User Research
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

User Research

on

  • 974 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
974
Views on SlideShare
971
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
33
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

http://www.slideshare.net 3

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Pleasure-based Design
  • Printed List of Questions+++ Fairly economical in terms of time involved and possibilities of distribution to large numbers+++ investigator does not have to be present - - low response rates (ca. 25%)- - - sample of responses is likely to be skewed towards the people with strong feelings (i.e. very positive or very negative experiences)
  • Face to face, online chat or telephone+++ likelihood of misinterpreting questions is minimised due to investigator being at close hand+++ sample is less self-selecting than with questionnaires- - - Demanding on investigator’s time- - - Participant’s responses may be influenced by investigator’s presence (more moderate)
  • +++ can be used at any stage of the development+++ The group dynamics can bring out the issues that really matter, and ones the researcher hadn’t considered- - - The group dynamics can mean one party is domineering or others very quiet – this needs managing the the facilitator
  • +++Efficient to get people’s reaction to products and designs, and also find out the reason why they react this way+++ Opportunity to get rich, prescriptive accounts- - Participant may rationalise, try to explain or justify initial feelings- - - Participant may try to please investigator, or reacts in some way to their presence/purpose
  • +++minimise investigator’s influence+++ agenda is driven by the participant+++ perception of freedom, results in greater disclosure+++ enjoyable for participant+++ good, convincing evidence- - participants may go off topic - - - statements may to be ambiguous, interpretation of statements happens later
  • +++ Speaking with a friend: ‘unprompted’, more natural
  • +++ low investment of investigator’s time and effort+++ can monitor people’s experiences over time+++ responses are created in the real world context, which is relevant to the individual participant- - participants may not be disciplined or motivated enough to complete the entries - - - Descriptions may be insufficient or irrelevant
  • +++ first-hand insight into what it is REALLY like to experience this product+++ cuts out miscommunication and misunderstanding+++ investigator gains a sense of empathy+++ probably best in combination with another research method- - not necessarily representative - - investigator has a vested interest
  • +++ Direct way of involving the people concerned in the design process+++ Designers and participants (consumers) communicate directly- - demanding for participants (time and nature of task)- - - participants are not experts, may not come up with feasible solutions- - - participants may not feel entitled to offer solutions
  • Creator’s imagination OR based on ethnographic research!
  • (usability: task-oriented)Define pleasure… p.12
  • functioning, size & appearance of body etc(family, friends, lovers, likeminded people, peers) – can involve issues of style/status/identityCognitivedemand, emotional reactionsAesthetics, value embodied (i.e. pleasure by a bio-degradable product or pleasure by a technical object as part of the room design)

User Research User Research Presentation Transcript

  • Overview Rationale and Background of involving people Overview of Methods Participative Art &Design Scenarios, User stories – Pleasure Framework
  • Historical Context Product and Industrial Design: Participation (Scandinavian influence -1970s system design) Cooperation, co- design, co-research Systems, Policies, Organisations Technology – interactive systems – focus on people rather than systems
  • Usability Concerned with „ease of use‟ (only cognitive & physical factors) Products should be:  Effective  Efficient  Satisfactory (avoidance of physical and cognitive discomfort)
  • Interaction Design /Experience DesignConcerned with the whole human rangeof hopes, fears, dreams, aspirations,principles & tastesProducts should be: Pleasurable, affective, speaking to emotions Personable, subjective, supporting relationships Culturally relevant
  • “The HumanFormerly Knownas User”Need to create a richer pictureof the person to design forHolistic understanding ofpeopleNot all quantifiable –empathy, intuition plays a part
  • Formal / Experiential designproperties Formal properties: can be objectively measured, clear & unambiguous definition (i.e. colour or shape) Experiential properties: individually experiencing the product in context
  • Design Noir  Concerned with the reality of an individual  Accessories for Lonely Men – Noam Toran
  • User Research Methods Decide: at what stage?  Before design concept (i.e. research precedents)  Testing design concept  Testing prototype  Iterative Evaluate: Which disadvantages are calculable?
  • (User) Research MethodsDesirable UndesirableRich Description No InformationFocused / Relevant Irrelevant InfoIndependent / bias free Skewed results/ influencedHonest RationalisedNoise free, accurate, clear Vague, off topicRepresentative Individual opinionEasy on time & effort for Demanding on time & effortinvestigator and/or for investigator and/orparticipants participants
  • Questionnaire  Fixed Response  Multiple choice  Response scale (e.g. 5 point: „strongly agree‟, „agree‟ ,‟not sure‟, „disagree‟, „strongly disagree‟)  Reliability (repeatable?), Validity (measuring the right thing?)  Open Ended Response  Particularly useful to „generate‟ information, rather than testing  Questions can be framed broadly
  • Interview Unstructured  Open-ended questions  Participant steers discussion Semi-structured  Investigator has some ideas about what is to be covered, and tries to ensure this is done  Participant is still able to raise issues important to them Structured  Participants choose from pre-set responses (multiple choice or scales)
  • Focus Group Discussion leader + group of participants (5-6 for usability) Set of prompts and management of discussion
  • Think aloud Protocols Participant uses product/design concept/ prototype/object/environment Verbalising thoughts as they experience May be prompted by investigator
  • Private Camera Conversation One or two participants after or during experiencing a product / design concept Or talking about products / services in general
  • Co-Discovery2 people, usually friends or acquaintances Exploring product/design concept/ prototype/object/environment May be set specific tasks Communicating as they make sense of the experience
  • Experience Diaries Participants fill these in over a period of time at home They may be supplied with a list of questions to consider
  • Immersion Investigator experiences product/design/service themselves Mixture of expertise and experience Trying different tasks/goals/journeys, under different circumstances
  • Participative Creation Group of participants and designers discuss issues of design Participants give suggestions for design, list requirements or get involved in mock- ups Participants get involved in design (co- design)
  • ParticipativeGraphic DesignNetworks co-creating printedmaterials http://www.cactusnetwork.org.uk/carri on.htm http://papergirl-berlin.de/ http://www.postsecret.com/Audience as Co-designers – HIVawareness campaign
  • Art projectsThese Associations -SehgalColours of the Sphere – DevineTelematic Dreaming - Sermon
  •  Create persona (user story) with comprehensive detail of human character and context Create scenario of use with actors‟ goals, objectives and actions and events that should be facilitated Puts „use‟ at the center Scenarios and of design decisions Concrete, yet flexible Personaes Teams will work towards shared design rationale Develop empathy Supports thinking and doing: Action and Reflection – pushing beyond „static answers‟
  •  Pat Jordan (2000) – based on Lionel Tiger The Pursuit of Pleasure (1992) holistic, humanistic approach – pleasure-seeking Pleasure Relationship of Framework person to object / environment – Interaction with it
  • People Characteristics Physio-pleasure Characteristics to do with the body – touch, taste, smell – sensory and sensual Socio-pleasure Characteristics to do with the enjoyment of a person‟s relationship with others, self and society Psycho-pleasure Characteristics to do with cognitive and emotional states, capabilities, and traits – „ease- of-use‟ Ideo-pleasure Characteristics to do with people‟s values – tastes, morals, beliefs and aspirations