Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Nic Hollinworth

dblp:41/523 · also Nic D. P. Hollinworth · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
5as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
0009-0003-3624-3274ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 5 · 5 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Accessibility and assistive technology · 50% Interaction techniques and input · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Accessibility and assistive technology
older adults
0.112011
Cursor relocation techniques to help older adults find 'lost' cursors · CHI 2011
Interaction techniques and input › input device
pointing devices
0.112011
Cursor relocation techniques to help older adults find 'lost' cursors · CHI 2011

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

controlled experiment · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 littleBits go LARGE: making electronics more accessible to people with learning disabilities
abstract
The "littleBits go LARGE" project extends littleBits electronic modules, an existing product that is aimed at simplifying electronics for a wide range of audiences. In this project we augment the littleBits modules to make them more accessible to people with learning disabilities. We will demonstrate how we have made the modules easier to handle and manipulate physically, and how we are augmenting the design of the modules to make their functions more obvious and understandable.
Nic Hollinworth, Faustina Hwang, Kate Allen, Gosia Kwiatkowska, Andy Minnion
ASSETS1
2011 Cursor relocation techniques to help older adults find 'lost' cursors
abstract
Older adult computer users often lose track of the mouse cursor and so resort to methods such as mouse shaking or searching the screen to find the cursor again. Hence, this paper describes how a standard optical mouse was modified to include a touch sensor, activated by releasing and touching the mouse, which automatically centers the mouse cursor to the screen, potentially making it easier to find a 'lost' cursor. Six older adult computer users and six younger computer users were asked to compare the touch sensitive mouse with cursor centering with two alternative techniques for locating the mouse cursor: manually shaking the mouse and using the Windows sonar facility. The time taken to click on a target following a distractor task was recorded, and results show that centering the mouse was the fastest to use, with a 35% improvement over shaking the mouse. Five out of six older participants ranked the touch sensitive mouse with cursor centering as the easiest to use.
Nic Hollinworth, Faustina Hwang
CHI1
2010 Helping older adults locate 'lost' cursors using FieldMouse
abstract
This paper describes how a standard optical mouse was augmented by the addition of a touch sensor inside the body of the mouse. When the mouse is released and subsequently touched it generates a Windows message which can then be used to execute an action. Three techniques were developed using the augmented mouse (nicknamed 'FieldMouse') to help older adult computer users find the mouse cursor when it has become 'lost': placing the mouse cursor at the center of the screen; wiggling the mouse cursor from side to side; displaying a flashing red ring around the mouse cursor. The techniques were compared in a pilot study to see which one was the most effective, and this would then be used in a later study to compare techniques of finding the mouse cursor. Following the pilot, the technique of centering the mouse cursor was chosen for the later study since it was the quickest to find the mouse cursor, without needing to search the entire screen.
Nic Hollinworth
ASSETS1
2010 Relating computer tasks to existing knowledge to improve accessibility for older adults
abstract
Routine computer tasks are often difficult for older adult computer users to learn and remember. People tend to learn new tasks by relating new concepts to existing knowledge. However, even for 'basic' computer tasks there is little, if any, existing knowledge on which older adults can base their learning. This paper investigates a custom file management interface that was designed to aid discovery and learnability by providing interface objects that are familiar to the user. A study was conducted which examined the differences between older and younger computer users when undertaking routine file management tasks using the standard Windows desktop as compared with the custom interface. Results showed that older adult computer users requested help more than ten times as often as younger users when using a standard windows/mouse configuration, made more mistakes and also required significantly more confirmations than younger users. The custom interface showed improvements over standard Windows/mouse, with fewer confirmations and less help being required. Hence, there is potential for an interface that closely mimics the real world to improve computer accessibility for older adults, aiding self-discovery and learnability.
Nic Hollinworth, Faustina Hwang
ASSETS1
2009 Learning how older adults undertake computer tasks
abstract
This paper describes a study that was conducted to learn more about how older adults use the tools in a GUI to undertake tasks in Windows applications. The objective was to gain insight into what people did and what they found most difficult. File and folder manipulation, and some aspects of formatting presented difficulties, and these were thought to be related to a lack of understanding of the task model, the correct interpretation of the visual cues presented by the interface, and the recall and translation of the task model into a suitable sequence of actions.
Nic Hollinworth, Faustina Hwang
ASSETS1