1. Introduction
Digital literacy has become increasingly important for participation in European society. The European Union, for example, is striving towards a complete digital transformation of its economy and society by 2030 (European Commission, 2021). However, rapid technological advancement may have outpaced the average user’s ability to navigate it. While digital exclusion has historically been defined by a lack of physical access to internet-connected products, a new form of digital divide has emerged. Half of European citizens lack basic digital skills (Eurostat, 2025) and older adults are among those reporting the lowest digital confidence (Reference Bentley, Naughtin, McGrath, Irons and CooperBentley et al., 2024). As digital exclusion of older adults is related to reduced mental and physical health, poorer quality of life and increased loneliness, it is valuable to investigate the existing gap between the characteristics, needs and expectations of this user group and the current digital paradigm (Reference Paschoarelli, Fernandes and Ferro-MarquesPaschoarelli et al., 2021). Digitalisation is neither contested nor minimised in this paper, rather, we critically examine how contemporary digital product design can affect older adults’ access to equitable benefits of digitalisation.
2. Human language in a digital world
As individuals and within society, people have witnessed the transformation of physical products into their digital variants. Reference Van Campenhout, Frens, Overbeeke, Standaert and PeremansVan Campenhout et al. (2013) describe this process as dematerialisation: a phenomenon that sees artefacts from the physical environment move towards the digital world and as a result thereof, become intangible, dynamic and transient. As a product loses its physicality, it also loses the attachment to its original environment. This placelessness of products inevitably impacts the user interaction. To interact with the now digital products, the user must access them via their newfound, often shared container through a singular, concentrated point of entry: the screen. The requirement for an interaction paradigm as such to function is that the user must be capable of navigating both the physical container and the dematerialised applications housed within it. However, this paradigm brings with it an interaction style that is more cognitive in character (Reference Mejía-Figueroa and Juárez-RamírezMejía-Figueroa & Juárez-Ramírez, 2017) and less controlled by the user’s body, which ordinarily facilitates an intuitive interaction with the products in its environment (Reference PaulPaul, 2021). Clicks, taps and gestures may feel familiar after years of practical application, but it would be questionable to call them natural or consider them drawn from deeper-rooted body-world interactions (Reference Hansen and DalsgaardHansen & Dalsgaard, 2015; Reference Wobbrock, Morris and WilsonWobbrock et al., 2009). Despite often labelled as intuitive, digital products do require some user behaviour that is not part of innate human interaction style (Reference Krummelbein and NuurKrummelbein & Nuur, 2013). We discuss three relevant ways in which intuitive human interaction differs from the interaction style required to successfully use a screen-based digital product.
2.1. Limited physical affordances
Reference Merleau-PontyMerleau-Ponty (1982) argues that perception is fundamentally physical: one does not understand objects through mental interpretation alone, but also through direct, sensorimotor engagement with them. Reference Gibson, Shaw and BransfordGibson (1977) demonstrates that this physical understanding, or embodied perception, is invoked when a product carries strong physical characteristics, or affordances, that act as communicating cues. It is these affordances that speak to our embodied perception and make products feel intuitive, reliable and predictable (Reference Djajadiningrat, Overbeeke, Wensveen and MacDonaldDjajadiningrat et al., 2002). Screen-based digital products, however, do not carry strong affordances as they lack the type of tangibility that could be rich in physical cues (Figure 1). The product interaction therefore becomes more difficult for the user to intuitively understand and use, as the user cannot rely on their natural embodied perception.
Example of controlling a game through a product with minimal physical affordances (left) and through a product with stronger physical affordances (right) (RDNE stock, 2021)
2.2. High cognitive load
The fewer physical affordances the screen-based digital product carries, the more the user must rely on the graphical user interface (GUI) to understand the interaction. The GUI must therefore visually simulate feedforward and feedback cues that could otherwise be derived from a product’s physicality (Reference Ledneva and KovalevLedneva & Kovalev, 2021). Instead, the user is now guided through an interaction by a series of cascading graphical layers, displayed on a screen, embedded in a device with little to no affordances due to sleek designs. This type of interaction demands higher cognitive effort of users to comprehend and correctly navigate the dialogue between the product and themselves (Reference Kumar and KumarKumar & Kumar, 2019). With every new screen displayed, users are required to hold abstract representations of previous and potential next interface states in their working memory (Reference Chandler and SwellerChandler & Sweller, 1996). This working memory is further taxed as users’ brains forage for information while they switch between interfaces. Each additional switch exacts a cognitive cost and heightens decision effort considerably (Reference GwizdkaGwizdka, 2010). The intangible and often hidden interface logic bypasses users’ embodied perception, making it difficult to predict the outcome of the interaction (Reference Oviatt, Arthur and CohenOviatt et al., 2006). The interaction the user can have with a contemporary screen-based digital product is therefore, so far, one of higher cognitive load than natural body-world interactions would be. Repeated and excessive exposure to interactions with screen-based digital products leads to cognitive overload, diminished multi-tasking abilities and reduced performance across all age groups, but particularly in older adults (Reference Weksler and WekslerWeksler & Weksler, 2012).
2.3. Lack of groundedness
Groundedness, as described by Reference Eichinger, Schreier and Van OsselaerEichinger (2021), is the felt experience of safety, strength and stability that occurs when a product connects the user to their physical, historic and social environment. This does not seem to be the case for screen-based digital products, as studies provide converging evidence of problematic user states such as dissociation and suspension during use (Reference Ingrassia, Cedro, Puccio and BenedettoIngrassia et al., 2022). Reference Suler, Gackenbach and BownSuler (2017) defines the home of digital products as a psychological space that acts as “an extension of the individual and collective human conscious and unconscious mind”. This means that if users want to engage with a screen-based digital product, they must temporarily abandon the awareness of their bodies and surroundings in pursuit of functioning in said space. The lack of tangible, rich interaction (Reference FrensFrens, 2006) therefore fuels an ungrounded and unfulfilled state (Reference Dirin, Nieminen and LaineDirin et al., 2022). While digital technology continues to advance in the direction of intangibility (e.g. smart glasses), so do frequent ungrounded states increase feelings of anxiety (Reference Huang and HariedHuang & Haried, 2019).
3. Older users
The body of research investigating the relationship between ageing and digitalisation concludes that while older adults feel willing to adopt new technologies, they face barriers that make them feel apprehensive or incapable of doing so (Reference Vaportzis, Clausen and GowVaportzis et al., 2017). Surveyed older adults describe a lack of instructions, knowledge and confidence, finding technology too complex, and their own feelings of inadequacy as such barriers. Despite efforts to increase digital age-inclusivity through research and design guidelines, the digital divide appears to persist (Reference Goodman-Deane, Bradley and ClarksonGoodman-Deane et al., 2021). Reference PetriePetrie (2023) articulates how age-inclusivity efforts can fail when researchers and designers assume negative stereotypes and homogeneity among older adults. This suggests that persistent barriers to digital engagement cannot be fully attributed to age-related physical or cognitive decline alone. Reference Barros Pena, Clarke, Holmquist and VinesBarros Pena et al. (2021) echo this, demonstrating that older adults experienced a fundamental transition from interacting with transparent mechanical devices to navigating opaque digital systems, positioning them as dependent, sometimes helpless end-users, generating feelings of inadequacy rooted in expectation misalignment rather than genuine skill deficits. This dissonance was verbalised by participating older adults as holistic concerns about control and competency that cannot be easily articulated into specific interface needs. Participants’ requests for better digital product interaction were summarised into three categories: predictability, reliability and reversibility. Based on these findings, we argue that while universal and inclusive design approaches often focus on matching features to the physical and cognitive capabilities or limitations of older adults, an interaction-level design challenge runs parallel to the development of these usability features. We discuss three phenomena that illustrate why prior inclusive digital product design has not made sufficient impact to overcome the interaction-level barriers older adults face in the current digital paradigm.
3.1. Magnify and simplify
A common digital design strategy for including older adults involves simplifying interfaces and magnifying text and icons (Reference Gomez-Hernandez, Ferre, Moral and Villalba-MoraGomez-Hernandez et al., 2023) (Figure 2). This ‘magnify and simplify’ approach, reminiscent of the ‘shrink it and pink it’ design philosophy in early product design for women, often serves less as a truly inclusive solution and more as a compensatory attempt at making the non-inclusive easier to adapt to. Both approaches assume the excluded group needs minor modifications to be able to use the product. However, Reference Fu, Zitkus, Cook, Maidment, Harmer and Goodman-DeaneFu et al. (2025) observed that in their study, most barriers to digital technology adoption occurred in the pre-use phase. Reference Vaportzis, Clausen and GowVaportzis et al. (2017) echo this finding, reporting that anticipatory anxiety predicts lower use of technology in older adults. These findings suggest that interface optimisations alone are unlikely sufficient to counteract exclusion, as apprehension often emerges before specific usability features can exert their intended effect.
Example of the ‘magnify and simplify’ design approach in designing digital products for older adults (Bertelsmann8080, 2015)
3.2. Safety over adaptation
Socio-emotional Selectivity Theory (Reference Carstensen, Isaacowitz and CharlesCarstensen et al., 1999) shows that, as adults perceive their remaining time as limited, they shift their priorities from future-oriented goals, like status or self-actualisation, to immediate emotional wellbeing and safety. Similarly, Gerotranscendence Theory (Reference TornstamTornstam, 2005) sees older adults more likely to overcome ego matters, transcend life events, and better accept their own ageing. It is therefore possible that older adults would theoretically be able to adapt to digital products, but rather, do not find the required cognitive load or feelings of anxiety to be worth the benefits of doing so. We hypothesise that while screen-based digital interactions require adaptation from all users, younger users perceive a higher interaction benefit than cost, motivating them to cope with experiences of dissociation and disembodiment. Older adults, however, may perceive a vastly different cost-benefit balance, prioritising felt safety over the benefits of use, and decline. The consequence for designers entails a shift in user priorities from usability to felt safety.
3.3. Relying on future generations
Whilst many think that next generations will be better equipped to adapt to digital products evolving throughout their lives (Reference Wandke, Sengpiel and SönksenWandke et al., 2012), we’d argue that they will experience the same barriers to entry once they age. As technology continues to evolve, we anticipate that the exclusion pattern will perform a phase shift: today’s digitally native users may become tomorrow’s excluded population when faced with AI interfaces, just as current older adults struggle with screen paradigms. This cycle suggests that digital exclusion is not fundamentally about age or capability, but about a persistent mismatch between how humans naturally interact and how technology requires us to adapt. Until technology is designed to adapt to human interaction patterns, rather than forcing adaptation upon users, each new technological innovation may create its own excluded population.
4. Embodied interaction: the missing link?
The character of current screen-based digital interaction, as described in Section 2, involves limited physical affordances, elevated cognitive load, and reduced groundedness. These qualities contribute to an opaque interaction experience that does not readily support the needs articulated by older adults, as described in Section 3, namely predictability, reliability and reversibility. We introduce embodied interaction as a potential method to bridge this gap. Embodied interaction is “the involvement of a user’s physical body while interacting with surrounding technology, encompassing physicality, sensory-motor skills, and spatial presence” (Reference GajendarGajendar, 2010). It does not call for a regression or slowdown of technological advancement, instead, it proposes that the re-materialisation of screen-based digital products, and the embodied interaction it enables, may constitute the missing link between digital innovation and the inclusion of older adults. We hypothesise that by utilising tangibility, designers can provide older adults with the physical, cognitive and emotional support they require to feel capable and safe in using digital products. This tangibility can consist of invitations for users to use gestures, but also of increasing the physicality of a product by which we increase the use of the physical body by design. We identify three ways in which embodied interaction can mitigate interaction-level barriers: re-introducing physical affordances, providing cognitive support and enhancing somatic safety. We do acknowledge that embodied interaction may not be optimal in all contexts, for instance, for users with certain motor impairments for whom touchscreens are most accessible. We therefore clarify that our paper specifically addresses the barriers experienced by older adults, across age groups, who would benefit from embodied interaction approaches. We view this approach as complementary to, rather than a substitute for, existing inclusivity efforts.
4.1. Re-introducing physical affordances
Products with tangible elements can be designed to more accurately and closely match the physical abilities of older adults (Reference Wobbrock, Kane, Gajos, Harada and FroehlichWobbrock et al., 2011). When product features can be physically held, felt and manipulated, they offer a larger interaction surface and better opportunities of access for users who, due to the physical changes related to ageing, struggle with the flatness of screens and small sizes of on-screen elements (Reference Elboim-Gabyzon and Danial-SaadElboim-Gabyzon & Danial-Saad, 2021). While screens and touchscreens demand fine motor precision, sustained visual performance and learned gestures, embodied interactions can leverage gross motor actions, such as moving around larger elements, as well as offer more exaggerated proprioceptive feedback, both of which better suit the abilities of many older adults.
4.2. Providing cognitive support
The physical features of a tangible product can be designed to leverage the user’s activated embodied perception in a way that digital products currently do not. Through physical configuration, product elements can extend the user’s cognitive system into the environment and offload mental processing demands, providing support for memory, attention and decision-making (Reference PaulPaul, 2021). We echo Reference PaulPaul (2021) as she states that “as the world’s problems becomes increasingly complex, the naked brain becomes increasingly unequal to the task of solving them”, arguing that embodied perception plays an increasingly important part in cognitive functioning. We present three re-materialisation strategies that can support the cognitive functioning of older adults when physically interacting with digital systems (Figure 3).
4.2.1. Physical metaphors can create intuitive understanding through familiarity
Physical objects that embody familiar metaphors can make products more actionable upon perception. Metaphors directly map to previous experiences and more immediately convey interaction possibilities without requiring instruction or blind starts. These metaphors can be small and additional, such as familiar interaction controls like knobs and buttons, or, they can extend into habitual products users do not associate with technology such as books (Reference Rodríguez, Rodríguez, Lucero and HerskovicRodríguez et al., 2019), kettles (Reference FoxFox, 2018) or plants (Reference Angelini, Caparrotta, Abou Khaled and MugelliniAngelini et al., 2016). In this design strategy, a digital function is embedded into an already familiar embodied interaction, helping older adults access digital benefits through known behaviours.
4.2.2. Externally sequenced design can organise decision-making and working memory
Environmental scaffolding by itself can lower cognitive strain by embedding memory tasks into the physical world where they are perpetually visible, not transient or easy to lose track of (Reference WilsonWilson, 2002). When layered in sequence, it also reduces difficult abstract decision-making by embedding one function per interaction (Reference Ly Tung, Preßler, Gall, Hurtienne and HuberLy Tung et al., 2016), making the relationship between action and outcome more constrained (Reference Ullmer, Ishii and JacobUllmer et al., 2005). The second benefit of externally sequenced design is that explicit user flows can be built to guide the user through a successful interaction journey with less errors. Compared to a screen-based digital product, which can only display one path of the sequence at a time, it eliminates the need for the user to recall internal product states and interaction steps from memory, which is significantly more difficult to do when older.
4.2.3. Multi-sensory feedback can build cognitive certainty and anchoring
Physical product elements can carry multi-sensory input and output design. When designed coherently, a multi-sensory interaction design approach helps older adults feel more certain of the outcome of their interactions, and this enhances cognitive certainty and motivation to use the product (Reference Atkin, Stacey, Roberts, Allen, Henshaw and BadhamAtkin et al., 2023; Reference Li and YangLi & Yang, 2024). A product that is rich in sensorial connection may speak a language that is intuitively understandable to the physical body.
From left to right: a metaphorical design for digital phone calls with a kettle (Reference FoxFox, 2018), externally sequenced design to help dementia patients perform their daily digital routines (Seniors at Home, 2018), a multi-sensory approach in offering users both tangible and on-screen controls (Shwangtianyuan, 2024)
4.3. Enhancing somatic safety
We introduce a novel benefit of embodied interaction in digital design: somatic safety. Basing this argument on the findings on groundedness from Section 2.3, we refer to somatic safety as a felt sense of security and adequacy that allows users to engage with a product without anxiety. As demonstrated in Section 3, both accessibility and usability improvements cannot have a positive impact unless the product feels emotionally safe enough for older adults to approach and use from the outset. We hypothesise that the physicality of a product can carry, by design, a higher volume of information that, through embodied interaction, makes the product more perceptible, understandable and grounding to a user. Based on the converging findings throughout this paper, we synthesise three ways through which the physical richness of a product can positively alter the user’s state of safety: 1) moment-to-moment interaction predictability through familiarity and intuitiveness of the digital system due to embodied perception, 2) a sense of reliability through groundedness, preserved by the strong body-product-environment connection, and 3) a sense of confidence evoked by feeling autonomously competent in reversibly manipulating the product’s components both forwards and backwards in case of errors or doubt. This increase in perceptual transparency therefore not only affects the degree of accessibility and usability but also impacts how somatically safe users feel in the pre-use, use and post-use phase of the product interaction. We hypothesise that due to the lack of rich affordances and the ephemerality of screen-based digital products, they may be inherently constrained in their potential to offer a similar sense of somatic safety to older adults.
5. The Embodied Inclusion Framework
We introduce the Embodied Inclusion Framework (Figure 4) as a proposed age-inclusive digital design method. The framework operates through three interconnected dimensions: Physical Accessibility, Cognitive Usability, and Somatic Safety. The dimensions respond to the interaction-level tensions identified in the preceding sections, namely the structural characteristics of screen-based digital products (limited physical affordances, high cognitive load, reduced groundedness) versus older adults’ expressed needs (predictability, reliability, reversibility). Grounded in principles of embodied perception (gross motor action, proprioceptive feedback, familiarity, sequencing, sensorial richness), the framework translates these theoretical insights into structured and implementable design directions. This approach seeks to combine the functional benefits of advanced digital technology with aspects of the perceptual transparency associated with mechanical interaction, thereby supporting more age-inclusive digital engagement. We hypothesise that:
-
1. Re-materialising physical affordances may enhance Physical Accessibility by engaging gross motor actions and providing proprioceptive feedback, thereby supporting intuitive interaction through embodied perception.
-
2. Designing these physical features to be familiar, sequential and sensorially rich, may support cognitive processing and therefore strengthen Cognitive Usability.
-
3. Increased perceptual transparency through embodied interaction may enhance users’ sense of predictability, reliability, and reversibility, enhancing what we term Somatic Safety.
If empirically validated, this framework may provide designers with a systematic and implementable method for addressing interaction-level mismatches, forming a bridge between theoretical critique and practical intervention. While preliminary, it offers a structured lens through which designers can respond to the holistic concerns expressed by older adults and contribute to reducing age-related digital exclusion. It should not be interpreted as an exhaustive model of digital inclusion but rather as a contribution to the existing toolkit for age-inclusive design. We view this framework as applicable across diverse digital product contexts, but its implementation must remain sensitive to the heterogeneity of older adults and the specific interaction demands involved.
The Embodied Inclusion Framework
6. Conclusion and future work
Digital exclusion of older adults remains a pressing challenge for designers. Despite substantial efforts in accessibility and inclusive design, many older adults continue to report feelings of uncertainty, diminished confidence, and reduced control when engaging with screen-based digital systems. This paper has argued that such exclusion may not be attributable to user limitations alone, but to a foundational mismatch between embodied human interaction patterns and the structurally intangible character of contemporary digital products. In response, we introduced the Embodied Inclusion Framework, structured along three interconnected dimensions: Physical Accessibility, Cognitive Usability, and Somatic Safety. These dimensions translate principles of embodied perception into implementable design directions that address interaction-level tensions rather than solely feature-level compatibility. The framework is not intended as a universal solution, but as one complementary contribution within a broader repertoire of age-inclusive design strategies. Our future research will focus on empirically evaluating the framework through the development and comparative testing of prototypes designed with and without its implementation. Both qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to assess its impact on perceived predictability, reliability, reversibility, and overall interaction. Such validation is essential to determine whether the framework can meaningfully support more inclusive digital interaction. By foregrounding embodiment as a design principle, this work seeks to contribute to a more structurally attuned approach to age-inclusive digital design, while aligning technological advancement with the perceptual, cognitive and experiential realities of ageing populations.
Open access
