Ch. 4 Communicability and the Designer’s Deputy Discourse Please read carefully!

Desirable “-abilities” in HCI Adaptability Applicability Extensibility Flexibility Reliability Predictability Sociability Key quality of interactive computer-based artifacts for semiotic engineering Communicability

Kind of communication that Semiotics engineering focuses on: Norman's 7 stages of Cognition (thinking) Establish the goal Form the intention Specify the action sequence Execute the action Perceive the system state Interpret the system state Evaluate the system state with respect to the goals and intentions

Evaluate Communicability and the Designer’s Deputy Discourse Communicability Evaluation Heuristic principles The principle of visibility The principle of recall prior knowledge The principle of Affordance The principle of feedback The principle of consistency Simplicity Simple and intuitive use

Support users’ goals by: Communicating Range of goals Methods to achieve them Interface signs that activate steps Signs of feedback to user’s intervention Speech acts User’s goals have a semiotic extension tells the user which signs are available Range of responses Meanings

Communicability of any representation depends: Shared context between sender & receiver The sign interpretation Within a pragmatics of the encoding. Communicability has everything to do with: Cueing sets of interpretive codes Dismissing sets of codes Communicability is about: Discourse  Deputy’s Discourse and some affordance

Communicability Evaluation Starts with communicative breakdown examination From there aspects are inferred Need Situated interaction where the discourse can be pragmatically interpreted.

Illustrated Narrative Joe uses Endora to handle his email. He has a standard signature. He can not see the signature when composin g emails. Illustrated Narrative

User’s Goal: Need to have an alternative signature

Hunting.. Communicability

He tries Options- ”where is it?” “I can’t do it this way” “I can do otherwise” Joe copies and paste the alternative signature and thinks “ Looks fine to me!” What is the designer’s discourse for signature?

What is the designer’s deputy for signature options?

The Discourse Speech acts performed by User and designer’s deputy Review page 116-121 boxes with user’s: Thoughts Actions System screen shots Speech acts performed by User and designer’s deputy both produce illocutions where: expression content intent bring perlocution (effect on the state of affairs)

Ulab Evaluation Report due Wed Nov 9 midnight Each B/D submits a Report of findings from the evaluation (with the raw data of the loggers) Include: Team members’ roles in this eval. Original evaluation used. Comments on the original eval and any changes made to it. The final material used during the evaluation User’s demographic information collected Raw data from each logger. Your analysis of the raw data – Must contain evidence of Designer’s deputy seen by user or not seen by user.

By Wed. Nov.16 ->Presentation – 25 pts The last member who was not a B/D will be the presenter of the evaluations in the “Ulab Presentation” which is a short recorded meeting for 25 pts. The presentation is a Utube recording with all team members in attendance. The presenter discusses the design stance found by each user. Team members interject a final comment on each eval with the failures of communicability. Please add the URL of the recording in the scribe’s report to D2L. Make sure that the recording is not private so that I can view. The Ulab team discussed each evaluation and decides which of the evaluation was a success. Team meets to discuss all three evals and which is the critical failure in the deputy discourse. The scribe submits this discussion and justification of the best evaluation after making the video with the ULAB team. The utube video URL needs to be in the scribe report. The 25 pts is rated in the information each B/D gives about their eval and the scribes description of the “best” evaluation

Errors and state the error Help and explain the help The results can use a table like this (make sure you add the user’s discourse and the deputy’s discourse): Also: Understanding instances of signification – Misunderstandings instances of signification   Time to complete task Number of clicks Errors and state the error Help and explain the help Time spend using help Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Total

Errors in Semiotics Complete Failures (I) Global illocution Not consistent Global perlocution User aware (Ia) User unaware (Ib) Temporary Failures (II) Global Consistent User’s semiosis halted User reformulates illocution User studies deputy illocution Local illocution Local perlocution IIa IIb IIc Partial Failures (III) Local User does not understand deputy illocution Understands but fails to do expected

Categorization of communicability Interpreting Tagged User- system communication Logs

Generating the semiotic profile of designer-to-user metacommunication Semiotic profiling stage: Finalizes the communicability evaluation The designer’s message spelled out by evaluator “Who do I think are the users? “What have I learned about the users’ wants & needs? “Which do I think are these users’ preferences? “What system have I therefore designed for these users? “How can they use it? “What is my design vision?

Remember: the designer’s deputy’s discourse has 5 models: The domain model The user model The task model The interaction model The interface model