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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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