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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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

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

9. User’s Goal: Need to have an alternative signature

10. Hunting..
Communicability

11. 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?

12. What is the designer’s deputy for signature options?

13. The Discourse Speech acts performed by User and designer’s deputy
Review page 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)

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Categorization of communicability
Interpreting Tagged User- system communication Logs

19. 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?

20. 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