
| I18. Credibility | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Figure 11MARS Categories Evaluation.
Guideline Verification.
| Guideline | Compliance | Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Customizability | ✓ | The game can be very adaptable to each individual, or to each child; however it is complex to create an application that is highly customizable. |
| Evolving Tasks | ✗ | Although the application as such does not increase the difficulty levels of the activities itself, the categories involved are different from each other, motivating the child to be able to memorize or relate the image to the word and thus generate the expected result and the user can communicate with the people around, such as parents, therapists, and teachers. |
| Single Objective | ✓ | The application fully complies with this guideline, because the objective of it is really simple and clear, the child only needs to recognize that he must learn the words through the PECS to be able to communicate in the future. |
| Instructions | ✓ | In the same way as the previous point, the instructions are also clear and intuitive; in addition, there is a voice assistant, so the child will not be stressed by the amount of text. |
| Reward | ✗ | This guideline was not solidified throughout development because a type of reward could not be correctly adapted for the child, despite the fact that the reward is implicit in the fact of being able to communicate, within the application there is no such reward. |
| Repeatability and Predictability | ✓ | The application is repetitive and predictive, as all the levels and categories are designed in a standard way, the application is essentially repetitive within the trivia and predictive, since the structure is maintained throughout the app. |
| Transitions | ✓ | The transition time within the app when teaching the words to the child is almost immediate, in the same way as the trivia, it is automatic every time the next question is answered, it is instantly displayed. |
| Minimalist Graphics and Clear Audio | ✓ | Given that the application itself focuses a lot on the child successfully memorizing the word, the images chosen for the development of the application are as simple and minimalist as possible, in the same way, the audio is clear and aligns with the images. |
| Serendipity | ✗ | At the end of each trivia, an image is displayed that basically indicates that the level was fully met; however, there is not so much intrigue and surprise within the application, on the other hand, the voice assistant does correct the child’s actions in case of committing any mistake, obviously not in a repressive but encouraging way. |
| Dynamic Stimuli | ✗ | In this section, within the design, music with pleasant sounds was implemented that manages to maintain the child’s attention, on the other hand, the images are static and lack animation, this pattern can however be complemented with the help of the therapist or family member in charge of the child stimulating his attention. |