skip to main content
research-article

Guidelines for Designing Social Networking Sites for Older Adults: A Systematic Review with Thematic Synthesis

Published:21 September 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Social networking site (SNS) inaccessibility remains a barrier for many older adults. Increasingly, research has sought to address these shortcomings with recommendations for design. However, commercial uptake of these findings remains limited, in part, due to the scattering of recommendations across publications, heterogeneity in the SNS systems and features examined, and a lack of sensitivity within the existing guidelines to the heterogeneity of the target demographic. To counter these challenges, we conducted a systematic review following a thematic synthesis approach of 25 empirical studies on SNS design recommendations for older adults. From these, we synthesized a cohesive set of ten distinct design recommendations. These include ensuring an easy-to-use interface, improving social connection features, ensuring personal privacy, and introducing customized features and personalized content. In synthesizing the results, particular care was taken to capture the ways in which population diversity moderates recommendations. The results of this review can serve as a resource for designers and practitioners working on inclusive SNS for older adults. They also highlight the need for additional research into understanding user diversity in relation to SNS accessibility.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Arch Andrew and Abou-Zahra Shadi. 2010. Developing websites for older people: How web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 applies. Web Accessibility Initiative. https://www.w3.org/WAI/older-users/developingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Arfaa Jessica and Wang Yuanqiong (Kathy). 2014. A usability study on elder adults utilizing social networking sites. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Design, User Experience, and Usability. User Experience Design for Diverse Interaction Platforms and Environments, DUXU’14, 5061. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Arfaa Jessica and Wang Yuanqiong (Kathy). 2015. Usability evaluation of a social networking site prototype for the elderly. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design for Aging, 297306. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Arnott John L., Khairulla Zayneb, Dickinson Anna, Syme Audrey, Alm Norman, Eisma Roos, and Gregor Peter. 2004. E-mail interfaces for older people. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. IEEE, 111117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Bohren Meghan A., Hunter Erin C., Munthe-Kaas Heather M., Souza João Paulo, Vogel Joshua P., and Gülmezoglu A. Metin. 2014. Facilitators and barriers to facility-based delivery in low-and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reproductive Health 11, 1 (2014), 117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Brewer Robin and Piper Anne Marie. 2016. “Tell it like it really is” A case of online content creation and sharing among older adult bloggers. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 55295542.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Çarçani Klaudia and Mörtberg Christina. 2018. Enhancing engagement and participation of seniors in society with the use of social media – The case of a reflective participatory design method story. IxD&A 36 (2018), 5874. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Chang Jing Jing, Zahari Nor Salsalbilal Hildayah binti, and Chew Yu Hong. 2018. The design of social media mobile application interface for the elderly. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Open Systems. 104108. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Chou Wen Huei, Lai Yu-Ting, and Liu Kuang-Hsia. 2013. User requirements of social media for the elderly: A case study in Taiwan. Behaviour and Information Technology 32, 9 (2013), 920937. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Coelho José and Duarte Carlos. 2016. A literature survey on older adults’ use of social network services and social applications. Computers in Human Behavior 58, May (2016), 187205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Coelho José, Rito Fábio, Luz Nuno, and Duarte Carlos. 2015. Prototyping TV and Tablet Facebook interfaces for older adults. In Proceedings of the 15th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 110128. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Darroch Iain, Goodman Joy, Brewster Stephen, and Gray Phil. 2005. The effect of age and font size on reading text on handheld computers. In Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction-INTERACT 2005: IFIP TC13 International Conference. Springer, 253266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Silva Thiago Alexandre de Souza, Paula Natália Moreira de, Barbosa Glívia Angélica Rodrigues, Silva Ismael Santana, and Coutinho Flávio Roberto dos Santos. 2019. Characterization of sociability on online social networks in Brazilian elderly’ perspective: A case study on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on WWW/Internet. 1118. Retrieved from https://www.iadisportal.org/digital-library/characterization-of-sociability-on-online-social-networks-in-brazilian-elderly-perspective-a-case-study-on-facebookGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Dickinson Anna, Newell Alan F., Smith Michael J., and Hill Robin L.. 2005. Introducing the Internet to the over-60s: Developing an e-mail system for older novice computer users. Interacting with Computers 17, 6 (2005), 621642.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Inc eBizMBA. 2021. Top 15 Best Social Networking Sites and APPs. eBizMBA Inc. Retrieved from http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites. Accessed 28 December 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [16] Fiesler Casey, Frauenberger Christopher, Muller Michael, Vitak Jessica, and Zimmer Michael. 2022. Research ethics in HCI: A SIGCHI community discussion. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Fisk Dan, Charness Neil, Czaja Sara J., Rogers Wendy A., and Sharit Joseph. 2004. Designing for Older Adults. CRC press, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Flemming Kate, Booth Andrew, Garside Ruth, Tunçalp Özge, and Noyes Jane. 2019. Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: Clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Global Health 4, Suppl 1 (2019), e000882.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Gibson Lorna, Moncur Wendy, Forbes Paula, Arnott John, Martin Christopher, and Bhachu Amritpal S.. 2010. Designing social networking sites for older adults. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference. 186194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Hafez Abdulrahman and Wang Yuanqiong (Kathy). 2019. A training social media mobile app prototype for the elderly: A pilot study. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. 188197. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. [21] Harley Dave, Howland Kate, Harris Eric, and Redlich Cara. 2015. “Nearer to being characters in a book”: How older people make sense of online communities and social networking sites. In Proceedings of the 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 20232032. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Hawker Sheila, Payne Sheila, Kerr Christine, Hardey Michael, and Powell Jackie. 2002. Appraising the evidence: Reviewing disparate data systematically. Qualitative Health Research 12, 9 (2002), 12841299.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Hawthorn Dan. 2002. How universal is good design for older users?. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Universal Usability. 3845.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Hawthorne Graeme. 2006. Measuring social isolation in older adults: Development and initial validation of the friendship scale. Social Indicators Research 77, 3 (2006), 521548.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Hope Alexis, Schwaba Ted, and Piper Anne Marie. 2014. Understanding digital and material social communications for older adults. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 39033912. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Ibarra Francisco, Kowalik Grzegorz, Baez Marcos, Nielek Radoslaw, Lau Norma, Cernuzzi Luca, and Casati Fabio. 2018. Design challenges for reconnecting in later life: A qualitative study. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems. 141146. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. [27] Jung Eun Hwa and Sundar S. Shyam. 2018. Status update: Gratifications derived from Facebook affordances by older adults. New Media and Society 20, 11 (2018), 41354154. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Jung Eun Hwa, Walden Justin, Johnson Ariel Celeste, and Sundar S. Shyam. 2017. Social networking in the aging context. Telematics and Informatics 34, 7 (2017), 10711080. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. [29] Karahasanović Amela, Brandtzæg Petter Bae, Heim Jan, Lüders Marika, Vermeir Lotte, Pierson Jo, Lievens Bram, Vanattenhoven Jeroen, and Jans Greet. 2009. Co-creation and user-generated content–elderly people’s user requirements. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 3 (2009), 655678.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Madden M.. 2010. Older Adults and Social Media. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2010/08/27/older-adults-and-social-media-3/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Morris Meredith Ringel, Zolyomi Annuska, Yao Catherine, Bahram Sina, Bigham Jeffrey P., and Kane Shaun K.. 2016. “With most of it being pictures now, I rarely use it” Understanding Twitter’s evolving accessibility to blind users. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 55065516.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Norval Chris, Arnott John L., and Hanson Vicki L.. 2014. What’s on your mind? Investigating recommendations for inclusive social networking and older adults. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 39233932. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] Paez Arsenio. 2017. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 10, 3 (2017), 233240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Pandya Shraddha and El-Glaly Yasmine N.. 2018. TapTag: Assistive gestural interactions in social media on touchscreens for older adults. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. 244252. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Parker Todd, Jehl Scott, Wachs Maggie Costello, and Toland Patty. 2010. Designing with Progressive Enhancement: Building the Web That Works for Everyone. Pearson Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Center Pew Research. 2016. Social Media Update 2016. Technical Report. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Center Pew Research. 2021. Social Media Fact Sheet. Technical Report. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/2019Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Reinecke Katharina and Bernstein Abraham. 2013. Knowing what a user likes: A design science approach to interfaces that automatically adapt to culture. MIS Quarterly 37, 2 (2013), 427453. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43825917Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Restyandito, Febryandi, Nugraha Kristian Adi, and Sebastian Danny. 2020. Mobile social media interface design for elderly in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 7985. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Shneiderman Ben. 2005. Designing for Fun: Can we Design User Interfaces to be More Fun? (2004). Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Song Xiaokang. 2022. User experience design of elderly-oriented social apps based on Kano model–the case of WeChat. In Proceedings of the HCI International 2022–Late Breaking Papers: HCI for Health, Well-being, Universal Access and Healthy Aging: 24th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, HCII 2022. Springer, 546558.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Sousa Tiago Boldt, Tenreiro Pedro, Silva Paula Alexandra, Nunes Francisco, and Rodrigues Eduarda Mendes. 2011. Cross-platform social web application for older adults with HTML 5. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Entertainment Computing. 375378. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Susilo Fanny Febriani, Lee Jung-Ho, Park Ji-Hyung, and Park Jung-Min. 2018. Cross-cultural touch-based SNS interface design for the elderly. In Proceedings of the 12th KIPS International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Technologies and Applications. 1153–61. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Thomas James and Harden Angela. 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8, 1 (2008), 110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Ting Karine Lan Hing and Lewkowicz Myriam. 2015. From prototype testing to field trials: The implication of senior users in the evaluation of a social application. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-Exclusion. 273282. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Ting-Yi Wu and Rain Chen. 2018. Study on social software interface subtracting design used by the ageing population-taking Facebook as an example. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering 10, 6 (2018), 212–15. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. [47] Tsai Tsai-Hsuan, Chang Hsien-Tsung, Chen Yan-Jiun, and Chang Yung-Sheng. 2017. Determinants of user acceptance of a specific social platform for older adults: An empirical examination of user interface characteristics and behavioral intention. Plos One 12, 8 (2017), 123. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. [48] Volkmann Torben, Miller Isabella, and Jochems Nicole. 2020. Addressing fear and lack of knowledge of older adults regarding social network sites. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. 114130. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. [49] Xie Bo, Watkins Ivan, Golbeck Jen, and Huang Man. 2012. Understanding and changing older adults’ perceptions and learning of social media. Educational Gerontology 38, 4 (2012), 282296. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Guidelines for Designing Social Networking Sites for Older Adults: A Systematic Review with Thematic Synthesis

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
          ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing  Volume 16, Issue 3
          September 2023
          139 pages
          ISSN:1936-7228
          EISSN:1936-7236
          DOI:10.1145/3624974
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 21 September 2023
          • Online AM: 14 August 2023
          • Accepted: 2 August 2023
          • Revised: 28 July 2023
          • Received: 16 August 2022
          Published in taccess Volume 16, Issue 3

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)332
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)63

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        View Full Text