Ovetto X Students


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ovetto X Students

  1. 1. Levels of Design Designing Human Activities Antonio Rizzo University of Siena, Italy
  2. 2. Different human activities / Different levels of design Design for Human Activities o I know what I want and I can also specify most of the conditions of satisfaction of my actions and target results o I’m interested in doing it, I cannot tell you precisely what do I expect in term of actions or results but as things evolve I will tell you, o I’m curious about it, but I do not know what this imply neither what can I expect 2/13
  3. 3. The egg model Three levels: Three phases: reactive pro-active emergent 3/13
  4. 4. Reactive Level HCI designer is called to solve problems of use for a well established human activity/task already mediated by existing and fully operational system/tools 4/13
  5. 5. RL example FS 5/13
  6. 6. Task Scenario Vediamo che treni ci sono, poi se mai, acquisto direttamente 6/13
  7. 7. Role and Look & Feel • Black: page content • Red: page title • Green: annotations • Blue: links 7/13
  8. 8. RL methods Activity: Task scenarios Evaluation: Walkthrough Design: Coupling “role” and “look&feel”. 8/13
  9. 9. Proactive Level The designer is called to develop a new system for a well defined human activity supporting a clear category of users 9/13
  10. 10. PL example HIPS 10/13
  11. 11. 11/13
  12. 12. 12/13
  13. 13. Ant Fish 13/13
  14. 14. Laboratory testing Wizard of Oz 14/13
  15. 15. Activity and Prototype Scenarios 15/13
  16. 16. PL methods Activity: Ethnographic observation Evaluation: Wizard of Oz Design: Activity Scenarios 16/13
  17. 17. Emergent Level To “envision” new human activities that are designed together with the enabling artefacts and system. 17/13
  18. 18. EL example POGO 18/13
  19. 19. User studies: The Narrative Activity Model C hao Wate Earth s r Sensorial experience Remembering C hosing a Air Fire the activities favorite through the element expression of through a ritual favorite games of identification C reating Drawing Discussing Writing Writing costumes Expressing characteristic of the element referring to themselves Reading C elebrating the elements Dancing 19/13
  20. 20. Mock-up development and testing Design Concepts:mock-up construction Mock-up testing To assess the validity of the concepts To explore the potentiality of the basic and elaborated setting of POGO Tools To gather significant data for the further experiments on interaction design To detail User Requirements with respects to the “Acquisition”, “Manipulation” and “Publishing” Phase Suggestions for high fidelity prototyping 20/13
  21. 21. Beamer Torch Bucket Cards 21/13
  22. 22. 22/13
  23. 23. POGO EDIT ZONE 23/13
  24. 24. POGO system PLAY ZONE 24/13
  25. 25. Pogo Testing 25/13
  26. 26. EL methods Activity: future scenarios Evaluation: simulations with stakeholders Design: theoretical reflection, future workshops, 26/13
  27. 27. Conclusion o Every design process has its own story o Egg Model provide an heuristic guide for navigating between existing HCI methods o It help students to properly understand the role of the three main design phases for designing for human activities 27/13
  28. 28. Why is RL Important? It can determine who becomes president of the USA! 28/13
  29. 29. Problems • The instructions are misleading – Use of the phrase “vote for group” is misleading • Should say “vote for one” – Instructions only on lefthand side • Implies righthand side is different • The interleaving of holes is misleading – Only the president page has this layout – Other offices are one per page (with appropriate instructions) • The sample ballot looks different – No holes – the source of the problem – Did not lead to complaints 29/13
  30. 30. Variations on the Theme 32/13
  31. 31. Palm Beach Phone Book (a joke)
  33. 33. Original contribution with respect to • From that pioneering work, many other interaction design process other formulations of the original models currently adopted. Indeed idea were proposed with the aim most of the available process to consolidate design practices models derive from the early with a clear user orientation. work of the Xerox Star research However, all these models (Beyer group that proposed a user- and Holtzblatt, 1998, Lewis and centred view for the design of Rieman, 1993, Preece at al. 1994, innovative products (Bewley et al. Shneiderman, 1992) do not take 1983, Smith et al 1982, Gould and into account the different Lewis, 1983). meanings that the “design for the users” approach assumes in different contexts. 35/13