Lecture 13
Affordance & UAF
UX Theory / IIT 2014 Spring
Class hours : Monday 4 pm – 7 pm
2nd June
Exercise13-1: Formative UX Inspection of Your System
• Goal
– To gain experience in writing effective benchmark tasks and ...
AFFORDANCES DEMYSTIFIED
Textbook Chapter 20.
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 3
WHAT ARE AFFORDANCES?
• The Concept of Affordance
– In HCI design, where we focus on helping the user, an affordance is
so...
WHAT ARE AFFORDANCES?
• Definitions of the Different Kinds of Affordance (Hartson, 2003)
– Cognitive affordances help user...
A LITTLE BACKGROUND
• Who “invented” the concept of affordances?
– Norman did introduce the concept to HCI (1990)
– The co...
A LITTLE BACKGROUND
• And after
– Gaver(1991) sees affordances in design as a way of focusing on strengths
and weaknesses ...
FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN
• Cognitive Affordance
– Cognitive affordance is a design feature that helps, aids,...
FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN
• Physical Affordance
– Physical affordance is a design feature that helps, aids, s...
FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN
• Sensory Affordance
– Sensory affordance is a design feature that helps, aids, sup...
FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN
• Sensory Affordance (continued)
– Why do we call it “sensory affordance” and not “...
FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN
• Functional Affordance
– Functional affordances connect physical user actions to i...
FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 13
Cognitive affordance Design feature that helps
users i...
AFFORDANCES IN INTERACTION DESIGN
• Communication and Cultural Conventions
• Cognitive Affordance as “Information in the W...
FALSE COGNITIVE AFFORDANCES MISINFORM AND MISLEAD
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 15
Figure 20-1
A door with a confusing sign co...
FALSE COGNITIVE AFFORDANCES MISINFORM AND MISLEAD
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 16
Figure 20-2
False cognitive affordances in ...
FALSE COGNITIVE AFFORDANCES MISINFORM AND MISLEAD
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 17
Figure 20-3
False cognitive affordances in ...
FALSE COGNITIVE AFFORDANCES MISINFORM AND MISLEAD
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 18
Figure 20-4
Radio switch with mixed afforda...
FALSE COGNITIVE AFFORDANCES MISINFORM AND MISLEAD
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 19
Figure 20-5
Useless dial marks between powe...
USER-CREATED AFFORDANCES AS A WAKE-UP CALL TO DESIGNERS
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 20
Figure 20-6
Misdirection in a cogniti...
USER-CREATED AFFORDANCES AS A WAKE-UP CALL TO DESIGNERS
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 21
Figure 20-7
Glass door with a user ad...
USER-CREATED AFFORDANCES AS A WAKE-UP CALL TO DESIGNERS
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 22
Figure 20-8
A user-created cognitive ...
USER-CREATED AFFORDANCES AS A WAKE-UP CALL TO DESIGNERS
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 23
Figure 20-9
A user-made automobile cu...
USER-CREATED AFFORDANCES AS A WAKE-UP CALL TO DESIGNERS
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 24
Figure 20-10
A user-created cognitive...
EMOTIONAL AFFORDANCES
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 25
Figure 20-11
A user-created cognitive affordance
added to a roadside si...
EMOTIONAL AFFORDANCES
• Affordances that help lead users to a positive emotional response.
– This means features or design...
EMOTIONAL AFFORDANCES
• Emotional Impact
– Emotional impact is the affective component of user experience that
influences ...
THE INTERACTION CYCLE AND
THE USER ACTION FRAMEWORK
Textbook Chapter 21.
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 28
INTRODUCTION
• Interaction Cycle and User Action Framework (UAF)
– The Interaction Cycle is our adaptation of Norman’s “st...
INTRODUCTION
• Need for a Theory-Based Conceptual Framework
– “Classification lies at the heart of every scientific field....
INTRODUCTION
• The UAF is such a classification structure for UX design concepts,
issues, and principles, designed to:
– G...
THE INTERACTION CYCLE
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 32
Figure 21-1
Norman’s (1990) stages-of action model, adapted with permis...
THE INTERACTION CYCLE
• Gulfs between User and System
– The gulf of execution
– The gulf of evaluation
Lecture #13 IIT_UX ...
THE INTERACTION CYCLE
• From Norman’s Model to Our Interaction Cycle
– Partitioning the model
– Adding outcomes and system...
THE INTERACTION CYCLE
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 35
Figure 21-1
Norman’s (1990) stages-of action model, adapted with permis...
THE INTERACTION CYCLE
• Example: Creating a Business Report as a Task within the Interaction
Cycle
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theo...
THE INTERACTION CYCLE
• Cooperative User-System Task Performance within the Interaction
Cycle
– Primary tasks
– Path varia...
THE INTERACTION CYCLE
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 38
Figure 21-3
Multiuser interaction, system events, and asynchronous exte...
THE INTERACTION CYCLE
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 39
Figure 21-4
Stacking and returning to
Interaction Cycle task context
in...
THE USER ACTION FRAMEWORK—ADDING A STRUCTURED
KNOWLEDGE BASE TO THE INTERACTION CYCLE
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 40
Figure ...
THE USER ACTION FRAMEWORK—ADDING A STRUCTURED
KNOWLEDGE BASE TO THE INTERACTION CYCLE
• From the Interaction Cycle to the ...
INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION
FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES
• Planning (Design Helping User Know What to Do)
– a typica...
INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION
FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES
• Planning (Design Helping User Know What to Do)
– Planning...
INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION
FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES
• Translation (Design Helping User Know How to Do Something...
INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION
FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES
• Physical Actions (Design Helping User Do the Actions)
– P...
INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION
FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES
• Outcomes (Internal, Invisible Effect/Result within System...
INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION
FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES
• Assessment (Design Helping User Know if Interaction Was S...
ROLE OF AFFORDANCES WITHIN THE UAF
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 48
Figure 21-6
Affordances connect users with design.
ROLE OF AFFORDANCES WITHIN THE UAF
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 49
Figure 21-7
Interaction cycle of the UAF
indicating afford...
PRACTICAL VALUE OF UAF
• Advantage of Vocabulary to Think About and Communicate Design
Issues
• Advantage of Organized and...
Week 15
Final Presentation
UX Theory / IIT 2014 Spring
Class hours : Monday 4 pm – 7 pm
9th June
Mid-Term Presentation Guideline
• Presentation Document Content
– System Concept Statement
– Flow Model
– Social Model
– P...
Mid-Term Submission Guideline
• Post a blog
– Embed the presentation file from slideshare.
– 3 mins(Maximum) concept movie...
Elements of a Kickstarter Page
Lecture #6 IID_UX Prototyping 54
Title and USP
Concept Movie
Project
Description
Funding Go...
Link the Kickstarter page to your github repository page
Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 55
Contributors
Kickstarter
Page Link
Checklist
• Send me your GitHub repository link
– until 11:59 pm Sunday 8th June
• URL of your Kickstarter page
• Pinteres...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Lecture 13. affordance & uaf

793 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
793
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
195
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Lecture 13. affordance & uaf

  1. 1. Lecture 13 Affordance & UAF UX Theory / IIT 2014 Spring Class hours : Monday 4 pm – 7 pm 2nd June
  2. 2. Exercise13-1: Formative UX Inspection of Your System • Goal – To gain experience in writing effective benchmark tasks and measurable UX targets. • Activities – Unless you have another prototype, use the paper prototype you built in the previous exercise. If your paper prototype is not suitable for an effective exercise in UX inspection, select an application or appropriate Website as the target of your inspection. – Perform a UX inspection as described in Chapter 13. – If you are working with a team, use the team approach described in Chapter 13. • Deliverables : A list of UX problems identified by your UX inspection. • Schedule : An hour and a half. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 2
  3. 3. AFFORDANCES DEMYSTIFIED Textbook Chapter 20. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 3
  4. 4. WHAT ARE AFFORDANCES? • The Concept of Affordance – In HCI design, where we focus on helping the user, an affordance is something that helps a user do something. – In interaction design, affordances are characteristics of user interface objects and interaction design features that help users perform tasks. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 4
  5. 5. WHAT ARE AFFORDANCES? • Definitions of the Different Kinds of Affordance (Hartson, 2003) – Cognitive affordances help users with their cognitive actions: thinking, deciding, learning, remembering, and knowing about things. – Physical affordances help users with their physical actions: clicking, touching, pointing, gesturing, and moving things. – Sensory affordances help users with their sensory actions: seeing, hearing, and feeling (and tasting and smelling) things. – Functional affordances help users do real work (and play) and get things done, to use the system to do work. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 5
  6. 6. A LITTLE BACKGROUND • Who “invented” the concept of affordances? – Norman did introduce the concept to HCI (1990) – The concept itself goes back at least as far as James J. Gibson (1977, 1979) – Gibson is a perceptual psychologist who took an “ecological” approach to perception, meaning he studied the relationship between a living being and its environment, in particular what the environment offers or affords the animal. – In his ecological view, affordance is reckoned with respect to the animal/user, which is part of the affordance relationship. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 6
  7. 7. A LITTLE BACKGROUND • And after – Gaver(1991) sees affordances in design as a way of focusing on strengths and weaknesses of technologies with respect to the possibilities they offer to people who use them. He extends the concepts by showing how complex actions can be described in terms of groups of affordances, sequential in time and/or nested in space, showing how affordances can be revealed over time, with successive user actions, for example, in the multiple actions of a hierarchical drop-down menu. – McGrenere and Ho (2000) may think design of cognitive affordances is acknowledged to be about design for the cognitive part of usability, ease of use in the form of learnability for new and intermittent users Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 7
  8. 8. FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN • Cognitive Affordance – Cognitive affordance is a design feature that helps, aids, supports, facilitates, or enables thinking, learning, understanding, and knowing about something. Cognitive affordances play starring roles in interaction design, especially for less experienced users who need help with understanding and learning. – Symbol of an icon – The form of a clear and concise button label • Feed forward : semantics or meaning of user interface artifacts. – Feedback • helping a user know what happened after a button click. • helps users in knowing whether the course of interaction has been successful so far. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 8
  9. 9. FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN • Physical Affordance – Physical affordance is a design feature that helps, aids, supports, facilitates, or enables doing something physically. Adequate size and easy-to-access location could be physical affordance features of an interface button design enabling users to click easily on the button. – Fitts’ law (Fitts, 1954; MacKenzie, 1992), physical disabilities and limitations, and physical characteristics of interaction devices and interaction techniques. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 9 𝑇 = 𝑎 + 𝑏 log 2 (1 + 𝐷 𝑊 )
  10. 10. FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN • Sensory Affordance – Sensory affordance is a design feature that helps, aids, supports, facilitates, or enables user in sensing (e.g., seeing, hearing, feeling) something. Sensory affordance is associated with the “sense-ability” characteristics of user interface artifacts, especially when it is used to help the user sense (e.g., see) cognitive affordances and physical affordances. – noticeability, discernability, legibility (in the case of text), and audibility (in the case of sound) of features or devices associated with visual, auditory, haptic/tactile, or other sensations. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 10
  11. 11. FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN • Sensory Affordance (continued) – Why do we call it “sensory affordance” and not “perceptual affordance?” • In the general context of psychology, the concepts of sensing and perception are intertwined. To avoid this association, we use the term “sensing” instead of “perception” because it excludes the component of cognition usually associated with perception (Hochberg, 1964). This allows us to separate the concepts of sensory and cognitive affordance into mostly non-overlapping meanings. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 11
  12. 12. FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN • Functional Affordance – Functional affordances connect physical user actions to invoke system, or back end, functionality. Functional affordances link usability or UX to usefulness and add purpose for physical affordance. They are about higher level user enablement in the work domain and add meaning and goal orientation to design discussions. – an affordance helps or aids the user in doing something. – We use the term functional affordance to denote this kind of higher level user enablement in the work domain. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 12
  13. 13. FOUR KINDS OF AFFORDANCES IN UX DESIGN Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 13 Cognitive affordance Design feature that helps users in knowing Something A button label that helps users know what will happen if they click on it Physical affordance Design feature that helps users in doing a physical action in the interface A button that is large enough so that users can click on it accurately Sensory affordance Design feature that helps users sense something (especially cognitive affordances and physical affordances) A label font size large enough to be discerned Functional affordance Design feature that helps users accomplish work (i.e., usefulness of a system function) The internal system ability to sort a series of numbers (invoked by users clicking on the Sort button) Table 20-1 Summary of affordance types
  14. 14. AFFORDANCES IN INTERACTION DESIGN • Communication and Cultural Conventions • Cognitive Affordance as “Information in the World” • Affordance Roles—An Alliance in Design Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 14
  15. 15. FALSE COGNITIVE AFFORDANCES MISINFORM AND MISLEAD Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 15 Figure 20-1 A door with a confusing sign containing conflicting cognitive affordances.
  16. 16. FALSE COGNITIVE AFFORDANCES MISINFORM AND MISLEAD Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 16 Figure 20-2 False cognitive affordances in a form letter that looks like an affordance to cut.
  17. 17. FALSE COGNITIVE AFFORDANCES MISINFORM AND MISLEAD Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 17 Figure 20-3 False cognitive affordances in a menu bar with links that look like buttons.
  18. 18. FALSE COGNITIVE AFFORDANCES MISINFORM AND MISLEAD Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 18 Figure 20-4 Radio switch with mixed affordances.
  19. 19. FALSE COGNITIVE AFFORDANCES MISINFORM AND MISLEAD Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 19 Figure 20-5 Useless dial marks between power settings on a microwave.
  20. 20. USER-CREATED AFFORDANCES AS A WAKE-UP CALL TO DESIGNERS Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 20 Figure 20-6 Misdirection in a cognitive affordance.
  21. 21. USER-CREATED AFFORDANCES AS A WAKE-UP CALL TO DESIGNERS Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 21 Figure 20-7 Glass door with a user added cognitive affordance (arrow) indicating proper operation.
  22. 22. USER-CREATED AFFORDANCES AS A WAKE-UP CALL TO DESIGNERS Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 22 Figure 20-8 A user-created cognitive affordance explaining copier darkness settings.
  23. 23. USER-CREATED AFFORDANCES AS A WAKE-UP CALL TO DESIGNERS Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 23 Figure 20-9 A user-made automobile cup-holder artifact, used with permission from Roundel magazine, BMW Car Club of America, Inc. (Howarth, 2002).
  24. 24. USER-CREATED AFFORDANCES AS A WAKE-UP CALL TO DESIGNERS Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 24 Figure 20-10 A user-created cognitive affordance to help users know how to insert blank letterhead stationery.
  25. 25. EMOTIONAL AFFORDANCES Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 25 Figure 20-11 A user-created cognitive affordance added to a roadside sign; see arrow on post to left of the sign.
  26. 26. EMOTIONAL AFFORDANCES • Affordances that help lead users to a positive emotional response. – This means features or design elements that make an emotional connection with the user. These will include design features that connect to our subconscious and intuitive appreciation of fun, aesthetics, and challenges to growth. – This new kind of affordance plays well into the original Gibson ecological view of affordances that are about the relationship between a living being and its environment. This is just what we are talking about with respect to emotional impact, especially phenomenological aspects. – Gibson’s affordances are about values and meanings that can be perceived directly in the environment. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 26
  27. 27. EMOTIONAL AFFORDANCES • Emotional Impact – Emotional impact is the affective component of user experience that influences user feelings. Emotional impact includes such effects as pleasure, fun, joy of use, aesthetics, desirability, pleasure, novelty, originality, sensations, coolness, engagement, novelty, and appeal and can involve deeper emotional factors such as self-expression, self- identity, a feeling of contribution to the world, and pride of ownership. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 27
  28. 28. THE INTERACTION CYCLE AND THE USER ACTION FRAMEWORK Textbook Chapter 21. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 28
  29. 29. INTRODUCTION • Interaction Cycle and User Action Framework (UAF) – The Interaction Cycle is our adaptation of Norman’s “stages-of-action” model (Norman, 1986) that characterizes sequences of user actions typically occurring in interaction between a human user and almost any kind of machine. The User Action Framework (Andre et al., 2001) is a structured knowledge base containing information about UX design, concepts, and issues. – Within each part of the UAF, the knowledge base is organized by immediate user intentions involving sensory, cognitive, or physical actions. Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 29
  30. 30. INTRODUCTION • Need for a Theory-Based Conceptual Framework – “Classification lies at the heart of every scientific field. Classifications structure domains of systematic inquiry and provide concepts for developing theories to identify anomalies and to predict future research needs.” Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 30
  31. 31. INTRODUCTION • The UAF is such a classification structure for UX design concepts, issues, and principles, designed to: – Give structure to the large number of interaction design principles, issues, and concepts – Offer a more standardized vocabulary for UX practitioners in discussing interaction design situations and UX problems – Provide the basis for more thorough and accurate UXproblem analysis and diagnosis – Foster precision and completeness of UX problem reports based on essential distinguishing characteristics Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 31
  32. 32. THE INTERACTION CYCLE Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 32 Figure 21-1 Norman’s (1990) stages-of action model, adapted with permission.
  33. 33. THE INTERACTION CYCLE • Gulfs between User and System – The gulf of execution – The gulf of evaluation Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 33
  34. 34. THE INTERACTION CYCLE • From Norman’s Model to Our Interaction Cycle – Partitioning the model – Adding outcomes and system response – The resulting Interaction Cycle Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 34
  35. 35. THE INTERACTION CYCLE Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 35 Figure 21-1 Norman’s (1990) stages-of action model, adapted with permission.
  36. 36. THE INTERACTION CYCLE • Example: Creating a Business Report as a Task within the Interaction Cycle Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 36 Calculate monthly profits for last quarter Write summary, including graphs, to show company performance Create table of contents Print the report Open spreadsheet program Call accounting department and ask for numbers for each month Create column headers in spreadsheet for expenses and revenues in each product category Compute profits
  37. 37. THE INTERACTION CYCLE • Cooperative User-System Task Performance within the Interaction Cycle – Primary tasks – Path variations in the Interaction Cycle • Multiuser tasks (Figure 21-3) – Secondary tasks, intention shifts, and stacking • Secondary tasks and intention shifts • Stacking and restoring task context • Example of stacking due to intention shift (Figure 21-4) Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 37
  38. 38. THE INTERACTION CYCLE Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 38 Figure 21-3 Multiuser interaction, system events, and asynchronous external events within multiple Interaction Cycles.
  39. 39. THE INTERACTION CYCLE Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 39 Figure 21-4 Stacking and returning to Interaction Cycle task context instances.
  40. 40. THE USER ACTION FRAMEWORK—ADDING A STRUCTURED KNOWLEDGE BASE TO THE INTERACTION CYCLE Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 40 Figure 21-5 Basic kinds of user actions in the Interaction Cycle as the top-level UAF structure.
  41. 41. THE USER ACTION FRAMEWORK—ADDING A STRUCTURED KNOWLEDGE BASE TO THE INTERACTION CYCLE • From the Interaction Cycle to the User Action Framework (Figure 21-5) • Interaction Style and Device Independent • Common Design Concepts Are Distributed • Completeness Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 41
  42. 42. INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES • Planning (Design Helping User Know What to Do) – a typical sequence of planning activities : • Identify work needs in the subject matter domain (e.g., communicate with someone in writing) • Establish goals in the work domain to meet these work needs (e.g., produce a business letter) • Divide goals into tasks performed on the computer to achieve the goals (e.g., type content, format the page) • Spawn intentions to perform the steps of each task (e.g., set the left margin) Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 42
  43. 43. INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES • Planning (Design Helping User Know What to Do) – Planning concepts – Planning content in the UAF • User model and high-level understanding of system • Goal decomposition • Task/step structuring and sequencing, workflow • User work context, environment • User knowledge of system state, modalities, and especially active modes • Supporting learning at the planning level through use and exploration Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 43
  44. 44. INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES • Translation (Design Helping User Know How to Do Something) – Translation concepts – Translation content in the UAF • Existence of a cognitive affordance to show how to do something • Presentation (of a cognitive affordance) • Content, meaning (of a cognitive affordance) • Task structure, interaction control, preferences and efficiency • Support of user learning about what actions to make on which UI objects and how through regular and exploratory use Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 44
  45. 45. INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES • Physical Actions (Design Helping User Do the Actions) – Physical actions—concepts • sensing the objects in order to manipulate them • Manipulation – Physical actions content in the UAF • Existence of necessary physical affordances in user interface • Sensing UI objects for and during manipulation • Manipulating UI objects, making physical actions Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 45
  46. 46. INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES • Outcomes (Internal, Invisible Effect/Result within System) – Outcomes—concepts – Outcomes content in the UAF • Existence of needed functionality or feature (functional affordance) • Existence of needed or unwanted automation • Computational error • Results unexpected • Quality of functionality Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 46
  47. 47. INTERACTION CYCLE AND USER ACTION FRAMEWORK CONTENT CATEGORIES • Assessment (Design Helping User Know if Interaction Was Successful) – Assessment concepts – Assessment content in the UAF • Existence of feedback or indication of state or mode • Presentation (of feedback) • Content, meaning (of feedback) Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 47
  48. 48. ROLE OF AFFORDANCES WITHIN THE UAF Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 48 Figure 21-6 Affordances connect users with design.
  49. 49. ROLE OF AFFORDANCES WITHIN THE UAF Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 49 Figure 21-7 Interaction cycle of the UAF indicating affordance related user actions.
  50. 50. PRACTICAL VALUE OF UAF • Advantage of Vocabulary to Think About and Communicate Design Issues • Advantage of Organized and Structured Usability Data • Advantage of Richness in Usability Problem Analysis Schemes • Advantage of Usability Data Reuse Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 50
  51. 51. Week 15 Final Presentation UX Theory / IIT 2014 Spring Class hours : Monday 4 pm – 7 pm 9th June
  52. 52. Mid-Term Presentation Guideline • Presentation Document Content – System Concept Statement – Flow Model – Social Model – Persona – Some sketches (as many as possible) – Storyboard – UX Metrics – Prototype in Xcode Storyboard or any tools equivalent – UX Evaluation Report(5-7 participants) Lecture #7 IIT_UX Theory 52
  53. 53. Mid-Term Submission Guideline • Post a blog – Embed the presentation file from slideshare. – 3 mins(Maximum) concept movie • Brief your product/service idea • You can add your interview – Compile into the Kickstarter format • Your funding goal • USP you need to promote • https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/aldobeqiraj/bringrrtm-helping-you-keep- track-of-what-matters-m Lecture #7 IIT_UX Theory 53
  54. 54. Elements of a Kickstarter Page Lecture #6 IID_UX Prototyping 54 Title and USP Concept Movie Project Description Funding Goal Embed Slideshare PT at the end
  55. 55. Link the Kickstarter page to your github repository page Lecture #13 IIT_UX Theory 55 Contributors Kickstarter Page Link
  56. 56. Checklist • Send me your GitHub repository link – until 11:59 pm Sunday 8th June • URL of your Kickstarter page • Pinterest collections • Prorototype in Xcode project • User Evaluation Report • Class review pages – http://uxtheory.wordpress.com/ • Final Evaluation links Lecture #6 IID_UX Prototyping 56

×