1. User-centered approaches to interaction design

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

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

6. 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 hours of usability testing.
internal use by Microsoft staff
customer support lines

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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?

12. 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?

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

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

19. 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

20. 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]

21. 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

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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Introducing evaluation

28. 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.

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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

34. 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

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

36. 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.

37. 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.