Presentation for the user group of the TIII consortium during the closing event on September 18th 2014. [CUO]

1. TIII CLOSING EVENT
18 September 2014
Jorick Vissers
David Geerts

2. AGENDA
• WP 2.1 Sota study existing labs
• WP 2.5 Development of a TUI UX evaluation method
• WP 4.3 Supervising student cases with companies/organisations
• WP 5.3 Giving workshops, seminars for the development of TIII
• WP 5.1 Publications

3. WP 2.1 SOTA LABS

4. WP 2.1 SOTA LABS
2 objectives:
• What approaches do existing organisations/labs use for
sustainability?
• Where should the TIII lab conjoin or complement?
Labs within the 4 domains of TIII:
1. FabLabs (shape + technology)
2. UX labs + consultancies (User)
3. Living Labs (user, software, technology)
4. Research groups
5. Other

5. WP 2.1 SOTA LABS
Questions per lab:
• What are they doing?
• What is their focus?
• Which approach/method do they use?
• Infrastructure
• Who do they work for?
• Forms of income

6. WP 2.1 SOTA LABS
Conlusions
Inclusion of existing FabLabs in the TIII network
Accessible UX labs are rather limited
2 options:
• Creating a TIII UX lab
• Hiring UX expert to utilise the limited accessible UX labs
Living labs seem profitable, but are limited and confined in focus to
specific domains. Solution: adjusted TIII living lab
Research groups = diverse exchange of knowledge
Possible risk: funding through projects
Adding UX consultancies to TIII network = offering companies deeper
levels of expertise within specific design phases

7. WP 2.1 SOTA LABS
Lab matrix
Visual overview per phase on where we
can utilise services/support from other labs
and which services/support is still missing.
A variety of labs/organisations is active,
within each phase of the TIII roadmap.
(cooperation)
The TIII platform could complement by
providing independent support to the
affiliated companies within the final phase
(preparing for production).

8. WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION
METHOD

9. WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION
METHOD
Objective of the method
Evaluate user experience of early TUI prototypes
!
Tangible User Interface = Physical + Interaction
1) Evaluate the physical aspects of TUIs
2) Evaluate interactive aspects of TUIs
!
How do physical aspects influence UX during interaction
with TUI prototypes?

10. WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION
METHOD
Apparatus
Interactive dice as a TUI
Interaction: Dice+ & tablet board game
Physical aspects: various physical casings

11. WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION
METHOD
Phases of the method:
1. Exploration
2. Differentiation
3. Interaction
4. Combining physical & interactive experience
Participants:
9 participants (4 women, 5 men)
Age between 24 and 34 years old

12. WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION
METHOD
1. Exploration
Goal
• Giving participants an overview of all prototypes
• Stimulating participants to describe their physical experience
with their own words.
Focus = physical aspects
Procedure
• Participants explore the prototypes in a hands-on way
• No introduction or instructions (first impressions)
• ‘Think Aloud’ to verbalise their physical experiences

13. WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION
METHOD
2. Differentiation
Goal
• Eliciting words used by participants to describe their physical
experience
Focus = physical aspects
Procedure
• Present the prototypes in series of three
• Participants make a differentiation between these three prototypes
• Differentiation is converted into constructs and contrasts
• Repeat until all prototypes are mutually compared
Contrast B1
Construct A1
Contrast B2 Construct A2
Construct A3 Contrast B3

14. WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION
METHOD
3. Evaluating interaction
Goal:
• How do users experience interaction with the
different prototypes?
Focus = interactional aspects
Procedure:
Participants interact with all of the prototypes one by
one (in random sequences) and are asked to ‘Think
Aloud’ to share their experiences.

15. WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION
METHOD
4. Combining physical & interactive experience
Goal:
• Creating a qualitative link between users’ physical and interactive
experience
• Focus = physical + interactional aspects
Procedure:
• Participants divide construct/contrast according to preference
(based on both physical + interactive experience)
• Participants mark each prototype with the applicable constructs
or contrasts
• Finally, participants rank the prototypes, based on both physical
and interactive experience
Construct A1
Construct A2
Not preferred
X
Construct A3
Construct A3
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
0
0
X
X
X
Preferred
0
Contrast B1
Contrast B2
Contrast B3
Contrast B3
3 4 2 1 5 6

16. WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION
METHOD
4. Combining physical & interactive experience
Outcome:
Qualitative data about the influence of different
physical aspects (shape, weight, texture, material,
size) on the user’s overall experience with a Tangible
User Interface
Construct A1
Construct A2
Not preferred
X
Construct A3
Construct A3
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
0
0
X
X
X
Preferred
0
Contrast B1
Contrast B2
Contrast B3
Contrast B3
3 4 2 1 5 6

17. WP 4.3 SUPERVISING STUDENT CASES WITH
COMPANIES/ORGANISATIONS
Guest lecture on user research and UX evaluation
methods
!
!
Supporting students in collaboration with VRT

18. WP 5.3 GIVING WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF TIII
Workshop with CUO | Social Spaces for the
development of TUI UX evaluation method
Presenting the TUI UX evaluation
method for the consortium

19. WP 5.1 PUBLICATIONS
Currently finishing full paper
submission for CHI 2015
conference in Seoul
WiP paper presented
by poster at TEI 2014
conference in Munich
Workshop participation CHI 2014
on tactile user experience
evaluation methods