Interaction design. D. Murray. CO Chapter 8: Interaction Design and new technologies. J.C.R. Licklider: musicmarkup.info?id= 3. What is Interaction Design? 4. Why is Interaction Design Important? 6. IxD and UX. 7. IxD and UI. 8. The 5 elements of interaction Design Language. 9. Copy. PDF | This book covers the design, evaluation and development process for State transition diagram for the interaction design of a CD player.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||25.48 MB|
|PDF File Size:||19.39 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
grounds studying classes in human-computer interaction, interaction design, web We use both the textbook and the web to teach about interaction design. Interaction design (IxD) and human computer goals and principles of interaction design musicmarkup.info .pdf. Interaction Design and the User Experience. Interview with Harry Brignull. Chapter 2: Understanding and Conceptualizing Interaction. Introduction.
A basic representation of activity. The structure of an instrumental act Vygotsky a. The hierarchical structure of activity. The domain-centered model of computer-mediated learning. Learner-centered design. Activity-centered design.
Welcome back. Reeves and Naas found it is helpful to use praise in educational settings when people do something right. People hate when a computer character shakes their finger at them and says "you can do better than that. Try again. They can be used on the web. Lets get started again. Which is more preferable?
Developing a product must begin with gaining understanding of what is required of it. It increased students willingness to continue working. The Process of Interaction Design The ultimate goal of design is to develop a product that helps its users achieve their goals. They can add a human feel to the system. The goals of this chapter are to: It's nice to see you again.
In this case. Virtual Characters virtual characters are becoming more common. Develop alternative designs that meet those requirements. Criteria are: Is the product fit for the purpose? Specific usability and user experience goals. Design is also about trade-offs and about balancing conflicting requirements. Evaluate the designs measure their acceptability. In Interaction Design. Generating alternatives is a key principle and one that should be encouraged in interaction.
Physical design: Four Basic Activities: The users' concerns direct the development rather than technical concerns. What kind of support will the interactive product provide? Conceptual design: Who is the target user? Build interactive versions so that they can be communicated and assessed. Alternatives are considered at every point.
Identify needs and establish requirements. Designers are trained to consider alternatives. Humans stick to what they know works. Innovation rarely emerges whole and ready to go. We need to examine existing task Activity Theory? How do you generate alternative designs? It is always necessary to revise ideas in light of feedback. Then we can envision the task being done in a new way scenarios. Who are the users? Some suggestions: Appropriate support? Task coverage.
How do you choose among alternative designs? Iteration is inevitable because designers never get the solution right the first time Practical Issues in Interaction Design: What do we mean by "needs"? There are four basic activities in the interactive design process: This is bad because there is no iteration.
A system or partial system must be delivered on a set of intervals. Users cannot evaluate prototypes Spiral model: Develop [re]design alternative designs that meet those requirements 3. Identify needs and establish requirements 2. This is helpful for those with little experience. You can move from one activity to another easily.
All activities are highly interconnected. Performance measurements? How safe? Which functions are superfluous? How long does a novice take to learn?
High learning curve? How log to remember how to perform common tasks? Lifecycle Models: Showing how the activities are related. Alternatives are considered and encouraged. Build interactive versions of the designs so that they can be communicated and assessed 4. Evaluation is central to this model Usability Engineering Lifecycle model: Three phases: Before you can begin to establish requirements.
Involve users early in the design process and evaluation of the artifact 2. Prototyping is a useful technique for facilitating user feedback on designs at all stages. Iteration is inevitable Key characteristics of the interaction design process are explicit incorporation of user involvement. Produce a stable set of requirements How can we do this?
Data gathering activities Data analysis activities Expression as 'requirements' All of this is iterative Why bother getting it right? Identifying Needs and Establishing Requirements This chapter talks about different ways to gather requirements by introducing: Lifecycle models show how development activities relate to one another.
Understand as much as possible about users. The interaction design process is complementary to lifecycle models from other fields. Usability criteria. Looking at others' designs provides useful inspiration and encourages designers to consider alternative design solutions.
Because of this. What are the organizational hierarchy. Data requirements: What kind of data needs to be stored. What are the social sharing of files. IT department's attitude. What do users 'need'? Requirements need clarification. Interaction Design 18 of 40 http: Types of requirements: Functional requirements: User requirements: Who are they? Interaction Design 19 of 40 http: The above techniques differ in the amount of time. Some people. The system prompts user for the names of attendees.
Perhaps the system could email them automatically and ask that it be confirmed before it is written in. The user chooses the option to arrange a meeting. The system checks that the list is valid. If the list of people is invalid. The user types in a list of names. The system emails all the meeting participants informing them of them appointment Alternative courses for a shared calendar: Some alternative courses: The user chooses one of the dates.
The system searches the calendars for a date that satisfies the constraints. If no potential dates are found. Example Use Case Diagram for a shared calendar: Example Essential Use Case for a shared calendar: Task Analysis: The user types in meeting constraints. The system prompts the user for meeting constraints.
The system writes the meeting into the calendar. The system displays a list of potential dates. Interaction Design 22 of 40 http: In order to borrow a book from the library 1. Borrowing a book from the library 0. If book not identified do 2. These are grouped as plans which specify how the tasks might be performed in practice HTA focuses on physical and observable actions. Example HTA Graphical: Getting requirements right is crucial There are different kinds of requirements.
Prototyping and Construction This chapter will cover: Visual Basic. Flow of Interaction Design: Evaluation and feedback are central to interaction design stakeholders can see. Task analysis techniques such as HTA help to investigate existing systems and practices top Chapter 8: Which interaction mode?
How much structure does it provide? How much is relevant to the problem? Is it easy to represent? Will the audience understand it? How extensible is it? Conceptual Design: Which interaction paradigm? Is there a suitable metaphor? Two types of compromise: Interface metaphors combine familiar knowledge with new knowledge in a way that will help the user understand the product.
How long will menu be? In what order? What categories will group menu items? How will division of items be denoted?
How many menus? What terminology will be used? Offer error prevention and simple error handling to err is human. What functions will the product perform? What will the product do and what will the human do? Sequential or Parallel?
How are they categorized? What information needs to be available? What data is required to perform the task? How is this data to be transformed by the system?
Using them for Conceptual Design. Be consistent 2. Offer informative feedback meaningful error messages 4. Design dialogs to yield closure like when you complete a task 5. Support internal locus of control user feels in control 8. Nielsen's heuristics see Chapter 1 Shneiderman's eight golden rules: Interaction Design 25 of 40 http: Permit easy reversal of actions 'undo' button 7. Reduce short-term memory load less info to remember between screens style guides commercial.
Enable frequent users to use shortcuts 3. So users feel ownership: Microsoft involves users by 'activity based planning' studying users doing tasks. Describe some participative design techniques that help users take an active part in design decisions.
Explain the main principles of a usercentered approach. To manage their expectations: Describe some ethnographicbased methods aimed at understanding users' work. Split screen? How much white space? Draw attention to the focus point. Often in conceptual design some detailed issues come up in the iterations..
Different kinds of prototyping are used for different purposes and at different stages Prototypes answer questions. The important part is that in the conceptual design that we don't get tied to physical constraints early as they will inhibit creativity and limit our options.
Explain some advantages of involving users in development.
Distributed coordination: How is the division of labor manifested through the work of individuals and its coordination with others?
Plans and procedures: How do plans and procedures function in the workplace? Awareness of work: How does the spatial organization of the workplace facilitate interaction between workers and with the objects they use? Contextual Design: User-centered approach is based on: Early focus on users and tasks: Design is concerned with abstraction and rationalization. Ethnography Ethnography stems from anthropology. Framework for using ethnography in design: Four main principles of contextual inquiry are: Work Modeling: In interpretation sessions.
Scandinavian background emphasizes social and organizational aspects. It is a form of interviewing.
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. Five models are: Work flow model: Intended to empower users to act as full participants in design Materials used are: Low-fidelity office items such as pens.
Interaction Design 28 of 40 http: Contextual Inquiry: Aspects to user involvement include: Who will represent the user community? Interaction may need to be assisted by a facilitator Shared representations Co-design using simple tools such as paper or video scenarios Designers and users communicate about proposed designs Cooperative evaluation such as assessment of prototypes Benefits of Participatory Design: 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 and Design.
Interaction Design 29 of 40 http: Introducing Evaluation What. Goals of this chapter: Why and When to Evaluate. Consider a website application for booking theatre or cinema tickets online a Think about how you would design such a site.
This exercise is to be done in pairs. Shared design surface.. Reduced time to market. An Evaluation Framework Goals of this chapter: Formative Evaluation and Summative Evaluation 1. Formative Evaluation: Summative Evaluation: Engineers code instead of debating. The beliefs and the methods associated with them are called evaluation paradigms.
These beliefs are often supported by a theory. Interviews and Questionnaires Asking experts their opinions is inexpensive and quick Testing users' performance ch. Data is used to calculate performance times. Asking users their opinions ch. Evaluation Techniques: Observing users ch. This can help to: There are four main evaluation paradigms discussed: Emphasis is on fast input to the design process rather than carefully documented findings. Usability Testing: Interaction Design 31 of 40 http: As the users perform the tasks they are watched and recorded on video.
Field Studies: Explore the specific questions to be addressed break down into subquestionse. Need to consider reliability. Observing Users The goals of this chapter: They can help make sure the study is viable. Practical issues. A framework to guide evaluation Determine the goals the evaluation addresses what. Observation in Usability Testing: Observation in Field Studies: Evaluators can temporarily join a group to observe. Data collection: Observers can watch through one-way mirror or on remote TV screen.
Often data collection and analysis happen simultaneously in ethnographic study. In activity theory, the operational level is one of three linked levels in the activity hierarchy, not an isolated insight. Another example closer to home is that of GOMS models, which resemble the activity hierarchy but lack an activity level and the possibility of dynamic changes between levels that are part of activity theory.
We hope to encourage a holistic reading of activity theory and a cognizance of the way concepts weave together into a patterned whole. Some of the power of activity theory lies in the way it ties insights into larger wholes to provide a clarifying framework for the bigger picture. In this book we advocate and evaluate the continued development of activity theory as a basis for understanding how people act with technology. We also want to understand the fundamentals of our human relationship with technology.
These designs and understandings will 8 Chapter 1 include the usual activities that we know as the practice of interaction design, but may also stretch to less familiar projects involving how we act with technology, such as analyzing the impact of technologies on the environment or understanding the role of technology in viewing our spiritual relation to the cosmos.
Though such projects may appear beyond the scope of interaction design, the technologies we design inevitably have major impacts in these arenas. If we are to continue to deepen our understanding of what it means to act with technology, such concerns will impinge on, and sometimes become central to, our labors. Activity theory seeks to understand the unity of consciousness and activity.
It is through the exercise of these capacities in everyday activities that we develop; indeed this is the basis of our very existence. Traditional cognitive science attends to representations, casting them as entities that can be modeled equally well for computers as humans.
Freudian explanations focus on a small set of early social relations with parents and family. Activity theory proposes that consciousness is realized by what we do in everyday practical activity. In many cultures, children learn math from their teacher who explains numbers and arithmetic operations to them, and encourages and motivates them.
The children may also consult more experienced peers.
Once the child has mastered the facts of arithmetic, the cal- Introduction 9 culation shifts to what activity theorists call the internal plane of actions, and the math is done in the head. Most theories miss these aspects, or see only one—perhaps the teacher, or the way the problem is represented on paper. In activity theory it is the doing of the activity in a rich social matrix of people and artifacts that grounds analysis.
This insight was expressed thousands of years ago in Eastern thought. In speaking to Vasettha, Buddha described the primacy of activity in human life: One is not a brahmin by birth, Nor by birth a non-brahmin. By action is one a brahmin, By action is one a non-brahmin. So that is how the truly wise See action as it really is. Seers of dependent origination, Skilled in actions and its results.
Action makes the world go round Action makes this generation turn. Living beings are bound by action Like the chariot wheel by the pin. Here the poet intimates the close link between human action and the technologies that support it.
We have found the principles of activity theory to be of help as we consider our own chariot wheels and how we design and use them. For several years we have advocated activity theory as a framework for thinking about human activity as it is expressed in the use of technology Nardi , , a; Kaptelinin ; Kaptelinin, Nardi, and Macaulay ; Bannon and Kaptelinin We have been drawn to activity theory because of certain of its tenets that are encapsulated in the notion of people acting with technology.
We live in an ever increasingly designed world, furnished with technologies at every turn. Despite the clearly intentional nature of the act of design—behind every design there is an intention—many of our theories lack a concept of intentionality.
In acting with technology, people deliberately commit certain acts with certain technologies. Such a mild statement, seemingly devoid of theoretical freight, is in fact at odds with theories such as actor-network theory and distributed cognition. These approaches posit a sociotechnical network whose generalized nodes are actors that can be either human or artifact.
Such actors represent states that move through a system—whether the actor be a pencil or a person. Intentionality is not a property of these generalized nodes. Activity theory distinguishes between people and things, allowing for a discussion of human intentionality. More broadly speaking, activity theory posits an asymmetry between humans and things—our special abilities to cognize through interactions with people and artifacts are distinctive from any sort of agency we could sensibly ascribe to artifacts.
In activity theory people act with technology; technologies are both designed and used in the context of people with intentions and desires. People act as subjects in the world, constructing and instantiating their intentions and desires as objects. Activity theory casts the relationship between people and tools as one of mediation; tools mediate between people and the world. Introduction 11 Another principle of activity theory is the notion of development.
Activity theory shares the commitment of the cultural-historical school of psychology because of its commitment to understanding how human activity unfolds over time in a historical frame. Activity theory takes the long view: we cannot understand activity if we do not watch it cycle, grow, change.
It would be desirable to establish a practice of design in which the development of users—their ability to grow and change with technology—is of paramount importance. In activity theory, development is a sociocultural process, but the individual is not reduced to society or culture. The dialogical nature of processes of internalization— externalization makes it possible for individuals to transform culture through their activity. As a psychological theory, activity theory has always had a strong notion of the individual, while at the same time understanding and emphasizing the importance of the sociocultural matrix within which individuals develop.
These processes take place in part within individuals as people have the capacity to radically restructure cultural conceptions, transcending culture in unpredictable ways. Technological creativity is rooted in our primate past. For example, capuchin monkeys have been observed using sticks to reach food Beck The great apes, especially chimpanzees, have more sophisticated tool capabilities.
In the wild, chimps may use assemblages of anvils and hammers to crack tough nuts Mercader, Panger, and Boesch An individual animal in its own well-known environment can suddenly recognize a solution to a problem, and come to see an object as a tool for some useful purpose. How does grounding our theory in a concept of intentionality and the asymmetry of people and things, as well as a strong notion of development, help us as interaction designers?
For example, the adoption of approaches such as participatory design and contextual design are responses to the larger problem of addressing the gap between the intentions of designers and the intentions of users. The design of agent-based user interfaces, which seek to enact high-level intentions while sparing users the details, is one approach to bringing intentions into the user interface. The current state of designing and using information technologies in education also clearly indicates the importance of taking intentionality into consideration.
There has been a growing realization that to have a positive impact on education, technologies should be designed to support purposeful actions of the human actors involved in everyday educational practices Gifford and Enyedy Today, because technologies change more rapidly and work groups are less stable, we cannot be as sanguine about the role of local experts in the ecology of a given work setting.
If a historical developmental perspective frames our view, we cannot merely hope for the adoption of the technologies we intentionally design; we must consider wider impacts.
Wireless devices, including cell phones, pagers, PDAs, pocket PCs, portable email readers, and mp3 music players, are being manufactured by the billions. Yet we have not designed or implemented adequate means of handling the wastes they release. As designers, how do we respond to these realities?
While such a move might seem an unmanageable increase in the scope of our efforts, other disciplines have adopted these concerns as part of their practice. When our theories reveal intentionality and historical development as visible theoretical constructs, we are more likely to entertain conversations about long-term effects than if our theories conceal them.
Miettinen noted that understanding the historical development of human consciousness is needed to make sense of the relations between humans and their environment.
Activity theory opens up avenues of discussion concerning human interaction with technology and potentially can be fruitful in encouraging participation in conversations about the larger global concerns that the deployment of our technologies unquestionably affects. If we are acting with technology, both possibilities and responsibilities expand.
The object of this book is to stimulate further discussion of the theoretical basis for understanding how people act with technology. In this chapter we analyze the need for theory by discussing the impact of cognitive theory on interaction design and the challenge mounted against the cognitivist approach by the situated action perspective growing out of ethnomethodology.
We suggest practical reasons for developing and using theory in interaction design. HCI adopted the information-processing paradigm of computer science as the model for human cognition. A burst of immense creativity, much of it at Xerox PARC, delivered the graphical user interface, a novel, usable framework for user interaction. The methods of experimental cognitive science were applied to improving graphical user interfaces Johnson et al.
Despite this success, challenges to the cognitive paradigm began to appear as early as the mids. The limitations of the traditional information-processing paradigm were demonstrated in seminal books by Winograd and Flores and Suchman By the early 16 Chapter 2 s, these limitations were acknowledged in the mainstream HCI community see Kuutti Suchman proposed instead that the resources of the immediate situation shape human action.
People are improvisatory. Computer programs may follow algorithms, but people do not. A major clearing of the air had taken place. The work in situated action had developed from an unusually rebellious antitheoretical branch of sociology known as ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodologists argue that orderliness is enacted as people draw on resources in their environments, resources with which to improvise meaningful action.
Despite an innovative research program, ethnomethodology was a completely renegade activity within academic sociology. They even discouraged students from reading such theorizing see Lynch This rejection pushed ethnomethodology into a radical antitheory position, where much of it remains today.
One answer comes from anthropology. Anthropology has turned to distinctly theoretical pursuits. Though new squabbles have been launched, they are played out within sophisticated theoretical arenas. Mainstream sociology also rejected description as an end in itself. Thus atheoretical accounts that substitute description for theory face the same obstacles that positivism created for itself.
Lacking a theoretical compass, there is no way to know where to begin. Antitheory such as ethnomethodology struggles with its own contradictions. The very idea of the orderliness of human conduct is itself an abstraction. Human conduct might be studied as chaotic, or as swinging between order and disorder, or as order within chaos. All observation is a view from somewhere. The ethnomethodological theory of conversation has produced a set of well-documented rules characterizing orderly conversations, such as turn-taking, repair, and back-channeling.
As it is actually practiced, then, an important area of ethnomethodology has embraced just that which it set out to reject—accounts of general rules and principles of action. These accounts have, over the years, become more and more technical, documenting in minute quantitative detail the techniques by which conversations are managed. Not many can carry it off. Beyond the struggle to write well, what can we say about the status of accounts from the situated action perspective?
This model places the real-time, real-space activities of social actors—embodied actions—before abstractions or theoretical accounts of them. A model must not, however, be confused with the embodied actions themselves.
We have only the menu and do not want to suppose it is the meal. The call to place embodied actions before abstractions summons precisely this confusion, a confusion that dwells uneasily beneath the surface of ethnomethodological accounts. The account cannot be coterminous with the lived experience. The actions and practices have come and gone with the passage of time. We have only representations, which of necessity are abstractions.
We fashion these representations to the best of our ability, but inescapably shape them with our viewpoints, perspectives, constructs, and theories in doing so.
We use lexicons and models to explicate what we think we have understood. Ethnomethodologists themselves do not get by without lexicons and models. This statement expresses the contradictions of ethnomethodology but does little to clarify matters. At the beginning of the sentence it is made clear that ethnomethodology is about order in society. Ethnomethodologists themselves have suggested that ethnomethodology has had a limited practical impact on interaction design because of what Button and Dourish called the paradox of technomethodology: Given the concern with the particular, with detail, and with the momentto-moment organization of action, how can ethnomethodology be applied to the design of new technology?
Certainly, ethnomethodologists have urged that designers take into account the methods and actions through which social action, interaction, and categories of work are organized; but in the face of the unavoidable transformational nature of technology and system design in working settings, it would seem that ethnomethodology becomes relatively powerless.
The critique of the cognitivist paradigm was fruitful in encouraging new lines of investigation and in helping interaction design move toward a wider range of accepted pursuits such as the inclusion of social and organizational factors in human—computer interaction and computer-supported collaborative work Grudin ; Bannon ; Carroll , Ethnomethodologically inspired research helped to extend the scope of interaction design and chart new territories of inquiry with thoughtful empirical studies.
This seems an innovative and potentially useful application of ethnomethodology. This commitment to respecting those we study and their deep understandings of their own practice is critical as we develop technologies that often dramatically alter those practices.
Why exactly are we searching for a postcognitivist theory for interaction design? In this section we discuss some practical reasons for theory in interaction design.
Most broadly speaking, theory forms community through shared concepts. While we will never achieve perfect communal unity in vocabulary and concepts and would not want to , without some theoretical connective tissue we cannot speak to one another Carroll We cannot merely relate accounts of endless detail with no summarizing, shaping, transforming tools at hand. We need the power to compare, abstract, and generalize. Theory also helps us make strategic choices about how to proceed Halverson The results of comparing, abstracting, and generalizing will always be provisional and mutable, but they will attain enough recognizable form that we can take stock and prepare for the next step.
Theory gives voice to multiple points of view by inviting—or rather demanding—critiques, revisions, and reformulations. To eschew theory is to endorse a unitary point of view in which a single activity becomes a closed endgame.
To move forward, to know where to invest our energies, we have need of theory. Otherwise we will always be going back to the square one of detailed renderings of particular cases. As interesting as the cases might be, we have no way of assessing whether they are typical, whether they are important exceptions to which we should pay particular attention, or if they are corner cases we do not have time for at the moment see Kaptelinin We cannot discuss trends or look for commonalities across cases that could help us determine where to place our bets.
Miettinen observed that positivistic empiricism was hobbled by a lack of theory. We believe that theoretical frameworks will facilitate productive cooperation between social scientists and software designers. The adoption of activity theory approaches by software designers is evident in work such as that of Barthelmess and Anderson , Collins, Shukla, and Redmiles , Fjeld et al.
Science and theory succeed because they attain desired objects often enough to keep the activity moving forward. The cognitivist approach is based on a well-developed and highly structured conceptual framework that allows for generalizable models.
These models are relatively easy to convert to design. However, the scope of the approach is too narrow; as discussed earlier, it ignores many issues critically important to interaction design. In our view, the history of conceptual developments in interaction design suggests that the search for an adequate theoretical foundation should be carried out somewhere in the middle of the territory marked by these extremes of cognitive science and ethnomethodology.
Figure 2. The arenas in which we believe we will get the most leverage from theory are those involving complex systems with multiple actors and objects.