Co-design Accessible Public Robots: Insights from People with Mobility Disability, Robotic Practitioners and Their Collaborations

Title of the Paper

Co-design Accessible Public Robots: Insights from People with Mobility Disability, Robotic Practitioners and Their Collaborations

Paper Information

• Subject Area: Human-Computer Interaction, Accessibility, Public Service Robots
• Keywords: Human-Computer Interaction, Accessibility, Human-Centered Design, Co-Design, Public Robots

Research Background and Problems

• What problems or challenges did the authors identify?

  • With the increasing prevalence of service robots such as delivery robots in public spaces, individuals, particularly people with mobility disabilities (PwMD), face numerous obstacles when coexisting with robots. For example, obstructive behaviors by robots may hinder wheelchair users' access to critical resources such as sidewalks and ramps.
  • Current robot design often addresses accessibility only after problems arise, rather than proactively preventing them, and lacks a comprehensive approach to consider the needs of all users.

• Why is this problem important?

  • The deployment of robots in public spaces may reintroduce accessibility issues, undermining the human rights protections achieved through legislation and design over time.
  • Multiple stakeholders (including PwMD, robotics companies, and governments) bear social responsibility for ensuring that robots are designed and operated in ways that positively impact public welfare.

• Research Motivation and Related Work

  • There is limited research on interactions between PwMD and robots, and a lack of methodologies that integrate accessibility into the robot design process.
  • This study explores how co-design methods can involve groups such as people with mobility disabilities and robotics experts to make robot design and deployment more inclusive.

Solutions

• What methods or solutions did the authors propose?

  1. Multi-Stage Research Methodology: Conduct interviews with PwMD to understand their perspectives on robot design and potential improvements; concurrently, interview robotics practitioners from industry and academia to explore the accessibility challenges in their current practices.
  2. Co-Design Workshops: Pair PwMD with robotics practitioners to collaboratively ideate and prototype robots for public spaces.

• What is innovative about this solution?

  • By employing an interdisciplinary collaborative approach, the study uncovers latent accessibility needs through dialogue between behavior and technology.
  • Involving people with mobility disabilities in the early stages of the design process is more forward-thinking than the reactive remedial measures typically employed.

• What are the implementation steps? What key technologies were used?

  • Step 1: Interview 15 PwMD to understand their views on robot design and future deployment (e.g., navigation, interaction priority).
  • Step 2: Interview 8 robotics practitioners to gather their perspectives on accessibility challenges in the current robotics industry.
  • Step 3: Organize four co-design workshops, leveraging behavioral design concepts (e.g., adjustable touchscreen heights, voice interaction) to collaboratively design accessible robots.

Research Outcomes

• What specific outcomes were achieved?

  • Feedback from PwMD on robot attributes:
    • Strong concerns about robots occupying sidewalk resources, particularly critical areas such as ramps and road widths.
    • A desire for robots to actively yield and communicate clearly with people with mobility disabilities (e.g., through voice or visual signals).
  • Feedback from robotics practitioners:
    • Acknowledged that the industry currently prioritizes easily implementable features, with limited consideration for accessibility in design.
    • Emphasized the importance of involving PwMD early to avoid high costs associated with later-stage corrections.
  • Co-Design Ideas:
    • Designed four universally applicable robot types: cargo-carrying robots, snow-clearing robots, shopping assistance robots, and street-crossing guide robots.
    • Robot functionalities included automatic height adjustment, snow clearing, and safety assistance for crossing streets.

• What advantages does it have compared to existing solutions?

  • Systematically incorporates the needs of PwMD early in the design process, rather than relying on post-hoc remedies.
  • Provides design ideas for robot functionalities that effectively combine technical feasibility with real-world user needs.

• What were the experimental or evaluation results?

  • The four co-design workshops revealed the feasibility of addressing diverse user needs with smart devices in complex environments.
  • Proposed specific design modules for robots to better serve people with mobility disabilities, including voice-activated buttons and environmental data collection features.

• Limitations and Future Directions

  • Limitations:
    • The study sample focused on people with mobility disabilities and did not encompass other groups, such as those with visual impairments.
    • Workshop discussions were relatively limited, requiring further prototype testing and real-world evaluation.
  • Future Directions:
    • Expand the study to include a broader range of disabilities and global user groups.
    • Explore how regulations for robots can better align with design requirements to optimize deployment in social contexts.