Complete Thesis Draft 2.2compress

2,716 views
2,656 views

Published on

Thesis

Published in: Technology, Design
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,716
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
38
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Complete Thesis Draft 2.2compress

  1. 1. DESIGNING FOR PEOPLE AND EFFECTIVE INNOVATION: Introducing experiential factors as a toolkit for evaluation of interaction design and interactive system. Supervisor: Prof. Margherita Pillan Controrelatore: Prof. Marco Maiocchi Author: Musstanser Tinauli PhD candidate, INDACO. Version: Thesis draft 2.0
  2. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................I TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... V LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................... VII CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 2 1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 1.2 INTERACTION DESIGN ................................................................................................... 2 1.3 EVALUATION OF INTERACTION DESIGN AND INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS ............................ 3 1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 3 1.5 SCOPE OF RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 3 1.6 ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO INTERACTION DESIGN AND EVALUATION STRATEGIES ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 6 2.2 INTERACTION DESIGN ................................................................................................... 6 2.3 NATURAL INTERACTIONS .............................................................................................. 8 2.4 COLLECTION OF DAILY LIFE CASES .............................................................................. 9 2.4.1 COLLECTION OF DAILY LIFE CASES ........................................................................... 9 2.4.2 COLLECTION OF EVERYDAY OBJECTS....................................................................... 10 2.5 THE CONNECTIVITY OF THINGS ................................................................................... 13 2.5.1 PERVASIVE COMPUTING ........................................................................................... 13 2.6 IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FROM A TRUE USERS PERSPECTIVE.............................. 14 2.7 METHODOLOGIES AND PROCESSES RELEVANT TO EVALUATION OF INTERACTION DESIGN AND INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 14 2.7.1 REQUIREMENT GATHERING AND ENGINEERING ........................................................ 14 2.7.2 CONSTRUCTIVE BRAINSTORM .................................................................................. 16 2.7.3 INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................. 16 2.7.4 USABILITY ENGINEERING MODEL ............................................................................ 17 2.7.5 USABILITY METRICS ................................................................................................ 17 2.7.6 USABILITY FACTORS ................................................................................................ 18 2.8 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 18 CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF INTERACTION DESIGN AND EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS.............................................................................................................................. 20 3.2 CONCEPT AND IDEA ..................................................................................................... 20 3.3 THE INTERACTION DESIGN OBSERVATION MODEL AND THE EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS 20 3.4 THE METHOD .............................................................................................................. 21 3.4.2 OBSERVE .................................................................................................................. 21 3.4.3 CREATE .................................................................................................................... 22 3.4.4 EXPERIMENT ............................................................................................................ 22 3.4.4.1 OBSERVATION CYCLES .......................................................................................... 22 3.4.5 EVOLVE .................................................................................................................... 23 3.4.6 IMPROVE .................................................................................................................. 23 3.4.7 ANALYZE ................................................................................................................. 23 ! ""!
  3. 3. 3.5 EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS ............................................................................................. 23 3.5.1 LEARNABILITY ......................................................................................................... 23 3.5.2 USAGE ...................................................................................................................... 23 3.5.3 ERROR AND FEEDBACK ............................................................................................ 23 3.5.4 COMFORT ................................................................................................................. 23 3.5.5 COLLABORATION ..................................................................................................... 23 3.5.5.1 CONSTRUCTIVE INTERACTION ............................................................................... 23 3.5.5.2 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN ........................................................................................ 24 3.5.6 AFFECT (MOTIVATION TO LEARN)............................................................................. 24 3.5.7 GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 24 3.5.8 ACCESSIBILITY ......................................................................................................... 24 3.5.9 SUSTAINABILITY ...................................................................................................... 24 3.6 APPLICATION OF INTERACTION DESIGN OBSERVATION MODEL AND THE EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS ............................................................................................................................... 24 3.6.1 APPLICATION ON EXISTING INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS ................................................... 24 3.6.2 CREATION OF A NEW SYSTEM ................................................................................... 24 3.7 EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS APPLICABILITY AND SITUATED DEFINITIONS. ........................ 24 3.8 SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CONDUCTION OF SURVEYS ........................................... 25 3.9 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING A SCENARIO FOR THE USAGE AND EVALUATION OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER IN A CLASSROOM .................................................... 29 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 29 4.2 CONCEPT AND IDEA ..................................................................................................... 29 4.3 GOALS......................................................................................................................... 29 4.4 DESIGN CHALLENGES.................................................................................................. 29 4.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 30 4.6 THE DIGITAL PEN ........................................................................................................ 31 4.7 THE ESPECIAL PAPER .................................................................................................. 31 4.8 THE DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER SYSTEM (DPPS) .......................................................... 31 4.9 THE CONTEXT OF THE USE OF DPP .............................................................................. 32 4.10 THE SOFTWARE / ONLINE SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS RIGHTS ...................... 33 4.10.1 THE GROUPS ........................................................................................................... 33 Group 0 ........................................................................................................................... 34 Group 1 ........................................................................................................................... 34 4.10.2 ACCESS RIGHTS ...................................................................................................... 34 4.10.3 BLOCK NOTES WEBSITE .......................................................................................... 34 4.11 THE EMERGED SCENARIOS FOR THE USAGE OF DPPS ............................................... 34 4.12 THE APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGY ON THE USAGE OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER 36 4.12.1 MEETINGS AND BRAINSTORMS WITH STAKEHOLDERS (UNDERSTAND).................... 36 4.12.2 INTRODUCTION (UNDERSTAND) ............................................................................. 37 4.12.3 THE SURVEYS (OBSERVE)....................................................................................... 37 4.12.4 TESTI USER INTEGRAIONE – TUI (OBSERVE AND EXPERIMENT)............................. 37 4.12.5 PEN KIT DISTRIBUTION (EXPERIMENT) .................................................................... 38 4.12.6 USAGE SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 38 4.12.7 PROJECT COMPLETION SURVEY.............................................................................. 39 4.12.8 KNOW HOW SURVEY.............................................................................................. 40 4.12.9 SCENARIOS FOR THE USE OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER (EVOLVE AND IMPROVE)....... 40 ! """!
  4. 4. 4.13 THE ANALYSIS PHASE ............................................................................................... 42 4.13.1 THE USAGE SURVEY .............................................................................................. 42 4.13.2 PROJECT COMPLETION SURVEY.............................................................................. 42 4.14 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 43 CHAPTER 5: CREATING TRASH TRACK .................................................................... 45 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 45 5.2 CONCEPT AND IDEA ..................................................................................................... 45 5.3 GOALS......................................................................................................................... 45 5.4 DESIGN CHALLENGES.................................................................................................. 47 5.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 47 5.6 VISUALIZATIONS ......................................................................................................... 49 5.7 TRASH TAGGING SCENARIOS....................................................................................... 51 5.7.1 TRASH ORIENTED SCENARIO .................................................................................... 52 5.7.2 PEOPLE ORIENTED SCENARIO ................................................................................... 52 5.7.3 TRASH TRACK DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO .................................................................. 54 5.8 TECHNOLOGICAL AND PACKAGING CHALLENGES ....................................................... 54 5.9 TRASH TAG ................................................................................................................. 55 5.10 THE TRASH TRACK SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 57 5.11 PACKAGING............................................................................................................... 57 5.12 PROJECT DYNAMICS .................................................................................................. 57 5.12.1 TEAM DYNAMICS ................................................................................................... 58 5.12.2 PROJECT PARTNERS................................................................................................ 58 5.13 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 59 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS.................................................. 62 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 62 6.2 A DISCUSSION ON PRESENTED EVALUATION STRATEGY ............................................. 62 6.2.2 CRITIQUE ................................................................................................................. 62 6.3 CRITIQUE ON TRASH TRACK........................................................................................ 62 6.4 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS ............................................................................. 63 7.0 REFERENCES: ........................................................................................................... 64 ! "#!
  5. 5. TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1, THE DISCIPLINE OF INTERACTION DESIGN ............................................................. 10 FIGURE 2.1, THE 2009 FAMILY OF IPODS .................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 2.2, CAVE MEN (ON THE LEFT) AND CAIRNS (ON THE RIGHT)........................................... 7 FIGURE 2.3, USABILITY (THE INNER CIRCLE) AND EXPERIENCE GOALS (THE EXTERNAL CIRCLE) 8 FIGURE 2.4, THE PROBLEM OF ENSURING THAT USERS MENTAL MODEL CORRESPONDS TO THE DESIGNERS ......................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 2.5, SELECTION GROUP 1 OF EVERYDAY INTERACTIONS................................................ 10 FIGURE 2.6, SELECTION GROUP 1 OF EVERYDAY OBJECTS ......................................................... 10 FIGURE 2.7, SEGWAY ................................................................................................................ 11 FIGURE 2.9, TWO SELLERS SHOWING CREATIVITY IN INTERACTING WITH VARIOUS ITEMS SIMULTANEOUSLY. ........................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 2.10, FUEL STATION WITH UNREADABLE DISPLAYS ...................................................... 11 FIGURE 2.11, TYPICAL ROADSIDE PUNCTURE SHOP IN PAKISTAN (NO BILLBOARDS NEEDED)..... 11 FIGURE 2.12 INTERACTIVE DISPLAYS AND SURFACES ............................................................... 12 FIGURE 2.13 MESMERIZING REALITY WHILE ENABLING UNIQUE OBSERVATION REALITY ........ 13 FIGURE 2.14, REQUIREMENT ENGINEERING PROCESS .............................................................. 14 FIGURE 2.15, TYPICAL PROCESSES FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ........................... 15 FIGURE 2.16, BRAINSTORM ...................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 2.17, ELEMENTS OF THE USABILITY-ENGINEERING MODEL ........................................... 17 FIGURE 3.1, THE INTERACTION DESIGN OBSERVATION MODEL AND THE EXPERIENTIAL FACTOR 21 FIGURE 3.2, THE PLOT OF EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS ANALYSIS ................................................... 27 FIGURE 4.1, THE EXPERIMENTAL SCENARIO FOR THE USAGE OF DPPS...................................... 31 FIGURE 4.2, DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER....................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 4.3, DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER SYSTEM (DPPS) ............................................................ 36 FIGURE 4.4, SNAPSHOTS OF TUI EXPERIMENTAL PHASE ........................................................... 37 FIGURE 4.5, PROJECT MEMO ..................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 4.6, PROJECT DISEGNO ................................................................................................. 35 FIGURE 4.7, PROJECT ESCURSIONISMO CONCEPT 1.................................................................... 36 FIGURE 4.8, PROJECT ESCURSIONISMO CONCEPT 2.................................................................... 36 FIGURE 4.9, DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER EXPERIMENT AND THE SUGGESTED METHOD OF EVALUATION .................................................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 4.10, GRAPH OF THE IMPACT FACTORS OF THE USAGE SURVEY (US) ........................... 42 FIGURE 4.11, GRAPH OF THE IMPACT FACTORS OF THE PROJECT COMPLETION SURVEY (PCS) . 43 FIGURE 5.1, A CONCEPTUAL SCREEN SHOT OF MOVEMENT OF TRASH ....................................... 45 FIGURE 5.1, SERVICE DIAGRAM OF TRASH TRACK ................................................................... 50 FIGURE 5.3, CONCEPTUAL SCREEN SHOT OF TRASH ON THE MOVE............................................. 48 FIGURE 5.4, TRASH TAG PROTOTYPE 1 ..................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 5.5, VISUALIZATION SKETCH OF STARBUCK'S COFFEE CUP IN SEATTLE, WA, USA..... 50 FIGURE 5.6, VISUALIZATION SKETCH OF STARBUCK'S COFFEE CUP IN SEATTLE, WA, USA..... 50 FIGURE 5.7, DATASET OF THE TAG TESTING IN CAMBRIDGE, MA, USA.................................... 50 FIGURE 5.8, SAMPLE STREET VIEW OF THE MOVEMENT OF TRASH ............................................ 51 FIGURE 5.9, SAMPLE VISUALIZATION FROM BOSTON DEPLOYMENT ......................................... 51 FIGURE 5.10, TRASH ORIENTED SCENARIO ............................................................................... 52 FIGURE 5.11, PEOPLE ORIENTED SCENARIO ............................................................................... 53 FIGURE 5.12, TRASH TRACK SCENARIO ..................................................................................... 54 FIGURE 5.14. TRASH TAG PROTOTYPE 1, FEBRUARY 2009 ....................................................... 55 ! #!
  6. 6. FIGURE 5.13, AN ALTERNATE VIEW TO TRASH TRACK SCENARIO ............................................... 56 FIGURE 5.15, HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS ................................................................................... 57 FIGURE 5.16, INITIAL STUDY OF CITY OF SEATTLE.................................................................... 60 ! #"!
  7. 7. LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3.2, SITUATED DEFINITIONS OF EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS FOR DPPS............................... 25 TABLE 3.3, SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE, ASSOCIATED OBSERVATION CYCLED AND FOCAL GROUPS. ......................................................................................................................................... 26 TABLE 3.5, SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE, AND ASSOCIATED EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS..................... 27 TABLE 4.1, THE GROUPS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHTS .................................................................... 34 TABLE 4.2, TASKS OF TESTI USER INTEGRAZIONE (TUI).......................................................... 39 TABLE 4.3, USAGE SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 40 TABLE 4.4, PROJECT COMPLETION SURVEY (PCS) ................................................................... 41 TABLE 4.5, THE CALCULATED IMPACT FACTORS OF THE USAGE SURVEY (US) ......................... 42 TABLE 4.6, THE CALCULATED IMPACT FACTORS OF THE PROJECT COMPLETION SURVEY (PCS)42 ! #""!
  8. 8. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
  9. 9. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The world at large today is equipped with technology, sensors, scanners and instruments and each entity continues to communicate with the other one, sometimes in a defined and known manner and other times in a more randomized manner which includes a lot of variables. It is probably not wrong to say this is the era of pervasive computing, a time when the concept of having a personal computer at home is some what becoming obsolete. There is also a growing trend of introduction of innovative, creative, natural and sometimes fancy interactions between humans, man-machine, machine-machine and between all sorts of artifacts. The interactions sometimes are so good that a even children could learn to communicate with the artifacts without prior training unlike the days when users were given detailed instructional workshops. The user of pervasive technologies has changed how we communicated with our world and has brought about a need to control the evolvement of interaction models and even more importantly the requirement to evaluate the interaction models that are being presented by various groups. This thesis attempts to summarize what is interaction design and presents a naive methodology for the evaluation of interaction design and evaluation of interactive systems. The thesis covers two distinct perspectives, i.e. how could the existing interactive systems be evaluated for certain scenarios; and how innovative systems can be designed while taking advantage of the pervasive technologies. The earlier is presented by creating a scenario for the use of digital pen and paper in a classroom scenario and the later is presented by the creation of a project titled trash track, which made tracking the trash a possibility and also provides useful insight to how trash disperses through a cities sanitation system. Trash track also presents us with a scenario of a waste free world, a world where 100 percent recycling would be a possibility. 1.2 Interaction Design Design is often taken as the base of all disciplines, it’s a process that is present in the thoughts, process, in problem solving, defining of goals and perhaps in some ways in every facet of life. A designer has the capacity to look back in a moving train and predict what’s coming when every one else is eager to look forward. Interaction design (ID) is about behavior of things, how things work. The disciple too can be associated with numerous other disciplines, which involve definition of behaviors. ID adds a new dynamic and more defined perspective to generic design and is classed as one of the sub- disciplines of design. The discipline has understandably gained lot of attention during the last two decades. The detailed description of interaction design is presented in the earlier sections of Chapter 2. The importance of interaction has often been explained by the success of products such as an ipod and iphone. The gained attention can be explained very well with the success as this has introduced a new level of communication between the users and the interactive devices. Users of all ages have now been enabled to interact with these devices. The Figure 1.1 shows a kid, aged 2 years interacting with an IPOD in an unsupervised session. ! $!
  10. 10. !"#$%&'()(*''+',-.'/&0%'1"2'"3,&%04,"3#'-",5'6789 1.3 Evaluation of Interaction Design and Interactive Systems The evaluation of any task, activity and process is critical for improvements and better understanding of the task at hand. Technology more than often has strong influences on people, particularly on how they behave, how they react and how they perform in a given situation. The way a user interacts with a given artifact also tends to have a strong effect on user. Even though the discipline of interaction design has grown exponentially, somehow the other the evaluation of such presented systems had not been equally focused. Recently however the importance and need of such evaluations has been emphasized. As lord Kelvin puts it, “When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you can not measure, when you can not express in numbers, your knowledge is a meager and unsatisfactory kind”. Chapter two highlights the importance of such evaluations and a strategy for the evaluation is produced in chapter 3. 1.4 Research Objectives The conducted research has the following objectives and goals: - Designing of a strategy to evaluate interactive systems. - Application of the strategy on existing systems. - Attempt to use the similar strategy while creating new systems - Creation of new systems that are interactive, innovative and enable scenarios that did no existed prior to the suggested system. 1.5 Scope of Research The scope of research includes the development of a strategy that sets the guidelines for application on various interactive systems. The scope in this thesis is limited to the following: - Creation of an evaluation strategy for evaluation interactive systems - Application of the suggested strategy on the use of digital pen and paper in a classroom scenario ! %!
  11. 11. - Suggestion of new scenarios for the use of digital pen and paper - Creation of trash track project that would make trash tracking a possibility while enabling the following: o Designing of a trash tracker o Real-time flow of trash in a Cities sanitation system o Initiating data gathering towards removal change on the contrary to production chain o Introduce a new and dynamic connection between people and their trash to have a behavioral change to achieve sustainability. 1.6 Organization The following chapter briefly reviews the existing literature on interaction design and on different evaluation strategies that could be applied on the discipline. Chapter 3 presents a new strategy based on usability engineering to evaluate interaction design and interactive systems. The strategy attempts to presents key guidelines for evaluation of interactive systems. In chapter 4 a case study of the use of digital pen and paper is created which is followed by the application of the evaluation strategy as presented in chapter 3. Chapter 5 describes in detail the creation of the trash track project which made tracking trash a possibility and promises to change the behaviour of the people. The concluding 6th chapter examines the weaknesses and strengths of the presented strategy and projects. The chapter also concludes the work done and presents future works. ! ! &!
  12. 12. CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO INTERACTION DESIGN AND EVALUATION STRATEGIES ! '!
  13. 13. CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO INTERACTION DESIGN AND EVALUATION STRATEGIES 2.1 Introduction Interaction design is about behavior of things, how things work. In this chapter we present a background study on interaction design. A sequence of daily life examples as collection of cases is also documented in the thesis. Why interaction design is important, how it changes the success of a product is discussed in the later sections of the chapter. The pervasive use of technology seems to be getting attached to our everyday objects. It is crititical to ensure the famous promise of ‘technology for people and not people for technology’ becomes true. One of the subsections of this chapter is dedicated to why its important to evaluate all these fancy systems. Software engineers and evaluators tend to design complicated system and further complicated scenarios using various testing procedures. However the whole process lacks the process of a true user perspective. Our claim is that when at the end of the day, ‘only user uses the product’ hence he/she has to be one of the major actors in the evaluation process. A short summary of some of the usability evaluation strategies and importance of users perspective in the evaluation process is presented in the last section of this chapter. 2.2 Interaction Design Interaction design has been on the rise for the last two decades and seems to have integrated to all facets of our lives. Designers often use the famous traditional examples of the success of IPOD and failure of jukebox to describe the importance of interaction design. Though what exactly is ID and what it includes and where it lies within a set of disciplines is still blur. ID is about behavior, about how things work. The defining of the behaviour on what would happen when a user does something with a particular device is the job of the interaction designer (Saffer, 2009). Rober Reimann also defines ID in a convincing way, “Interaction Design is a design discipline dedicated to defining the behavior of artifacts, environments, and systems (i.e., products), and therefore concerned with: - Defining the form of products as they relate to their behavior and use!. - Anticipating how the use of products will mediate human relationships and affect human understanding!. - Exploring the dialogue between products, people, and contexts (physical, cultural, historical)”. !"#$%&':)(*';5&'2"<4"=>"3&'.?'63,&%04,".3'9&<"#3' ! ! (!
  14. 14. Interaction design is often associated with interface design or web design. Though the connections are certainly there but the discipline of interaction design certainly offers more. The possibility of defining next set of actions and fixation of behaviors by doing something is included in interaction design. This may require a screen where you click and something happens or this may simply be done via ‘shake of your hand/hear/fingers’, some kind of motion or perhaps your thoughts. Winograd (1997) describes it as “the design of spaces for human communication and interaction.” Apple has a history of leading innovation in smart interactions in its products. Various interactions are covered with the new additions of the apple’s ipod as can be seen on the right corner of Figure 2.1 below. ! !"#$%&':)(*';5&':@@A'?0B">/'.?'6789<''C<.$%4&D'5,,=DEE0=4B0#)4.BE"B0#&<E@A"=.2F?0B)G=#*'044&<<&2'.3D' :(<,'H.I&BJ&%':@@AK' The hidden use of technology has given a true birth to one of the core foundations of design and architecture, As Ludwig mies van der rohe quoted, “less is more”. Making simple and intriguing interactions seems to have a big influence on the success of products. This is one of the same reason for which the ipod in 2001 was a hit in the market when jukebox had failed to make any impact.! !"#$%&':):*'L0I&'B&3'M.3',5&'>&?,N'032'40"%3<'M.3',5&'%"#5,N'C<.$%4&D' 5,,=DEE---)$<0,,).%#EB0#0O"3&E"B0#&<E40%,..3F40I&B&3)G=#'032'$313.-'<.$%4&*'044&<<&2'.3D':(<,' H.I&BJ&%':@@AK' ! )!
  15. 15. One of the key goals of interaction design is in establishing clarity on what are the key objectives of all the process that the team is going through (Rogers; Sharp and Preece, 2007). The systems that are to be designed could have two very different purposes, i.e. either they are designed to facilitate the user goals or built with some literal complications to support user learning. The two different goals could be separated as usability goals and experience goal (Rogers. Et. Al, 2007). !"#$%&':)P*'Q<0J">",/'M,5&'"33&%'4"%4>&N'032'&R=&%"&34&'#.0><'M,5&'&R,&%30>'4"%4>&N'C<.$%4&D'S.#&%<*'&,)' +>)*:@@TN' The above-mentioned goals are closer to our view when it comes to evaluation of the interactive system. A detailed methodology for evaluation is described in the Chapter 3 of this thesis. Our methodology none the less focuses on the combined objectives and an integrated view of the both the usability and experience goals. The combined strategy is termed as experiential factors for evaluation and understanding purposes. 2.3 Natural Interactions Don Norman brought the term affordances into major play when he wrote his book ‘The design of everyday things’. It is basically a metaphor that allows people to know how to use certain technology. The terminology has been often misused in terms of its usage in physical artifact and digital interfaces. In 1999, Norman himself quoted on a HCI forum discussion, “I put an affordance there,” a participant would say, “I wonder if the object affords clicking...” affordances this, affordances that. And no data, just opinion. Yikes! What had I unleashed upon the world? The introduction of natural interactions focuses on eliminating the differences in distinct contexts. The natural interactions is based on the view that the natural any form of interaction is the better or more understandable it would be. We humans as living being often form ! *!
  16. 16. meaning to anything that comes out of nature as natural. A good example would be that of martial arts, quite a few varieties are based on how different creatures walk, fight, eating styles and etc. The principles of nature metaphorically are easy to communicate, e.g. what would be the best way to tell a user to keep looking toward the point that keeps moving? Perhaps a user could be asked to look at the sun as sunflowers do? Or a user could be told that the interaction model is that of a sunflower or that of the plant that closes when touched. The basic idea is to design the closest to natural form of interactions, may those be visual or interactive. The principle of natural interactions would follow conventions incase the natural form of interaction does not come to ones mind. !"#$%&':)U*'+20=,&2'?%.B'H.%B03'M(AVV*'=(WND';5&'=%.J>&B'.?'&3<$%"3#',50,'$<&%<'B&3,0>'B.2&>' 4.%%&<=.32<',.',5&'2&<"#3&%<''C<.$%4&D' 5,,=DEE---)"3,&%04,".32&<"#3).%#E"B0#&<E?"#$%&<EB&3,0>FB.2&><)#"?K' ! The Figure 2.4 had originally been used to signify a slightly different issue but the core idea is the same. Once a system has been designed, no user will have direct access to the designer. Hence the interaction model should be kept simple, innovative and closer to nature to ensure easy and meaningful interactions. 2.4 Collection of Daily Life Cases The section below presents a collection of daily life interaction, interactive systems and situations where interaction design has either been successfully employed or should be employed more aggressively in future. 2.4.1 Collection of Daily Life Cases Interactions are part of our everyday life. Public spaces especially are full of some defined and some undefined variable. The defined would be a theme park where user goes through certain experiences. Lot of studies go into making the theme parks safe for users, there is a whole system which makes every fun ride enjoyable. Then there are some undefined but allowed things which happen in these public spaces, such as dancing, skating, open air theaters and many more. A selected group of everyday selections are shown in Figure 2.4. The point here however is that interaction design is essential part of our life. The systems which are carried out all around us everyday do not need to be technology savvy but they ! +!
  17. 17. certainly require the implementation of interaction design principles to ensure a better experience and understanding. !"#$%&':)X*'Y&>&4,".3'#%.$='('.?'&I&%/20/'"3,&%04,".3<' 2.4.2 Collection of Everyday Objects !"#$%&':)W*'Y&>&4,".3'#%.$='('.?'&I&%/20/'.JG&4,<' ! ,-!
  18. 18. !"#$%&':)T*'Y&#-0/' The Figure 2.7 shows the example of the new transportation product called segway. These have been quite successful and we do witness quite a few of them in central stations of bigger cities in Europe and America. These have a non-traditional way of interaction but it is more natural. The next sequence of images from Figure 2.9 - 2.11 were shot in Pakistan and some of which show excellent way of interaction using conventional and low-tech means. !"#$%&':)A*';-.'<&>>&%<'<5.-"3#'4%&0,"I",/'"3'"3,&%04,"3#'-",5'I0%".$<'",&B<'<"B$>,03&.$<>/)' !"#$%&':)(@*'!$&>'<,0,".3'-",5'$3%&020J>&'2"<=>0/<' !"#$%&':)((*';/="40>'%.02<"2&'=$34,$%&'<5.='"3'701"<,03'M3.' M,01&'"3'6<>0B0J02*'701"<,03N' J">>J.0%2<'3&&2&2N' ! ,,!
  19. 19. 2.4.3 Collection of Interactive Displays and Setups The figure 2.12 shows a small collection of thousands of displays that are in use by people and researchers of various labs. People strive to produce new and innovative applications for users. These displays have been placed in markets, shopping centers, technology stores and exhibitions. The users do get fascinated to see some of these but how useful are they in real life is a question that remains to be answered. ''' !"#$%&':)(:'M0ND'Z$>,",.$45'2"<=>0/'' !"#$%&':)(:'MJND'Y&3<"<=5&%&'"3,&%?04&'3.)U'C<.$%4&D' C<.$%4&D''=&%<.30>'4.>>&4,".3'?%.B'-&JK' 5,,=DEE---)>0JJ"30&%)2&EK' !"#$%&':)(:'M4ND';5&'%&0>'B"%%.%'C<.$%4&D'$313.-3K !"#$%&':)(:'M2ND';5&'"3,&%04,"I&'2"<=>0/'C<.$%4&D' 5,,=DEE---)"3<,0J>.#<"B0#&<)4.BE"B0#&<E:@@ VE@(E@UE0=&%,$%&["3,&%04,"I&[2"<=>0/FUV)G=#K' !"#$%&':)(:'63,&%04,"I&'9"<=>0/<'032'<$%?04&<' The next sequence of images in Figure 2.13 shows an experiment that was conducted in Centro METID, Politecnico di Milano, Italy. The idea was to mesmerize reality while enabling users a very unique view of the objects that in normal situation would probably be ignored. The experiment included nine cameras, which were focused on people and the objects and three computer screens with each screen presenting distinct views of objects as well as the users in the surroundings. ! ,$!
  20. 20. ! ! ! ! ! !"#$%&':)(P'Z&<B&%"O"3#'S&0>",/'-5">&'&30J>"3#'Q3"$&'8J<&%I0,".3'S&0>",/*'03'&R=&%"B&3,'4.32$4,&2' .3'Z];69'20/)' 2.5 The Connectivity of Things The way the things were connected has changed drastically over the last decade. The burst of internet created a dynamic connection between people and the growth of pervasive technologies has given birth to a new potential scenario where every thing is track able. This very idea essentially makes possible tracking everything that exists. A very similar concept is referred to as ‘internet of things’. 2.5.1 Pervasive Computing Pervasive computing or sometime also called ubiquitous computing is a post-desktop model of human-computer interaction in which information processing has been thoroughly integrated into everyday objects and activities. In the course of ordinary activities, someone "using" ubiquitous computing engages many computational devices and systems simultaneously, and may not necessarily even be aware that they are doing so. This model is usually considered advancement from the desktop paradigm (Hansmann, 2003). The pervasive use of technology enables the use of technology with a minimal technology interface. The main idea is that the central processing or the main processing stays apart from the devices or there is a shared way of utilizing certain fixed resources or from other fixed or portable computer resources such as memory, network, processor, etc. The two projects that are discussed in this thesis (chapter 4 – 5) are good examples of pervasive use of technology, where use of smart tags enables a scenario where 100 percent recycling is possible and on the other hand the digital pens enables a more useful model of learning. ! ,%!
  21. 21. 2.6 Importance of Evaluation from a True Users Perspective The increasing trend of more and more user of technology, fancy displays and extensive use of pervasive technologies raises issues such as user comfort, feelings, skill set, likeness etc. Even though the systems are usually tested well by the software dependability and reliability methods, even though companies like Microsoft does extensive user testing before they launch their products but there is a strong need to evaluate all existing or in use system from a true user perspective to ensure that the end user needs are met and he/she is satisfied. 2.7 Methodologies and Processes Relevant to Evaluation of Interaction Design and Interactive Systems The discipline of interaction design lays down the basic guidelines of entering the domain, its connection with other fields, however the discipline lacks the methodologies to evaluate a generic interactive system. On the contrary many techniques can be observed and applied to evaluate websites and e-learning platforms. Experience of the user is the ultimate goal of any product. A productive, stress-less or engaging experience generally leads to a successful product. Interaction designers define what happens when a user uses a product. While talking about different evaluation techniques the usability techniques seem much closer to how interactive systems can be evaluated. The sections below present the techniques that formed the foundation of the proposed strategy for evaluation of interaction design and interactive systems. 2.7.1 Requirement Gathering and Engineering Software engineering gives a lot of importance to requirement gathering and engineering process. The studies have shown that 80 percent of the projects fail due to not enough understanding of what is to be done. Engineers tend to spend less time in this phase and move on to implementation and other phases but doing so has proved to be a mistake time and again. The well accepted model of requirement engineering is shown in Figure 2.14 (SWEBOK, 2001). !"#$%&':)(U*'S&$"%&B&3,']3#"3&&%"3#'7%.4&<<'C<.$%4&D'Y^]_8`*':@@(K' ! ,&!
  22. 22. The SE discipline also defines various models for development of programs and software’s. These famous models presented over the years include models such as waterfall; prototyping, incremental, spiral and win win spiral models. Figure 2.15 presents the typical processes for software development projects. A notable omission is the value of user as is shown in the model. The user gets involved at the very later stages. The importance of understanding the requirements however brought the requirement engineering and requirement gathering processes in focus. The main goals of requirement engineering are to determine the goals, function and constraints of hardware and software system. !"#$%&':)(X*';/="40>'=%.4&<<&<'?.%'<.?,-0%&'2&I&>.=B&3,'=%.G&4,<'C<.$%4&D' 5,,=DEE---)?0<).%#E2.4<E>2&IE@(P@@A((XUF:W)5,B'044&<<&2'.3':P%2'H.I&BJ&%'@AK' ! ,'!
  23. 23. 2.7.2 Constructive Brainstorm Brainstorm is a group a activity which is performed to generate a large number of ideas. The conduction of brainstorm however is a challenging task sometimes and greatly depends on the person who conducts the session as all stakeholders have to feel excited throughout the process. We have changed the name from brainstorm to constructive brainstorm to stress on the positivity of the process. There are four basic rules in brainstorming. These are intended to reduce social inhibitions among groups members, stimulate idea generation, and increase overall creativity of the group. These include ‘focus on the quantity’, ‘withhold of criticism’, ‘welcome unusual ideas’ and ‘combine and improve ideas’. Figure 2.16 shows a generic brainstorm process. !"#$%&':)(W*'J%0"3<,.%B'C<.$%4&D' 5,,=DEE$=>.02)-"1"B&2"0).%#E-"1"=&2"0E4.BB.3<E&E&TE+4,"I",/F=%&=&%0,".3)<I#*'044&<<&2'.3'@(' H.I&BJ&%':@@AN' 2.7.3 Interviews Interview is a good tool to get views of a third person. An interview generally has two important persons, the one who interviews and the second who gets interviewed (the interviewee). The interviewer is usually recommended to right down his/her questions and be prepared before initiating the interview. There is also a strong need to make the interviewee ! ,(!
  24. 24. as comfortable as possible. This is very important if the interview is recorded with a camera/and or an audio recorder. The key goal however is to engage in a conversation to get as much information as possible from the interviewee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interview). There also is another type of interview, called unstructured interview. The idea is to keep the conversation undefined and talk to the interviewee with an open mind and let them say what ever they feel like. This kind of interview should usually be audio recorded. 2.7.4 Usability Engineering Model The usability engineering method is a practical method to ensure good user interfaces.It presents a process to achieve that and defined process is stressed to be considered before design, during the design and after field installation of a software product (Nielsen, 1992). Nielsen presents ten steps for achieving the above and it includes the following: 0. Consider the larger context 1. Know the user Individual user characteristics The users current task And Prioritize the usability methods Functional analysis Apply methamethods throughout Evolution of the user 2. Competitive analysis 3. Setting usability goals 4. Participatory design 5. Coordinated design of the total interface Standard Product identity 6. Guidelines and heuristic analysis 7. Prototyping 8. Empirical testing 9. Iterative design Capture the design rationale 10. Collect feedback from field use !"#$%&':)(T*']>&B&3,<'.?',5&'$<0J">",/[&3#"3&&%"3#'B.2&>'C<.$%4&D'03'020=,0,".3'.?'"B0#&'=%&<&3,&2'J/' H"&><&3*'(AA:K There is a suggestion by Nielsen in the same paper, where he suggests that designers should have access to a pool of users after the start of design phase. This is in contrast to designers guessing the users. 2.7.5 Usability Metrics The evaluation of quantifiable thing or activity is possible if a metric exists. Measurement is an effective and essential component of all disciplines. “When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you can not measure, when you can not express in numbers, your knowledge is a meager and unsatisfactory kind”, Lord Kelvin, 1883. ! ,)!
  25. 25. In the recent years numerous new metrics for sciences such as software engineering, astrology, astronomy medical science and all other fields have been formed. This is due to the fact that conferential measures like distance, time, and cost are some times not applicable or not sufficient to measure the newly formed processes, disciplines or problems. In complex systems or situations a direct representation in numbers is often not possible but it is indeed possible to represent certain situations and evaluations through various numbers. Usability factors (as explained in the next section) are used to quantify usability and are in a way the unit of usability engineering. 2.7.6 Usability Factors Various usability studies keeping the focus of learning or generic usability have proposed and used various usability factors. Keeping in view the research context the most relevant usability factors were short listed, a few of them with their respective definitions are listed below. Along with other factors the importance of affect is one of the key factors for various usability studies. The importance of affect has been in highlighted in several papers (Zaharias, 2004). Some of the key factors have also been summarized in the same journal. A few most relevant factors from various studies (Zaharias, 2004; Zaharias, 2006; Nielsen, 2001 and Nielsen, 1992) are listed below: - Navigation - Learnability - Accessibility - Consistency - Visual Design - Interactivity - Content and Resources - Media Use - Learning Strategies Design - Instructional Feedback - Instructional Assessment - Learner Guidance and Support - Participatory Design - Iterative Design - Affect 2.8 Conclusion The chapter presented a wide range of interactive systems and showed the presence in our everyday life. The situated use of technology and the availability of ubiquitous computing, the access of networks has placed our life into a very dynamic and highly connected world. The situation has brought a need to have a strong input from user in and during the design phase and also in the evaluation phase. This is important because the biggest stake in this highly connected world is only of the end user. The later part of the chapter also highlighted some of the principles of software engineering and a few evaluation methodologies. The survey also brought up the fact that the software development process generally is software centers and so are the evaluation methodologies. This brings about the need to design new strategies and methodologies which are centered on the end user or which somehow better involve the end user for a more realistic evaluation of the interactive and connected system under observations. ! ,*!
  26. 26. CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF INTEREACTION DESIGN AND EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS ! ,+!
  27. 27. CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF INTERACTION DESIGN AND EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS 3.1 Introduction The importance of Interaction Design (IxD) has been on the increase for the last couple of years. The success of Ipod and failure of Jukebox justify the significance of the discipline. This chapter presents usability like methodology to evaluate any given interactive system. The method here introduces guidelines for the evaluation of existing systems. The presented technique focuses the individual evaluation of nine key perspectives to allow an overall picture of the effectiveness of the system under observation. The later sections of the chapter enlist and discuss the application and results. The core case studies include the evaluation of digital pen and paper in a classroom scenario, trash track project and results of the application on various eLearning games and portals. 3.2 Concept and Idea IxD discipline provides us with a lot of strategies and mechanisms to improve the projects before their release. However the evaluation mechanisms for interactive systems lack the gist at present. The core idea here is to provide designers and evaluators with a more structural and easy to understand approach that allows them to have a snapshot of the goods and bads of any interactive system under observation. The strategy focuses evaluation of nine key factors. These include Learnability, Usage, Error and Feedback, Comfort, Collaboration, Affect, Guidance and Support, Accessibility and Sustainability. Each factor is measured independently and the resulting numbers contribute to the overall evaluation of the interactive system under observation. The strategy is further explained by application on three different situations, which includes the following: - application on existing interactive systems - potential usage while creating new systems 3.3 The Interaction Design Observation Model and the Experiential Factors The model layouts the guidelines for the usability like evaluation of interaction design and interactive system. The model lays out the principle factors for evaluation; these factors are also termed as experiential factors. The experiential factors aim to provide sufficient knowledge about various aspects of an interactive system under observation. These factors included Learnability, Usage, Error and Feedback, Comfort, Collaboration, Affect, Guidance and Support, Accessibility and Sustainability. The generic definitions of each of them are provided in the Section 3.5. The generic model can be seen in Figure 3.1. Each factor may or may not be applicable in every interactive system. Each factor also has a situated definition, which is a slightly modified version of each factor for a clear understanding with respect to the context. The experience a user goes through defines how much the user like the product. People interact with products and these interactions give certain experiences to the people. The better the quality of interaction with respect to what was targeted to be achieved the better the ! $-!
  28. 28. product. ! !"#$%&'P)(*';5&'63,&%04,".3'2&<"#3'.J<&%I0,".3'B.2&>'032',5&'&R=&%"&3,"0>'?04,.%< 3.4 The Method The method presents guidelines to assist in the evaluation process. The method proposes the evaluation process in a spiral model like structure in the sense of iterations. Though unlike the spiral model, the defined flow of the sequence of phases is not essential. The main phases of the proposed method includes ‘understand’, ‘analyze’, ‘observe’, ‘improve’, ‘evolve’, ‘experiment’ and ‘create’. The model does not define any particular order but facilitates during brainstorm sessions, while creation or observatory stages of a given project. Each phase has been filled with tasks, which can be changed slightly from project to project and case to case. The phases in the steps are defined in Table 5.1. 3.4.1 Understand This phase refers to a development of an understanding of what the interactive system under observation is supposed to achieve. The key here is to develop a consensus through brainstorm on which elements and perspectives could be observed. This is done by using the interactive system, interviewing the creators and repeated brainstorms. The focus is always kept on what the user of the system is expected to achieve or get from the system. 3.4.2 Observe This phase recommends the fixing and nailing down of what will be observed. The candidate observations are carried on from the ‘understand’ phase. The nailing down process also include fixation of the timing of observation, i.e. what will be observed and when. The second task-set of ‘Observe’ phase includes the formation of initial survey questions and association of each candidate observation with one or more experiential factor. ! $,!
  29. 29. The third and conclusive task-set of this phase is that of forming the focus groups. Interactive systems may have various usages of the system at various stages. The idea here is to think of the possible groups that may exist in the project. 3.4.3 Create This phase refers to creation of the desired interactive system. This may follow the understanding phase directly, i.e., the intent of the targeted goals that are supposed to be achieved while keeping the users perspective as the focal point. Task set 1 Task set 2 Task set 3 Understand - Brainstorm -Interview Creators - observations (understand concept) - Use the interactive system Observe - Fix observations - Form survey - Form focus - Fix observation cycles questions groups - Associate observations and experiential factors Create - Interactive products - - Experiment - Form focus groups - Assign and evaluate - Conduct tasks observations (surveys) Evolve - Interaction Schema - - Improve - Interactive products - Analyze - Survey results - Each impact factors - ;0J>&'P)(*';5&'Z&,5.2' 3.4.4 Experiment This is the experimental phase of the proposed method. The focus groups that may have been pointed out in the observation phase are reviewed, refined and finalized. The details of the focus groups are listed out in the first task-set of this phase such as definitions of the focus groups, how many, which one, why, where and when would each of them be observed or experimented with. The second task-set of this phase targets to assign tasks to each defined group and form a strategy to evaluate them. The final task set focuses on conduction of the evaluation through surveys or naked-eye observations. 3.4.4.1 Observation Cycles As an insurance to get sufficient data it is recommended that the observations be taken at the following stages. The conduction of the following observation cycles is recommended as a recommended practice. Before using the interactive system to be observed, after initial use, after initial training of how to use the system (with a set of activities to be done by the users) and finally at the concluding stage of the observation gathering. ! $$!
  30. 30. 3.4.5 Evolve ./"0!1/203!4567030!58!3#59#"8:!;/3!"8;3<26;"58!06/3=2!"8!;/3!"8;3<26;"58!0>0;3=0! ?203@!58!;/3!5?03<#2;"58!;/2;!/2@!?338!62<<"3@!57;!"8!;/3!1<3#"570!1/2030A! 3.4.6 Improve ./"0!1/203!4567030!58!"=1<5#"8:!;/3!5#3<299!0>0;3=!?>!92>"8:!57;!07::30;"580!28@! <365==38@2;"580!?203@!58!;/3!5?03<#2;"580!28@!2829>0"0!B/"93!"8697@"8:!;/3! :2;/3<"8:0!28@!<3079;0!54!299!1/2030!54!;/3!@34"83@!=3;/5@A ! 3.4.7 Analyze ./3!C829>D3!1/203!26;7299>!=2>!/21138!1<"5<!;5!;/3!E3#59#3F!28@!E"=1<5#3F!1/2030A! ./"0!1/203!4567030!58!;/3!2829>0"0!54!;/3!07<#3>!<3079;0!;/2;!/2#3!?338!1<5@763@!"8! ;/3!E3G13<"=38;F!1/203A!H8!;/3!4"<0;!;20IJ03;!;/3!07<#3>!<3079;0!2<3!2829>D3@!28@!"8! ;/3!45995B"8:!03;!54!26;"#";"30!;/3!<3079;0!45<!326/!426;5<!2<3!2829>D3@!;/5<57:/9>A! ! 3.5 Experiential Factors The simplicity of interacting with any product more than often plays a vital role towards the affect it creates on its user. The positive the affect or positive emotion, less frustration, easy learning, self explanatory process, prettiness of design and the better the ergonomics the more the users tend to like the objects. As Alan Cooper puts it, “Well-thought out designs are more successful. The experience a user goes through defines they very quality of the object for him/her. Considering these facts and usability studies which tend to evaluate more from the software side of things, a combination of nine key factors have been filtered out and have been termed as experiential factors. Each of them is explained below in the subsections of section 3.5. 3.5.1 Learnability Learnability represents the positive learning effect on the users or the effects of the system on user’s learning regarding the targeted area. 3.5.2 Usage This factor represents the level of difficulty in using the system. The level of difficulty in data transfers, usage of especial paper, data storage. 3.5.3 Error and Feedback Error and Feedback is the real-time response from the technology when the user makes an error. 3.5.4 Comfort This factor represents the level of comfort while using the interactive system; it may also present the agronomical comfort. 3.5.5 Collaboration Collaboration represents the interaction between the users. The collaboration is observed with two different perspectives. 3.5.5.1 Constructive Interaction This sub-factor represents the collaboration or interaction when two users work together. ! $%!
  31. 31. 3.5.5.2 Participatory Design This factor is used to measure the team effort when real users are involved during the process. 3.5.6 Affect (motivation to learn) This is an additional parameter, which is taken out of the present usability factors. The motivation construct is composed of four sub-constructs: attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction (Keller,1983). 3.5.7 Guidance and Support The training sessions, tutorial and the online material for learning the use of the system are covered under guidance and support. The name was changed from learner guidance and support to guidance and support. 3.5.8 Accessibility The level of difficulty in setting-up/installing the system is called accessibility factor. The factor deals with the technical errors and requirements associated with the technology, such as driver installations, preparation of especial material (e.g. printing of especial paper). 3.5.9 Sustainability This factor represents how sustainable the interactive system under observation. The sustainability factor may include the emission of CO2 when a system was used, may suggest if certain processes are better than others in terms of environment friendliness. 3.6 Application of Interaction design observation model and the experiential factors The thesis attempts the application of the presented strategy on three unique cases that include the following categories: 3.6.1 Application on existing interactive systems This is achieved by application of the recommended strategy on the use of digital pen and paper in a classroom scenario. The experiment was conducted in an interaction design course with the first year design students at Politecnico di Milano. The basic idea was to re- understand the digital pen and paper technology that has been striving to gain success for a decade, apply the suggested evaluation strategy and present with a better interactive model and possible scenarios on where and how the digital pen and paper system could be used. 3.6.2 Creation of a new system This is achieved by participation in the design phase of an innovative project called Trash Track at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Boston, USA. The project aims to change the behavior of people by introduction of a new invisible connection between them and their trash by providing them. The link is enabled by development of trash tags, which are attached to thousands of pieces of trash of people. The project also covers another aspect of getting useful information on how waste actually disperses in the Cities sanitation system. 3.7 Experiential Factors applicability and situated definitions. The recommended experiential factors may or may not be applicable on all the systems and they would have to be redefined keeping the context in mind. Table 3.2 enlists the applicable experiential factors and the associated definitions. ! $&!
  32. 32. Learnability Learnability represents the positive learning effect on the users or the effects of the system on user’s learning regarding the targeted area. Usage This factor represents the level of difficulty in using the system. The level of difficulty in data transfers, usage of especial paper, data storage. Error and Feedback Error and Feedback is the real-time response from the technology when the user makes an error. This can be the vibration by the pen when the user moves out of the writing margins. Comfort The design of the pen and usage is ergonomically comfortable. Collaboration Collaboration represents the interaction between the users. The collaboration is observed with two different perspectives. Constructive This sub-factor represents the collaboration or interaction Interaction when two users work together. Participatory Design This factor is used to measure the team effort when real users are involved during the process. Affect (motivation to This is an additional parameter, which is taken out of the learn) present usability factors. The motivation construct is composed of four sub-constructs: attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction (Keller,1983). Guidance and Support The training sessions, tutorial and the online material for learning the use of the system are covered under guidance and support. The name was changed from learner guidance and support to guidance and support. Accessibility The level of difficulty in setting-up/installing the system is called accessibility factor. The factor deals with the technical errors and requirements associated with the technology, such as driver installations, preparation of especial material (e.g. printing of especial paper). Sustainability This factor represents how sustainable the interactive system under observation. ;0J>&'P)(*'Y",$0,&2'2&?"3",".3<'.?'&R=&%"&3,"0>'?04,.%<'?.%'977Y 3.8 Sample Questionnaire for Conduction of Surveys Table 3.3 below shows some a few questions similar to those used in digital pen and paper experiment. Survey type here means the relevant observation cycle; Group type suggest the under observation ‘focus group’. The acronyms FUS, GS and PS stand for First Use Survey, Group Survey and Project Survey. Please note the project cycles were not named exactly the same while the experiment was being conducted. The question are then further associated with experiential factors. Table 3.4 shows the sample association of above-mentioned questions. These could also be represented just via adding another column in Table 3.3. ! $'!
  33. 33. Note: In Rating Questions (1 – 5; where 1 indicates not at all and 5 indicates absolutely yes) Survey Group No. Survey Questions Type Type FUS/GS G01 1 Where did you keep the PenKIT (special place)? Please write: FUS/GS G0123 2 Did you talk about the PenKIT with other students? yes no FUS/GS G01 3 You started to use the pen after planning or it Spontaneo Planned just happened spontaneously? us FUS/GS G012 4 In the first two days, did you try to access the Simple Pen Logged on server server and the digital pen features or you used it as a simple pen? FUS/PS/ G01 5 Do you think that use of digital pen facilitated and helped in data GS sharing. FUS/GS G01 6 The digital pen supporting technology was able to recognize yours written texts. PS G012 7 The use of the digital pen increased the level of interaction among the group members. GS/PS G0123 8 The use of digital pen increased the level of interaction between the whole class. FUS/GS G01 9 It is easy to learn to use the digital pen (installing the pen, writing on the paper, remembering the digital paper boundaries, storing on serve, retrieving data and seeking help) GS/PS G0123 10 The digital pen technology facilitated in iterative designs. PS/GS G0123 11 The improvement of the design was easier when you had initially used a digital pen. GS G0123 12 The over all course was enjoyable and interesting GS G0123 13 Please write the most interesting activity during the whole course here: GS G0123 14 Please write the technological difficulties you had during the course here: FUS/ G0123 15 Did you use the Digital Pen GS GS/PS G23 16 You have worked with groups of people who had digital pens. GS/PS G23 17 You worked with groups who had digital pens and you found it productive. FUS/GS G0123 18 Do you see the requirement of the especial paper for digital pens /PS as a constraint? ' ;0J>&'P):*'Y0B=>&'a$&<,".330"%&*'0<<.4"0,&2'.J<&%I0,".3'4/4>&2'032'?.40>'#%.$=<) ! $(!
  34. 34. Question Numbers and Associated Experiential Factors Leanrability Usage Error and Comfort Interactivity Affect Learner Accessibility Feedback guidanc e and support Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 x x x Questions from Section 2.2 Q6 x x Q7 x Q8 x Experiential Imact Factor of The Usage of Digital Pen and Paper on the students under observation Q9 x x Q10 x Q11 x x x x x Q12 x x Q13 FACTOR IMPACT VALUE Q14 Affect 3,889 Q15 x Accesability 3,389 Q16 x x Q17 Learnability x 3,074 Q18 x Guidance and Support x 3,111 x Collaboration 2,911 ;0J>&'P)X*'Y0B=>&'a$&<,".330"%&*'032'0<<.4"0,&2'&R=&%"&3,"0>'?04,.%<)' Usage 2,333 3.9 Conclusion Comfort 2,333 Error and Feedback The analysis of the survey form concludes the suggested method for the evaluation of interactive systems. Along with the other observations the results of the applicable experiential factors are plotted in bar graphs. These represent the various strengths of the interactive system under observations. A sample graph to give the idea is shown in Figure 3.2. !"#!$%&'()!*'()+, '"!!! ())*+, &"#!! (++*-./010,2 &"!!! 3405.6+*!.65!74889:, %"#!! ;*.:6./010,2 %"!!! <911./9:.,096 $"#!! =-.>* $"!!! <9?)9:, !"#!! !"!!! ! !"#$%&'P):*';5&'=>.,'.?'&R=&%"&3,"0>'?04,.%<'030>/<"< ! ! $)!
  35. 35. CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING A SCENARIO FOR THE USAGE AND EVALUATION OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER IN A CLASS ROOM ! $*!
  36. 36. CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING A SCENARIO FOR THE USAGE AND EVALUATION OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER IN A CLASSROOM 4.1 Introduction Technology more than often has strong influences on people, particularly on how they behave, how they react and how they perform in a given situation. The way a user interacts with a given artifact also tends to have a strong effect on user. This chapter presents an experimental activity that was designed for the first year students of interaction design class at the faculty of design in Politecnico di Milano. The activity aimed to experiment, evaluate and analyze the use of digital pen and paper in a classroom scenario. The usage scenario was designed to experiment with the existing interaction model among the Digital Pen and Paper System (DPPS) and the users. The study focused on generation of a usage scenario that would allow the evaluation of the interactive model and its usage with the application of experiential factors (as discussed in chapter 3). The other parts of the study were designed to facilitate in creation of new scenarios that would better suit the use of DPPS or similar interactive technologies. The end goal of the study was to present a better interaction model between the digital pen and its users for an enhanced efficiency. 4.2 Concept and Idea It is often the case that technology adds on to the difficulties of problem solving. The difficult interactions also tend to limit the creativity of its users. The idea was to setup a scenario that would allow the evaluation of the use of a DPSS in a classroom scenario. The digital pen and paper technology had been in market for more than a decade; however the market value of the product with respect to the number of buyers or consumers has not been good. Time to market often triumphs first to market as the emphasis on the design part of the artifacts takes precedence over remaining issues (Alan Cooper). Even though DPSS seems to be a futuristic yet basic (interms of its appearance) but has not really made the rightful impact. The basic idea was to re-understand the technology, perform an evaluation on the interactive model and present with a better interactive model and possible scenarios on where and how the DPSS could be used. 4.3 Goals - to understand if the digital pen and paper can be effectively used in a classroom scenario. - to highlight inefficiencies in the existing system. - to suggest scenarios where digital pen and paper can be used more effectively. - to explore the sector of education/schools for the usage of digital pen. - the application of the experiential factors for the evaluation of the interactive digital pen and paper system. 4.4 Design Challenges The conduction of the experiment in an ongoing class required particular attention to insure the course was not disturbed and the workload on the students were kept minimum. There ! $+!
  37. 37. also was a strong need to make the experiment interesting and intriguing for the students. The following could be listed out as the challenges: - Creating a scenario for the use of digital pen and paper in a class room scenario while insuring the following: o Minimum disturbance to the ongoing lectures o Insuring the students remained intrigued and interested throughout the experiment - Timely hands on experience for selected students to help them understand the technology better while ensuring they did not get biased with the existing examples. - Innovative brainstorms and presentations to work along with students to come up with new scenarios for the usage of digital pen and paper. - Designing a workable solution that would allow students to use the digital pen and paper. This required programming and setting up of the servers from the technology providers. o The setup had to be simple and such that it would allow us tracking of the use of technology with the consent of the volunteer users. 4.5 Project Description The digital pen and paper had not been used in classroom scenarios or were not in our knowledge. This made it a challenge, as there was nothing available of the shelf that would allow the student users to use the digital pen and download the respective material. There however were a few examples of how IMC Consulting’s had used the DPP with various clients in Italy. The sequence of the activities that were created for the usage and evaluation scenario is shown in Figure 4.1. 4.5.1 The experimental scenario The major activities that were carried out during the digital pen and paper experiment in the classroom are shown in Figure 4.1. The concept of Digital Pen and Paper was introduced in the first lesson. In the second lesson students were asked to submit concepts related to digital pens. The volunteer seeking started towards the end of the same week. The pens were distributed in the seventh week and the Know-How Survey (KHS) was conducted in the following week. The students by this time had become familiar to the system. TUI stands for Test Utenti Integrato, which in English is user integration/integrated testing. The TUI included a video recording. The students in the process were give four tasks, namely, Open, Write, Save, Share. The purpose of the activity was to understand and analyze the impact of such a system in a real life scenario (during the lesson). The Usage Survey was conducted towards the end the TUI. The Final Usage Survey (FUS) was conducted towards the end of the course.!C!03936;"58!54!"=2:30!54!.KH!"0!0/5B8!"8!L":7<3!&A&A ! Towards the end of PCS the students were asked to work on the generation of new scenarios for the application of DPPS. The details of the performed activities and the method suggested in the chapter 3 is provided in Section 4.11. ! ! %-!
  38. 38. ! !"#$%&'U)(*';5&'&R=&%"B&3,0>'<4&30%".'?.%',5&'$<0#&'.?'977Y)! 4.6 The Digital Pen The pen is the Logitech Io-1 version, used with a single paper license. The pen stores the content as a vector. 4.7 The Especial Paper The system utilizes a special paper, which can be prepared by printing the provided post- script file. This post scrip file basically consists of a pattern that is recognizable by the camera in the pen.!! ! ! !"#$%&'U):*'9"#",0>'7&3'032'70=&%! 4.8 The Digital Pen and Paper System (DPPS) The digital pen and paper involves a digital pen, an especial paper and a software installation on the system. The user is bound to initiate a new page by clicking a check provided on top of the paper. After start the new page the us er can write/draw as needed. The user then closes the page by clicking the provided space on bottom of the page. This helps the system to ! %,!
  39. 39. recognize different pages. All the text during the writing phases is stored in the Digital pen as vectors. The connection with a computer automatically initiates the transfer of these vectors to the IMC database. The personal computer is expected to be connected to the internet. After this stage the user can login to the IMC global notes website and this enables the user to download the images of the stored pages. The Figure 4.3 below represents the working of the complete digital pen and paper system. !"#$%&'U)P*'9"#",0>'7&3'032'70=&%'Y/<,&B'M977YN! 4.9 The context of the use of DPP ! The activity to evaluate the use of digital pen and paper in a classroom was co-organized by INDACO, Centro METID and IMC Consulting. The idea was to observe students (as users) behaviour and re-design of the device under analysis (i.e. digital pen). The students were given access to Logitech IO1digital pens and a website to be able to download the content in the digital pen. ! %$!
  40. 40. 4.10 The Software / Online System and Associated Access Rights The pen setup uses a specific ADHOC online application (http://80.22.37.172/notes_app/) for digital visualization of the content produced by the user. The users in this system were not allowed to directly download the content from the pen into their computers. The content was rather saved on the server. The users had full access to download all the relevant materials from the server.!./3!0>0;3=!7;"9"D30!2!0136"29!1213<M!B/"6/!628!?3!1<312<3@!?>! 1<"8;"8:!;/3!1<5#"@3@!150;J06<"1;!4"93A!./"0!150;!06<"1!4"93!?20"6299>!6580"0;0!54!2! 12;;3<8!;/2;!"0!<365:8"D2?93!?>!;/3!62=3<2!"8!;/3!138A! !"#$%&'U)U*'Y30=<5.,<'.?';Q6'&R=&%"B&3,0>'=50<&! 4.10.1 The groups ! The students in the classroom were subdivided into four sub-groups, namely, Group 0, Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3. All the members of group 0 and 1 had access to a digital pen; where the first had two and the later had six members. The rest of the groups did not have a digital pen. The pen holders of each group were given a username and password to login to the IMC Website. The details of each group are listed in Table 4.1. ! %%!
  41. 41. Group 0 Group 0 consisted of 2 users and each of them had a digital pen. These two could see the content uploaded by each other. Group 1 The members of group 1 could see the content uploaded by one another. This group however could not see the data uploaded by Group 0. The group consisted of 6 users. Group 2 Group 2 consisted of users with significant interest in the digital pen and paper activity. This group was given the access to download the content uploaded by Group 1. Group 3 Group 3 represented the students who neither had any access to the digital pen and paper system nor other online applications. ;0J>&'U)(*',5&'#%.$=<'032'0<<.4"0,&2'%"#5,<! 4.10.2 Access rights The groups with pens could not see the content uploaded through the digital pens of the other groups. The students in Group 2 however had access to the data which was uploaded through Group 1. The activity conduction team (teachers, tutors, etc) were awarded an administrator password which allowed them access to all the data on the website. 4.10.3 Block notes website The block notes website (http://80.22.37.172/notes_app/) was an essential part of the system. The website had a login verification system through a username and password. The users could view, download and delete information on the website. 4.11 The Emerged Scenarios for the Usage of DPPS The users in this case were design students and designers in general do no read instruction manuals of new products. This actually was beneficial to our study as we wanted the pen to be as intuitive as possible. The students were given assignment to come up with new concepts, applications and situations that would allow a better usage scenario of the digital pen and similar technologies. The students were provided with digital pen and paper as physical artefacts and were given training session, follow-up support on installation and usage issues. Training sessions on how to use it best given the contextual constraints followed this. Given the nature of the hybrid instrument (DPP) that has the capacity of being a pen as well as the digital features students were motivated to sketch the potential usage scenarios with better interaction models. This was done after the students had gone through the initial learning curve following the TUI phase. A few concepts that were produced by the students as a result of the activity included project ‘memo’, ‘disegno’ and two concepts of ‘escusionismo’. The supporting visuals of the projects can be seen in Figures 4.5 – 4.8 respectively. The designer / user not only becomes more aware of the functionality after the usage of the given artefact, but also creates his / her own cognitive path in evaluating the task – artefact cycle (Mantovani & Spagnoli, 2000). ! %&!
  42. 42. !"#$%&'U)X*'7%.G&4,'Z&B.! The results of the experiment showed a multitude of possibly successful environments that will be reported in the following part. The range of use context varied largely according to the attention given to the following: (1) the different digital options or (2) to the actual ergonomic aspects individuated while handling the pen. The digital options were correlated with form filling in institutional and didactical contexts where quantitative data had to be gathered and reported promptly. The proposed contexts highlighted digital systems in which the pen was placed as a communication tool that made reference to a database. In the same time the observations focusing on the tangible aspects and interface has been placed in a less formal context and took advantage of the size, shape and writing functionality. A good example of context identification in this sense was presented in the ‘memo project’. In this case the student pinpointed successfully how useful it could be have a double usage of the digital pen by writing a memo and share it with yourself and/or concerned personnel. !"#$%&'U)W*'7%.G&4,'9"<&#3.! The other projects such as the “Project Disegno” showed the benefits of changing the interaction to a more natural way. A pen/pencil is one of the most basic tools for designers for sketching like purposes. The project presented an advantaged scenario that enables users to attain the digital medium benefits while using a more known and/or familiar medium of interaction. There is usually less work on the evaluation testing on the products that have already been launched, however design professionals do spend significant time on strict evaluation test in the prototype phase of the development of products. Most of the recommended scenarios in this chapter present a good mixture of the design phase and redesign of the launched products. ! %'!

×