Design and Agency

Designers, Users, and Users as Designers Traditional models of software design often keep users separate from design Requires designer to anticipate users without much input from users Ignores that technology and its use co-evolve Alternatives that mitigate these issues Participatory design Iterative design that looks at actual practice rather than purely controlled experiments

Traditional ‘waterfall’ lifecycle

A simple interaction design model Exemplifies a user-centered design approach

The Star lifecycle model Suggested by Hartson and Hix (1989) Important features: Evaluation at the center of activities No particular ordering of activities; development may start in any one Derived from empirical studies of interface designers

The Star Model (Hartson and Hix, 1989) UCD is a very general philosphy that instantiates itself in the context of a design project. Within HCI there have been many attempts to come up with actual life cycles where users are central. Examples include Rubinstein and Hersch successive iteration of 5 stages, info collecion, design, implementation, evaluation and deploment. The one here is taken fromHartson and Hix model came about by analysing how design takes place in practice evaluation is central: results of each ativity are evaluated before going onto next one both bottom-up and top -down required in waves software designers are familiar with this in their work and call it ‘yo-yoing’ it is important to do both structure and detail at the same time in practice this is what is done - but the end result suggests otherwise corporate requirments dictate a top=down approach which is wha gets recorded ch 5 of Developing User Interfaces (An Overview of Systems Analysis and Design) p- nice step-by-step methodology for doing user-centred design

Characteristics of approaches Usability testing Field studies Analytical Users do task natural not involved Location controlled anywhere When prototype early Data quantitative qualitative problems Feed back measures & errors descriptions Type applied naturalistic expert

Who are the stakeholders? Check-out operators • Suppliers • Local shop owners Customers Managers and owners

More Points on Design “We don’t predict the future, we design it.” Technological determinism? Users will attempt to solve problems Design systems to be adoptable and adaptable Structured vs. unstructured representations What is CAD good for? What ends up as notes? The value of plans Facilitating coordination, without constraining it (e.g. early workflow systems)

Interface Agents Modern versions of ELIZA Animated agents presenting emotions and collaboration Visions often seem to require deep knowledge of us and the world Interesting result: Students playing Doom exhibited more stress during difficulty configuring software than playing the game

Affective (Emotional) Design HCI has traditionally been about designing efficient and effective systems Now more about how to design interactive systems that make people respond in certain ways e.g. to be happy, to be trusting, to learn, to be motivated Color, icons, sounds, graphical elements and animations are used to make the ‘look and feel’ of an interface appealing Conveys an emotional state In turn this can affect the usability of an interface People are prepared to put up with certain aspects of an interface (e.g. slow download rate) if the end result is appealing and aesthetic

Example: Friendly interfaces Microsoft pioneered friendly interfaces for technophobes - ‘At home with Bob’ software 3D metaphors based on familiar places (e.g. living rooms) Agents in the guise of pets (e.g. bunny, dog) were included to talk to the user Make users feel more at ease and comfortable

Slight Detour: Anthropomorphism Attributing human-like qualities to inanimate objects (e.g. cars, computers) Well known phenomenon in advertising Dancing butter, drinks, breakfast cereals Much exploited in human-computer interaction Make user experience more enjoyable, more motivating, make people feel at ease, reduce anxiety

Evidence to support anthropomorphism Reeves and Naas (1996) found that computers that flatter and praise users in education software programs -> positive impact on them “Your question makes an important and useful distinction. Great job!” Students were more willing to continue with exercises with this kind of feedback

Criticism of anthropomorphism Deceptive, make people feel anxious, inferior or stupid People tend not to like screen characters that wave their fingers at the user & say: Now Chris, that’s not right. You can do better than that.Try again.” Many prefer the more impersonal: “Incorrect. Try again.” Studies have shown that personalized feedback is considered to be less honest and makes users feel less responsible for their actions (e.g. Quintanar, 1982)

Disadvantages of Interface Agents Lead people into false sense of belief, enticing them to confide personal secrets with chatterbots (e.g. Alice) Annoying and frustrating e.g. Clippy Not trustworthy virtual shop assistants?

Responses and Actions Visceral Behavioral Reflection Unconscious, almost hard-wired response Behavioral Result of unconscious, learned knowledge Reflection Conscious reaction

Recognizing User States User state is part of the situation Busy or not Happy, sad, frustrated, etc. Lots of research into techniques Often built as a classifier Image/Activity/Other -> Features Features -> Classifier -> Result Result -> Reasoning about action

Intelligent Interaction? Two questions should be considered when developing intelligent interfaces What type(s) of intelligence is meant? Humans display vastly different skills considered intelligent What type(s) of interaction is meant? Interaction can vary from improvisational communication to scripted data gathering Humanlike or other?

Compare these Visions Apple’s “Knowledge Navigator” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bjve67p33E Sun’s “Starfire: A Vision of Future Computing” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKJNxgZyVo0

Support for Human Activity The view of cooperative problem solving How do we configure the interaction? How do we determine who does what?

Final Notes on Suchman Plans vs. situated actions Communication/interaction as action Difficulty (impossibility?) of enumerating knowledge affecting action or being communicated Interactive help systems and lessons for training/education Others?