DESIGNING FOR PEOPLE, EFFECTIVE INNOVATION AND
                                                       SUSTAINABILITY:
Intr...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to acknowledge Professor Margherita Pillan, Professor Carlo
Ratti, Professor Albert...
DEDICATION

The author dedicates this work to his beloved mother Mrs. Saeeda Kaneez Fatima (late)
whom he lost during the ...
ABSTRACT


The world at large today is equipped with technology, sensors, scanners and instruments.
These modern technolog...
TABLE OF CONTENTS


ABSTRACT ................................................................................................
3.4.6 IMPROVE................................................................................................................
4.12.8 KNOW HOW SURVEY .............................................................................................. 41
 ...
TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1, A TWO YEAR KID INTERACTING WITH IPOD...........................................................
FIGURE 5.1, A CONCEPTUAL SCREEN SHOT OF MOVEMENT OF TRASH (CREDITS: E ROON KANG,
    SENSEABLE CITY LAB) ....................
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1, THE METHOD ........................................................................................
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction
The world at large today is equipped with technology, sensors, scanners and inst...
1.2 Interaction Design
Design is often taken as the base of all disciplines, it’s a process that is present in the
thought...
1.4 Research Objectives
The core focus of the research is on defining of a process that facilitates the evaluation of
tech...
In chapter four a case study of the use of digital pen and paper is created which is
followed by the application of the ev...
CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO INTERACTION DESIGN AND EVALUATION
                             STRATEGIES





                ...
CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO INTERACTION DESIGN AND EVALUATION
    STRATEGIES

    2.1 Introduction
    Interaction design i...
-   Anticipating how the use of products will mediate human relationships and affect
        human understanding.
    -   ...
Figure
2.3,
Cave
men
(on
the
left)
and
cairns
(on
the
right)
[source:

    http://www.usatt.org/magazine/images/cartoon_ca...
The combined strategy is termed as experiential factors for evaluation and understanding
purposes.

2.3 Natural Interactio...
2.4 Collection of Daily Life Cases
The section below presents a collection of daily life interaction, interactive systems ...
2.4.2    Collection of Everyday Objects




                             Figure
2.7,
Selection
group
1
of
everyday
objects...
Figure
2.10,
Fuel
station
with
unreadable
displays
    Figure
2.11,
Typical
roadside
puncture
shop
in

              (take...
2.4.3 Collection of Interactive Displays and Setups
The figure 2.12 shows a small collection of thousands of displays that...
The pervasive use of technology enables the use of technology with a minimal technology
interface. The main idea is that t...
The SE discipline also defines various models for development of programs and software’s.
These famous models presented ov...
There are four basic rules in brainstorming. These are intended to reduce social inhibitions
among groups members, stimula...
2.7.4 Usability Engineering Model
The usability engineering method is a practical method to ensure good user interfaces. T...
usability engineering.

2.7.6 Usability Factors
Various usability studies keeping the focus of learning or generic usabili...
CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF INTEREACTION DESIGN AND EXPERIENTIAL
                               FACTORS





                ...
CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF INTERACTION DESIGN AND EXPERIENTIAL
FACTORS

3.1 Introduction
The importance of Interaction Desig...
The experience any end-user goes through defines how much the user likes the product.
People interact with products and th...
include fixation of the timing of observation, i.e. what will be observed and when. The
second task-set of ‘Observe’ phase...
3.4.5 Evolve
This phase focuses on evolving the interaction schema in the interaction systems based on the
observation tha...
user’s learning regarding the targeted area.

3.5.2 Usage
This factor represents the level of difficulty in using the syst...
3.6.1 Application on existing interactive systems
This is achieved by application of the recommended strategy on the use o...
solely for a better explanation of each factor. The definitions however do not need to be
  defined but a context could be...
acronyms FUS, GS and PS stand for First Use Survey, Group Survey and Project Survey.
         Please note the project cycl...






    CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING A SCENARIO FOR THE USAGE AND EVALUATION
               OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER IN A CLASS ...
CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING A SCENARIO FOR THE USAGE AND EVALUATION
OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER IN A CLASSROOM

4.1 Introduction
Tec...
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability

4,854

Published on

Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability: Introducing experiential factors in an observational framework to evaluate technology assisted systems.

Published in: Design
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,854
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
53
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Designing for people, effective innovation and sustainability"

  1. 1. DESIGNING FOR PEOPLE, EFFECTIVE INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY: Introducing experiential factors in an observational framework to evaluate technology-assisted systems. Supervisor: Prof. Margherita Pillan Controrelatore: Prof. Marco Maiocchi Author: Musstanser Tinauli PhD candidate, INDACO. Version: 6.5
  2. 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would like to acknowledge Professor Margherita Pillan, Professor Carlo Ratti, Professor Alberto Colorni and Professor Marco Maiocchi for their invaluable advises and constant support throughout the duration of this research. The author also acknowledges and appreciates the support of Professor Enrico Zio throughout the duration of this doctorate. The author would also like to express his gratitude to the following (in alphabetical order): - Centro METID (Metodi E Tecnologie Innovative per la Didattica): for providing a good platform and the basis of the research. Every one at Centro METID including Professor Alberto Colorni, Dottoressa Susanna Sancassani and all the colleagues were extremely encouraging and helpful. - DCOM (Design and Communication): for having the author as a researcher in the research unit of DCOM in Politecnico di Milano, Italy. - IBM (International Business Machine): for awarding the IBM PhD fellowship as recognition of the author’s research efforts. - Progetto Rocca Fellowship: for providing a fellowship for authors stay at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, USA. - SENSEable City Laboratory: for providing the opportunity to continue author’s research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, USA. - Trash Track Team: for the great teamwork and their support as the project leader. The author also wishes to express his appreciation to everyone including his family, friends, colleagues and everyone directly/indirectly involved for the faith in his ability and for standing by him in difficult emotional times… Thank you God. Thank you all. 
 ii

  3. 3. DEDICATION The author dedicates this work to his beloved mother Mrs. Saeeda Kaneez Fatima (late) whom he lost during the tenure of this doctorate, his father Mr. Muhammad Sharif Tinauli and his siblings. The truth of it is, the first rudiments of education are given very indiscreetly by most parents." Richard Steele Sr. quotes “One father is more than a hundred Schoolmasters.” George Herbert Outlandish Proverbs, 1640 
 iii

  4. 4. ABSTRACT 
 The world at large today is equipped with technology, sensors, scanners and instruments. These modern technologies are capable of interacting and communicating with one another. It is probably not wrong to say that this is the era of pervasive computing, a time when the concept of having a personal computer at home is some what becoming obsolete. The introduction of this pervasiveness of technology and communication has brought about a need to understand and control the evolvement of interaction and communication models and even more importantly the requirement to evaluate the evolving interaction models and interactions in technology assisted systems. The core focus of the thesis is on the development of a process that could facilitate the evaluation of technology-assisted systems from a true users (end-user) perspective. This is achieved by presentation of a framework that sets the path for the evaluation of technology- assisted systems and in doing so enables the designing of effective and innovative systems. The presented framework consists of an observational strategy and enlists a set of procedures and processes for designing effective systems from a user’s point of view. The observational strategy is based on evaluation of the system from various perspectives that are termed as experiential factors. The framework also facilitates in understanding the richness of the experiential suitability; identification of strengths and weaknesses of the systems and eventually points out the areas that require improvement. The thesis presents the complete application of the introduced framework on a project titled, “use of digital pen and paper in a classroom scenario”. This project is regarding a digital device that has not made an impact in the market for over ten years. The study here focuses on understandings why the product has not bloomed, highlights its inefficiencies and suggests possible scenarios for the possible usage of the digital pen and paper. The creation of another ongoing project titled “Trash Track is also presented. The project as it happens is available at http://senseable.mit.edu/trashtrack. Trash Track is about creation of a smart tracker that enables the tracking of trash. The purpose of the project is to understand how waste actually traverses in a cities sanitation system. The idea here was to provide a platform that would allow ample data gathering regarding the movement of trash from the perspective of trash itself. This would enable many scenarios such as ‘zero waste’, ‘100 percent recycling’, ‘re-modeling of trash collection’ and ‘a strong behavioral change in people’. The project also initiated a new research area, i.e. the removal chain in contrast to the production chain. The trash track project enables different actors (waster management companies, recyclers, producers and users) to learn about the actual movement and whereabouts of trash that would allow them to collect, recycle, reuse and better manage the trash. The set of evaluation surveys and questionnaires for ‘trash track’ based on the suggested framework are also listed in the thesis. 
 
 iv

  5. 5. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... IV TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... V TABLE OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... VIII LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................. X CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 2 1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 1.2 INTERACTION DESIGN .................................................................................................... 3 1.3 EVALUATION OF INTERACTION DESIGN AND INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS ............................ 3 1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 4 1.5 SCOPE OF RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 4 1.6 ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO INTERACTION DESIGN AND EVALUATION STRATEGIES.......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7 2.2 INTERACTION DESIGN .................................................................................................... 7 2.3 NATURAL INTERACTIONS ............................................................................................ 10 2.4 COLLECTION OF DAILY LIFE CASES ............................................................................. 11 2.4.1 COLLECTION OF DAILY LIFE CASES .......................................................................... 11 2.4.2 COLLECTION OF EVERYDAY OBJECTS ....................................................................... 12 2.5 THE CONNECTIVITY OF THINGS ................................................................................... 14 2.5.1 PERVASIVE COMPUTING ........................................................................................... 14 2.6 IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FROM A TRUE USERS PERSPECTIVE .............................. 15 2.7 METHODOLOGIES AND PROCESSES RELEVANT TO EVALUATION OF INTERACTION DESIGN AND INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 15 2.7.1 REQUIREMENT GATHERING AND ENGINEERING ........................................................ 15 2.7.2 CONSTRUCTIVE BRAINSTORM ................................................................................... 16 2.7.3 INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................. 17 2.7.4 USABILITY ENGINEERING MODEL............................................................................. 18 2.7.5 USABILITY METRICS ................................................................................................. 18 2.7.6 USABILITY FACTORS ................................................................................................ 19 2.8 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF INTERACTION DESIGN AND EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS .............................................................................................................................. 21 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 21 3.2 CONCEPT AND IDEA ..................................................................................................... 21 3.3 THE INTERACTION DESIGN OBSERVATION MODEL AND THE EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS . 21 3.4 THE METHOD .............................................................................................................. 22 3.4.1 UNDERSTAND ........................................................................................................... 22 3.4.2 OBSERVE .................................................................................................................. 22 3.4.3 CREATE .................................................................................................................... 23 3.4.4 EXPERIMENT............................................................................................................. 23 3.4.4.1 OBSERVATION CYCLES .......................................................................................... 23 3.4.5 EVOLVE .................................................................................................................... 24 
 v

  6. 6. 3.4.6 IMPROVE................................................................................................................... 24 3.4.7 ANALYZE.................................................................................................................. 24 3.5 EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS .............................................................................................. 24 3.5.1 LEARNABILITY ......................................................................................................... 24 3.5.2 USAGE ...................................................................................................................... 25 3.5.3 ERROR AND FEEDBACK ............................................................................................. 25 3.5.4 COMFORT ................................................................................................................. 25 3.5.5 COLLABORATION ...................................................................................................... 25 3.5.5.1 CONSTRUCTIVE INTERACTION ............................................................................... 25 3.5.5.2 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN ........................................................................................ 25 3.5.6 AFFECT (MOTIVATION TO LEARN) ............................................................................. 25 3.5.7 GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 25 3.5.8 ACCESSIBILITY ......................................................................................................... 25 3.5.9 SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................................................................... 25 3.6 APPLICATION OF INTERACTION DESIGN OBSERVATION MODEL AND THE EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS ............................................................................................................................... 25 3.6.1 APPLICATION ON EXISTING INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS ................................................... 26 3.6.2 CREATION OF A NEW SYSTEM .................................................................................... 26 3.7 EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS .......................................... 26 3.8 SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CONDUCTION OF SURVEYS ........................................... 27 3.9 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING A SCENARIO FOR THE USAGE AND EVALUATION OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER IN A CLASSROOM .................................................... 30 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 30 4.2 CONCEPT AND IDEA ..................................................................................................... 30 4.3 GOALS ......................................................................................................................... 30 4.4 DESIGN CHALLENGES .................................................................................................. 30 4.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 31 4.6 THE DIGITAL PEN ........................................................................................................ 32 4.7 THE ESPECIAL PAPER .................................................................................................. 32 4.8 THE DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER SYSTEM (DPPS)........................................................... 32 4.9 THE CONTEXT OF THE USE OF DPP............................................................................... 33 4.10 THE SOFTWARE / ONLINE SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS RIGHTS ...................... 34 4.10.1 ACCESS RIGHTS ...................................................................................................... 34 4.10.2 BLOCK NOTES WEBSITE .......................................................................................... 34 4.10.3 THE GROUPS ........................................................................................................... 34 Group 0............................................................................................................................ 35 Group 1............................................................................................................................ 35 4.11 THE EMERGED SCENARIOS FOR THE USAGE OF DPPS ............................................... 35 4.12 THE APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGY ON THE USAGE OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER 37 4.12.1 MEETINGS AND BRAINSTORMS WITH STAKEHOLDERS (UNDERSTAND) .................... 37 4.12.2 INTRODUCTION (UNDERSTAND).............................................................................. 38 4.12.3 THE SURVEYS (OBSERVE)....................................................................................... 38 4.12.4 TESTI USER INTEGRAIONE – TUI (OBSERVE AND EXPERIMENT)............................. 38 4.12.5 PEN KIT DISTRIBUTION (EXPERIMENT) .................................................................... 39 4.12.6 USAGE SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 39 4.12.7 PROJECT COMPLETION SURVEY .............................................................................. 40 
 vi

  7. 7. 4.12.8 KNOW HOW SURVEY .............................................................................................. 41 4.12.9 SCENARIOS FOR THE USE OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER (EVOLVE AND IMPROVE) ....... 41 4.13 THE ANALYSIS PHASE ............................................................................................... 43 4.13.1 THE USAGE SURVEY............................................................................................... 43 4.13.2 PROJECT COMPLETION SURVEY .............................................................................. 43 4.14 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 44 CHAPTER 5: CREATING TRASH TRACK..................................................................... 46 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 46 5.2 CONCEPT AND IDEA ..................................................................................................... 46 5.3 GOALS ......................................................................................................................... 48 5.4 DESIGN CHALLENGES .................................................................................................. 48 5.5 TRASH MOVEMENT SCENARIO .................................................................................... 49 5.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF TRASH TRACKING ............................................................................ 49 5.7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 50 5.8 VISUALIZATIONS ......................................................................................................... 52 5.9 TRASH TAGGING SCENARIOS ....................................................................................... 54 5.9.1 TRASH ORIENTED SCENARIO .................................................................................... 54 5.9.2 PEOPLE ORIENTED SCENARIO ................................................................................... 55 5.9.3 TRASH TRACK DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO ................................................................... 56 5.10 TECHNOLOGICAL AND PACKAGING CHALLENGES...................................................... 58 5.11 TRASH TAG ............................................................................................................... 58 5.12 THE TRASH TRACK SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 59 5.13 PACKAGING ............................................................................................................... 59 5.14 EXHIBITIONS ............................................................................................................. 61 5.15 PROJECT DYNAMICS .................................................................................................. 61 5.15.1 TEAM DYNAMICS ................................................................................................... 61 5.15.2 PROJECT PARTNERS ................................................................................................ 62 5.16 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 63 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS.................................................. 66 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 66 6.2 A DISCUSSION ON PRESENTED EVALUATION STRATEGY ............................................. 66 6.2.2 CRITIQUE .................................................................................................................. 66 6.3 CRITIQUE ON TRASH TRACK ........................................................................................ 66 6.4 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS ............................................................................. 67 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 69 APPENDIX A: MMM QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................ 73 APPENDIX B: UNIVERSITY EXPLORER QUESTIONNAIRE ................................... 78 APPENDIX C: FIRST USE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................. 81 QUESTIONARIO INIZIALE [5 MINUTI] ...................................................................................... 81 APPENDIX D: TRASH TRACK QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................... 83 APPENDIX E: WISHLIST OF OBJECTS TO BE TRACKED....................................... 86 
 vii

  8. 8. TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1, A TWO YEAR KID INTERACTING WITH IPOD............................................................ 3 FIGURE 2.1, THE DISCIPLINE OF INTERACTION DESIGN ................................................................ 7 FIGURE 2.2, THE 2009 FAMILY OF IPODS [SOURCE: ST HTTP://APCMAG.COM/IMAGES/09IPOD_FAM.JPG, ACCESSED ON: 21 NOVEMBER 2009] ..... 8 FIGURE 2.3, CAVE MEN (ON THE LEFT) AND CAIRNS (ON THE RIGHT) [SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.USATT.ORG/MAGAZINE/IMAGES/CARTOON_CAVEMEN.JPG AND UNKNOW ST SOURCE, ACCESSED ON: 21 NOVEMBER 2009] .................................................................. 9 FIGURE 2.4, USABILITY (THE INNER CIRCLE) AND EXPERIENCE GOALS (THE EXTERNAL CIRCLE) [SOURCE: ROGERS, ET. AL.,2007)....................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 2.5, ADAPTED FROM NORMAN (1988, P16): THE PROBLEM OF ENSURING THAT USERS MENTAL MODEL CORRESPONDS TO THE DESIGNERS [SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.INTERACTIONDESIGN.ORG/IMAGES/FIGURES/MENTAL_MODELS.GIF] ............ 10 FIGURE 2.6, SELECTION GROUP 1 OF EVERYDAY INTERACTIONS ................................................ 11 FIGURE 2.7, SELECTION GROUP 1 OF EVERYDAY OBJECTS ......................................................... 12 FIGURE 2.8, SEGWAY ................................................................................................................ 12 FIGURE 2.9, TWO SELLERS SHOWING CREATIVITY IN INTERACTING WITH VARIOUS ITEMS SIMULTANEOUSLY ............................................................................................................ 12 FIGURE 2.10, FUEL STATION WITH UNREADABLE DISPLAYS (TAKE IN ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN) . 13 FIGURE 2.11, TYPICAL ROADSIDE PUNCTURE SHOP IN PAKISTAN (NO BILLBOARDS NEEDED)..... 13 FIGURE 2.12 INTERACTIVE DISPLAYS AND SURFACES ............................................................... 13 FIGURE 2.13 MESMERIZING REALITY WHILE ENABLING UNIQUE OBSERVATION REALITY, AN EXPERIMENT CONDUCTED ON METID DAY....................................................................... 14 FIGURE 2.14, REQUIREMENT ENGINEERING PROCESS [SOURCE: SWEBOK, 2001] ................... 15 FIGURE 2.15, TYPICAL PROCESSES FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS [SOURCE: RD HTTP://WWW.FAQS.ORG/DOCS/LDEV/0130091154_26.HTM ACCESSED ON 23 NOVEMBER 09].................................................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 2.16, BRAINSTORM [SOURCE: HTTP://UPLOAD.WIKIMEDIA.ORG/WIKIPEDIA/COMMONS/E/E7/ACTIVITY_PREPERATION.SVG, ACCESSED ON 01 NOVEMBER 2009).................................................................................. 17 FIGURE 2.17, ELEMENTS OF THE USABILITY-ENGINEERING MODEL [SOURCE: AN ADAPTATION OF IMAGE PRESENTED BY NIELSEN, 1992] ............................................................................. 18 FIGURE 3.1, THE INTERACTION DESIGN OBSERVATION MODEL AND THE EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS ......................................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 3.2, THE PLOT OF EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS ANALYSIS .................................................... 28 FIGURE 4.1, THE EXPERIMENTAL SCENARIO FOR THE USAGE OF DPPS. ..................................... 32 FIGURE 4.2, DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER ....................................................................................... 32 FIGURE 4.3, DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER SYSTEM (DPPS) ............................................................ 33 FIGURE 4.4, SNAPSHOTS OF TUI EXPERIMENTAL PHASE ............................................................ 34 FIGURE 4.5, PROJECT MEMO ..................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 4.6, PROJECT DISEGNO ................................................................................................. 36 FIGURE 4.7, PROJECT ESCURSIONISMO CONCEPT 1.................................................................... 37 FIGURE 4.8, PROJECT ESCURSIONISMO CONCEPT 2.................................................................... 37 FIGURE 4.9, DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER EXPERIMENT AND THE SUGGESTED METHOD OF EVALUATION .................................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 4.10, GRAPH OF THE IMPACT FACTORS OF THE USAGE SURVEY (US)............................ 43 FIGURE 4.11, GRAPH OF THE IMPACT FACTORS OF THE PROJECT COMPLETION SURVEY (PCS) . 44 
 viii

  9. 9. FIGURE 5.1, A CONCEPTUAL SCREEN SHOT OF MOVEMENT OF TRASH (CREDITS: E ROON KANG, SENSEABLE CITY LAB) ................................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 5.2, SERVICE DIAGRAM OF TRASH TRACK .................................................................... 47 FIGURE 5.3, CONCEPTUAL SCREEN SHOT OF TRASH ON THE MOVE ............................................. 49 FIGURE 5.4, CONCEPTUAL SCREEN SHOT OF TRASH ON THE MOVE ............................................. 50 FIGURE 5.5, TRASH TAG PROTOTYPE 1, FEBRUARY 2009 ......................................................... 51 FIGURE 5.6, VISUALIZATION SKETCH OF STARBUCK'S COFFEE CUP IN SEATTLE, WA, USA..... 52 FIGURE 5.7, VISUALIZATION SKETCH OF STARBUCK'S COFFEE CUP IN SEATTLE, WA, USA..... 52 FIGURE 5.8, DATASET OF THE TAG TESTING IN CAMBRIDGE, MA, USA .................................... 53 FIGURE 5.9, SAMPLE STREET VIEW OF THE MOVEMENT OF TRASH, COURTESY, E ROON KANG, MIT.................................................................................................................................. 53 FIGURE 5.10, SAMPLE VISUALIZATION FROM BOSTON DEPLOYMENT (COURTESY, E ROON KANG, MIT) ................................................................................................................................ 54 FIGURE 5.11, TRASH ORIENTED SCENARIO, IMAGE COURTESY GIOVANNI DE NIEDERHAUSERN . 54 FIGURE 5.12, PEOPLE ORIENTED SCENARIO, IMAGE COURTESY SAMANTHA EARL, MIT............. 55 FIGURE 5.13, TRASH TRACK SCENARIO ..................................................................................... 56 FIGURE 5.14, AN ALTERNATE VIEW TO TRASH TRACK SCENARIO, IMAGE COURTESY E ROON KANG. .............................................................................................................................. 57 FIGURE 5.15. TRASH TAG PROTOTYPE 1, FEBRUARY 2009 ....................................................... 58 FIGURE 5.16, HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS .................................................................................... 59 FIGURE 5.17, PACKAGING POSTER ............................................................................................ 60 FIGURE 5.18, TRASH TRACK EXHIBITION SPOTS AT SEATTLE PUBLIC LIBRARY,........................ 62 FIGURE 5.17, INITIAL STUDY OF CITY OF SEATTLE .................................................................... 64 
 ix

  10. 10. LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3.1, THE METHOD ......................................................................................................... 23 TABLE 3.2, SITUATED DEFINITIONS OF EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS FOR DPPS ............................... 26 TABLE 3.3, SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE, ASSOCIATED OBSERVATION CYCLED AND FOCAL GROUPS. ......................................................................................................................................... 27 TABLE 3.4, SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE, AND ASSOCIATED EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS..................... 28 TABLE 4.1, THE GROUPS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHTS .................................................................... 35 TABLE 4.2, TASKS OF TESTI USER INTEGRAZIONE (TUI) .......................................................... 40 TABLE 4.3, USAGE SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 41 TABLE 4.4, PROJECT COMPLETION SURVEY (PCS) ................................................................... 42 TABLE 4.5, THE CALCULATED IMPACT FACTORS OF THE USAGE SURVEY (US) ......................... 43 TABLE 4.6, THE CALCULATED IMPACT FACTORS OF THE PROJECT COMPLETION SURVEY (PCS)44 TABLE 5.1, PACKAGING MATERIALS ......................................................................................... 61 
 x

  11. 11. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
  12. 12. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The world at large today is equipped with technology, sensors, scanners and instruments. These modern technologies are capable of interacting and communicating with one another. 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. The introduction of this pervasiveness of technology and communication has brought about a need to control the evolvement of interaction and communication models and even more importantly the need to evaluate the evolving interaction models and interactions in technology assisted systems. There is also a growing trend of introduction of innovative, creative, natural and sometimes fancy interactions. These include human-human, man-machine, machine-machine interactions. The interactions could be among all sorts of digital/semi-digital artifacts. The interaction patterns are sometimes so good that even children could learn to communicate with the artifacts without prior training unlike the days when users were given detailed instructional workshops. This again emphasized the need to be able to evaluate the interaction design in a more systematic way. This thesis presents a framework that sets the path for designing effective and innovative systems. The core focus of the thesis is on defining of a process that facilitates in the evaluation of technology-assisted systems from the point of view of the end-user. The framework consists of an observational strategy and enlists a set of procedures and processes for designing effective systems from a user’s point of view. The observational strategy is based on evaluation of the system from various perspectives that are termed as experiential factors. The framework also facilitates in understanding the richness of the experiential suitability; identification of strengths and weaknesses of the systems and eventually points out the areas which can be improved. The presented framework is thoroughly applied on a project titled, “use of digital pen and paper in a classroom scenario” and the essence of the suggested framework are kept in mind while the creation of another project, titled, “trash track”. The earlier project is regarding a digital device that has not made an impact in the market for over ten years. The study here focuses on understandings why the product has not bloomed, highlights the inefficiencies and suggests possible scenarios for the possible usage of the digital pen and paper. The later project is about creation of a smart tracker that enables the tracking of trash. The focus of the project is to understand how waste actually traverses in the City; presents a scenario where 100 percent recycling could be a possibility and promotes behavioral change in people’s attitude towards a more sustainably behavior. The trash track project also enables different actors (waster management companies, recyclers, producers and users) to learn about the actual movement and whereabouts of trash that would allow them to collect, recycle, reuse and better manage the trash. The project would also introduce an unsaid accountability on people. 
 2

  13. 13. 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. Figure
1.1,

A
two
year
kid
interacting
with
IPOD 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 the perception of the 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. 
 3

  14. 14. 1.4 Research Objectives The core focus of the research is on defining of a process that facilitates the evaluation of technology-assisted systems from the point of view of the end. The conducted research has the following objectives and goals: - To understand how an end-user actually feels about technology-assisted systems and pervasive use of technology. - To understand and highlight the key usability like factors that determine and facilitate the evaluation of technology assisted systems from a true end-users perspective. - To understand the experiential suitability of the system under observation. - To propose a framework that facilitates the evaluation of technology-assisted systems. The framework would focus on the following: o The definition of an observational model that facilitates in the evaluation of existing systems or created systems. o Setting-up of processes and tasks in the pre-design phase - 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 evaluation procedure for interactive and technology assisted systems. It also includes simple guidelines for evaluation in the pre-design phase. The scope in this thesis is limited to the following: - Creation of an evaluation strategy for evaluating technology-assisted / interactive systems from a true user (end-user) perspective. This evaluation strategy is folded into a framework that facilitates the design process while creating new interactive systems and ensuring they are effective. - Application of the suggested framework on the use of digital pen and paper in a classroom scenario. - Suggestion of new scenarios for the use of digital pen and paper. - Creation of trash track project that would make trash tracking a possibility that includes the following: o Designing 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 three presents a new strategy based on usability engineering to evaluate interaction design and interactive systems. This strategy attempts to presents the key guidelines for evaluation of technology-assisted systems. 
 4

  15. 15. In chapter four 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 five describes in detail the creation of the trash track project that made tracking trash a possibility and promises to change the behaviour of the people. The concluding sixth chapter examines the weaknesses and strengths of the presented strategy and projects. The chapter also concludes the work done and presents future works. 
 
 5

  16. 16. CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO INTERACTION DESIGN AND EVALUATION STRATEGIES 
 6

  17. 17. 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 presented that shows the connection of our daily lives and interaction design. The later sections of the chapter also include a discussion on ‘why interaction design is important’ and ‘how it effects the success of a product’. The pervasive use of technology has become integral part of our life artifacts. The usage of technology has also brought about several challenges to the users and rather than simplifying the end-users life it has introduced new difficulties. At present it is crititical to ensure that the famous promise of ‘technology for people and not people for technology’ becomes true. One of the subsections of this chapter is dedicated to development of understanding of why the evaluation of all these fancy systems with enhanced used of technology is essential. Software engineers have often designed systems that inherit a certain level of difficulty in their usage. The evaluators also tend to introduce various testing procedures that do not cover a true user perspective. Nonetheless new systems keep coming into the markets that usually go through rigorous testing phases to ensure a sufficient level of dependability from a technical perspective. The whole process of evaluation lacks the point of view of the end- user. We claim, ‘at the end of the day only a user uses the product so he/she has to be ‘the actor’ or one of the major actors in the evaluation processes. 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 in 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. Defining the behavior of interact-able objects, devices and situations when a user takes a certain action or vice versa 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. Figure
2.1,
The
discipline
of
Interaction
Design
 
 
 7

  18. 18. - 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)”.
 Interaction design is often associated with interface design or web design. Though the connections are certainly there but the discipline of interaction design has more to offer. The possibility of defining next set of actions and fixation of behaviors by doing something is included in interaction design. This may be based on some kind of interaction with 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 2.2 below. 
 Figure
2.2,
The
2009
family
of
IPODs

[source:
http://apcmag.com/images/09ipod_fam.jpg,
accessed
on:
 21st
November
2009]
 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.
 
 8

  19. 19. Figure
2.3,
Cave
men
(on
the
left)
and
cairns
(on
the
right)
[source:
 http://www.usatt.org/magazine/images/cartoon_cavemen.jpg
and
unknow
source,
accessed
on:
21st
 November
2009]
 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 to be designed could have two very different purposes, (i) they are designed to facilitate the user goals. (ii) Built with some literal complications to support user learning. These two different goals could be separated as usability goals and experience goal (Rogers. Et. Al, 2007). Figure
2.4,
Usability
(the
inner
circle)
and
experience
goals
(the
external
circle)
[source:
Rogers,
et.
 Al.,2007)
 The above-mentioned goals are closer to our view when it comes to evaluation of the interactive system and technology-assisted systems. A detailed methodology for evaluation is described in the next Chapter 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. 
 9

  20. 20. 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 more the natural any form of interaction’ the ‘better or more understandable it would be’. We humans as living being often form meaning to anything that comes out of nature as natural. A good example would be that of martial arts, numerous 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 of the current scenario 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. Figure
2.5,
Adapted
from
Norman
(1988,
p16):
The
problem
of
ensuring
that
users
mental
model
 corresponds
to
the
designers

[source:
 http://www.interactiondesign.org/images/figures/mental_models.gif]
 
 Figure 2.5 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 closest to nature to ensure easy and meaningful interactions. 
 10

  21. 21. 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 defined and undefined variables that keep changing (such as people, environment, weather, context, etc). 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 2.6. However, thee point here is that interaction design is essential part of our life. The systems that exist all around us in our everyday life do not need to be technology savvy but they certainly require the implementation of interaction design principles to ensure a better experience and understanding. Figure
2.6,
Selection
group
1
of
everyday
interactions
 
 11

  22. 22. 2.4.2 Collection of Everyday Objects Figure
2.7,
Selection
group
1
of
everyday
objects
 Figure
2.8,
Segway
 Figure 2.8 show’s an 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 collection of images (Figures 2.9 - 2.11) were shot in Pakistan and some of which show excellent way of interaction using conventional and low-tech means. Figure
2.9,
Two
sellers
showing
creativity
in
interacting
with
various
items
simultaneously 
 12

  23. 23. Figure
2.10,
Fuel
station
with
unreadable
displays
 Figure
2.11,
Typical
roadside
puncture
shop
in
 (take
in
Islamabad,
Pakistan)
 Pakistan
(no
billboards
needed)
 


 Figure
2.12
(a):
Multitouch
display

 Figure
2.12
(b):
Sensisphere
interface
no.4
[source:
 [source:

personal
collection
from
web]
 http://www.labbinaer.de/]
 Figure
2.12
(c):
The
real
mirror
[source:
unknown] Figure
2.12
(d):
The
interactive
display
[source:
 http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/200 8/01/04/aperture­interactive­display_48.jpg]
 Figure
2.12
Interactive
Displays
and
surfaces
 
 13

  24. 24. 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. Next collection of the images (Figure 2.13) are of 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. 
 
 
 
 
 Figure
2.13
Mesmerizing
Reality
while
enabling
Unique
Observation
Reality,
an
experiment
conducted
 on
METID
day.
 2.5 The Connectivity of Things The way the things were connected has changed drastically over the last decade. The burst internet bubble back in 90s created a dynamic connection between people. Today, the growth of pervasive technologies has given birth to a new potential scenario where every thing is connected. This very idea of connectivity of things 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). 
 14

  25. 25. 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. 2.6 Importance of Evaluation from a True Users Perspective The increasing trend of more and more users 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 well tested by the software dependability and reliability methods, even though companies like Microsoft does extensive user testing before they launch their products but still there remains 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 Figure
2.14,
Requirement
Engineering
Process
[source:
 requirement engineering is shown SWEBOK,
2001]
 in Figure 2.14 (SWEBOK, 2001).
 
 15

  26. 26. 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. 
 Figure
2.15,
Typical
processes
for
software
development
projects
[source:
 http://www.faqs.org/docs/ldev/0130091154_26.htm
accessed
on
23rd
November
09]
 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. 
 16

  27. 27. 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. Figure
2.16,
brainstorm
[source:
 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Activity_preperation.svg,
accessed
on
01
 November
2009)
 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 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. 
 17

  28. 28. 2.7.4 Usability Engineering Model The usability engineering method is a practical method to ensure good user interfaces. The model prescribes a detailed process to achieve that. Nielsen in his paper (Nielsen, 1992) stresses to strictly follow the models before design, during the design and after field installation of software products. Nielsen in his same paper also 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 Figure
2.17,
Elements
of
the
usability­engineering
model
[source:
an
adaptation
of
image
presented
by
 Nielsen,
1992] 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. 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 not suitable /sufficient to measure the newly formed processes, disciplines. 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 
 18

  29. 29. 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 (Rogers. Et. Al, 2007; 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. 
 19

  30. 30. CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF INTEREACTION DESIGN AND EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS 
 20

  31. 31. 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 technology-assisted system from a true user perspective. The method here introduces guidelines for the evaluation of existing systems that are already in use by the end-users. The presented technique is based on evaluation of nine key different perspectives to allow an overall picture of the effectiveness of the system under observation. The later sections of the chapter present a discussion of some of the results and the application of the presented strategy on various cases. The core cases 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 and technology-assisted systems are not very comprehensive. 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 technology-assisted and interactive systems. The model lays out the principle factors for evaluation; these factors are termed as experiential factors. The experiential factors aim to evaluate sufficient knowledge about various aspects of system under observation. These factors include 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. 
 21

  32. 32. The experience any end-user goes through defines how much the user likes 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 product. 
 Figure
3.1,
The
Interaction
design
observation
model
and
the
experiential
factors 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 3.1. 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 
 22

  33. 33. 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. 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 - Table
3.1,
The
Method
 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 particular stages. The conduction of the following observation cycles is recommended as a recommended practice: (i) Before using the interactive system to be observed; (ii) after initial use; (iii) after initial training of how to use the system (with a set of activities to be done by the users); (iv) finally at the concluding stage of the observation gathering. 
 23

  34. 34. 3.4.5 Evolve This phase focuses on evolving the interaction schema in the interaction systems based on the observation that had been carried out in the previous phases. 3.4.6 Improve This phase focuses on improving the overall system by laying out suggestions and recommendations based on the observations and analysis while including the gatherings and results of all phases of the defined method. 
 3.4.7 Analyze The Analyze phase actually may happen prior to the ‘evolve’ and ‘improve’ phases. This phase focuses on the analysis of the survey results that have been produced in the ‘experiment’ phase. In the first task-set the survey results are analyzed and in the following set of activities the results for each factor are analyzed thoroughly. 
 3.5 Experiential Factors The simplicity of interacting with any product plays a vital role towards the affect (particularly emotional) it creates on its user. The positive the affect/feelings in using any object the more the user tensts to like it. The frustration in the usability, simplicity of interaction models, good ergonomics and easy to learn interaction models also have a very strong effect on the likings of a user. 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. These factors were chosen based on literature review and some experimental works. The experimental evaluations were conducted on the creation of surveys for various eLeanring games and online portals that focus on learning by non-traditional means at Centro METID (http://www.metid.polimi.it). The work at Centro Metid did not focus on factors rather it focused on identifying the right questions. These questions were later divided into categories are listed as experiential factors. A few samples are given in Appendix A and B. Appendix ‘A’ and ‘B’ presents the set of surveys and questionnaires that were create and conducted and Centro METID, Politecnico di Milano. These questionnaires were made after consultations and interviews with the relevant team leads, team members and Prof. Alberto Colorni (president, Centro METID). Two of the main questionnaires can be seen below which include the survey form for the game titled, “university explorer” and “MxMxM”. The first game, “UEX” is a game for students who could learn more about Politecnico even from a distance. The second “MxMxM” is a portal that consists of various games. The abbreviation stands for Matematica per la Mobilita a Milano. The literature survey included the out comings from several papers and books (Rogers. Et. Al, 2007; Zaharias, 2006; Zaharias, 2004; Keller,1983; Picard,1997; Nielsen,1992; Nielsen and Box, 2001). 3.5.1 Learnability Learnability represents the positive learning effect on the users or the effects of the system on 
 24

  35. 35. 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, getting to know the system, in getting the know how to the usage of the system. 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. 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. 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: 
 25

  36. 36. 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 definitions 
 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 Interaction This sub-factor represents the collaboration or 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 present learn) 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. Table
3.2,
Situated
definitions
of
experiential
factors
for
DPPS 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. The definitions here had been modified 
 26

  37. 37. solely for a better explanation of each factor. The definitions however do not need to be defined but a context could be clarified by defining the terms including system, technology, process, volunteer, co-volunteer, other people, subject under focus and user.
 3.8 Sample Questionnaire for Conduction of Survey 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? 
 Table
3.3,
Sample
Questionnaire,
associated
observation
cycled
and
focal
groups. Table 3.3 above shows the format of the surveys and questionnaires. Some of questions in the table are 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 
 27

  38. 38. 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. Question Numbers and Associated Experiential Factors Leanrability Usage Error Comfort Interactivit Affect Learner Accessibility and y guidanc Feedbac e and k support Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 x x x Questions from Section 2.2 Q6 x x Q7 x Q8 x Q9 x x Q10 x Q11 x x x x x Q12 x x Q13 Q14 Experiential Imact Factor of The Usage of Digital Pen and Paper on the students under observation Q15 x Q16 x x Q17 FACTOR x IMPACT VALUE Q18 x x Affect 3,889 x Accesability 3,389 Table
3.4,
Sample
Questionnaire,
and
associated
experiential
factors.
 Learnability 3,074 Guidance and Support 3,111 3.9 Conclusion Collaboration 2,911 Usage 2,333 The analysis of the survey form concludes Comfort the suggested method for the evaluation of 2,333 interactive systems. Along with Error and Feedback 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:, !#!! !!!! 
 Figure
3.2,
The
plot
of
experiential
factors
analysis 
 28

  39. 39. 
 CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING A SCENARIO FOR THE USAGE AND EVALUATION OF DIGITAL PEN AND PAPER IN A CLASS ROOM 
 29

  40. 40. 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 the 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 highlight inefficiencies in the existing system. - To present new situations where the technology could 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. - Create a scenario to understand why the digital pen and paper technology has been a failure. 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 
 30


×