Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

859 views

Published on

Presentation at INFO I609 Advanced Seminar I Informatics. PhD in Informatics, Indiana University Bloomington.

* Includes short bio, trace of work related with HCI & Design, connection of Rhetoric and User Experience Design, and previous of paper to be presented at NordiCHI 2014.

Published in: Design
  • My personal experience with research paper writing services was highly positive. I sent a request to ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐ and found a writer within a few minutes. Because I had to move house and I literally didn’t have any time to sit on a computer for many hours every evening. Thankfully, the writer I chose followed my instructions to the letter. I know we can all write essays ourselves. For those in the same situation I was in, I recommend ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

  1. 1. Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces and other PhD stuff. Omar Sosa-Tzec School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University Bloomington info i609 Advanced Seminar I Informatics
  2. 2. Hola!
  3. 3. Mérida, Yucatán
  4. 4. Image source: http://goo.gl/EKw66m BSc in Computer Science University of Yucatan Connection with HCI & Design •Web Design •Usability •Software Engineering •Object-Oriented Hypermedia Design
  5. 5. Guanajuato, Guanajuato
  6. 6. Image source: http://goo.gl/4Kf7Vi MSc in Computer Science Center for Research in Mathematics Connection with HCI & Design •Usability •Software Engineering • Algorithm Design
  7. 7. San Andrés Cholula, Puebla
  8. 8. Photography by Jorge Gutierrez MSc in Information Design University of the Americas Puebla Connection with HCI & Design •Information Design, Visualization and Architecture •Interface Design & Evaluation •Design Theory
  9. 9. Influences Rhetoric Semiotics
  10. 10. Influences Hanno Ehses Clarisse de Souza Rhetoric for Graphic Design Semiotic Engineering & Communicability Evaluation How can rhetoric be applied to web design? How can unconventional GUIs be evaluated?
  11. 11. Rhetoric and Interaction Design Designer User Interface User Speaker. Speech Listener Rhetorical appeals: Logos Ethos Pathos Sosa-Tzec, et al. (2009) Accomplish a task. Take action.
  12. 12. Rhetoric and Interaction Design Information Architecture Functionality Logos Sosa-Tzec, et al. (2009) Ethos Pathos Design Thinking Emotional Design User Appropriation
  13. 13. Bloomington, Indiana
  14. 14. Human- Computer Interaction Design
  15. 15. What is the problem?
  16. 16. What are the consequences of the interactive systems that we design?
  17. 17. How do interactive systems affect the people’s everyday?
  18. 18. How are we, designers and researchers, contributing on making people to affect other people?
  19. 19. What does it mean for the members in the team?
  20. 20. Swipe to the right for Like Swipe to the le!t for Nope
  21. 21. What does it mean being put on the “nope” list?
  22. 22. A problematic of HCI and Design Us, designers and researchers, contribute on deploying artifacts that affect the everyday of people, including their beliefs and attitude
  23. 23. An Approach to HCI Design
  24. 24. HCI Design Rhetoric
  25. 25. Rhetoric as lenses for HCI • Persuasion • Content & Form • Contingencies & People • Metaphor, Metonymy, and other rhetorical figures • And so on...
  26. 26. Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces Sosa-Tzec, O., & Siegel, M.A. (forthcoming). Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces. In Proc. of 8th Nordic Conference of Human-Computer Interaction, NordiCHI 2014, ACM Press (2014).
  27. 27. Situation
  28. 28. Evaluation
  29. 29. Purpose vs. Function: Example Purpose Preventing others from seeing the content of the businessman’s laptop Function Providing a feeling of privacy
  30. 30. Purpose vs. Function Anti-intentionalist Not seeing the creator's intention as determining the correct interpretation of the work
  31. 31. Schema of rhetorical evaluation for user interfaces Sosa-Tzec, & Siegel (2014) evaluator apparent function interaction function user interface Visual Components Audio Components Physical Components UI Section (Changes Over Time) reflection Legitimacy / Soundness
  32. 32. The app
  33. 33. Adding a new goal
  34. 34. Short and long swipe to the right
  35. 35. Short and long swipe to the left
  36. 36. Schema of rhetorical evaluation for user interfaces Sosa-Tzec, & Siegel (2014) evaluator apparent function interaction function user interface Visual Components Audio Components Physical Components UI Section (Changes Over Time) reflection Legitimacy / Soundness
  37. 37. Outcome
  38. 38. Outcome of the evaluation Apparent function Function performed by the UI components
  39. 39. Outcome of the evaluation Apparent function Function performed by Make goal tracking simpler the UI components
  40. 40. Outcome of the evaluation Apparent function Function performed by the UI components Make goal tracking simpler Interaction by gestures as embodied commitment
  41. 41. Make goal tracking simpler
  42. 42. Interaction by gestures as embodied commitment Moving forward
  43. 43. Interaction by gestures as embodied commitment Moving backwards
  44. 44. Discussion
  45. 45. Discussion Evaluating an interface requires for the evaluator to learn about the system and its purpose
  46. 46. Discussion The evaluation considers the interaction with the system
  47. 47. Discussion This form of rhetorical evaluation is placed between structural approaches and hermeneutic approaches
  48. 48. Discussion This form of rhetorical evaluation fosters reflection and interaction criticism
  49. 49. Conclusion
  50. 50. Conclusion • Approach for evaluating user interfaces based on the notion of function from visual rhetoric • Apparent function • Function performed by UI components and interaction with the system • Reflection and interaction criticism
  51. 51. Conclusion The goal is obtaining a wider perspective regarding the design of interactive systems, one that takes into account experiences, communication, and meaning.
  52. 52. References 1. Bardzell, J. Interaction criticism and aesthetics. In Proc. CHI 2009. ACM Press (2009), 2357-2366. 2. de Souza, C. S. The semiotic engineering of human- computer interaction. MIT Press, 2005. 3. Foss, S. K. A rhetorical schema for the evaluation of visual imagery. Communication Studies, 45, 3-4 (1994), 213-224. 4. Gross, S., Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. Skeu the evolution: skeuomorphs, style, and the material of tangible interactions. In Proc. TEI 2014. ACM Press (2014), 53- 60. 5. Hill, C. A., & Helmers, M. (Eds.). Defining visual rhetorics. Routledge, 2012. 6. Hurtienne, J., & Israel, J. H. Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions: intuitive patterns for tangible interaction. In Proc. TEI 2007. ACM Press (2014), 127- 134. 7. Nelson H. G. & Stolterman, E. The Design Way. MIT Press, 2012. 8. Schön, D. A. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic books, 1983. 9. Sosa-Tzec, O., Cortina-Arteaga, S., & Holguin-Molina, R. Métodos y Proceso de Diseño de Información para una GUI en un Cliente IM bajo un enfoque Calm Technology. CLIHC 2007. Workshop at Interact 2007.
  53. 53. Acknowledgments Chung-Ching Huang Jordan E. Beck Phaedra Pezzullo Ian Wood Erik Stolterman HCI/d Faculty, Gabriele Ferri and PhD Students
  54. 54. Thank you! http://tzec.com The images here shown are property of their author, and some of them have been taken from the results of a web search. All of them are employed for mere academic purposes.

×