Table 1
Representation of researchers, specialists, developers and members of the public involved in the different phases of the development.
| CATEGORIES INVOLVED | PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4 | PHASE 5 | PHASE 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Researchers (LU), scientific expertise | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Citizen Science Specialists (VA), project manager, communications specialist, citizen science expertise | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Graphic designer (VA) | X | |||||
| Digital accessibility and universal design expert | X | |||||
| App developers (miThings), technical expertise and know-how | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Older adults, members of the public, primary target group | X | X | X | |||
| University students, members of the public with housing accessibility knowledge | X | |||||
| Adults, members of the public | X | |||||
| Children (10–15 years), members of the public | X |
Figure 1
Two examples of how the items from the Housing Enabler (HE) Screening Tool were optimized to improve readability and reduce complexity of the citizen science version for the Housing Experiment app.
Figure 2
Illustration of items of the Housing Experiment app.
Table 2
Usability* ratings by university students (n = 26).
| ITEM, n (%) | STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | STRONGLY AGREE 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I thought the app was easy to use | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (12) | 6 (23) | 17 (65) |
| I imagine that most people would learn to use this app very quickly. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (8) | 11 (42) | 13 (50) |
| I felt very confident using the app. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (8) | 12 (46) | 12 (46) |
[i] * System Usability Scale (Brooke 1996).
Table 3
Lix readability scores* of questions in the Housing Enabler Screening Tool as compared to the app version.
| LIX SCORE | ORIGINAL VERSION (n = 33) | APP VERSION (n = 40) |
|---|---|---|
| <30 (very easy to read, cf. children’s books) | 5 (15%) | 13 (33%) |
| 30–40 (easy to read, cf. fiction) | 10 (30%) | 17 (43%) |
| 40–50 (average, cf. normal newspaper texts) | 4 (12%) | 6 (15%) |
| 50–60 (difficult, cf. official texts) | 6 (18%) | 4 (10%) |
| >60 (very difficult, cf. bureaucratic) | 8 (24%) | 0 |
[i] * (Björnsson 1968).