Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T10:54:01.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ACCEPTANCE AND USER EXPERIENCE OF WEARABLE ASSISTIVE DEVICES FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES

Part of: Human Behaviour and Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

E. Papp ,
C. Wölfel  and
J. Krzywinski
E. Papp*
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
C. Wölfel
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
J. Krzywinski
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
*
*emese.papp@tu-dresden.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper presents experience-oriented aspects of the development of wearable assistive devices (exoskeletons) for industrial purposes, an area which has only begun to be explored. Our research aims to examine user acceptance criteria for assistive devices and understand the meaning of interaction with wearable assistive devices for the users. The resulting models deliver new insights about the importance of user experience for technology acceptance and should be generally considered in development processes of wearable assistive devices.

Keywords

user experienceempirical studiesevaluationtechnology acceptanceexoskeletons
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1515 - 1520
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Arnold, C. and Klee, C. (2016), Akzeptanz von Produktinnovationen, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11537-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BAUA, Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (2015), Arbeitsbedingungen in der deutschen Automobilindustrie (BIBB/BAuA-2012).Google Scholar
BGHM, Berufsgenossenschaft Holz und Metall (2017), Einsatz von Exoskeletten an (gewerblichen) Arbeitsplätzen, BGHM No. 0059.Google Scholar
Burmester, M. et al. (2015), “Experience Design and Positive Design as an alternative to classical human factors approaches”, In: Beckmann, C. and Gross, T. (Eds.), INTERACT 2015 Adjunct, University of Bamberg Press, Bamberg, pp. 153–160.Google Scholar
DGUV, Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung (2017), Einsatz von Exoskeletten an gewerblichen Arbeitsplätzen.Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S. and Göritz, A. (2010), “Needs, affect, and interactive products–Facets of user experience”, Interacting with computers, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, A. and Trübswetter, A. (2018), “Mensch-Roboter-Kollaboration in der Produktion: kritische Würdigung etablierter Technikakzeptanzmodelle und neue Erkenntnisse in der Akzeptanzforschung”, In: Weidner, R. and Karafilldis, A. (Eds.), Technische Unterstützungssysteme, die die Menschen wirklich wollen, Konferenzband, Hamburg, pp. 223–233.Google Scholar
Lawaczeck, M. (2001), Zur ergonomischen Beurteilung von Montagetätigkeiten in der Automobilindustrie, Ergon, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Liebers, F., Brendler, C. and Latza, U. (2013), “Alters und berufsgruppenabhängige Unterschiede in der Arbeitsunfähigkeit durch häufige Muskel- Skelett Erkrankungen”, Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheits forschung – Gesundheitsschutz, Vol. 56, pp. 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, M. and Keppler, D. (2013), Modelle der technikorientierten Akzeptanzforschung: Überblick und Reflexion am Beispiel eines Forschungsprojekts zur Implementierung innovativer technischer Energie effizienz-Maßnahmen, (Discussion paper No. 34), Berlin.Google Scholar
Sheldon, K.M. et al. (2001), “What is satisfying about satisfying events?”, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1037//O022-3514.80.2.325CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steffen, D. (2014), Design als Produktsprache: Einführung, Vorlesung an der Hochschule Luzern.Google Scholar
Storm, A. (2017), Gesundheitsreport 2017, DAK-Gesundheit, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Thüring, M. and Mahlke, S. (2007), “Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human–technology interaction”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701396674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wölfel, C. and Krzywnski, J. (2019a), “Human Needs as the Crux of the Matter in Product-Service Systems Development”, In: Eriksson, Y. and Paetzold, K. (Eds.), Human Behaviour in Design. Proceedings of the 2nd SIG conference, Neubiberg. https://doi.org/10.18726/2019_2Google Scholar
Wölfel, C. and Krzywinski, J. (2019b), “Ansatz und Modell der User Experience cyber-physischer Systeme in professionellen Kontexten und dessen Kommunikation in Industriegüterunternehmen”, In: Arbeit interdisziplinär: analysieren -- bewerten -- gestalten. 65. Kongress der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft, GfA-Press, Dortmund.Google Scholar