This project was completely new experience for me. I worked as a developer for over one year and I was involved a bit in designing process. But never in that way as during this project. I have never taken part in interview with client, also I never went through the whole design process like in case of this project. Also the user-centered design is new approach for me, now it seems to be so familiar to me, but few months ago it was not. Even when first time during the lecture that has been mentioned about user-centered approach I thought “It is so obvious. Why I have not heard of anyone using user-centered design”. I think the fact that I understand this approach is the most important and useful benefit from this course.
During the whole design process we used many methods which refer to user-centerd approach. It was great occasion for me to learn all this methods. Before this course I did not know that their even exist. Now I know that there are tools(design methods) which support the design process. I am sure that we did not discussed all user-centered methods, but it is not important. Much more important is that we started to create our design tool kit and put some tools(methods) to it. Now if I get know some new design methods I also add them to my tool kit. Now during the designing next system we can use one of the tools we already have. Important issue is to know when each tool best suit to which situation. During one lecture(Before our final evaluation with client we told during our presentation that we were going to conduct a pictive session with client. Roman than said that in this particular situation it is better to conduct walkthorugh with client instead pictive session. Because pictive session would move us back in design.) I realized that design process is not constant thing and designer should be able to react depending on situation. I think that now I am not able to decide properly which situation is best for which method, but I hope that I will get this knowledge with time and other projects.
About evaluation myself I think I have done everything as good as I was able to do. But of course now I can see something that can be done better. It was problem with interview with client, we were going to conduct a contextual interview but there were some problems with being "nosy" enough as it should be in contextual inquiry. Because the client was not interested in our work. She did us a favour so it was hard to be nosy all the time. Also I think we did not enough encourage customer to form his opinion, she was too passive. We of course get some feedback from the customer, but I think it is better if client is more critical and formulat more opinions and has more ideas. Besides that I suggest 5, because I did what I could.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Self evaluation
In our project we have used CI and PD methods. The interview was conducted using Contextual Inquiry methods. During the interview we conducted the contextual observation and tried our best to pay attention to all the details and ask many “why” questions. We allowed our clients to guide us and teach us her work. We took into consideration all the opinions and suggestions of our customer. I think that the recording of the interview was very effective. It allowed us to easily remember what the customer said. I think some things could have slipped away if we hadn’t recorded the interview. Also while doing the transcription I’ve noticed that there were more questions that we could have asked. The interview really required all our attention and focus. During the analysis of the data we used affinity diagram, work models and personas. Personally, I really liked the experience with affinity diagram. Designing a prototype was quite easy as the requirements were clear after the analysis.
It would have been nice if we had more contact with the customer and if the customer had a need for our application. I also think that our customer was a bit nervous because of the fact that she had to speak English. We could have included the user in the design of the prototype but we ended up designing a prototype that was fully accepted and liked by the customer.
I believe I did the best I could for this project. I have followed the directions and did everything on time. I had the motivation and I have eagerly engaged in all the tasks. I really enjoyed team work with Monika and Pawel. Both of them were initiative and eager to work. We worked on most of the tasks together. The division included mostly putting our work from paper into electronic format. Based on the above, I would suggest myself 5 and for my team mates 5’s as well.
MZL
It would have been nice if we had more contact with the customer and if the customer had a need for our application. I also think that our customer was a bit nervous because of the fact that she had to speak English. We could have included the user in the design of the prototype but we ended up designing a prototype that was fully accepted and liked by the customer.
I believe I did the best I could for this project. I have followed the directions and did everything on time. I had the motivation and I have eagerly engaged in all the tasks. I really enjoyed team work with Monika and Pawel. Both of them were initiative and eager to work. We worked on most of the tasks together. The division included mostly putting our work from paper into electronic format. Based on the above, I would suggest myself 5 and for my team mates 5’s as well.
MZL
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Self evaluation
What methods we did use:
At the beginning we created project plan, which included the initial data we had about the client, as well as our assumption and plans for the next stages. After that we used contextual inquiry methods to conduct the interview with our client. This way we got the necessary data to start the analyzing phase. For the analysis we used affinity diagrams. We created personas and work models. Finally we made out prototype, and in the process of pluralistic walkthrough we evaluated it with the client. Apart from that, in the end we did heuristic evaluation, to reveal possible, yet undiscovered faults. All the steps were done together, during meetings or over the Internet, so the workload was divided equally.
What was good:
I was really pleased when the client said she liked our prototype very much. She was emphasizing its simplicity, so it means we achieved our main goal - to keep it simple and intuitive. Our client was having no trouble with performing the actions.
What we could have done better:
I have the feeling that our end user did not have much influence on the final outlook of our prototype. Although the reason why we designed the prototype on our own was that it was said it should be as similar to the paper based one as possible, we actually made that assumption on our own and didn't discuss it with the client beforehand. Apart from that, there were also some things not present in the paper version, which we designed without consultation with the client. She also wasn't sure about many things, so in the end many of choices were made by us. We didn't encourage the user enough to share her ideas with us, to give more feedback and suggestions.
I think the reason was also that there were not many opportunities to meet with the client; it was also hard to conduct a real contextual inquiry, as we were not real company members, and the client was not really interested in buying the product - it was us who were interested in their help; so we were ofter discouraged to disturb too much in their work.
What I have learned:
First of all I got to know that there are many methods available for designing applications in user-centered way; some of them would even look silly for me (e.g. PICTIVE), and I was surprised first by the fact that they are actually used, and secondly that they are effective. It just seems that the most obvious solutions are the hardest to notice and consider. I am also glad to have learnt the idea of contextual interview, which again being so simple, gives such a good tool for understanding what are the user's needs. In case of complicated systems I think often it's the only way to understand the requirements well, otherwise our clients would have to be specialists themselves, able to write a detailed specification of what they need. But this is almost never the case.
Self-evaluation:
As all three of us did our best, and the work was divided equally, I think we all deserve 5's.
At the beginning we created project plan, which included the initial data we had about the client, as well as our assumption and plans for the next stages. After that we used contextual inquiry methods to conduct the interview with our client. This way we got the necessary data to start the analyzing phase. For the analysis we used affinity diagrams. We created personas and work models. Finally we made out prototype, and in the process of pluralistic walkthrough we evaluated it with the client. Apart from that, in the end we did heuristic evaluation, to reveal possible, yet undiscovered faults. All the steps were done together, during meetings or over the Internet, so the workload was divided equally.
What was good:
I was really pleased when the client said she liked our prototype very much. She was emphasizing its simplicity, so it means we achieved our main goal - to keep it simple and intuitive. Our client was having no trouble with performing the actions.
What we could have done better:
I have the feeling that our end user did not have much influence on the final outlook of our prototype. Although the reason why we designed the prototype on our own was that it was said it should be as similar to the paper based one as possible, we actually made that assumption on our own and didn't discuss it with the client beforehand. Apart from that, there were also some things not present in the paper version, which we designed without consultation with the client. She also wasn't sure about many things, so in the end many of choices were made by us. We didn't encourage the user enough to share her ideas with us, to give more feedback and suggestions.
I think the reason was also that there were not many opportunities to meet with the client; it was also hard to conduct a real contextual inquiry, as we were not real company members, and the client was not really interested in buying the product - it was us who were interested in their help; so we were ofter discouraged to disturb too much in their work.
What I have learned:
First of all I got to know that there are many methods available for designing applications in user-centered way; some of them would even look silly for me (e.g. PICTIVE), and I was surprised first by the fact that they are actually used, and secondly that they are effective. It just seems that the most obvious solutions are the hardest to notice and consider. I am also glad to have learnt the idea of contextual interview, which again being so simple, gives such a good tool for understanding what are the user's needs. In case of complicated systems I think often it's the only way to understand the requirements well, otherwise our clients would have to be specialists themselves, able to write a detailed specification of what they need. But this is almost never the case.
Self-evaluation:
As all three of us did our best, and the work was divided equally, I think we all deserve 5's.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Exam questions
I would suggest the following tasks:
Task 1
An owner of Art museum has decided to offer a pervasive educational mobile game that would enrich the visitors experience in the museum. He hired a design team that was supposed to design the game. In the game the players will be given basic information on the art pieces in the museum and then they will have to answer intriguing questions. The game can be played by juniors and seniors. The design team visited the museum owner’s office and performed contextual inquiry interview. After analyzing (affinity model, work models, personas) the data, the design team sketched a few low fidelity prototypes. Together with the owner, the design team discussed the pros and cons of each of the prototype and decided to go with one of them. After implementation of the game, the design team met with owner and tested the game in the museum.
What are two things that design team did very well from a user-centered design perspective and two things that they did wrong.
Good:
The team used different methods to gather and analyze the data;
The game was tested in the real environment;
Wrong:
They omitted the pervasiveness of the game;
The owner of the museum is not the real end user of the game.
Task 2
Answer if the following statements are true or false. Explain shortly your answer.
1.Contextual design’s encourages workers to make changes and suggestions and therefore become designers themselves.
Answer: False. In CD workers are encourage to make minor changes and suggestions but explicitly not to become designers themselves. It is workers job to do their job, not to design system.
2.The main idea behind low-fidelity prototype is usually to capture and assess the interface’s appearance.
Answer: False. Low-fidelity prototype is usually created to test broad concepts. It does not reflect the exact appearance or functionality of the system. Low-fidelity prototypes are meant to for capturing the ideas or directions need to be tested and discussed.
3.The typical master/apprentice relationship model gives too much power to the master
Answer: True. The designer may be discouraged to ask too many “why” questions. Therefore, the interviewer should create a partnership, not just apprenticeship.
4.Pluralistic walkthrough are the most informal method and involves usability specialists to go through each dialogue element and check if it follows established usability principles.
Answer: False. PW are meeting where users, developers and human factors people step through scenario, discussing each dialogue element.
5.PICTIVE is the best method for presenting the prototype to the user as it does not use computer technology which can be confusing to the non-technical users.
Answer: False. In some cases when rapid prototyping has been already done, PICTIVE can put the design team backwards instead of going forward.
Task 3
“The users don’t know what they want”
“The users knows what they want”
Which statement do you agree? Explain your choice.
In my opinion both statements are somehow true. The users know the environment and work and therefore they know what would suit to their environment. On the other hand, very often the users do not know how to express their needs and wishes and therefore it may seems to others that they do not know what they want.
Task 4.
What principles are violated in the following designs link
In the first design perceptual abilities of human cognition are violated. The layout of the compose mail is different than the in the standard programs and therefore the user may get confused. In the second design human visual attention and abilities of human memory are challenged. The user attention is distracted by too many elements. The elements are scattered all around which makes it more difficult to remember their position.
MZL
Task 1
An owner of Art museum has decided to offer a pervasive educational mobile game that would enrich the visitors experience in the museum. He hired a design team that was supposed to design the game. In the game the players will be given basic information on the art pieces in the museum and then they will have to answer intriguing questions. The game can be played by juniors and seniors. The design team visited the museum owner’s office and performed contextual inquiry interview. After analyzing (affinity model, work models, personas) the data, the design team sketched a few low fidelity prototypes. Together with the owner, the design team discussed the pros and cons of each of the prototype and decided to go with one of them. After implementation of the game, the design team met with owner and tested the game in the museum.
What are two things that design team did very well from a user-centered design perspective and two things that they did wrong.
Good:
The team used different methods to gather and analyze the data;
The game was tested in the real environment;
Wrong:
They omitted the pervasiveness of the game;
The owner of the museum is not the real end user of the game.
Task 2
Answer if the following statements are true or false. Explain shortly your answer.
1.Contextual design’s encourages workers to make changes and suggestions and therefore become designers themselves.
Answer: False. In CD workers are encourage to make minor changes and suggestions but explicitly not to become designers themselves. It is workers job to do their job, not to design system.
2.The main idea behind low-fidelity prototype is usually to capture and assess the interface’s appearance.
Answer: False. Low-fidelity prototype is usually created to test broad concepts. It does not reflect the exact appearance or functionality of the system. Low-fidelity prototypes are meant to for capturing the ideas or directions need to be tested and discussed.
3.The typical master/apprentice relationship model gives too much power to the master
Answer: True. The designer may be discouraged to ask too many “why” questions. Therefore, the interviewer should create a partnership, not just apprenticeship.
4.Pluralistic walkthrough are the most informal method and involves usability specialists to go through each dialogue element and check if it follows established usability principles.
Answer: False. PW are meeting where users, developers and human factors people step through scenario, discussing each dialogue element.
5.PICTIVE is the best method for presenting the prototype to the user as it does not use computer technology which can be confusing to the non-technical users.
Answer: False. In some cases when rapid prototyping has been already done, PICTIVE can put the design team backwards instead of going forward.
Task 3
“The users don’t know what they want”
“The users knows what they want”
Which statement do you agree? Explain your choice.
In my opinion both statements are somehow true. The users know the environment and work and therefore they know what would suit to their environment. On the other hand, very often the users do not know how to express their needs and wishes and therefore it may seems to others that they do not know what they want.
Task 4.
What principles are violated in the following designs link
In the first design perceptual abilities of human cognition are violated. The layout of the compose mail is different than the in the standard programs and therefore the user may get confused. In the second design human visual attention and abilities of human memory are challenged. The user attention is distracted by too many elements. The elements are scattered all around which makes it more difficult to remember their position.
MZL
Heuristic evaluation
The heuristic evaluation of our latest prototype
Tasks and components to be carried out by evaluators:
- Create a new booking
- Change a booking
- Cancel a booking
- Marked attendance (when giving pass)
- Move a person from waiting list to attendance list
- Change settings (delete old and add new class)
- List outlook
Heuristics to be evaluated:
1. Visibility of system status;
* if the main list is long, there should be some notification that the person had been added to the list; it could be done e.g. by scrolling the list to the point where new client had been added or by pop up window
* the title with day and time in the main window is too small;
* no title for the main window and for the settings window - the user may not know what is going on;
* user may not know what the arrow on the left edge means
2. Match between system and the real world;
* on the "back" button on the settings window there should be an information that no changes will be saved;
* the user may not know what the blue arrows in main window are for - they should be placed together with only the date;
* hints may be useful after placing mouse cursor above the buttons;
* "Done!" button perhaps should be called "Save" and "Back" should be called "Exit" or "Back to control panel"
3. User control and freedom;
* no undo function (especially after deleting a person from the list)
* in the setting page, user may want to save the changes but still stay on the setting page and currently it is not possible
* there is no option to leave the program
* there is no way of editing already added bookings.
* if the wrong booking has been removed from the waiting list, in some case it takes a lot of effort to fix it (For example when list is full and user removes the first booking by mistake).
4. Consistency and standards;
* Print button may mean that the user can print the whole page, not only the list
5. Error prevention;
* before changing the schedule by clicking "Done!" button maybe it is good to prompt for confirmation;
* confirmation before canceling the booking and moving the person from waiting list to the main list;
* confirmation when deleting a user
6. Recognition rather than recall;
* changing a booking may be problematic, as the user has to switch between two lists; a supporting function may be useful - e.g. a clipboard which stores last deleted name;
7. Flexibility and efficiency of use;
* there are no options to customize the view
8. Aesthetic and minimalist design;
* the clock may turn out to be unnecessary and unpractical (there is always a clock on task bar)
9. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors;
* there is no error messages
10. Help and documentation .
* there is no help; a short introduction function may be useful;
* Q&A could also be introduced
Tasks and components to be carried out by evaluators:
- Create a new booking
- Change a booking
- Cancel a booking
- Marked attendance (when giving pass)
- Move a person from waiting list to attendance list
- Change settings (delete old and add new class)
- List outlook
Heuristics to be evaluated:
1. Visibility of system status;
* if the main list is long, there should be some notification that the person had been added to the list; it could be done e.g. by scrolling the list to the point where new client had been added or by pop up window
* the title with day and time in the main window is too small;
* no title for the main window and for the settings window - the user may not know what is going on;
* user may not know what the arrow on the left edge means
2. Match between system and the real world;
* on the "back" button on the settings window there should be an information that no changes will be saved;
* the user may not know what the blue arrows in main window are for - they should be placed together with only the date;
* hints may be useful after placing mouse cursor above the buttons;
* "Done!" button perhaps should be called "Save" and "Back" should be called "Exit" or "Back to control panel"
3. User control and freedom;
* no undo function (especially after deleting a person from the list)
* in the setting page, user may want to save the changes but still stay on the setting page and currently it is not possible
* there is no option to leave the program
* there is no way of editing already added bookings.
* if the wrong booking has been removed from the waiting list, in some case it takes a lot of effort to fix it (For example when list is full and user removes the first booking by mistake).
4. Consistency and standards;
* Print button may mean that the user can print the whole page, not only the list
5. Error prevention;
* before changing the schedule by clicking "Done!" button maybe it is good to prompt for confirmation;
* confirmation before canceling the booking and moving the person from waiting list to the main list;
* confirmation when deleting a user
6. Recognition rather than recall;
* changing a booking may be problematic, as the user has to switch between two lists; a supporting function may be useful - e.g. a clipboard which stores last deleted name;
7. Flexibility and efficiency of use;
* there are no options to customize the view
8. Aesthetic and minimalist design;
* the clock may turn out to be unnecessary and unpractical (there is always a clock on task bar)
9. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors;
* there is no error messages
10. Help and documentation .
* there is no help; a short introduction function may be useful;
* Q&A could also be introduced
Exam questions (tasks 19-23)
NOTE: The answers are not based on any reliable source (just my head:p), so if someone is using this blog for studying, don't rely on them too much ;) and feel free to correct them of course.
- What is participatory design? What methods does it use? Give an example of a real situation in application development when you would use these methods and another situation when PD approach would not be adquate. In both cases explain why.
Participatory design is an approach to design, where the end users are involved actively in this process. This involvement is being achieved by bringing them to the designer's workplace and make them committed into the design process. The main reason of such approach is the aim to make the product suitable for these users, to make sure it will meet their needs and be usable for them. This is can shorten the time needed for production process, as less changes will have to be made to the product in the future (as long as the product is changeable, but in case of software engineering, it usually is). Another advantage is that the users will have the feeling that the product is partially their effort, and they are more likely to accept it and like it.
Participatory design uses several methods for revealing the user needs and designing. The main method is participatory workshop. During a workshop the users communicate and commit to shared goals, strategies and outcomes. This should be held in a neutral place. Brainstorming can help in generating new ideas during such session. A technique used during such session might be scenarios, that are descriptions about system's functions. The user can read them and refine if needed. This can be a trigger for conversation. Also interesting thing is games based on the scenarios, which play the same function of engaging the participants into conversation and exchanging ideas.
I think participatory design can be used in many applications, but as long as the end users are available and willing to participate in the design. Developing web social networks may be a good example where the participatory design can be effective method; however everywhere where we cannot reach the real end-users this method may turn out to be completely useless. - a) Describe what is interaction design and how it is related to used-centered design.
b) What is the difference between participatory design and contextual design approaches?
a) Interaction design is a wide term standing for the process of designing products that interact with the user; it focuses on how the interaction should look like to be the most effective. It tries to answer the question of how to design a product that is usable for the users.
User-centered design is one of ways of designing interactive products. It puts the user into the center of development process and rely on his opinion and knowledge about how the system should be like.
b) Both participatory design and contextual design are methods of user-centered design. But the difference between in the way of user's engagement into the process. In participatory design the users come to the designer's workplace and work with them. In contextual design the user is still important, but it is rather the designer coming to the user's workplace and just observing his work, discussing the things that are unclear to him. - What is contextual inquiry? Describe your own experiences you had while conducting the contextual interview. Did you notice something important? What have you learned during the interview about the design process?
Contextual design is a method of user-centered design for designing user interfaces. It includes observing and analyzing the user's work at his workplace. The process of observation and currently ongoing analysis is called contextual inquiry. It includes conventional interview with the user, observation phase during which we ask the user to do their job as usual, and wrap up which is to sum up the information the designer received and make sure he understood things properly. The recommended way of conducting the inquiry is staying in partnership relation with the client during the observation, keeping in mind to treat the user more like master who is teaching us his job than the one who we are teaching. The designer is allowed to interrupt (he should have informed the client about it in advance) and ask questions.
My experience with contextual inquiry was nothing special, as everything went well. I think it is good way of understanding the user's work, because then we can see it exactly being done. - What ways of evaluation of a prototype connected to user centered design do you know? Describe them, give examples.
During the course we have been talking about two ways of prototype evaluation: these were pluralistic walkthroughs and heuristic evaluation. The first method requires the users, and the second is done just among the designers' team.
In the pluralistic walkthrough we create scenarios beforehand, that describe basic functionalities of the system. After this we meet with the users, show them our prototype and ask them to go through the actions mentioned in the scenarios explaining what they are doing. This helps to check whether the user interface is well designed, if the users know what to do at a time, and so on.
The second method is more informal. First it requires defining tasks - basic system functionalities. After this each developer judges each funcion according to some criteria; there are 10 criterias given by Nielsen, e.g. visibility of system status, consistency and standards, error prevention, etc. Each team member writes down the errors they have found in each function and category. Then all the results are merged and the outcome encloses all the possible faults of the prototype.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Role of culture in Interaction design and UCD (task 17)
Culture plays significant role in human's cognition and perception, and therefore affects all fields of his activity. What implies from that, also it plays big role in design. The cultural aspects influence the end-users of our products. But it also has effect on the staff working in the company.
By term 'culture' we should not understand just nationality or region of origin. We can talk about culture meaning specific types of behaviour, ways of thinking and experiencing the world around us. People having common interests, doing similar jobs, can be regarded as a group having certain culture. Personally, being an exchange student and meeting people from different countries, I think I can say from my own experience, that the country of origin is not necessarily the most cruicial factor based on which we can say that particular group of people behaves and thinks different from some other group. I think that more important factor is what these people do in their lives, what are their goals, attitudes, interests, and so on..
Because UCD and IxD focus on the user, it is particularly important to take into account the cultural context. We should be aware of this factor while conducting for example a contextual interview, not to miss out something relevant, what may seem irrelevant to us. I think being conscious of existence of cultural constraints would help us a lot in designing a product that will be really usable for the user, which includes the product being intuitive and unambigious. Also this is especially significant in designing websites that should attract as many people as possible (within some certain target group).
By term 'culture' we should not understand just nationality or region of origin. We can talk about culture meaning specific types of behaviour, ways of thinking and experiencing the world around us. People having common interests, doing similar jobs, can be regarded as a group having certain culture. Personally, being an exchange student and meeting people from different countries, I think I can say from my own experience, that the country of origin is not necessarily the most cruicial factor based on which we can say that particular group of people behaves and thinks different from some other group. I think that more important factor is what these people do in their lives, what are their goals, attitudes, interests, and so on..
Because UCD and IxD focus on the user, it is particularly important to take into account the cultural context. We should be aware of this factor while conducting for example a contextual interview, not to miss out something relevant, what may seem irrelevant to us. I think being conscious of existence of cultural constraints would help us a lot in designing a product that will be really usable for the user, which includes the product being intuitive and unambigious. Also this is especially significant in designing websites that should attract as many people as possible (within some certain target group).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)