User-centered approaches to interaction design

Overview Why involve users at all? What is a user-centered approach? Understanding users’ work Coherence Contextual Design Participatory Design Involving users in design PICTIVE CARD ASAP is SAP’s approach to implementing R/3. It combines a method with support for applying the method successfully: tool support and support in the form of information and guidance. This information is available in the form of task descriptions which point you to the tools and other support available for a specific task, and also through internet links to a wider community of people experienced in implementing SAP software. Two main tools support ASAP: Implementation Assistant (the main tool and framework for ASAP) and Business Engineer. Implementation Assistant runs independently of R/3 while Business Engineer is an integral part of R/3. A third tool, called Concept Check Tool, also independent of R/3, is used in the quality assurance activities of the first two phases of ASAP.

Why involve users at all? Expectation management Realistic expectations No surprises, no disappointments Timely training Communication, but no hype Ownership Make the users active stakeholders More likely to forgive or accept problems Can make a big difference to acceptance and success of product ASAP is SAP’s approach to implementing R/3. It combines a method with support for applying the method successfully: tool support and support in the form of information and guidance. This information is available in the form of task descriptions which point you to the tools and other support available for a specific task, and also through internet links to a wider community of people experienced in implementing SAP software. Two main tools support ASAP: Implementation Assistant (the main tool and framework for ASAP) and Business Engineer. Implementation Assistant runs independently of R/3 while Business Engineer is an integral part of R/3. A third tool, called Concept Check Tool, also independent of R/3, is used in the quality assurance activities of the first two phases of ASAP.

Degrees of user involvement Member of the design team Full time: constant input, but lose touch with users Part time: patchy input, and very stressful Short term: inconsistent across project life Long term: consistent, but lose touch with users Newsletters and other dissemination devices Reach wider selection of users Need communication both ways Combination of these approaches

Grad av inflytande (Carmel et al) Konsultativ design designern observerar, intervjuar, tar beslut Representativ design Användaren deltar, tar del i besluten Konsensus design vetorätt

How Microsoft involves users Users are involved throughout development ‘activity-based planning’: studying what users do to achieve a certain activity (task) usability tests e.g. Office 4.0 over 8000 hours of usability testing. internal use by Microsoft staff customer support lines

What is a user-centered approach? User-centered approach is based on: Early focus on users and tasks: directly studying cognitive, behavioral, anthropomorphic & attitudinal characteristics Empirical measurement: users’ reactions and performance to scenarios, manuals, simulations & prototypes are observed, recorded and analysed Iterative design: when problems are found in user testing, fix them and carry out more tests

Early focus on users and tasks Users’ tasks and goals are the driving force behind the development Users’ behavior and context of use are studied and the product is designed to support them Users’ characteristics are captured & designed for Users are consulted throughout development, from earliest phases to the latest, and their input is seriously taken into account All design decisions are taken within the context of the user, their work and their environment

Understanding users’ work Understanding users’ work is significant Ethnography: from anthropology ‘writing the culture’ participant observation Difficult to use the output of ethnography in design

Framework for using ethnography in design “viewpoints” in the Coherence method Distributed co-ordination: distributed nature of the tasks & activities, and the means and mechanisms by which they are co-ordinated Plans and procedures: organisational support for the work, such as workflow models and organisational charts, and how these are used to support the work Awareness of work: how people keep themselves aware of others’ work

Coherence A method which offers appropriate questions to help address these key dimensions For example: Distributed Coordination: How is the division of labour manifest through the work of individuals and its co- ordination with others? Plans and procedures: How do plans and procedures function in the workplace? Awareness of work: How do the workers organize the space around them?

Coherence The theory defines 4 “Concerns”, which are kind of goals: Paperwork and computer work: How flexible is the technology at supporting the work process? Skill and the use of local knowledge: How is local knowledge used and made available? Spatial and temporal organization: Which aspects of work are time-dependent? Organizational memory: How well do formal records match the reality of how work is done?

Contextual Design - Holzbladh Developed to handle data collection and analysis from fieldwork for developing a software-based product Used quite widely commercially Contextual Design has seven parts: Contextual inquiry, Work modelling, Consolidation, Work redesign, User environment design, Mock-up and test with customers, Putting it into Practice

Contextual Design: Contextual Inquiry An approach to ethnographic study where user is expert, designer is apprentice A form of interview, but at users’ workplace (workstation) 2 to 3 hours long Four main principles: Context: see workplace & what happens Partnership: user and developer collaborate Interpretation: observations interpreted by user and developer together Focus: project focus to help understand what to look for

Contextual Design: Work Modeling In interpretation session, models are drawn from the observations: Work flow model: the people, communication and co-ordination Sequence model: detailed work steps to achieve a goal Artifact model: the physical ‘things’ created to do the work Cultural model: constraints on the system from organizational culture Physical model: physical structure of the work, e.g. office layout

Contextual Design: What are we looking for? A single statement of the customer’s work: Intent - the purpose or motive for accomplishing a task Strategy - a pattern for doing work Structure - an organization of the physical or social environment to support work Concepts - distinctions that help people think about their work and how to do it

Contextual Design: Consolidation Each contextual inquiry (one for each user/developer pair) results in a set of models These need to be consolidated into one view of ‘the work’ Affinity diagram Organizes interpretation session notes into common structures and themes Categories arise from the data Diagram is built through induction Work models consolidated into one of each type

Participatory Design (PD) Scandinavian history Emphasises social and organisational aspects Based on study, model-building and analysis of new and potential future systems

Participatory Design (how?Bödker) Designer observes, interviews (days) 2) Modelling I: Visualizing current workplace 3) Modelling II: Visualizing the possible workplace User learn about technology (prototypes) Future workshops (critics, fantasy, implementation) Organizational games (changed roles & communications) 4) Scenarios 5) Prototyping: presentation and evaluation of concrete options Action plan Embotying ideas Mock-up design Cooperative prototyping SIMULERING AV ARBETE

Benefits of Participatory Design “Computer-based systems that are poorly suited to how people actually work impose cost not only on the organisation in terms of low productivity but also on the people who work with them. Studies of work in computer-intensive workplaces have pointed to a host of serious problems that can be caused by job design that is insensitive to the nature of the work being performed, or to the needs of human beings in an automated workplace.” [Kuhn, S. in Bringing Design to Software, 1996]

The Activity Checklist Kaptelinin, Nardi, Macaulay Based on Activity Theory Design, evaluation versions Five principles from AT emphasized: Means/ends Environment Learning/cognition/articulation Development Tool mediation

PICTIVE Plastic Interface for Collaborative Technology Initiatives through Video Exploration Intended to empower users to act a full participants in design

PICTIVE (contd) Materials used are: Low-fidelity office items such as pens, paper, sticky notes Collection of (plastic) design objects for screen and window layouts Equipment required: Shared design surface, e.g. table Video recording equipment

PICTIVE (contd) Before a PICTIVE session: Users generate scenarios of use Developers produce design elements for the design session A PICTIVE session has four parts: Stakeholders all introduce themselves Brief tutorials about areas represented in the session (optional) Brainstorming of ideas for the design Walkthrough of the design and summary of decisions made

CARD Collaborative Analysis of Requirements & Design Similar to PICTIVE but at a higher level of abstraction: explores work flow not detailed screen design Uses playing cards with pictures of computers and screen dumps Similar structure to the session as for PICTIVE PICTIVE and CARD can be used together to give complementary views of a design

Summary User involvement helps manage users’ expectations & feelings of ownership A user-centered approach has three main elements: early focus on users, empirical measurement and iterative design Ethnography is useful for understanding work, but can be difficult to use in design Coherence and Contextual Design support the use of ethnographic data in design Participative design involves users taking an active part in design decisions CARD and PICTIVE are example techniques

Introducing evaluation

The aims Discuss how developers cope with real-world constraints. Explain the concepts and terms used to discuss evaluation. Examine how different techniques are used at different stages of development.

Two main types of evaluation Formative evaluation is done at different stages of development to check that the product meets users’ needs. Summative evaluation assesses the quality of a finished product. Our focus is on formative evaluation

What to evaluate Iterative design & evaluation is a continuous process that examines: Early ideas for conceptual model Early prototypes of the new system Later, more complete prototypes Designers need to check that they understand users’ requirements.

Bruce Tognazzini tells you why you need to evaluate “Iterative design, with its repeating cycle of design and testing, is the only validated methodology in existence that will consistently produce successful results. If you don’t have user-testing as an integral part of your design process you are going to throw buckets of money down the drain.” See AskTog.com for topical discussion about design and evaluation.

When to evaluate Throughout design From the first descriptions, sketches etc. of users needs through to the final product Design proceeds through iterative cycles of ‘design-test-redesign’ Evaluation is a key ingredient for a successful design.

Evaluating the 1984 OMS Early tests of printed scenarios & user guides Early simulations of telephone keypad An Olympian joined team to provide feedback Interviews & demos with Olympians outside US Overseas interface tests with friends and family. Free coffee and donut tests Usability tests with 100 participants. A ‘try to destroy it’ test Pre-Olympic field-test at an international event Reliability of the system with heavy traffic

Development of HutchWorld Many informal meetings with patients, carers & medical staff early in design Early prototype was informally tested on site Designers learned a lot e.g. - language of designers & users was different - asynchronous communication was also needed Redesigned to produce the portal version

Usability testing User tasks investigated: - how users’ identify was represented - communication - information searching - entertainment User satisfaction questionnaire Triangulation to get different perspectives

Findings from the usability test The back button didn’t always work Users didn’t pay attention to navigation buttons Users expected all objects in the 3-D view to be clickable. Users did not realize that there could be others in the 3-D world with whom to chat, Users tried to chat to the participant list.

Key points Evaluation & design are closely integrated in user-centered design. Some of the same techniques are used in evaluation & requirements but they are used differently (e.g., interviews & questionnaires) Triangulation involves using a combination of techniques to gain different perspectives Dealing with constraints is an important skill for evaluators to develop.