The CUSS Handbook / Older travellers at the kiosk
Older travellers at the kiosk: hands, eyes and joints in self-service design
When evaluating an airport kiosk, start with the passenger's task: can they read the instruction, hear a prompt, handle a document and collect the result? For airport IT, terminal operations, airline application and procurement teams, use those questions to examine a complete transaction. Consider each task separately before drawing conclusions from someone's age.
Start with the passenger's abilities
Do not use an age label as a substitute for asking what an individual can do. The National Eye Institute's explanation of low vision makes a useful distinction: low vision is more common in older adults because many of the diseases behind it are more common, but ageing alone does not cause low vision.
For a way to organise the enquiry, a 2022 systematic review in JMIR mHealth and uHealth described four human-centred design steps: understand the context of use, specify user requirements, produce design solutions and evaluate them against those requirements. Its subject was mobile health apps for older adults. Keep that setting in mind when using its approach to frame questions about airport equipment.
For a kiosk evaluation, ask: which passengers will take part, which tasks will they attempt, and in what surroundings? What would count as meeting each requirement? Treat the following airport questions as prompts for that enquiry.
Reading a screen at close range
The National Eye Institute's account of presbyopia explains why nearby objects can become blurry with age. The lens inside the eye becomes harder and less flexible, and stops focusing light correctly on the retina, the light-sensitive tissue at the back of the eye. Presbyopia is a normal part of ageing and makes close vision difficult for middle-aged and older adults.
Keep that account distinct from low vision: the institute says ageing does not cause low vision on its own. In its everyday suggestions for minor vision loss, it lists phone and computer settings for larger text, greater contrast and reading aloud. It also lists brighter lighting at home or work and a magnifying lens for reading and other close activities.
For the kiosk, ask how the passenger reads the first instruction and how that compares with the rest of the transaction. Can they read an explanation, a choice, a confirmation and an error message? If the demonstration includes larger text or spoken information, what happens when the passenger moves to another screen? Can they still find the next action? Use these as questions for the actual interface, rather than assuming the institute's phone and computer suggestions establish a kiosk specification.
Hearing prompts in a busy hall
The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders says hearing loss with age typically occurs in both ears. Because it develops gradually, a person may not realise that some hearing ability has been lost. The institute describes changes in the inner ear, middle ear and nerve pathways between ear and brain among the factors affecting hearing with age. It also advises awareness of surrounding noise that can make hearing more difficult.
For an airport evaluation, ask what the passenger can hear at the proposed kiosk location. Can they hear the start of an instruction as well as its ending? Can they follow a prompt while looking for the relevant control or document slot? What happens if they miss a message and want to hear it again? Ask these questions through the whole interaction, including a mistaken selection or an unsuccessful document read, rather than stopping after a single sample of speech.
Hands, joints and document handling
The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases describes osteoarthritis as involving breakdown or structural changes in cartilage and other joint tissues, rather than simple wear and tear. Commonly affected joints include the ends of the fingers, the base and ends of the thumbs, knees and hips. People with osteoarthritis usually have joint pain and a short period of stiffness after rest or inactivity.
The institute also stresses individual variation: for some people osteoarthritis is relatively mild and does not affect everyday activities; for others it causes significant pain and disability. Use that distinction to question assumptions about the intended passengers, without assigning the same capabilities to everyone of a given age.
For a proposed transaction, can the participant pick up and position the document, operate the control and retrieve the printed result? What grip does each action call for? Does collecting an item involve a different movement from presenting one? Where would the passenger put a document while making a selection? Ask about approaching the enclosure and completing the sequence as well as the individual hand movements. Keep the answers specific to the people and equipment being evaluated.
Evaluate the whole transaction
The mobile health review included eight studies concerning five apps, with differing design goals, target groups and methods. Its authors' account of the evidence limits is essential: most included studies lacked sampling detail and objective, quantifiable goals, limiting the conclusions that could be drawn. They called for measurable design goals and more rigorous research. Read the four-step process with those limitations attached.
For the airport team, turn each question into something to examine with participants. Which part of the transaction is being assessed, under what conditions, and against which requirement? How will the evaluation record what happened? Does the proposed session include the enclosure, controls, audio and application together? Can a participant progress from the initial instruction to collecting the result, including any correction along the way?
In preparing that evaluation, ask whether each requirement describes an observable task. What would the evaluator record if the participant could read the instruction but could not collect the output? Would the record distinguish the screen from the physical action? Could it separate the question asked, the observed action and any proposed design change?
When reviewing the findings, ask whose experience they describe and which tasks remain unexamined. Would a change to a screen, control or collection point need another evaluation? Keep the discussion tied to those observations and the stated requirements, and ask what further evidence is needed before drawing a wider conclusion.