Creating a meaningful experience<br />through a device<br />
That new movie now in 3D?<br />So what?<br />
MMI<br />CHI<br />HCI<br />
Human sciences<br />Exact sciences<br />Design<br />HCI’s MULTIDISCIPLINARITY<br />
“DESIGNING<br />for<br />UX<br />
spaces<br />“<br />Designing<br />forhumancommuncation<br />&interaction<br />Winograd 1997 p. 155<br />”<br />
spaces<br />“<br />Designing<br />forhumancommunciation<br />&interaction<br />Winograd 1997 p. 155<br />”<br />
“<br />RE-PLACE-ING SPACE<br />Space is the opportunity<br />Place is the understoodreality<br />”<br />Harrison & Dourish...
"The extent to which a product canbeusedbyspecifiedusers<br />to achievespecifiedgoalswitheffectiveness, efficiency& satis...
"The extent to which a product canbeusedbyspecifiedusers<br />to achievespecifiedgoals witheffectiveness, efficiency& sati...
“A person's perceptions and responses<br /> that result from the use <br />or anticipated use of <br />a product, system o...
“A person's perceptions and responses<br /> that result from the use <br />or anticipated use of <br />a product, system o...
PLEASURE<br />Jordan<br />HEDONICS<br />Hassenzahl<br />“A person's perceptions and responses<br /> that result from the u...
Humanmemory<br />Cognitivemodeling<br />FIRST WAVE<br />Human factor<br />
Human information processor<br />
ActivityTheory<br />EcologicalPsychology<br />DistributedCognition<br />Externalcognition<br />SituatedAction<br />Ethnome...
Phenomenological<br />Design-oriented<br />Emotion focused<br />Quality focused<br />THIRD WAVE<br />Human crafter<br />Hu...
Example hedonics Hassenzahl<br />Timeline Facebook<br />
You<br />
AssociationforComputingMachinery -ACM<br />Special Interest Group onComputer-HumanInteraction<br />For academics as well a...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Introduction to HCI


Published on

PART I: Theory and trends
towards the design for experience’
Disciplines: MMI, CHI, HCI
Multidisciplinarity of HCI
The move towards experience design and interaction design
Discussion From spaces to places
From design serving users to design serving co-creators
From usability to user experience
user experience
Theoretical frameworks
First wave (context, view on users, methods, theory)
Second wave (context, view on users, methods, theory)
Third wave (context, view on users, methods, theory)
utility of the theories for interaction design

Published in: Education, Technology, Sports
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • PART I: Theory and trendsIntroduction towards the design for experience’ Disciplines: MMI, CHI, HCI Multidisciplinarity of HCI Trends: The move towards experience design and interaction designDiscussion From spaces to places From design serving users to design serving co-creatorsFrom usability to user experience Definition usabilityuser experience Theoretical frameworksFirst wave (context, view on users, methods, theory)Second wave (context, view on users, methods, theory)Third wave (context, view on users, methods, theory) Discussion utility of the theories for interaction design
  • its contribution is not one to the aesthetics of things, but to the aesthetics of experiences. This is the challenge designers and vendors of interactive products face: Experience or User Experience is not about good industrial design, multi-touch, or fancy interfaces. It is about transcending the material. It is about creating an experience through a device.It is nothing more than an awkward piece of infrastructure: even with the most elegant shell or navigational structure, it does not reflect the love put into the message.The post-materialistic interactive product is, thus, not so much a tangible object, but a story transported or told through an object - a &quot;material tale&quot; or &quot;psychosocial narrative&quot;. Further illustrate Western societies&apos; shift from the material to the experiential and the potential problems technology-oriented businesses have in accommodating this shift. Cf. experience economy
  • For example, Madonna&apos;s Confessions on a Dancefloor sold only 1.6 million copies, but her world tour generated about 200 million dollars. According to Pollstar (Bongiovann 2010), in 2009 the average ticket price for a top 100 act in the US was about $64, a CD made only $13.99. Typically, illegal digital downloads are made responsible for this effect. But the missing willingness to pay for music in the form of a tangible product may also be a consequence of shifting from a materialistic to an experiential orientation. Today the music itself matters, different type of ownership, cf.SpotifySo, what&apos;s unique and not copyable? A feeling, or an experience.&quot;
  • Just take 3D television as an example: It is an innovation born out of a frantic need for re-inventing television to ensure future sales. The result is an expensive, hard to sell technology, without much power to impact our lives &quot;The new movie by Darren Aronofsky now in 3D! So what?&quot; Indeed, other technology-mediated innovations, such as improving the social experience of watching television as a family or over a distance, require less effort in terms of resources (both on the vendor and the consumer end), but at the same time offer a profound improvement of current practices and according experiences. We should definitely shift attention (and resources) from the development of new technologies to the conscious design of resulting experiences, from technology-driven innovations to human-driven innovations.
  • Implication: what are we studying? Man-MachineInteraction (MMI)First use of the termStemsfrom time when computers werestill ‘machines’Computer-HumanInteraction (CHI)Originated in USAName of important organisation (ACM SIGCHI)Series of conferences (CHI conference) (almost a label)Orignally a narrow focus, associatedmainlywith computer sciences, ‘hard’ sciencesor engineering (hence the terms ‘cognitive engineering orusability engineering’) later onitlostsitsidentificationwith engineering Human-ComputerInteraction (HCI)Puts emphasison ‘human’ instead of on ‘computer’Butessentially, nowadays CHI and HCI are the sameNew termstry to emphasizespecific focusHuman-MediaInteraction (HMI)Computer SupportedCollaborativeWork (CSCW)Tangible User interfaces (TUI)Computer-MediatedCommunication (CMC)User Interface DesignImportance of terminologyUser Interface Design (UID)Couldrefer to anyprocess to design a UIUser-Centered Design (UCD)Emphasizes the central place of users in the design processHuman-Centered Design (HCD)Takes a holisticperspectiveon the personusing a computerSub-disciplinesInformationarchitecture (IA)Deals withstructuring and labeling contentInteraction Design (ID)Focuseson the interaction of userswith a systemUsabilityevaluation (UE)Evaluates the usability of interfacesPicture:
  • Humansciencese.g. (cognitive) psychology, (cognitive) ergonomy, human factors, socialsciencesFocus on the userMethods to studyusers (psychology, anthropology)Fromexperiments to ethnographicobservationsMental processes (cognitivepsychology)Socialinteraction (sociology, communicationsciences)Sometheoriesorprinciples are immediatelyapplicableE.g. gestaltprinciplesSometheoriesorprinciplesneed a more thoroughapplicationGuidelinesModels of humanbehaviour and socialinteractionObservation and evaluationmethodsExact sciencese.g. computer sciences, informatics, engineeringFocus on computerDevelopment of newtechnologies to enhanceinteractionwith computersInput technologiesOutput technologiesSupportingtechnologiesSoftware engineering methodsDesign e.g. graphic design, product design, industrial designFocus onvisual and interaction designPrototypingmethodsDesign processErgonomic designsGraphic design / aestheticsDesign innovationCreativeskills
  • Experience design cfExperience Designstands for technology, which suggests meaningful, engaging, valuable, and aesthetically pleasing experiences in itself. E.GThinking &quot;communication experiences&quot; rather than &quot;mobile devices&quot; opens up a huge design space for possible devicesSTEP 1. Experience Design is a remedy to this. It starts from the Why, tries to clarify the needs and emotions involved in an activity, the meaning, the experience. STEP 2 Only then, it determines functionality that is able to provide the experience (the What) and an appropriate way of putting the functionality to action (the How). Experience Design wants the Why, What and How to chime together, but with the Why, the needs and emotions, setting the tone (see Figure 7). This leads to products which are sensitive to the particularities of human experience. It leads to products able to tell enjoyable stories through their use or consumption. Don&apos;t get me wrong, we still need all the wonderful technologies, dreamt up by engineers and computer scientists all over the world. But they are only materials - canvas, colours, and brushes - for the Experience DesignThe wake-up experience created by an alarm clock substantially differs from the experience created by sunrise and happy birds. The question is whether we can create technology which understands the crucial features of sunrise and birds and which succeeds in delivering a similar experience, even when the sun refuses to shine and the birds have already left for Africa.In fact, the experience I described in the beginning was not created by sun and birds, but by Philips&apos; Wake-Up Light. This is a crossing of an alarm clock and a bedside lamp. Half an hour before the set alarm, the lamp starts to brighten gradually, simulating sunrise. It reaches its maximum at the set wake-up time and then the electronic birds kick in to make sure that you really get up. Admittedly, it is a surrogate experience, but so are love stories and travel novels. It is artificial, but not vulgar. And more importantly, it substantially changes the way one wakes up. It changes the experience. The object itself, its form, is rather unremarkable (see Figure 1).The Philips Wake-Up Light has nevertheless the power to &quot;transcend its encasing&quot; because its contribution is not one to the aesthetics of things, but to the aesthetics of experiences. This is the challenge designers and vendors of interactive products face: Experience or User Experience is not about good industrial design, multi-touch, or fancy interfaces. It is about transcending the material. It is about creating an experience through a device.Picture:
  • Interaction design (more and more beingbandedabout in addition to of HCI as a way of focusing more onwhat is beingdone(i.e. designinginteractions) ratherthan the componentsit is beingdone to (i.e. the computer, the human) cf. quote winograd 1997 oralso quote Rogers 2002, p.6: Interaction design is “the design of interactiveproducts to support people in theireveryday and working lives”.
  • Uit Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems Steve Harrison* and Paul Dourish† we are all highly skilled at structuring and interpreting space for our individual or interactivepurposes. IN real life: For instance: Physical spaces are structured according to uses andneeds for interaction. An office door can be closed togive independence from the space outside, or left open tolet us see passers-by. People’s offices are more likely tobe sited near to the offices of their colleagues.Space goes with metaphors, spactial concepts play in our thingking and our language (notion of distance ‘far apart’ or ‘up and down ~ good &amp; bad’These metaphors have been adopted particularly in Computer supported cooperative workExample of designing spaces: shared workspaces, providing a setting for interaction, drawn upon analogies withthe spatial organization of the everyday physical world to structure aspects of distributed multi-user interactionE.g. through metaphors of “virtual hallways” or principles related to spatialProximity and action. In the everyday world, we act (more orless) where we are. We pick up objects that are near us, not at a distance; we talk to people around us, because our voices only travel a short distance; we carry things with us; and we get closer to things to view them clearly. Similar properties are exploited in collaborative virtual spaces. We talk to those people that we face and stand close to. Also principles of Presence and awareness.But what exactly do we mean by spaces? Understand its meaning by comparing it to places.“ place is security, space is freedom.” uit Space and place: the perspective of experience  p. 3 Door Yi-Fu Tuan, 1977Definition (van Harrison &amp; Dourish ref below) :”Space is the structure of the world; it is the three-dimensional environment, in which objects and events occur, and in which they have relative position and direction.” Space is abstract. E.g. ‘desktop’ with its elements. So a place may be more specific than a space. A space is always what it is, but a place is how it’s used. A place is generally a space with something added—social meaning, convention, cultural. Hence, the meaning of place depends on both the spatiality and the cultural understandingBijvoorbeeld: Eenkleinongezelligerokersruimte (space) versus de plaats (place) ominformele deals aftesluiten, teroddelen etc. House versus Home. When we acknowledge the difference between space and place, we must understand that in the design for meaningful experiences, designing for places becomes important too. Space is not enough!!This has been acknowledged over the last few years, cf. Harrison and dourish 1996
  • Nevertheless, the Harrison &amp; Dourish warn that for designers: “Space is the opportunity; place is the understood reality”. Why is that?See also Anthony Giddels and Geraldine Fitzpatrick in his Locale framework (the same idea of a place as a setting for action)Example A conference hall and a theatre share many similar spatial features (such as lighting and orientation); and yet we rarely sing or dance when presenting conference papers. Our behaviour is governed not by physical constraints but by social norms! We wouldn’t describe this behaviour as “out of space”; but it would most certainly be “out of place”; and this feeling is so strong that we might try quite hard to interpret a song or a dance as part of a presentation. It is a sense of place, not space, which makes it appropriate to dance at a Grateful Dead concert, but not at a Cambridge college high table; to be naked in the bedroom, Instead, Placenessis created and sustained by patterns of use; it’s not something we can design in. On the other hand, placeness is what we want to support; we can design for it –&gt; similarities with user experience designDesign implicationsTurn the attention away from the structure of space toward the activities that take place ther, emphasizing not how to design the space, but how to design for the interaction!!Place reflects the emergence of practice, i.e. knowledge that is shared by a particular set of people based on their common experiences of time. E.g. meeting room: other constellation when focus group, brainstorm, presentation … customized to changing needs, ‘appropriated’, malleable enough. Such practices do not emerge from the designers of the system but from the actions of the users. The idea of place is relative to a particular community of practice, only shared by a particular set of people. E.g. a shopping street: view from delivery trucks, children on their way to school, meet and dine, lazy weekend etc. Let’s now see what kind of opportunities designers have taken in history…
  • New design spaces are emerging … and these have consequenceson the rolesplayedbyeverydaypeople in the design processtooCf Sanders traditional design space can be described as design for consuming. This space is focused on designing for consumptive activities such as shopping and buying which lead to owning and using. Because design in this space is often market-driven as opposed to human-centered, it has resulted in many over-featured products that are easy to sell, yet may be difficult to use. Companies spend large amounts of money communicating about and advertising these products and services. The Design for Consuming Space is a good example of design serving markets, not people.Design serving users was first introduced in the mid 1980’s when everyday people began to try to use computers and found that they could not use them. New disciplines, such as usability engineering, emerged to help bring about more “user friendly” products. Microsoft, for example, a pioneer in usability testing, had four usability engineers on staff in 1988 (8). The usability domain has grown and gained tremendous momentum. Today Microsoft has hundreds of people involved in usability testing and user-centered designing. The focus on usability led to improved products and tools. Yet, important as it is, usability has not been enough. In 1992, I suggested (7) that that we needed to learn how to design products and tools that were simultaneously “useful, usable and desirable”. Today thousands of people are involved in user-centered design practices, most often in the field of Human Computer Interaction (hci), many of them succeeding in designing product and/or systems that are simultaneously useful, usable and desirable.Comparison: your home versus your neighbours’ house/home. It may look like a similar space, but it is a different perceived place. When you have to swap houses suddenly for one day, you will USE that house. What you care about is whether the house is user-friendly, but you don’t care about what it means to you as this is no place that can be appropriated. Picture:
  • Design serving adapters emerged over the last five years as people who have been inundated with options for consumption seek avenues for creative expression. Design serving adapters is not only a reaction to an overabundance of choices. It has been enabled by our use of information technology to find what we want, when we want it and to be able to purchase it, for the lowest possible price, over the Internet. Companies such as Levi’s, L.L. Bean, Converse and Dell Computer are capitalizing on this need/want and now offer people the ability to customize products online, making it possible for them to enjoy one-of-a-kind products made to their specifications. New publications such as Readymade and Make cater to the adapters among us, as well.As designers serving adapters, we will learn how to design things that are not only useful, usable and desirable, but are also reusable and customizable.Comparison: It is here were people are given the chance to make places in media spaces, through a process of adaptation and appropriation. Just like you rearrange a house to suit our lives and hereby making the house into a home, we can do the same in technological spaces. Turn-key: choosing from a catalogue, but making it your own choice (materials, kitchen, budget). You can adapt, but still the options are predefined and rather limited. Adaptation is like
  • The new information and communication technologies have spawned another of the new design spaces: design serving participants. We now have the ability to locate and to communicate instantly with people anywhere in the world having similar passions, interests or hobbies. We already have community sites such as eBay, wikis, and blogs that support these activities. In the Design serving Participants Space, we will learn how to design things that are useful, usable, desirable, reusable, and customizable. We will also learn how to design to support immersive and collective experiences.Comparison: your house becomes a home when you live in it, when you can invite friends family, when it becomes a collective, shared experience
  • Beyond the current edge of practice are the co-creating spaces where designers and everyday people work collaboratively throughout the design development process. Co-creation has been noted across different domains. There has been a synchronicity in the appearance of this idea which has been referred to as “underdesign” (4), “meta-design” (1), and “loose fit” design (5).Co-creation is no longer a future dream. Recent research (3) shows that over half of all on-line American teenagers create their own content. (The following activities counted as the creation of new content: create a blog; create or work on a personal website; create or work on a webpage for school, a friend, or an organization; share original content such as artwork, photos, stories or video online; or remix content found online into a new creation). Although this study was conducted in the us, it is not hard to imagine that the results would be similar for other parts of the world. Imagine the world ten years from meta-design = how to create new media that allow users to act as designers and be creative • why meta-design? - design as a process is tightly coupled to use and continues during the use of the system - address and overcome problems of closed systems - “underdesign” - example: American constitution - create opportunities for design at use time - create design opportunities rather than design solutions - beyond participatory design 􀃆 design for change - transcend a “consumer mindset” a researcher in our center: “You&apos;re not going to make a Hollywood feature with iMovie, but you can make some pretty cool home movies from the holidays.” - success of CLever video presentation - my skiing movie as another example Trade-offs in a “Do-It-Yourself Society” LEGO Digital Designer DIY creations + business model: order yourconstructions in a self-made boxComparison house vs home: use googlesketchup to draw the home you dream of and discuss this with architect to co-design it.
  • &quot;Usability means that the people who use the product can do so quickly and easily to accomplish their own tasks. This definition rests on four pointsUsability means focusing on users;people use products to be productive;users are busy people trying to accomplish tasks; andusers decide when a product is easy to use.&quot;(Dumas &amp; Redish, 1999)
  • effectiveness: the accuracy and completeness with which users can achieve their goalsefficiency: the resources expended in relation to the accuracy and completeness of goals achievedsatisfaction: the comfort and acceptability of the work system to its users and other people affected by its useLearnabilityHow easy is the system to learn?EfficiencyHowquicklycanusersachievetheirtasks?MemorabilityHow easy is the system to remember?ErrorsControl of errors, includingprevention and recoverySatisfactionHowmuchuserslike the system(Nielsen,1993)Originally usability focus was on actual usability rather than measures of perceived usability. Perception was a secondary user satisfaction measure to chi researchers, who believed (not correctly) that measurable reduction in time, errors, questions and training would, over time translate into positive perceptions.
  • the UX definition proposed by ISO (2008) [10] The definition focuses UX on the immediate consequences of use (perceptions and responses) and also introduces the concept of ‘anticipated use’.contextual factorsThe ISO definition also addresses the object that theinvestigated UX is related to: product, system, or service.This means the definition is in line with our view that userexperience is related to usage, and so, is a narrower conceptthan general ‘experience’. According to our views, user experiencefocuses on interaction between a person and something thathas a user interface
  • UX as dynamic, context-dependent and subjective, which stems from a broad range of potential benefits users may derive from a product. (see discussion in Law et al., 2009 )The User ExperienceNo specific goals – ‘lean back’ – free choiceNoteffectiveorefficient, butemotionallyrewardingUnique context of the experienceDesigningfor user experienceAvoidnegativeemotions vs. producepositiveemotionsMakingproductschallenging, seductive, playful, surprising, memorable, moody, enjoyable, …It is notpossible to design the user experience, youcanonly design for the user experienceExploit design solutionsthatevokeorintensifycertainfeelingsA holistic view ondesigningproducts
  • Pioneers:Hassenzahl and his unifying model: Beyond the instrumental (holistic, aesthetic, hedonic)Emotion and affect (subjective, positive, antecedents &amp; consequences)The experiental (dynamic, complex, unique, situated, temporally bounded)academicperspective (e.g. Hassenzahl) Non-instrumentalaspectsValue (fun)Pleasure and funPleasuretypology (Jordan): physio-,psycho-, socio-, ideo-pleasureFunology (Blythe e.a.) seealsoCarrollLudicproducts (Gaver)Aesthetics (Tractinsky)Correlationbetweenaesthetics and (perceived) usabilityValue (Cockton)Hedonics (Hassenzahl)PragmaticattributesFulfilment of individual’sbehavioural goalsManipulation of the environmentHedonicattributesIndividual’spsychologicalwell-being Are strongpotentialsforpleasure “outstanding”, “impressive”, “exciting”, “interesting”, … Provide stimulation, communicateidentity and provokevalued memories----StimulationA product&apos;s perceived ability to surprise, to be novel Productsshould provide newimpressions, opportunities and insightE.g. unused features you hope to use in the futureIdentificationA product&apos;s ability to communicate a favorable identity relevant othersSocialfunction of self-expressivityEvocationThe memories attached to a productA product thatrepresents past events, relationshipsor important thoughts
  • (cf before the early ‘80s: early computing  people were employed in three roles, management, programming and operation. Reducing operator burden was a key focus. Then gradually, as computers became more reliable and capable, programming became a central activity. Context 1980-1985:discretionary use comes into focus.Less expensive computers, markets for non-technological hands-on users who would get little or no formal training, who are not computer specialists. Users who would have a choice of using the computer (cf. computer at the workplace where the computer is only used indirectly , as a tool in their everyday work where to some extent users can decide which features they use, can ignore some injunctions… more discretionary use for home computer). Command and form-based interactionsHence the psychology of discretionary users was of particular interest to psychologists who liked to use computersTo technology companies planning to sell to these discretionary users. Cognitive psychology was the driving forceWhy? The realization that most computer systems being developed were difficult to learn, difficult to use and did not enable the users to carry out the tasks in the way they wanted.Therefore cognitive psychology should provide the body of knowledge research methods and findings to reverse this trend and inform the design of easy learn and use computer systemsFirst view on users = human factorsHuman factor = rather passive, fragmented, de-personalized, unmotivated individualThe human often reduced to being another system component, with certain characteristics, such as limited attention span, faulty memory that need to be factored into the design equation for the overall human-machine system and that can be analysed in the same manner as the information processing mechanisms of technology.Single userEarly ‘80s _ First wave HCI (70’s-80’s)Cognitive approachHuman as information processorInteraction between single user and computer“Human factors”Methods- Rigid guidelines, controlled experiments, formal methods, user modelling, …- Typical standard way of representing user requirements in the functional requirements specification document TheoriesTheories about human memory (basic research): were useful for the provision of explanations of the capabilities and limitations of users (related to e.g. Memory, attention, perception , learning etc)Information processing theories and models used as a basis from which to develop design principles, methods, analytic tools and prescriptive advice for the design of computer interfaces. e.g.. Gestalt principles law of proximity, similarity, closure, continuity , figure ground often problematic when interpreted regardless of context or tasks e.g. Miller’s theory about memory only 7+- chunks of informationCognitive modeling: model the cognition that is assumed to happen when a user caries out its tasksSome have a predictive element others are more prescriptive (and often proven to be more successful in their utility in practice, such as e.g. Heuristic evaluations and cognitive walkthroughs)e.g. Hutchins et al. gulfs of execution and evaluation gulfs between the mental representation held in our minds and users’ goals versus the physical components and states of the system. The gulf of execution is the degree to which the interaction possibilities of an artifact, a computer system or likewise correspond to the intentions of the person and what that person perceives is possible to do with the artifact/application/etc. In other words, the gulf of execution is the difference between the intentions of the users and what the system allows them to do or how well the system supports those actions (Norman 1988). the gulf of evaluation is the difficulty of assessing the state of the system and how well the artifact supports the discovery and interpretation of that state (Norman 1991). e.g. Norman’s theory of action , cf. Slide 29e.g. Card et al.’s ‘model human processor’ see next slide - they even go further by providing a basis from which to make quantitative predictions about use performance, eg predictive model GOMS GOMS (Goals Operators Methods Selection rules), KLM (Keystroke Level Model), Fitt’s law, Hick’s law, …Criticisms:Inadequacies of classical cognitive theories for informing system design because too high-levelE.g. the theories were too low-level, restricted in their scope and failed to deal with real world contexts (lack of relevance)
  • Focusing on the human as an information processor, more particularly the “model human processor”In interaction with a computer, the human input is the data output by the computer vice versa. Input in humans occurs mainly through the senses and output through the motor controls of the exectors. Vision, hearing and touch are the most important senses in HCI. The .ngers, voice, eyes, head and body position are the primary exectors.For instance, theory of the cognitive skills involved in human-computer tasks: GOMS (Goals, Operators, Methods, and Selection rules)Developed in 1983 by Stuart Card, Thomas P. Moran and Allen Newell, it was explained in their book The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction.[1] Following these initial steps, additional models for analysis evolved and are heavily used in the engineering-oriented usability community.GOMS reduces a user&apos;s interaction with a computer to its elementary actions (these actions can be physical, cognitive or perceptual).According to the GOMS model, cognitive structure consists of four components: (1) a set of goals (user intentions), (2) a set of operators (ie actions to perform the goal) , (3) a set of methods for achieving the goals (i.e. sequences of operators), and (4) a set of selection rules for choosing among competing methods (to select a certain method over the others).“The Keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems”. The central idea behind the model is that the time for an expert to do a task on an interactive system is determined by the time it takes to do the keystrokes. Why ?For a given task , a particular GOMS structure can be constructed and used to predict the time required to complete the task. In addition, the model can be used to identify and predict the effects of errors on task performance. Error recovery is assumed to involve the same four components as correct actions. Modeling was extended to a range of cognitive processes, but remaind most useful in helping to design for nondiscretionary users, such as telephone operators engaged in repetitive tasks. Problematic…None of the techniques address user unpredictability - such as user behaviour being affected by fatigue, social surroundings, or organizational factors. Functionality of the system is not considered, only the usability. If functionality were considered, the evaluation could make recommendations as to which functions should be performed by the system (i.e. mouse snap). User personalities, habits or physical restrictions (for example disabilities) are not accounted for in any of the GOMS models. All users are assumed to be exactly the same.It did not address discretionary, novice use. On the contrary, it focused on the repetitive expert use studied in human factors.
  • context- 1985-1995: graphical user interfaces succeeded (instead of the constrained command- and form based interaction)Hence, active topics of research including command naming, text editing and the psychology of programming were quickly abandoned; more technical topics such as ‘user-interface management systems’ became significant. Research aims relating to the establishment of a comprehensive psychological theoretical framework based on formal experiments were no longer relevant. The urgent need was to identify the most pressing problems and find satisfactory rather than optimal solutions via faster and less precise assessment methods.Also maturation of local area networks and internet  hence CHI’s focus shifted from individual productiity to a quest for killer apps that would appeal to groups (expanded its focus to include collaboration support (Computer Supported Cooperative Work)- 3 key technologies GUI and mousenetworking thru ethernetObject oriented programming View on users: from human factors to human actorsHuman actor active, 1) controlling with individual motivation, 2) membership in a community of workersEmphasis of the holistic nature of the 3) person acting in a settingCf. Bannon (1991) ‘from human factors to human actors’, a work that marked the turning point form first to second wave (influenced by Activity Theory)In the late 80s- early 90s:Social contextGroups working with collection of applicationsWork settings and communities of practice“Human actors”Show the importance of considering other aspects besides the internal cognitive processing of a single user (notably the social context, the external environment, the artifacts and the interaction) and coordination between these during HCI interactionsFor instance there is a difference between work processes (the formalized or regulated procedures) versus work practice (the informal but nonetheless routine mechanisms by which the processes are put into practice everyday in a dynamic way)Methods1. Ethnography = detailed understanding of culture through intensive long term involvement ‘thick descriptions’ often based upon participant-observation. Describing what they do AND what they experience in doing it (the why and how)2. participatory design, prototyping, contextual inquiry, …General:More quick and dirty methods that can give rapid feedback to designers about the utility and usability of their products, noting reactions, user preferences, taking verbal protocols More attention to the process of design (iterations instead of design that proceeds from a set of fixed requirements without interaction and without involvement of the users) from individual to groups (support office workers in their activities rather than building office automation systems) from the laboratory to the workplace (less experimental, more attention to contextual cues, in situ studies) from novice to experts (not only focusing at the ‘naive’ first time learners) from analysis to design (not only analysing systems after they have been built, but also know how to build new: design science: “design is where the action is” (Allen Newell) from user requirements specifications (cf. Measurable usability criteria, usability engineering) to iterative prototypingTheoriesFirst attempts to explore other disciplines other than cognitive psychology : Provide more extensive and often illuminating accounts of the phenomena in the fieldLess ‘high level’ abstractions (cf. scientific theories concerned with making hypotheses and predictions) and more ‘low level’ descriptions, the more sociologically-oriented accounts of behaviour. Activity Theory (from Soviet psychology) see Leontiev 1978: unifying theoretical framework, trying to both provide the rigor of the scientific method of traditional cognitive science while taking into account social and contextual aspects. Provides a hierarchical model of activity (operations actions and activities)Defines : An activity includes a subject (with intention to perform a purposeful activity –need gratification-), an object (toward the activity is directed) andmediating artifacts(through which the activity is carried out)Object can be physical reality (e.g. Mouse) or social reality (friendship or authority or ideal objects ‘I want to become a surgeon’). Through resistance and affordances, objects constrain and direct what we do. Mediating artifacts can be physical (e.g. Tools, diagrams) or cognitive or cultural (e.g. Language or history In HCI computing technologies as the artifacts mediating human activity. (the tools that mediate between people and the world S- O) no properties of subject and object exist before and beyond activity, activity is the unit of analysisDifference with first wave as one might say that there is the same unit of analysis as AT (nl. The interaction between user and system) in first wave it is more lower level limited to tasks in terms of functionality rather than meaning for subject. In AT the scope is extended from tasks to a meaningful context, the boundary of the ‘objective world’ is not limited to the user interface. AT also focused on real life use of technology rather than abstract, formal representationsAT also accounts for developmental changes (e.. Going from novice to expert user)Ecological psychology: how the environment affects human action and perceptionE.g. Gibson which view has been adopted by Norman 1988, Gaver 1991, Kirsch 2001etc. Especially known for the imported concepts in HCI : constraints :how the structures in the external world guide people’s actions rather than their internal cognitive processesand affordances: refer to attributes of objects that allow people to know how to use them, it depends on the relationship between user and object (no stable object property) : give a clue. E.g. Steering wheel, door bell. Revised or adapted cognitive frameworksDistributed cognition: Draws on cognitive science, but beyond the individualArguing that cognitive processes do not occur strictly inside the mind but rather are distributed across multiple individuals and artifacts in HCI focus on the ways that information gets represented across various media via cognitive process that span individuals, artifacts and organizations. E.g. Air traffic control, navigationExternal cognition: - External cognition is concerned with explaining the cognitive processes involved when we interact with different external representations. A main goal is to explicate the cognitive benefits of using different representations for different cognitive activities and the processes involved. The main one include: externalizing to reduce memory load (e.g. birthday calendar which helps you to remind date, to do something, and when –by a present in time) computational offloading (using a tool to help computation, e.g. pen and paper to solve math problem annotating and cognitive tracing (e.g. resp. modifying a course book by underlining or creating different piles of object according to nature of the work to be done changes)Turn to the social-situated action: Lucy Suchman(sociology/cultural anthropology) - her theory came as a critical response to the dominant ‘planning’ paradigm (cf. Goal, sub goals = planning towards a plan of operations  execution). - According to her, such a plan is too stable, objective. Instead, what is needed is a model of interaction with the world. A plan is only ONE of the features that guides our behaviour but there are many more contextual features of the setting that guide our actions: actions are thus situated. Ethnomethodology : Harold Garfinkeldescriptive accounts of the informal aspects of work (via a bottom up approach that accounts for members’ working practices) to complement the formal methods, the abstract theorizing, and models of software engineering and in so doing, begin to address some of the ‘messiness’ of human technology design, which cognitive theories have not been able to adequately address. The goal was to understand how social reality was achieved, how people made it work, how stable and orderly social facts and relations can arise out of the independent actions of individuals, via the commonsensemethods by which people manage and organize their everyday behaviour. Te.g. typical example: conversation analysis: what thus ‘hello’ constitute as meaning
  • Movie InfoDirector Bent Hamer&apos;s comedy drama SalmerFraKjkkenet (Kitchen Stories) is based on the real-life social experiments conducted in Sweden during the 1950s. In the years following WWII, a research institute sets out to modernize the home kitchen by observing a handful of rural Norwegian bachelors. In the small town of Landstad, middle-aged Isak (Joachim Calmeyer) is one such research subject who regrets ever agreeing to participate in the study. Nevertheless, he is observed by Folke (Tomas Norstrm), and the two develop a strange friendship until the observer becomes sick. This causes a problem with Folke&apos;s boss (ReineBrynolfsson) and Isak&apos;s friend Grant (BjrnFloberg). ~ Andrea LeVasseur, RoviPG, 1 hr. 35 min. Drama, Art House &amp; International, ComedyDirected By: Bent HamerWritten By: JörgenBergmark, Bent HamerIn Theaters: Feb 20, 2004 LimitedOn DVD: Dec 14, 2004IFC FilmsSee also youtube for examples:;feature=player_embedded#! Computer History - A British View - Part 1 of 3
  • Context Late 90s to …: the internet era arrivesSocietal and economic reasons: . Admittedly, to develop a post-materialistic (i.e., experiential) orientation may require sufficient food, clothing, and shelter (Inglehart 1997; Maslow 1954). This is the gist of Charlie Bucket&apos;s dilemma: choosing a frivolous one-day experience in a chocolate factory over supporting his family with food and clothing seems almost immoral. reasons Computer users in organizations were no longer ‘almost slaves’ devoted to maximizing compute ruse. Embrace of the Internet created more porous organizational boundaries. Employees download free software such as instant messaging clients, music players and weblogs tools inside the firewall despite IT concerns about productivity and security. These are not the high overhead applications of the past. Another change over time is that home use of software has reduced employee patience with poor interactive software at work. More focus at discretionary use of the moment: instant messaging, weblogs, collaboration technology, ubiquitous computing, social computing Human discretions involves aesthetic preferences and invites marketing and no rational persuasion. Consequently, the steady flow of new hardware, software features, applications and systems insures that initial and early use of digital technology is always present which raises new research issues. the user in general context of culture and human being (non-work e.g. Home, engagement with arts and with leisure activities)Arrival and rapid pace of technological developments in the last few years (new interaction paradigms thanks to wireless technologies, handheld computers, wearable, pervasive technologies, tracking devices)High increase potential places to embed computational devices, even in private spaces e.g. domestic life and personal hygiene.Prevailing desktop paradigm with GUI and WIMP interfaces now being superseded By new paradigms, e.g. ubiquitous computing, pervasive environments and everyday computing. Cf. Mark Weiser’s vision computers to disappear into the environment in a way that we would no longer be aware of them. Similarly pervasive environments allow people access and interact with information any place and any time using a seamless integration of technologies. Mark Weiser 91, 94: “the real power ofubiquitous computing comes not from any one of these devices – it emerges from the interaction of all of them”Mark Weiser ‘91, ‘94: “what is the metaphor for the computer of the future  one that makes the computer invisible, so ubiquitous that no one will notice the computer’s presence”View on user: human crafter or human satisfactor - Meta-design theory emphasizes that designers can never anticipate all future uses of their system, as users shape their environments in response to emerging needs; systems should therefore be designed to adapt to future conditions in the hands of end users. For most of human history, all design was meta-design; designers were also users. However, advances in technology introduced a divide between the skilled producers and unskilled consumers of technology, and between design time and use time. As our technological environments increase in complexity, meta-designers must provide the flexibility for users to create and shape their own tools. Cf. Maceli, 2011 (CHI conference)More empowered users-human satisfactor (cf. Cockton, 2008): hedonic Private and public environments - The home, everyday lives - Culture, emotion and experience - Non-work, non-purposeful, non-rationalMethodsExploratory methods – seeking inspiration from use e.g. , cultural probes, narratives, experience prototyping, …From user-centered to user-involved design: look on users not simply as objects of study, but as active agents within the design process itself. TheoriesFour approaches to UXPhenomenological approaches :Advantage: argue for a holistic and qualitative study of UX, resist the reduction of experience into a number of factors or processors Disadvantage: empirical basis missing, hard to fully understand UX analytically e.g. Forlizzi and BattarbeeTypes of experience are of three dimensions (partly based on Dewey)1.    Experience ‘’constant stream of self-talk that happens when we interact with products’ is how we constantly assess our goals relative to the people, products, and environments that surround us at any given time. For example, walking in a park.2.    An experience ‘ can be articulated or named, has a beginning and andis something that could be articulated or named; it has a beginning and an end, and often inspires emotional and behavioral changes in the experience. For example, watching a movie.3.    Co-experience takes place as experiences are created together, or shared with others. For example, playing a mobile messaging game with friends. e.g. McCarthy and Wright(2004): experience with technology, consists of four intertwined threads of experiencecompositional thread how the elements fit together to form a coherent whole (e.g. Narrative structure, action possibility)sensual thread how the design, texture and overall atmosphere make users feel (e.g. Look and feel or sense of warmth in a social space)emotional thread refers to emotions, value judgment with respect to our needs and desires, tends to summarize the experience e.g. As fun, exciting or frustratingspatio-temporal thread deals with place and time Their focus is on felt experience bridging between the individual and the collective or cultural levels. To them, felt experience consists of a number of steps that includes anticipation of the experience as well as reflection and recapitulation of it. They give several examples of how multiple technologies mediate such experience, and point out that felt experience occurs on the boundaries between one-self and others. 2. Design-oriented approaches:Advantage: Drive experience into a number of well-defined components that constitute the UX, arguing that a better understanding of these can support the designDisadvantage: no methods e.G. Authors as Crilly et al. who describe user responses in terms of cognitive affective and behavioural responsesEarly contributors Malone 1981 what makes computer games enjoyable or3.Emotion focused approachesAdvantage: concentrating on specific aspects (often theoretical assumptions tested) and methods suggestedDisadvantage: holistic pictures is lostSome Focus on the design for emotion-related phenomena such as pleasure, fun, and flow e.g. Jordan (1998, 2000) : hierarchical organization of user needs where functionality is the basis, usazbility another, and pleasure an even higher important level based on Tiger (1992) he distinguishes four aspects of pleasure: 1. physio-pleaures= associated with a user’s sensual experience of product use 2. psycho-pleasure, related to emotions that arise because of the existence or absence of a user friendly interaction 3. socio-pleasure refers to emotions that arise based on relationships to others 4. ideo-pleasure relates to values that include tastes, moral values or personal aspirations. e.g. Carrol and Thomas 1988 easy to use versusfun e.g. Monk, Hassenzahl, Blythe and Reed : funology = research field on design for fun useOthers focus on a general understanding of emotions in human-technology interaction based on fundamental theories from emotion science e.g. Norman (2002, 2004) three levels of information processing (e.g. visceral level, behavioral level, reflective level- e.g. Desmet &amp; Hekkert (2002) description of the basic process model regarding the eliciation process of emotions or his five categories for emotional responses to products 4.. Quality focused approachesAdvantage: concentrating on a variety of non-instrumental qualities (often theoretical assumptions tested) and methods suggestedDisadvantage: holistic pictures is lost, no integrative approachSeveralqualities:InstrumentalAesthetic (e.g. visualaspects, haptic and accousticperceptions cf. physiopleasure)Symbolic cf. hedonicqualitybyHassenzahl 2001with itsthreesubdimensions: identification (self-expression), evocation (of memories, representing past events, relationshipsorthoughts) and stimulation (providedbynovelty, content, presentation, interaction …)MotivationalaspectsmetaphorCharlie en the chocolate factory : golden ticket The seemingly negative stance towards the materialistic is an indication of a post-materialistic culture. Ronald Inglehart (1997) argued that societies in sustained periods of material wealth become increasingly interested in values such as personal improvementDecried as superficial and consumerist in the 80ties and 90ties of the last century, we now witness a version of the Experience Society which favours meaningful engagement to earning money and begins to dissociate experience and expenditure.Though the transformation to a post-materialistic experience society has been recognized by business, as indicated by books such as The Experience Economy (Pine &amp; Gilmore, 1999) or Experiential Marketing (Schmitt 1999), it still struggles with making sense of it. A good example is the music industry. …This is the challenge we face: Experience or User Experience is not about technology, industrial design, or interfaces. It is about creating a meaningful experience through a device.Experiences are no longer supposed to be available at exotic places only (not only the ‘golden ticket’). They can be close by: a day out in the sun, working the garden, a barbecue with friends, or a trip to the local flea market. In the foreword to the 2005 edition of his book, Gerhard Schulze (2005, p IX) mentions some signifiers of the new millennium&apos;s Experience Society: deceleration instead of acceleration, less instead of more, uniqueness instead of standardisation, concentration instead of diversion, and making instead of consuming.
  • The evolution of HCI is reflected in the influential contributions of Donald Norman. A cognitive scientist who introduced the term cognitive engineering, he presented the first CHI83 paper. It Defined ‘user satisfaction functions’ based on speed of use, ease of learning , required knowledge, and errors. 1. His influential 1988 book Psychology of Everyday Things focused on pragmatic usability. 2. Its 1990 reissue as Design of Everyday Things reflected a field refocusing on invention.In both books (design and Psychology) Norman presented the concept of the execution/evaluation action cycle (EEAC) which explores the nature of actions and how they are structured. According to Norman the structure of an action has four basic parts: goals, execution, world, evaluation. = rather first waveSeven Stages of Action constitute three stages of execution, three stages of evaluation and our goals.1. Forming the goal2. Forming the intention3. Specifying an action4. Executing the action5. Perceiving the state of the world6. Interpreting the state of the world3. In 2004 he published Emotional Design why we love or hate everyday things, stressing the role of aesthetics in our response to objects. Rather third wave! Not completely, Norman seems to be stuck in his cognitive paradigm, which means that he just sees emotions as add-ons to cognition (see Boehner, DePaula, dourish, Sengers, 2005. Affect: from information to interaction. In Bertelsen et al. (eds). Critical Computing – Between sense and sensibility, ACM, pp. 59-68.)
  • What is the role of theories for interaction design? Theories do NOT design: no prescriptive guidance in the sense of telling a designer what and how to design Their input is only INDIRECT : providing methods, concepts, frameworks, analytic tools and accountsDescribing + understandingThe practitioners use the CONCEPTS derived from the theories in their discourse e.g. - affordances (vs constraints) (originally coined by the psychologist James Gibson and expanded by Donald Norman in the design of everyday things – showing how real-life objects have user interfaces that are sometimes obvious and sometimes confusing. The possibilities for action provided by the environment. e.g. A steering wheel affords turning, a bell pushing. Affordances depend on the relationship between object and user, there are no property of the object)- ‘mapping’ i.e. Between what you want to do and what appears to be possible (also coined by Norman) the need for a conceptual model (also Norman)Situatedness, context (comes from the ethnographic work, but also from for instance ‘situated action’ from Suchman’, all highlighted in P. Dourish’ work: where the action is)Accountability (stems from ethomethodology): refers to commonsense, commonly held, an ‘action community’ sharing a set of understandings of how to act, how to understand action within that community to ‘act rationally’ and perceive action to be rational’  observable and reportable for HCI this means that the interface is designed so as to present, as part of its action, an ‘account’ (= representation) of what is happening (actual behaviour of the system or program). 2. More time is needed to allow a complete theory/design cycle to mature: takes several yearsNow we need case studies, exemplars of good practice for designers, to learn lessons from in how to apply the approach, as a way also of explaining an approach. 3. We need time, effort and skill to understand and know how to use the theoretical approaches, There is also an ever increasing number of theoretical approaches which makes it difficult to determine which is potentially useful or not. Championing one theoretical approach over another iis often a matter of personal preference, stemming from one’s own background and values as to what constitutes good design practice or research4. Recognize that both the high level abstractions and low level descriptions can be informative for HCI and feed into different aspects of the design process. Not looking for ways of translating theory based knowledge into guidelines or analytic frameworks anymore as this turned out to have limited utility. We need more clarification as to how the two can be accommodated and used together rather than being viewed as always incommensurate. We should stop looking at second and third wave on either side of the divide between work on the one hand and leisure, arts, and home on the other; between rationality on the hand and emotion on the other. Development on either side may lead towards a true third wave, and we won’t get there until we embrace people’s whole lives and transcend the dichotomies between work, rationality etc and their negotions (cf. S. Bodker, 2006). Overall, we should conclude to focus on how theory can best inform the process of designLooking for ways of working more as partners collaborating together and engaging in ongoing dialogues. Designers can become researchers and vice versa!What we then need is thinking of new mechanisms of ‘knowledge transfer’ namely building up a lingua franca
  • How to install?
  • are we? What are we studying? Which discipline do we belong to? What kind of research or design should we be doing?discussion
  • Introduction to HCI

    1. 1.
    2. 2. Creating a meaningful experience<br />through a device<br />
    4. 4. BUT HER WORLD TOUR<br />
    5. 5. MADE ABOUT $ 64 PER TICKET<br />
    6. 6. That new movie now in 3D?<br />So what?<br />
    7. 7. MMI<br />CHI<br />HCI<br />
    8. 8. Human sciences<br />Exact sciences<br />Design<br />HCI’s MULTIDISCIPLINARITY<br />
    9. 9. “DESIGNING<br />for<br />UX<br />
    10. 10. spaces<br />“<br />Designing<br />forhumancommuncation<br />&interaction<br />Winograd 1997 p. 155<br />”<br />
    11. 11. spaces<br />“<br />Designing<br />forhumancommunciation<br />&interaction<br />Winograd 1997 p. 155<br />”<br />
    12. 12. “<br />RE-PLACE-ING SPACE<br />Space is the opportunity<br />Place is the understoodreality<br />”<br />Harrison & Dourish 1996<br />
    13. 13. DESIGN SERVING USERS<br />
    18. 18. "The extent to which a product canbeusedbyspecifiedusers<br />to achievespecifiedgoalswitheffectiveness, efficiency& satisfaction<br />in a specifiedcontextof use“<br />Definitionusabilityby ISO 9241-11<br />
    19. 19. "The extent to which a product canbeusedbyspecifiedusers<br />to achievespecifiedgoals witheffectiveness, efficiency& satisfactionin a specifiedcontextof use“<br />Definitionusabilityby ISO 9241-11<br />
    20. 20. “A person's perceptions and responses<br /> that result from the use <br />or anticipated use of <br />a product, system or service”<br />Definition user experienceby ISO (2008)<br />
    21. 21. “A person's perceptions and responses<br /> that result from the use <br />or anticipated use of <br />a product, system or service”<br />Law et al. 2009<br />dynamic<br />context-dependent <br />subjective<br />“UX stems from a broad range of potential benefits users may derive from a product”<br />
    22. 22. PLEASURE<br />Jordan<br />HEDONICS<br />Hassenzahl<br />“A person's perceptions and responses<br /> that result from the use <br />or anticipated use of <br />a product, system or service”<br />FUNOLOGY<br />Blythe e.a.<br />VALUE<br />Cockton<br />“UX stems from a broad range of <br />non- instrumental benefits users derive”<br />
    23. 23.
    24. 24. Humanmemory<br />Cognitivemodeling<br />FIRST WAVE<br />Human factor<br />
    25. 25. Human information processor<br />
    26. 26. ActivityTheory<br />EcologicalPsychology<br />DistributedCognition<br />Externalcognition<br />SituatedAction<br />Ethnomethodology<br />SECOND WAVE<br />Human actor<br />
    27. 27.
    28. 28. Phenomenological<br />Design-oriented<br />Emotion focused<br />Quality focused<br />THIRD WAVE<br />Human crafter<br />Human satisfactor<br />
    29. 29.
    31. 31. Example hedonics Hassenzahl<br />Timeline Facebook<br />
    32. 32. You<br />
    33. 33. AssociationforComputingMachinery -ACM<br />Special Interest Group onComputer-HumanInteraction<br />For academics as well as practitioners<br />Events<br />Annual Conference ‘CHI’<br />Publications<br />Interactions<br />TransactionsonComputer-HumanInteraction (TOCHI)<br />ACM Digital Library! <br />Severalmailinglists<br /> <br />BelgianChapter:<br /> <br />
    34. 34. Usability Professionals Association - UPA<br />Mainly for practitioners<br /> <br />Events<br />Annual conference<br />World Usability Day<br />Publications<br />User Experience Magazine<br />Journal of Usability Studies<br /> <br />
    35. 35. HFES<br />Human Factors and Ergonomics Society<br /><br />STC<br />Society for Technical CommunicationUsability and User Experience Community<br /><br />AIS SIGHCI<br />Association for Information SystemsSpecial Interest Group on Human-Computer Interaction<br /><br />IFIP Technical Committee on Human Computer Interaction<br />Conference: Interact<br /> <br />IxDA<br />Interaction Design Association<br /> <br />
    36. 36. CREDITS<br />Slide 3<br />Slide 5<br />Slide 6<br /> <br />Slide 7 <br />Slide 9<br />Slide 10<br />Slide 12<br />Slide 13<br />Slide 14 <br />Slide 15 <br />Slide 17 en<br />Slide 24 <br />Slide 26 <br />Slide 28 <br />Slide 30 <br />Slide 31 <br />Slide 34<br />