skip to main content
10.1145/3638067.3638090acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Case Study with a Riverside Community to Improve Apps Instant Payments Access

Authors Info & Claims
Published:24 January 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Computational systems have revolutionized essential services to society. The inaccessibility of instant payment applications can cause obstacles in financial activities between customers. This work aims to improve the accessibility of instant payment services for emergent users. We carried out a case study in a riverside community with 12 participants using the Semiotic Engineering theory (SemEng) across the Communicability Evaluation Method (CEM), identifying the accessibility problems caused by communicability disruptions. Data collection has been organized in three steps: interviews about social aspects, interactions with a payment proposal, and interviews to gather interaction challenges and opportunities. The payment proposal was developed with accessibility guidelines, a report, and manuals of a Brazilian financial institution. With this, we developed 14 design considerations for instant payment applications, which software developers can easily and quickly implement. Lastly, we highlighted the social, regional, and geographic factors that shape the digital interactions of emergent users.

References

  1. Bacen. 2022. O que é Pix. https://www.bcb.gov.br/estabilidadefinanceira/pixGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, Bruno Santana da Silva, Milene Selbach Silveira, Isabela Gasparini, Ticianne Darin, and Gabriel Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2021. Interação Humano-Computador e Experiência do Usuário. Autopublica¸c ao.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Christian Bastien and Dominique Scapin. 1993. Ergonomic criteria for the evaluation of human-computer interfaces. Ph. D. Dissertation. Inria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Brasil. 2007. DECRETO Nº 6.040, DE 7 DE FEVEREIRO DE 2007. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/decreto/d6040.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Brasil. 2014. eMAG - Modelo de Acessibilidade em Governo Eletrônico. https://emag.governoeletronico.gov.br/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasil. 2015. Lei Nº 13.146, de 6 de Julho de 2015. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13146.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Eliane Pinheiro Capra, Simone Bacellar Leal Ferreira, Denis Silva Da Silveira, Bruno Brochado Ribeiro, and Débora Maurmo Modesto. 2011. Evaluation of Web Accessibility from the Perspective of Functional Illiteracy. In Proceedings of the 10th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems e the 5th Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco, Brazil) (IHC+CLIHC ’11). Brazilian Computer Society, Porto Alegre, BRA, 280–288.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Eliane Pinheiro Capra, Simone Bacellar Leal Ferreira, João Marcelo Marques, and Samuel Santos Portela. 2021. ACESSIBILIDADE DE INTERFACES WEB PARA CUIDADORES COM BAIXA ESCOLARIDADE: ASPECTOS E REFLEXÕES. Conexões-Ciência e Tecnologia 15 (2021), 021026.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Beenish M. Chaudry, Katie A. Connelly, Kay H. ans Siek, and Janet L. Welch. 2012. Mobile Interface Design for Low-Literacy Populations. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (Miami, Florida, USA) (IHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/2110363.2110377Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Clarisse Sieckenius De Souza. 2005. The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarisse Sieckenius De Souza and Carla Faria Leit ao. 2009. Semiotic engineering methods for scientific research in HCI. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 2, 1 (2009), 1–122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, Carla Faria Leitão, Raquel Oliveira Prates, and Elton José da Silva. 2006. The Semiotic Inspection Method. In Proceedings of VII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Natal, RN, Brazil) (IHC ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1145/1298023.1298044Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Devanuj and Anirudha Joshi. 2013. Technology Adoption by ’emergent’ Users: The User-Usage Model(APCHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/2525194.2525209Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mrunal Dhaygude and Dipanjan Chakraborty. 2020. Rethinking Design of Digital Platforms for Emergent Users: Findings from a Study with Rural Indian Farmers(IndiaHCI 2020). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/3429290.3429297Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Banco Central do Brasil. 2022. Encontre uma instituição regulada/supervisionada pelo BC. https://www.bcb.gov.br/estabilidadefinanceira/encontreinstituicaoGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Banco Central do Brasil. 2022. Manual de Uso da Marca. https://www.bcb.gov.br/content/estabilidadefinanceira/pix/Regulamento_Pix/I_manual_uso_marca_pix.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Banco Central do Brasil. 2022. Requisitos Mínimos para a Experiência do Usuário. https://www.bcb.gov.br/content/estabilidadefinanceira/pix/Regulamento_Pix/IV_RequisitosMinimosparaExperienciadoUsuario.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Fred France and Dela Selormey. 2009. Biometrics improving financial accessibility. Biometric Technology Today 2009, 7 (2009), 10–11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Ana Paula Nunes Guimarães and Tatiana Aires Tavares. 2014. Avaliação de Interfaces de Usuário voltada à Acessibilidade em Dispositivos Móveis: Boas práticas para experiência de usuário. In Anais Estendidos do XX Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas Multimídia e Web (João Pessoa). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 22–29. https://sol.sbc.org.br/index.php/webmedia_estendido/article/view/4923Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. IBGE. 2021. Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios Contínua: Acesso à Internet e à televisão e posse de telefone móvel celular para uso pessoal 2019. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv101794_informativo.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Iconify. 2022. all open source icons in one framework. https://iconify.design/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Otto Guilherme Gerstenberger Junior, Guilherme Santoro Gerstenberger, and Thiago Guimarães Yamashita. 2022. Implementação do Pix e expectativas do mercado. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6527314Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Abdul Kabeer Kazi and Mohammad Adeel Mannan. 2013. Factors affecting adoption of mobile banking in Pakistan: Empirical Evidence. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) 2, 3 (2013), 54–61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Mani Tebet Marins, Mariana Nogueira Rodrigues, Jéssica Maldonado Lago da Silva, Karen Cristina Martins da Silva, and Paola Loureiro Carvalho. 2021. Auxílio Emergencial em tempos de pandemia. Sociedade e Estado 36 (2021), 669–692.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Tainá Marçal dos Santos Menezes and Ana Klaudia de Almeida Viana Perdigão. 2021. O TIPO PALAFITA AMAZÔNICO: entre formalidade e informalidade do habitar na Vila da Barca (Belém, Pará, Brasil). 6 (maio 2021), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.21680/2448-296X.2021v6n2ID23710Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Débora Maurmo Modesto and Simone Bacellar Leal Ferreira. 2013. Acessibilidade de recursos em uma interface de motor de busca com foco em usuários com baixo letramento. In Proceedings of the 12th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 32–41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Prema Nedungadi, Kathryn Devenport, Rita Sutcliffe, and Raghu Raman. 2020. Towards a digital learning ecology to address the grand challenge in adult literacy. Interactive Learning Environments (2020), 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. ONU. 2015. Transformando Nosso Mundo: A Agenda 2030 para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. https://brasil.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/agenda2030-pt-br.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Raquel O. Prates, Clarisse S. de Souza, and Simone D. J. Barbosa. 2000. Methods and Tools: A Method for Evaluating the Communicability of User Interfaces. Interactions 7, 1 (jan 2000), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/328595.328608Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Elaine Regiane Damaceno Ribeiro. 2020. Desafios digitais no setor financeiro: efeitos das tecnologias da informação e comunicação nas atividades bancárias no Brasil pós 2014. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ayushi Srivastava, Shivani Kapania, Anupriya Tuli, and Pushpendra Singh. 2021. Actionable UI Design Guidelines for Smartphone Applications Inclusive of Low-Literate Users. 5, CSCW1, Article 136 (apr 2021), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449210Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Indrani Medhi Thies. 2015. User interface design for low-literate and novice users: Past, present and future. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction 8, 1 (2015), 1–72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Rucha Tulaskar. 2020. Study of Instructional Illustrations on ICTs: Considering Persona of Low-Literate Users from India. In Proceedings of the 2020 Symposium on Emerging Research from Asia and on Asian Contexts and Cultures (Honolulu, HI, USA) (AsianCHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 53–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/3391203.3391217Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. W3C. 2018. Accessibillity. https://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility Acessado em 25 de maio de 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Case Study with a Riverside Community to Improve Apps Instant Payments Access

    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
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      IHC '23: Proceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      October 2023
      791 pages
      ISBN:9798400717154
      DOI:10.1145/3638067

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 24 January 2024

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate331of973submissions,34%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format