© Boyd et al. Published by
BCS Learning and Development Ltd.
Proceedings of British HCI 2016 Conference Fusion, Bournemouth, UK
1
Interactive Technology Solutions for
Prisoners: An Environment where Sub-optimal
User Interfaces can have Significant Impact?
Kyle Boyd
Ulster University
Belfast, BT15 1ED
ka.boyd@ulster.ac.uk
Raymond Bond
Ulster University
Jordanstown, BT37 0QB
rb.bond@ulster.ac.uk
Emer O’Kane
Core Systems NI LTD
Belfast, BT14 8AD
emer@coresystems.biz
As a work in progress, we are currently investigating if current offender technology used in
prisons worldwide meets the needs of prisoners who have low computer and reading literacy. In
addition to the obvious requirements of a prisoner’s persona, researchers have identified that
emotions in prisons can be heightened and usability issues with technology can be disruptive and
result in unwanted behavior. With this in mind, we aim to evaluate the user interfaces using
validated usability testing protocols.
Prisoners, Offender Technology, User Interfaces, User Experience, Usability Testing, Human-Computer Interaction
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the last decade, the Internet, technology and
computing have changed the way society conducts
business, engages with politics and digests
entertainment through interactive devices such as
smart phones, tablets and now wearable devices.
Indeed technology can be seen as a way to help
those in need but it can also be used to make tasks
more efficient and in this case, does so for
prisoners and prison officers.
Currently in the UK there are 85,641 prisoners in
custody [1]. Studies suggest that between 22% and
47% of those prisoners do not have any formal
qualifications [2], [3]. Furthermore, between 20-
30% of prisoners have learning difficulties that
affect their ability to cope within criminal justice
system. Indeed, it is estimated by the PRT that
60% of prisoners have a reading ability equivalent
or less than that of a five year old child and around
40% of prisoners need specialist support for
dyslexia [4]. These figures contradict a little with
this: 46% of people entering the prison system
have literacy skills no higher than those broadly
expected of an 11 year old child[5].
In the UK up to 60% of a prison officer’s time at
work can involve dealing with information requests
from prisoners and in turn undertaking paper-based
administration. Significant efficiency savings can be
made using interactive technology and effective
user interfaces to deliver prisoner services such as
self-selected food ordering, book loans, registration
for educational courses and entertainment (refer to
Figure 1).
In order to move prisons from a bureaucratic,
paper-based we must introduce change; towards
integrated digital services that encourage a new
kind of interaction with prisoners; empowering them
to do things for themselves, to become more
actively involved in their rehabilitation and to
develop life skills that will benefit them on their
return to their community [6].
Nevertheless, given emotions in prison are a key
concern, sub-optimal usability of user interfaces
can raise levels of frustration for the prisoner which
can escalate to inappropriate behaviour and
disruption [7], [8]. Up to 47% of the current prison
population in the UK do not have any qualifications
suggesting low literacy levels [2]. There is
research, which considers designing interfaces for
those with low literacy [9], [10]. This is something
Direct2inmate technology aims to implement and
test by conducting a usability experiment with
prisoners who have never used the technology to
see if usability standards are met.
2. DIRECT2INMATE TECHNOLOGY
The interactive prisoner technology called
Direct2inmate is a secure platform for prisoners to
securely access information and services for
themselves. It provides tools for prisoners to
Interactive Technology Solutions for Prisoners: An Environment where Poor Usability can have Significant Impact
Boyd ● Bond ● O’Kane
2
rehabilitate and successfully re-enter society
through self-motivation.
The platform supports applications to provide
prisoners with services such as electronic
messaging, submitting requests/forms, e-learning
and shop ordering. It is our intention to consider
these interactive prisoner technology solutions to
test if they meet the needs of prisoners.
More specifically, we aim to evaluate if user
interaction issues are hindering the potential for
optimal use with the system.
Figure 1: An example of the Direct 2 Inmate which will
be usability tested.
3. USABILITY TESTING OF INMATE
TECHNOLOGY
There are a number of approaches that can be
used to conduct a Usability Test. The most
common approach is the ‘Think Aloud’ protocol
where a participant verbalises their cognitive
process while they are completing a series of tasks.
This helps demonstrate and highlight the usability
issues being encountered as they interact with the
system. The advantage of the Think Aloud protocol
is that it offers a rapid approach to conducting and
obtaining first hand insight into the thought
processes associated with different tasks [8]. To
date this approach has been used during the
design and implementation phases of software
development projects; however, it can also be used
for evaluation purposes, which will be its primary
focus in this project. The advantage of the Think
Aloud protocol is that it offers a rapid approach to
conducting and obtaining first hand insight into the
thought processes associated with different tasks
[11]. To date this approach has been used during
the design and implementation phases of software
development projects; however, it can also be used
for evaluation purposes, which will be its primary
focus in this project.
Using a Tobii Eye Tracker [12], the participants
eye-gaze and scan-path information will also be
non-invasively recorded while they interact with the
prisoner technology solution. The Tobii eye tracking
and eye control technology makes it possible for
computers to know exactly where participants are
looking on screen using infrared light which is used
to reflect of the cornea and in tune using
trigonometric functions to approximate eye
fixations. Users are not required to wear additional
devices since it is non-intrusive and the device is
simply placed underneath the monitor. Mouse
movements and audio will also be recorded.
Before and after each task is completed, the single
ease question (SEQ) [13] will be asked, which is a
7-point rating scale to assess how difficult users
find a task. It’s administered before and
immediately after a user attempts a task, which
indicates if the system met the user’s expectation.
After the usability test is completed, each
participant will complete a post test usability
questionnaire which will be scored using the
Systematic Usability Scale (SUS) [14]. SUS
provides a reliable tool for measuring usability. It
consists of a 10 item questionnaire with a five-scale
Likert style response ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree. After completion a universal SUS
score is given.
Prior to the test, each participant will also be
provided with a pre-test questionnaire to collect
information in relation to participant background
information such as age and their level of
experience using the Internet. Following the
usability test, participants will be provided with a
post-test questionnaire and from this data it will be
possible to identify a SUS score and which
elements of the interface they liked and which
problems they encountered and how they would
like these to be addressed. Participants will be
encouraged to express their opinion and thoughts
throughout the usability test. Notes taken, eye
tracking recordings and audio recordings will be
analysed to assess the following parameters:
i Time spent to accomplish each task (task
completion times)
ii Frequency and severity of problems and
usability errors participants encountered.
iii Successfully accomplished tasks (task
completion rate)
iv Un-successful task attempts (task failure
rate)
For quantitative analysis, we will use averages
(mean and median) and standard deviation and
inter-quartile range. A hypothesis test such as a t-
test will be used to test the differences between the
pre-task and post-task single ease question scores
which will highlight if any of the tasks did or did not
meet the user’s expectation.
Interactive Technology Solutions for Prisoners: An Environment where Poor Usability can have Significant Impact
Boyd ● Bond ● O’Kane
3
4. FUTURE WORK
Ethical approval for the study has been granted by
Research Institute of Art and Design at Ulster
University. Recruitment is being conducted by Core
Systems - the developers of Direct2inmate
technology. Data collection and analysis is
currently underway.
5. REFERENCES
[1] “Prison population figures: 2015 - Publications -
GOV.UK.” [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.
uk/government/statistics/prison-population-
figures-2015. [Accessed: 29-Apr-2016].
[2] P. R. Trust, “Prison: the Facts,” 2013. [Online].
Available: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/
Portals/0/Documents/Prisonthefacts.pdf.
[Accessed: 29-Apr-2016].
[3] UK Gov, “No Title,” Prior Qualifications of
Adult OLASS learners, 2015. [Online].
Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
489417/bis-16-31-prior-qualifications-adult-
olass-learners-2015.pdf. [Accessed: 05-May-
2016].
[4] “No One Knows - offenders with learning
difficulties and learning disabilities.” [Online].
Available: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/
uploads/documents/noknl.pdf. [Accessed: 29-
Apr-2016].
[5] C. Taylor, “Prisoner education in the UK: a
review of the evidence by Prisoners’ Education
Trust,” Prison Serv. Journal, no. 223, pp. 44–
51, 2016.
[6] R. Metzner, “Through the Gateway: How
Computers Can Transform Rehabilitation,”
2013.
[7] V. Knight, “Modus Vivendi: The cell , emotions ,
social relations and television,” pp. 1–19, 2015.
[8] A. Bruun, E. L.-C. Law, M. Heintz, and L. H. A.
Alkly, “Understanding the Relationship
Between Frustration and the Severity of
Usability Problems: What Can
Psychophysiological Data (Not) Tell Us?,” in
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2016,
pp. 3975–3987.
[9] B. M. Chaudry, K. H. Connelly, K. A. Siek, and
J. L. Welch, “Mobile interface design for low-
literacy populations,” 2nd ACM SIGHIT Int.
Heal. informatics Symp., pp. 91–100, 2012.
[10] N. Ahmad, U. Shoaib, and P. Prinetto,
“Usability of Online Assistance From
Semiliterate Users’ Perspective,” Int. J. Hum.
Comput. Interact., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 55–64,
2015.
[11] S. Krug, Don’t Make Me Think! A Common
Sense Approach to Web Usability, vol. Second
Edi. Berkley: Newriders, 2009.
[12] T. E. Research, “No Title.” [Online]. Available:
http://tinyurl.com/726sugb.
[13] J. Sauro and J. R. Lewis, Chapter 2 -
Quantifying User Research, vol. 11. 2012.
[14] J. Brooke, “SUS - A quick and dirty usability
scale,” Usability Eval. Ind., vol. 189, no. 194,
pp. 4–7, 1996.