Downloaded 37 times
Uploaded byUniversity of Portsmouth
User Research
This document discusses human-centered design methods that go beyond usability to consider the full human experience. It describes methods like participatory design, scenarios, personas, and a pleasure framework to help designers develop empathy and understand how users experience products holistically on physical, social, cognitive and ideological levels. A range of research methods are presented, from questionnaires and interviews to co-design and experience diaries. The goal is to create richer representations of people to inform design decisions.
User Research
- 2. Overview Rationale and Background of involving people Overview of Methods Participative Art &Design Scenarios, User stories – Pleasure Framework
- 3. Historical Context Product and Industrial Design: Participation (Scandinavian influence -1970s system design) Cooperation, co- design, co-research Systems, Policies, Organisations Technology – interactive systems – focus on people rather than systems
- 4. Usability Concerned with „ease of use‟ (only cognitive & physical factors) Products should be: Effective Efficient Satisfactory (avoidance of physical and cognitive discomfort)
- 5. Interaction Design / ExperienceDesign Concerned with the whole human range of hopes, fears, dreams, aspirations, principles & tastes Products should be: Pleasurable, affective, speaking to emotions Personable, subjective, supporting relationships Culturally relevant
- 6. “The Human Formerly Known asUser” Need to create a richer picture of the person to design for Holistic understanding of people Not all quantifiable – empathy, intuition plays a part
- 7. Formal / Experientialdesign properties Formal properties: can be objectively measured, clear & unambiguous definition (i.e. colour or shape) Experiential properties: individually experiencing the product in context
- 8. Design Noir Concerned with the reality of an individual Accessories for Lonely Men – Noam Toran
- 9. User Research Methods Decide: at what stage? Before design concept (i.e. research precedents) Testing design concept Testing prototype Iterative Evaluate: Which disadvantages are calculable?
- 10. (User) Research Methods Desirable Undesirable Rich Description No Information Focused / Relevant Irrelevant Info Independent / bias free Skewed results/ influenced Honest Rationalised Noise free, accurate, clear Vague, off topic Representative Individual opinion Easy on time & effort for Demanding on time & effort investigator and/or for investigator and/or participants participants
- 11. Questionnaire Fixed Response Multiple choice Response scale (e.g. 5 point: „strongly agree‟, „agree‟ ,‟not sure‟, „disagree‟, „strongly disagree‟) Reliability (repeatable?), Validity (measuring the right thing?) Open Ended Response Particularly useful to „generate‟ information, rather than testing Questions can be framed broadly
- 12. Interview Unstructured Open-ended questions Participant steers discussion Semi-structured Investigator has some ideas about what is to be covered, and tries to ensure this is done Participant is still able to raise issues important to them Structured Participants choose from pre-set responses (multiple choice or scales)
- 13. Focus Group Discussion leader + group of participants (5-6 for usability) Set of prompts and management of discussion
- 14. Think aloud Protocols Participant uses product/design concept/ prototype/object/environment Verbalising thoughts as they experience May be prompted by investigator
- 15. Private Camera Conversation One or two participants after or during experiencing a product / design concept Or talking about products / services in general
- 16. Co-Discovery 2 people,usually friends or acquaintances Exploring product/design concept/ prototype/object/environment May be set specific tasks Communicating as they make sense of the experience
- 17. Experience Diaries Participantsfill these in over a period of time at home They may be supplied with a list of questions to consider
- 18. Immersion Investigator experiences product/design/service themselves Mixture of expertise and experience Trying different tasks/goals/journeys, under different circumstances
- 19. Participative Creation Group of participants and designers discuss issues of design Participants give suggestions for design, list requirements or get involved in mock- ups Participants get involved in design (co- design)
- 20. Participative Graphic Design Networks co-creatingprinted materials http://www.cactusnetwork.org.uk/carri on.htm http://papergirl-berlin.de/ http://www.postsecret.com/ Audience as Co-designers – HIV awareness campaign
- 21. Art projects These Associations-Sehgal Colours of the Sphere – Devine Telematic Dreaming - Sermon
- 22. Create persona (user story) with comprehensive detail of human character and context Create scenario of use with actors‟ goals, objectives and actions and events that should be facilitated Puts „use‟ at the center Scenarios and of design decisions Concrete, yet flexible Personaes Teams will work towards shared design rationale Develop empathy Supports thinking and doing: Action and Reflection – pushing beyond „static answers‟
- 23. Pat Jordan (2000) – based on Lionel Tiger The Pursuit of Pleasure (1992) holistic, humanistic approach – pleasure-seeking Pleasure Relationship of Framework person to object / environment – Interaction with it
- 24. People Characteristics Physio-pleasure Characteristics to do with the body – touch, taste, smell – sensory and sensual Socio-pleasure Characteristics to do with the enjoyment of a person‟s relationship with others, self and society Psycho-pleasure Characteristics to do with cognitive and emotional states, capabilities, and traits – „ease- of-use‟ Ideo-pleasure Characteristics to do with people‟s values – tastes, morals, beliefs and aspirations
Editor's Notes
- #6 Pleasure-based Design
- #12 Printed List of Questions+++ Fairly economical in terms of time involved and possibilities of distribution to large numbers+++ investigator does not have to be present - - low response rates (ca. 25%)- - - sample of responses is likely to be skewed towards the people with strong feelings (i.e. very positive or very negative experiences)
- #13 Face to face, online chat or telephone+++ likelihood of misinterpreting questions is minimised due to investigator being at close hand+++ sample is less self-selecting than with questionnaires- - - Demanding on investigator’s time- - - Participant’s responses may be influenced by investigator’s presence (more moderate)
- #14 +++ can be used at any stage of the development+++ The group dynamics can bring out the issues that really matter, and ones the researcher hadn’t considered- - - The group dynamics can mean one party is domineering or others very quiet – this needs managing the the facilitator
- #15 +++Efficient to get people’s reaction to products and designs, and also find out the reason why they react this way+++ Opportunity to get rich, prescriptive accounts- - Participant may rationalise, try to explain or justify initial feelings- - - Participant may try to please investigator, or reacts in some way to their presence/purpose
- #16 +++minimise investigator’s influence+++ agenda is driven by the participant+++ perception of freedom, results in greater disclosure+++ enjoyable for participant+++ good, convincing evidence- - participants may go off topic - - - statements may to be ambiguous, interpretation of statements happens later
- #17 +++ Speaking with a friend: ‘unprompted’, more natural
- #18 +++ low investment of investigator’s time and effort+++ can monitor people’s experiences over time+++ responses are created in the real world context, which is relevant to the individual participant- - participants may not be disciplined or motivated enough to complete the entries - - - Descriptions may be insufficient or irrelevant
- #19 +++ first-hand insight into what it is REALLY like to experience this product+++ cuts out miscommunication and misunderstanding+++ investigator gains a sense of empathy+++ probably best in combination with another research method- - not necessarily representative - - investigator has a vested interest
- #20 +++ Direct way of involving the people concerned in the design process+++ Designers and participants (consumers) communicate directly- - demanding for participants (time and nature of task)- - - participants are not experts, may not come up with feasible solutions- - - participants may not feel entitled to offer solutions
- #23 Creator’s imagination OR based on ethnographic research!
- #24 (usability: task-oriented)Define pleasure… p.12
- #25 functioning, size & appearance of body etc(family, friends, lovers, likeminded people, peers) – can involve issues of style/status/identityCognitivedemand, emotional reactionsAesthetics, value embodied (i.e. pleasure by a bio-degradable product or pleasure by a technical object as part of the room design)