Design for families Rikard Harr November 2010

© Rikard Harr Outline Short on: Participatory design Short on: Ubiquitous computing and the modern household Applied user research, the two cases (descriptive) Group discussions Concluding remarks/Student comments

© Rikard Harr Participatory design An approach that includes all stakeholders in the design process Captures the cultural, emotional, spiritual and practical needs of users Origin in Scandinavia (1970) Political dimension, user empowerment and democratisation Degree of participation varies, the US and European school Challenged today

© Rikard Harr Ubiquitous computing and the modern household UbiComp –A model of human-computer interaction –Information-processing as integrated into everyday objects and activities –Seamless integration of technologies New challenges Extension of computer power calls for new understanding

© Rikard Harr The modern household UbiComp technology in use –Cellular phones, wireless networks, media centers –The future household Need for extended understanding, thus AUR

© Rikard Harr Applied user research, the two cases Between the dazzle… (Rodden et al. 2004) –Want to help users to manage the introduction and arrangement of new interactive services and devices in the home –Focus on the interplay between Space-plans and Stuff in terms of interaction –New technology will be situated within the two, thus their relation becomes important LINC-ing the Family… (Neustaedter and Brush, 2006) –Want to help families in coordinating everyday life –Focus on technological support for family coordination Both are influenced by participatory design Both targets a new use domain

© Rikard Harr The procedure: Between the Dazzle Consulting previous ethnographic studies –Show how people continuosly exploit and reconfigure Space-plan and Stuff –The ecological character of technology use, three components –Placement, technologies are situated at functional sites –Assembly, technologies are interlinked

© Rikard Harr The procedure: Between the Dazzle The Component model –A physical jigsaw editor was created –Various devices can be combined in different ways by users –Familiar, easy, not loaded with existing interpretations –Construction of arrangements

© Rikard Harr The procedure: Between the Dazzle Aim: to evaluate the jigsaw-approach and to capture what sorts of devices that might fit into real homes and how –Focused user workshops –Paper-based mock-up approach/situated evaluation –Initial seed scenarios –Several pieces of jigsaw pieces were made available –Users combined pieces –Video recording –Analysis

© Rikard Harr Reflections Users take an active part in the design –Users want to interleave old and new technology –Homes are interleaved with outer activities The importance of using low-fidelity prototypes The benefits of grouding current research in previous

© Rikard Harr LINC, An Inkable Digital Family Calendar Focus on family coordination Develop the LINC calender Background –Family life involves myriads of activities –Extends beyond the home –Activities must be coordinated –Paper calendars aren’t available outside of home and are not easily synchronized –Existing digital calenders excludes family coordination

© Rikard Harr Ambition Design a calender that match existing domestic routines Unite the flexibility of paper calenders with the ability to make it digital in a later step

© Rikard Harr Development of LINC Outline design principles based on previous work, a family calender: –Should be designed as a simple awareness appliance –Must be flexible in order to support a variety of domestic routines –Should provide tools for coordination –Should support contextual locations

© Rikard Harr Participatory design process Selection of respondents –Searched for a diverse group –Age (11), (9) etc. –No secondary users were involved Low-fidelity prototyping design sessions –Interviews on current calender use with 10 users –Performing a series of coordination and awareness tasks –A researcher acted as computer –Video recording and note taking –Concluded by discussion and recommended changes –Refining the design Medium-fidelity prototyping design sessions –Same procedure as above, but different prototype

© Rikard Harr Key findings of current use Various calender types were used, often in combination Calenders are placed in high traffic locations Calenders only leave their location in case of substantial planning People check their calenders once or twice a day Participants were possessive of ”their” calenders What is scheduled differ, recurrent posts, start and end times, location, names or initials, colour use Events sometimes come in through , requiring ”copy and paste” Separate sheets of paper, sticky notes

© Rikard Harr Paper prototype

© Rikard Harr Digital prototype

© Rikard Harr The LINC system

© Rikard Harr Group discussions What is so challenging with designing for families? Which are the main shortcomings, in your opinion, with the way that ”they” captured user data? How could data gathering have been done differently? What difference would it have made?

© Rikard Harr Concluding remarks Both studies adressed the context of family life Both studies made use of ethnographic research Both involved users in the design process Both made use of low-fidelity prototypes Alternative approaches? Questions? Comments?