User centred design process

  • 1,963 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,963
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
34
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • PART II: User-centered design process UCD approachesLifecycle models CUO casePresentation Theraplaycase Methods analysis (usability & UX methods, description, discussion, examples …)from analysis to design phase (…)Evaluation methods (…) Time for questions 
  • There do exist many lifecycle modelsto represent the activities of a development process and how they are related. They vary in level of sophistication and complexity. However simple or complex it appears, any lifecycle model is a simplified version of reality. Lifecycle models in HCI: Star modelUsability engineering lifecycleISO 13407 Human-centered design processes for interactive systems (Note In software engineering several lifecycle models:Waterfall (= linear with limited feedback between phases, no iteration, no opportunity to review and evaluate with users)Spiral lifecycle model (risk analysis, prototyping, iterative, alternatives to be considered)Rapid Application Development: stronger focus on users, time limited cycles, user involvement, evaluation, and iteration. Agile development: flexibility AND structure, tight iterations and feedback, and collaboration with the customer. )
  • The tradtionalprinciplesbyGould and Lewis, 19851. Early focus onusers and tasksThe tasks and goals of users are the drivingforceduringdevelopmentNot “Whatcan we do withthistechnology?” but “Whichtechnologywill best support these users and tasks?”The behaviour and environment of the users has to bestudied, and the system has to support themWithout thisknowledge, the application is in conflict withpracticeThis is not in conflict withinnovativesolutions!The system is adapted to the characteristics of itsusersPhysical and cognitivelimitationsUsers are involvedfrombeginning to end in eachphaseAnd their input is actually taken into accountAll design decisions are taken basedon the context of the users, theirwork and their environmentDon’t ask the user what he wantsUsers rarely know what’s possible with technologyUsers are not designersUsers can’t tell you what they need to perform their tasks or reach their goalsPeople forget things, don’t tell obvious steps, mix up the order, …Don’t use focus groups, interviews, online questionnaires for design decisions!Observe your users to discover their needsIn contextPerforming their daily tasksLooking at collaboration, work practice, deviations from procedures, …What are ‘user needs’?What users ‘need’ to reach their goalsNotjustabout ‘tasks’, alsofor entertainmentIt’s notpossible to askthis, especiallyforinnovativeproductsGSM? SMS? iPOD? Mobile television? ePaper?Study the context: is there room forsuchanapplication? Does it fit intotheirworld? Is therepossibly a needforit?Studysimilarsituations and behavioursUser needsfrom ‘real’ usersThe needs of the developer are notthose of the usersIt’s important to involverepresentativeusersNot expert users, not marketeers, notintermediariesLevel of user involvementUsers can be involved in several waysBeta-testersOnlyduringevaluationsConsultedon a regular basis (user-informed design)Closelyinvolvedwith the design process(co-design / participatory design)It’s only UCD when users are involved early and regularly in the design process!Who are the users?Primary usersThe persons using the (future) product frequently and directly to perform a taskSecondary usersOccasionalusers of the system orpersonsthatuse the product throughanother userTertiary usersPersonsthat are affectedby the system orthatdecideabout the purchaseBut, there are much more ‘stakeholders’The ‘client’, managers, the designers, salespeople, …Veryoftenplayan important roleduringdevelopmentDon’t base your design on them, they are not the user!2. Empirical measurementConductexperimental and empirical studiesActualbehaviouralmeasurements of usabilityEarly in the developmentprocessSet usability goalsDecidewhatyou want to reachSpeed of performingtasks, number of successfultasks, satisfaction scores, easy reversal of mistakes, …Harder for more subjectiveaspectssuch as satisfaction, pleasure, aesthetics, …Measure and observe during evaluationsObserve, record and analyzeCheck the usability goalsMeasuring user experience is much more difficult3. Iterative designGeneratealternative designsGetting the design right vs. Getting the right designNotjustrefineone design, butmake a choicebetween different designsCreating and evaluating prototypesSimple prototypes as soon as possibleLow-fidelityEvaluatewithrepresentativeusersMore simple and cheap to makechangesUse the findings to improve the designEvaluate until the design is rightEven good designers don’tget the perfect design from the startPicture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thompson/46457718/in/photostream/
  • Belief in the power of reasonA rational analysis is better to design a good systemBut: rational analysis cannot take into account the contextDesign guidelines are sufficientGuidelines are helpful to overcome basic problemsBut: guidelines cannot take into account the contextGood design is getting it right the first time‘Good design’ is not a skill, but a processIt might be possible to create a good working program the first time (by careful planning), but not a good working interface (because ‘unpredictable’ users are involved)!Revisiting the key principles (by Cockton, 2008) towards worth)centred design and evaluation problem: the principles are defined post hoc without reflective self-criticism problem: the principles do no longer embody third wave HCI values problem: design is inherently subjective (hence we cannot say what the principles of designing are but rather what these principles should be)the rise of theory : G&L reject usefulness of theory BUT Cockton says: the turn to the third wave brings us deeply important philosophical questions of existence, knowledge, truth and value which are relevant and may guide and focus usTransdisciplinary tendencies: G&L tended to drop the ‘unproductive cognitive theory’ BUT Cockton believes in the transdisciplinary approach where one can not say in advance or based on rigid principles which grounding will be most fruitful (no single academic discipline’s values must ever dominate)Organisational sensitivity: one set of principles and their associated project management and techniques will not fit all organisations.New frontiers to non-work settings: G&L wrote only about work (as for HCI in the 80s systems meant work systems) BUT today there are digital media , ubiquity and broadband mobile data communications in almost every imaginable social setting. A growing design focus, focusing on alternative design means-ends: G&L rather took design for granted. They devalued design approaches such as rationales and guidelines on empirical grounds (only focus on users and evaluation) However, design thinking his distinct from engineering design and hence we should distinguish professionally designers from engineers, system planners, programmers or designers with a human factor background. Cockton argues that the goodness or rightness of a design ccannot be estimated outside of it spurpose. G&L do not focus on how the choice of the concrete means and ends, neither do they focus on the importance of considering alternaties. G&L only focused on the means, rather than the ends. And consequently, designs may be usable but useless. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierofix/4357784206/sizes/m/in/photostream/
  • Aniterative design processfor (ict) products and applicationswhereusers, theirtasks and their environment play a centralrole in analysing the requirements, developingalternative designs and evaluating static orinteractive prototypes.To build a successful product you must understand the people who will use your product (users), the work they do (their goals and tasks), and the situations they work in (their physical, social and cultural environments) (Hackos & Redish, 1998)Three pillarsUsersTasksEnvironmentObjectives of user and taskanalysisLay the fundaments for the design processDiscover the users’ mental modelsIdentify exact tasks and workflowDiscover problems in current work practiceConfirm or refute assumptionsUncover possibilities and limitations of the environmentUse this information to guide design and evaluationEnvironmentPhysical environmentHow much space do users have to work in?Is the environment noisy? Is there enough light?Is power or a (stable) network connection available?Social environmentIs there a lot of time pressure?Are resources available to help solve problems?How do users work together or share information?Cultural environmentHow does the users’ national culture influences work?What is the influence of professional or socio-economical culture?Goals means tasksWhich goal does the user want to reach?Whichmeans do peoplecurrentlyuse to reachthis goal?Which tools do peoplecurrentlkyuse to performtheirtasks?Users go back to theirtrusted tools ifthey have problemsWhichtasks do people have to perform to reachthis goal?Whichtasks are currentlybeingperformed, and how?Which steps does a taskconsist of, and in which order?How long does the tasktake to perform?Is the taskbeinginterruptedoften?…UsersHow do they define themselves?Jobs, tasks, tools, mental models, …What words do they use, how do they explain their job, which tools do they use and why?How do they differ individually?Personal, physical and cultural characteristicsMotivations, goals, beliefs, …How do they use products over time?Levels of expertise, training, support, …
  • AnalyseDoelgroep: Kinderen met aangeboren hersenverlamming, cerebralpalsy (bij of voor geboorte zuurstoftekort) Spastische aandoeningen (armen en benen). Vaak ook cognitieve achterstand. Volwassenen met MS (degeneratieve aandoening, komt meestal pas op latere aandoening)Waar: bij dominiquesavio in west-vlaanderen en windekind in Leuven  twee scholen buitengewoon onderwijs maar die kinderen krijgen ook therapie tijdens de schooluren. Spellen de ze nu spelen, bij ergotherapeut spelen ze nu ook al spelletjes. Probleem: die spelletjes stonden meestal wel op tijd, maar zij denken traag en voeren dingen ook trager uit  gefrustreerd. Zijn de spellen wel aangepast aan hun cognitieve en motorische aandoeningen, dan zijn ze niet meer ‘cool’ genoeg, want voor kleinere kinderen; Verder vonden ze het ook heel belangrijk dat ze niet dood konden gaan in het spel, vandaar dat ze Mario Cart wel leuk vondenBij kinesist minder, bij sommigen stonden wel al de wii.Moeilijkheden: Moeilijk om dingen te vragen tijdens een sessieCognitieve belastingFormeel: privacy
  • Bijkomende takenVan rolstoel naar stoel achter pc, hoogte stoel, bureau, voetenbankjes instellenBijkomende apparatuur inpluggen + instellen vertraagt de boelKindjes krijgen een half uur voor therapieMaar in dat half uur moeten de kindjes opgehaald worden naar klas, alle instellingen (stoel, spelletje, infrastructuur) + terugbrengen. Dus heel belangrijk voor spelFilmpje voordat spel begint= vertraging (voor therapeut echt niet goed ontvangen) filmpjes moeten kort zijn, dus eerder in de genre van minigames, laat ook toe om verschillende oefeningen te doenAlsook minigames opdat het voor een groot doelpubliek is in leeftijd en aandoening
  • Na afloop van elke sessie moet therapeut dit vastleggen (achterliggen doel, om progressie op langere termijn vast te leggen)Praktijk : geen tijd voor, alles in de eerste plaats om tijd te hebben voor de client. Schrifjes -> voor verslaglegging -> weinig tijd voor, vaak pas later of niet gedaanDesign requirement:Spel moet goed alle gegevens bijhouden, bv. best via iets dat online staat zodat die gegevens kan geregistreerd worden en doorgegeven aan therapeut om opvolging te doen, of ook voordelig voor als er verschillende therapeuten elkaar opvolgen of moeten vervangen
  • Workshops uittesten bestaande apparatuur met wiiPerceptie doelgroep + therapeuten.Voordeel:-informelere sessie, tijd voor vragen
  • Brainstormsessies met therapeuten, cliënten en onderzoekers (incl. game designer, grafisch designer, programmeurs…) volgens de Flanders DC GPS methode – steeds in teams van één onderzoeker en één therapeut/cliënt. Gps cf. http://www.flandersdc.be/nl/diensten/tools/gpsBrainstorm rond 5 thema’s waar motorische oefeningen rond bedacht moesten worden -> hoofd, voeten, armen, balans, hele lichaamElk idee= een post itElk krijgt x mini-stickers om beste ideeen aan te duidenCopyright cf. GroepT & CUO http://wiki.groept.be/confluence/display/TP/Home
  • Lijst met beste ideeën (er moest gestemd worden) = op flipchartScreenshots uit game design document -> afgetoetst met therapeuten Zoveel mogelijk instellingen onthouden per client, toch dienen een aantal dingen toch per sessie nog gecheckt te worden, zoals webcam en wiimoteCopyright pictures: Groep T & CUO http://wiki.groept.be/confluence/display/TP/Home
  • Evolutie van eerste test naar laatste screens van de testPlaytestingHoe : wiimote met velcro op been geplakt en been moest omhoog  mannetje in spel ging dan vliegen Copyright pictures: groep T & CUO http://wiki.groept.be/confluence/display/TP/Home
  • Het uiteindelijke spelMenu om het spel te selecteren (alleen de spellen zichtbaar die een therapeut voor de cliënt geselecteerd heeft)De speler verdient goudstukken en kan hier hoeden mee kopen die de speler door het hele spel draagtInstellen reikwijdte voor spel borden vangen -> waar de speler z’n arm naar toe moet bewegenRechts de vier spellen (minigames)Copyright pictures: groep T & CUO http://wiki.groept.be/confluence/display/TP/Home
  • Gebruikerstests van lo-fi tot hi-fiFoto links= kinderen dragen een handschoen (is om beeldenherkenning te optimaliseren, contrast verhogen) = het bordenvangspel. (gewone handschoen werkt niet altijd, omdat de kinderen niet altijd de coordinatie hebben om hun hand erin te steken)Foto rechts= wiimote in het hoofd, ingredienten op een pan. Beste optie is fietshelm met wiimote op vastgemaakt, bleek beter te zijn dan de muts. Motivatie!! Therapeuten vaak vertelden achteraf dat de kinderen meer konden tijdens het spel dan dat ze toonden tijdens de sessiesCopyright pictures: groep T & CUO http://wiki.groept.be/confluence/display/TP/Home
  • Een gebruikerstest begon meestal met eerst een korte uitleg aan de therapeuten die het spel dan eerst zelf gingen spelen. Daarna werd het spel met cliënt gespeeld. Bedoeling, later kon de therapeut dit zo ‘normaal’ mogelijk voorstellen aan het kindTherapeuten helpen mee te zoeken naar oplossingen. Bv. foto links, balance board vonden de therapeuten niet responsief genoeg, vandaar dat ze het op een kruk je hadden gezet en die poten drukten meer op de uiteinden van de balance board (hefboom effect) http://wiki.groept.be/confluence/display/TP/HomeCopyright pictures: groep T & CUO http://wiki.groept.be/confluence/display/TP/Home
  • To build a successful product you must understand the people who will use your product (users), the work they do (their goals and tasks), and the situations they work in (their physical, social and cultural environments) (Hackos & Redish, 1998)Three pillarsUsersTasksEnvironmentObjectives of user and taskanalysisLay the fundaments for the design processDiscover the users’ mental modelsIdentify exact tasks and workflowDiscover problems in current work practiceConfirm or refute assumptionsUncover possibilities and limitations of the environmentUse this information to guide design and evaluationEnvironmentPhysical environmentHow much space do users have to work in?Is the environment noisy? Is there enough light?Is power or a (stable) network connection available?Social environmentIs there a lot of time pressure?Are resources available to help solve problems?How do users work together or share information?Cultural environmentHow does the users’ national culture influences work?What is the influence of professional or socio-economical culture?Goals means tasksWhich goal does the user want to reach?Whichmeans do peoplecurrentlyuse to reachthis goal?Which tools do peoplecurrentlkyuse to performtheirtasks?Users go back to theirtrusted tools ifthey have problemsWhichtasks do people have to perform to reachthis goal?Whichtasks are currentlybeingperformed, and how?Which steps does a taskconsist of, and in which order?How long does the tasktake to perform?Is the taskbeinginterruptedoften?…UsersHow do they define themselves?Jobs, tasks, tools, mental models, …What words do they use, how do they explain their job, which tools do they use and why?How do they differ individually?Personal, physical and cultural characteristicsMotivations, goals, beliefs, …How do they use products over time?Levels of expertise, training, support, …
  • Artefact walkthroughIdentify and collect different artefactsthat are beingusedwhenexecuting a taskEspecially used artefactsThe collectedartefacts are discussedwithusersUsers explain how the artefacts were createdUsefulfortasksthatleave a trailAnd whendirectlyobserving is notpossibleIncidentdiariesVeryuseful to collect data over a longer time periodUsers keep a diaryaboutproblemswiththeirtasksWhichproblems do theyencounterHowwere these problemssolvedNo certaintyaboutcorrectnessoraccuracy of informationMainlyfor important/criticalbut non-frequent tasksObserving while you are not presentCollectingobservationsthough video recordingsUsefulwhen the user cannotbedisturbed, orif the environment does notallowbeing presentE.g. surgeryThe recordings are watched later togetherwithusers‘Retrospectivethink aloud’ or ‘stimulatedrecall’It’s important to keep the interval betweenrecording and stimulatedrecall as short as possible
  • User and taskanalysisgenerates a largeamount of dataCrucial to put this in usableformatLengthy reports willnotberead!Tools to communicateresults of UTAConcrete design recommendationsTaskdescriptionsPersonasConceptual model
  • Description of the proposed designDescriptionon high level ofWhat the system doesHow the system behavesHowit is structuredIntegratedconceptsInteractionmodalities and http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487767@N02/3338900345/in/photostream/
  • WireframesSketch of one screen or most important screensDefines the placement of the different elementsHigh level wireframesFocus onstructuralaspects e.g. High level: site van magazine: eerst homepage, dan andere levels, hoe navigeren nr een bepaald artikel  algemene structuurSingle-pathwireframesFocus oncriticalinteractionpath(s) e.g. Single path: e-commerce website  focus op: van homepage overgaan tot aankoopEarly in the design processLow cost, easy to change
  • StoryboardsSeries of sketches that shows how a user willperform a task in the UIScripts important events in the applicationSometimestakes the form of a cartoonConceptualor more in detailOftenused in combinationwithscenariosNo interactivityMakesitclear to usershowanapplicationwillbehavePossible to useroleplayingDigitaal: bv. presentatie in pptKomt uit animatie en filmsectorScript  er wordt dus echt verteld wat de UI doet, dit itt paper prototyping: daar wordt niets verteldScenario’s: er wordt een verhaal rond opgebouwd, vaak afkomstig uit de user requirements fase.Scenario based designScenarios are storiesaboutpeoplecarrying out anactivityA scenario is a description that contains (1) actors, (2) background information on the actors and assumptions about their environment, (3) actors’ goals or objectives, and (4) sequences of actions and eventsScenarios are good at raisingquestions, and makingyouthinkabout design solutionsA scenario is not a use caseScenarioDescribes the execution of a taskwithin contextStarts from user point of view, but does include the system Describes frequent orcriticaltasksUse Case (e.g. in UML)Describes all steps in the execution of a task, usually without contextStarts from system point of view, but does include the userDescribes all taskswith a systemBenefits of scenariosDescriptions of people using technology are useful in discussing and analyzing how the technology is (or could be) used to reshape their activitiesThe impact of the context in using a specific feature or executing a certain task can be made explicitScenario descriptions can be created before a system is built and its impacts felt
  • What are personasPersonas are fictitious, specific, concrete representations of target users that guide the design processArchetypes, not stereotypesBased on data from user researchContext specificNot meant for reusePersona types (Cooper)Primary personaPrimary target for design of the interfaceOnlyoneprimarypersona per interfaceSecondary personasAdditionalneeds to beaddressedMaximum twosecondarypersonasSupplemental personasCustomerpersonasServedpersonasDirectlyaffectedby the use of the product (butnot a user)Negative personasShould *not* be the design target for the productPersona types (Olsen)Focal personaPrimary users of the product who are its main focus, we will optimize the design for themSecondary personasAlso use the product, we will satisfy them when we canUnimportant personasLow-priority users, including infrequent, unauthorized or unskilled users, as well as those who misuse the productAffected personasDon’t use the product themselves, but are affected by itExclusionary personasSomeone we’re not designing for. Useful to prevent nonusers from creeping back into product development discussionsBenefitsPersonas make assumptions about users explicitPersonas place the focus on specific users rather than on “everyone”Personas help making design decisionsPersonas engage the design and development teamProblems to avoid with personasUnbelievable personas, not based on data or with unclear relationship to dataPersonas are not communicated wellNo understanding of how to use the personas during designLittle or no high-level support for personasPersonas are not the same things asUser rolesTask oriented, not goal orientedBroad and abstract descriptionUser profilesDescribes range of characteristics, no specificityMarket segmentsDifferent focus: purpose is sales, not designBased on demographics and distribution channels, not observed user behaviourCommunicating personas!Using personasRefer to personas in discussions“Karl would never use this”Use tools to let personas guide design decisionsFeature prioritization toolUse personas in walk-through scenariosCreate design explorations for each personaReport findings of usability tests per persona
  • Cultural probesCollections of evocativetasksmeant to elicitinspirationalresponsesfrompeoplePackagewith e.g. postcards, maps, camera, diaries, … withassignments, oftenprovocativeorambiguousMaterials are returnedonebyoneduring a short periodFragmentarycluesaboutusers’ lives and thoughtsInspiration, not informationStimulate imaginations rather than defining problemsOpenly subjective and playfulUse ambiguity, absurdity and mysteryRecognizes and embraces the notionthatknowledge has itslimitsValuesuncertainty, play, exploration and subjectiveinterpretation‘Unscientific’ approach, a subversion of traditional HCI methodsExamples probe questions:PostcardsPleasetellus a piece of adviceorinsightthat has been important to youWhat do youdislikeabout [your home town]?What place does art have in yourlife?Tell usaboutyourfavouritedeviceMapsWhere have you been in the world?If [your home town] wouldbe New York, wherewouldyou put the statue of liberty, junkies, …CameraTake a picture of your home, whatyouwillweartoday, the firstpersonyouseetoday, somethingdesirable, something boring, something red, ……AdvantagesProvide opportunities to discover new pleasures, new forms of sociability and new cultural formsNot designing solutions to user needsOffer possibilities for surprising resultsDoesn’t focus on an ‘average’ userReduce distance between researchers and usersFormal, geographic and cultural distanceThrough its design and communication, the designers make their intentions clearGives a deep sense of familiarity and engagement with the people you design products forFrom probes to designProbes are notmeant to berigorouslyanalysedServe as inspirationforreflectingDon’tdirectlylead to designsMakingyouaware of the detailedrichness of an environmentEmbracessubjectivity, uncontrolledness and personalityPrevent frombelievingyoucan look intopeople’sheadsImpossible to arrive at comfortableconclusionsUnderstandtheirresponsesempatheticallyMake the strangefamiliar, and the familiarstrangeProbes are onlyonesourcefordesigning productSome design decisionsdirectlybasedonprobe returnsCreate a relationshipwithusers, likedesigningfor a friend
  • Mood boardsCollages of imagesCapture the atmosphere of experiences by means of photographs or other expressive aidsProvide a mechanism for designers to respond to perceptions about the briefing, the problem as it emerges and the ideas as they developTraditional mood boardsAssembled by gluing different types of analog media (pictures from magazines, photographs, colours, fabrics, etc.) on a mounting board.Digital mood boardsCreated by collecting the same type of media, but on digital format and assembling it on computers with the help of graphic software (i.e. Photoshop, Illustrator, Freehand, etc.).
  • Organising the content of anapplicationStructureCategoriesLabelsResults in taxonomyOpen card sortingUsers are presentedwithcardsEach card holds a low-levelinformation itemThe user groups the cardshethinksbelongtogetherCardscanbeduplicatedUnclear items canbe put asideWhen all cards are sorted, the user thinks up a label to go witheachgroupCarefulanalysisAt least 12 usersFindstructure in the data from all usersItems or labels withtoomuchdeviationshouldbestudiedagainClosed card sortingSimilar to open card sortingButusers are presentedwithfixedgroup labelsBest to performafter open card sortingTo validatefindingsCanvalidateorrefute a fixedtaxonomyOften, organisationaltaxonomy is usedWhennotvalid, open card sortingshouldbeused
  • Three types of evaluation:Expert basedevaluationRulebasedWalkthroughsUser basedevaluationsQuestionnairesUser testsModel basedevaluationModels of humanbehaviour
  • EXPERT BASED EVALUATIONUsability expert analyses a system against a set of usabilityrulesorguidelines1. RulebasedevaluationHeuristics7 UCD principlesby Donald Norman 8 ‘golden rules’ by Ben Shneiderman 10 usabilityheuristicsbyJakobNielsenorDomain-specificheuristicsUsability and SociabilityheuristicsforInteractiveTelevisionGroupwareheuristicsHeuristicsforubiquitouscomputingGuidelinesConcrete guidelineswithin a specific domainMore specificthanheuristics Smith & Mosier (1986)Guidelinesfordata entry, data display, sequencecontrol, user guidance, data transmission, and data protection(http://www.hcibib.org/sam/) Xerox’ HeuristicEvaluation: a system checklistTurnsheuristicevaluation in guidelineevaluationResearch-based web design and usabilityguidelines (ANCI) http://usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html Mobile usabilityguidelinesStandardsGuidelinesthat are officiallyestablishedby a certainorganisationSometimes even enforcedbylaw Accessibility guidelines: - Anysurfer.be - Section 508 - WCAG (http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/) ISO 9241-11 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on usability ISO/DIS 9241-141 Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 141: Guidance on World Wide Web user interfacesStyleguideEvaluate a system against a styleguide A definition of all interface elementswithin a certaincompanyor range of software productsOff the shelfordevelopedin-house Windows Guidelines (98, 2000, XP, Vista): www.msdn.com Web StyleGuide: www.webstyleguide.comSource: http://www.flickr.com/photos/horiavarlan/4519955517/in/photostream/
  • 2. WaltkthroughCognitive walkthroughWalk throughanapplicationGuidedby a set of taskscenariosAskfourquestionsforeachactionWill the user try to achieve the right effect?Will the user notice that the correct action is available?Will the user associate the correct action with the effect that the user is trying to achieve?If the correct action is performed, will the user see that progress is being made toward solution of the task?BasedoncognitivepsychologyLearningtheoryCf. gulfs of evaluation/ executionHeuristic walkthroughCombines strengths of Heuristicevaluation (HE) and CognitiveWalkthrough (CW)HE onlyfocuseson single screensCW is mainlyconcerncedwithinteractionCombination of HE en CWFirst taskoriented (CW)Then free exploration (HE)The CW influences the HE positivelyHeuristicevaluationnowalsotakesinto account interactionwith system3. Domain-specificguidelinesWhen? Oftenconductedbeforeusability tests‘Cleaning up before the housekeeper’Catch ‘low-hanging fruit’Onlyusefulifproblems are changedbeforeusability testNotsufficient as onlyevaluationmethodbecause of lack of usersGeneral procedureAnalystpreparationExpert getsfamiliarwithchosen UIM, the system and the context of useCandidateproblemdiscoveryFindingpossibleproblemsConfirmationorelimination of candidateproblemsRemove “falsepositives”RecommendationgenerationCreaterecommendations to makechanges to the systemSource: http://www.flickr.com/photos/23512941@N00/477221327/
  • USER BASED EVALUATIONS1. questionnairesAdvantagesFeedback fromactualusersEasy, fast, and cheapway to gather a lot of informationFast to analyseDisadvantagesSelf report fromusersNo detail aboutspecificproblemsOnlycapturesopinion of users, noempiricalmeasurement of software useWhenusingexisting questionnaires, validity is assuredShort questionnaires as part of anotherevaluationmethod (e.g. usabilitytesting)Standards: After Scenario Questionnaire (ASQ), Complete questionnaires to assess the usability of a systemStandards: Questionnaire for User InteractionSatisfaction (QUIS), Software UsabilityMeasurementInventory (SUMI)Software usabilityScale (SUS), Computer User SatisfactionInventory (CUSI)Onlyexpressesopinions of users, notbasedonempiricalmeasurementExampleshttp://www.acm.org/~perlman/question.html
  • 2. User testsCharacteristics of a usability testThe goal is to improve the usability of a productThe participants are realusersThe participantsperformrealtasksObserve and record whatparticipants do and sayAnalyse data, identifyrealproblems and recommendchanges to solve the problemsUse the results to change the productWhen to do?Iteratively and in different phasesBeforestarting to designTest similarproductsTest existing product (whenitwillbereplaced)In the early stages of designEvaluatelow-fidelity (paper) prototypesDuring the design processTest different aspects of the designTest changes in the designAt the end of the deisgnprocessCheck ifusability goals are metComparewithsimilarproducts of previousversionFormative testsGuide the design processTake place as early as possibleHappen iterativelyWith a limitednumber of usersQualitativeresultsSummative testsTo make a finaljudgmentGoodforcomparative studiesLargernumber of usersQuantitativeresultsAre not the same as…Beta-tests / user acceptance testsNon-systematic feedbackNo observationbutself-reportsTasks are notdefinedbeforehandToo late in the design process to makefundamentalchangesScientific researchDiscover phenomenainstead of findingproblemsRandom sampling instead of representativeusersStrong control over variablesInferentialstatisticsinstead of descriptivestatisticsHow many users“Youcannot have toomanyparticipants”At leastfiveparticipantsThe goal is not to draw statisticalconclusionsAftersixparticipants, the sameusabilityproblems keep coming backPer target group!Iterativeevaluation is important to find all usabilityproblemsFive test userswillfind 80% of all usabiltyproblems (Nielsen)OngoingdebateNot ‘howmanyusers’ but ‘howmanytasks’?MethodsThink aloud protocolUsersthink aloud whileperforming a taskGettinginsightintocertainactionsInfluencesbehaviour and is exhaustingCo-discoveryTwopersonsworktogether to solvetaskTalking to someone is more naturalthan thinking aloudMore expensive (two test persons) and harder to observe and recordActive interventionFacilitator ‘probes’ byaskingquestionsduring the testBetterinsight in mental model of usersInfluences timing orrequestsfor helpDanger of bias in questions and breaks users’ concentrationSource: http://www.flickr.com/photos/13316988@N00/3231119457/Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/56685575@N00/97737994/
  • Ux evaluation methodsMost amount of newmethods in thiscategoryA lot of research in thisareaNew methodsorvariations are beingdiscussed at several conferencesDifferent classificationspossible, basedonVerbal ornon-verbalmeasurementQuantitativeorqualitativeresultsPhase in the design processGeneral type of evaluation (lab, field, survey, …)Analysis, design orevaluation?Somemethodscouldbeused in several stages (e.g. ESM)Onlyevaluationwheninteractionwith product is the focusGalvanic skin response (GSR)Conductivity of the skin via sweat glandsArousalReflects both emotional responses and cognitive activityCardiovascular measures (electrocardiography – EKG)E.g. heart rate, heart rate variability or blood pressureRespiratory measuresRate (RespRate) or the volume (RespAmp) at which an individual exchanges air in the lungsMuscle activity (electromyography measures - EMG)Jaw clenching (tensions), cheek (smile muscle) & eyebrow(frown muscle) activityBrain activity (EEG, fMRI)Exmocare wristwatchThe Exmocare wristwatch monitors your heart rate, heart rate variability, movement and galvanic skin response, all of which the watch uses to determine how you're doing, specifically emotionally. If something's too outside the norm, the watch can report the condition to a loved one or caretaker over email, SMS or IM. It's primarily designed for elderly patients, and will be hitting the market early 2008. http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/20/exmocares-wristwatch-cares-about-your-feelings/
  • E.g. Vanden Abeele, V., Zaman, B. (forthcoming) User Experience Laddering: an Overview of the Theoretical Underpinnings, Methodology and Potential for Human-Computer Interaction. Submitted for TOCHI. e.g. Vanden Abeele, Zaman, B., De Grooff, D., (2011). User eXperienceLadderingwithPreschoolers: UnveilingAttributes and Benefits of CuddlyToy Interfaces. Personal and UbiquitousComputing.  Online First, Url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0408-y: Springer. pp. Doi: 10.1007/s00779-011-0408-yE.g. Zaman, B., Vanden Abeele, V. (2010).Laddering with Young Children in User eXperience Evaluations: Theoretical Groundings and a Practical Case. Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference, Barcelona, Spain: ACM. Means-end TheoryA research methodmethod to understandhowspecific features orattributes (means) of a product relate to personalvalues (ends)People choose a product because it has attributes (the means) that provide consequences and fulfilling personal values (the ends)A>C>VAttributescolour, taste, design, …ConsequencesFunctional: price, quality, user-friendliness, …Psycho-social: habits, reliability, …ValuesHealth, security, fun, social power, …LadderingOne particular method for research means-end chainsNot the only one but the most popular in consumer research because it proved to be superiorEntails both a qualitative technique (which ladders)How to interviewquantitative technique (which are dominant)How to analyze data and generalize from itHow to?One-to-one in-depth interviewsResearcher asks question ‘what do you like about [product x]’Afterfirstanswer, question is reformulated to ‘what do youlikeabout [answer]’Reveals the relation between Product attributes (A)Product consequences (C)User’s values (V)Results in means-endchainGoal of laddering= hierarchical value mapGraphs the dominant links in a hierarchicalvalue map (HVM)association networkmeaningful couplings between attributes, consequences and values.
  • Product EmotionMeasurement Instrument (PrEmo)Instruction for the participant:“use the scales to report the feelings expressed by the characters match your own feelings towards the product in the picture”I feel this stronglyI feel this somewhatI do not feel thishttp://www.premo-online.com/en/how-does-it-work/
  • SensualEvaluation Instrument (SEI)A tool for self-assessment of affect while interacting with computer systemsSubjectiveReal-time feedbackTranscending language and cultural barriersNo distortion through verbalizationMore fun for the user
  • But the sky is the limitThere are moreThere need to be moreBut there is work on it: more research on the methods, more use cases, best practices, more validationSituated methods, InterdisciplinaryDescribe these in use casesUse these, adapt these, appropriate thesehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/streetpreacher/185428401/in/photostream/
  • Sourcehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/96dpi/4119691598/sizes/z/in/photostream/

Transcript

  • 1.
  • 2. User centered design process
  • 3. LIFECYCLE MODELS
  • 4. task/functional
    analysis
    Implementation
    Requirements
    specification
    Evaluation
    Prototyping
    Conceptual/
    formal design
    Star model
  • 5. Star model
    Usability engineering
    Usability engineering
  • 6. Plan the human-centered
    design process
    Understand and
    specify the context of use
    Designed solution
    meets user requirements
    Iterate,
    where
    appropriate
    Specify the user requirements
    Evaluate the designs
    against requirements
    Produce design solutions
    to meet user requirements
    Star model
    Usability engineering
    ISO’s lifecycle model
  • 7. Early focus onusers and tasks
    Empiricalmeasurement
    Iterative design
    Traditional principles
  • 8. Belief in the power of reason
    Design guidelines are sufficient
    Good design is gettingit right the first time
    Worth-centred design & evaluation
    Competing approaches
  • 9. User-centred design
  • 10. CASE
  • 11. analysis
  • 12. analysis
  • 13. analysis
  • 14. analysis
  • 15. analysis
  • 16. design
  • 17. design
  • 18. design
  • 19. evaluation
  • 20. evaluation
  • 21. ANALYSIS
  • 22. Pure observation
    Participant observation
    Experience sampling
    Roleplaying
    Observational methods
    with little or no interaction
  • 23. ContextualInquiry
    ProcessAnalysis
    Condensedethnographic interview
    Discount user observation
    Observational methods
    with interaction with users
  • 24. Artefact walkthrough
    Incident diaries
    Video recording
    Alternative methods
    observing not possible
  • 25. Interviews
    Focus groups
    Survey/questionnaire
    Methods to be used with
    caution
  • 26. FROM ANALYSIS TO DESIGN
  • 27. Conceptual model
  • 28. Wireframes
  • 29. Source: Courage, C. & Baxter, K. (2005) Understanding your users.
    Source: Van der Veer G. & Van Welie M. (2004) DUTCH: Designing for users and tasks from concepts to handles. In: The handbook of task analysis for human-computer interaction
    Tasksequence
    Workflow Diagram
    HierarchicalTaskanalysis
    Task descriptions
  • 30. Source: Courage, C. & Baxter, K. (2005) Understanding your users.
    Source: Van der Veer G. & Van Welie M. (2004) DUTCH: Designing for users and tasks from concepts to handles. In: The handbook of task analysis for human-computer interaction
    Tasksequence
    Workflow Diagram
    HierarchicalTaskanalysis
    Task descriptions
  • 31. Storyboards
    Scenario-based design
  • 32. De stok aan de klas-applicatie beweegt wanneer het zieke kind de aandacht vraagt
    Bron: De Morgen, Dinsdag 19 Januari 2010
    Design recommendations
  • 33. personas
    33 / 141
  • 34. Cultural probles
  • 35. Mood boards
  • 36. DESIGN
  • 37. Card sorting
    Information architecture
  • 38. Paper
    Digital
    Blank
    Video
    Wizard of oz
    Coded
    Experience
    Prototyping
  • 39. Fail early
    Fail early
  • 40. Fail often
  • 41. EVALUATION
  • 42. Heuristics
    Guidelines
    Standards
    Styleguide
    Rule based
    Expert evaluation
  • 43. Cognitivewalkthrough
    Heuristicwalkthrough
    Walkthrough based
    Expert evaluation
  • 44. http://sumi.ucc.ie/en/
    http://hcibib.org/perlman/question.cgi?form=ASQ
    questionnaires
    User evaluation
  • 45. User tests
    User evaluation
  • 46. Psycho-physiological measures
  • 47. 47 / 67
    FaceReader
  • 48. Repertory Grid
  • 49. Laddering
  • 50. Product Emotion Measurement
  • 51. Sensual Evaluation Instrument
  • 52. The sky is the limit…
  • 53. credits
    Slide 7 http://www.flickr.com/photos/thompson/46457718/in/photostream/
    Slide 8 http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierofix/4357784206/sizes/m/in/photostream/
    Slide 22 http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianglanz/2383687611/sizes/m/in/photostream/
    Slide 23 http://www.flickr.com/photos/wili/242265276/in/photostream/
    Slide 38 http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmasters/3605862283/sizes/m/in/photostream/
    Slide 25 http://www.flickr.com/photos/xanxhor/3799615485/sizes/m/in/photostream/
    Slide 43: http://www.flickr.com/photos/horiavarlan/4519955517/in/photostream/
    Slide 45 http://www.flickr.com/photos/23512941@N00/477221327/
    Slide 53 http://www.flickr.com/photos/danorbit/1814156778/in/photostream/
    Slide 52 http://www.flickr.com/photos/streetpreacher/185428401/in/photostream/
    Slide 45 http://www.flickr.com/photos/13316988@N00/3231119457/http://www.flickr.com/photos/56685575@N00/97737994/
    Slide 27 http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487767@N02/3338900345/in/photostream/
    Pictures Theraplay case: http://wiki.groept.be/confluence/display/TP/Home
  • 54. Example cultural probe results
    54 / 67
  • 55. 55 / 141
    Paper prototyping
  • 56. 56 / 141
    Paper prototyping
    Self made UI Toolkit
  • 57. 57 / 141
    Paper prototyping
  • 58. 58 / 141
  • 59. 59 / 141
  • 60. 60 / 141
  • 61. 61 / 141
    Styleguides
    Windows guidelines
  • 62. Questionnaire for User InteractionSatisfaction (QUIS)
  • 63. 63 / 67
    Product reaction cards (desirability toolkit)
  • 64. Example analysis emocards
    64 / 67
  • 65. Example analysis SEI
    65 / 67
  • 66. Example analysis SEI
    66 / 67
  • 67. Emocards
  • 68. Experience prototyping