User Experience Design - Science topic

Good morning Miss Nemati

My name is ana abasolo from madrid spain I am Phd in artchitecture and Design I send u my portfolio with a Collegue in case you are interested T would be pleased to share my papers from my research groupe witrh you

my mail is ana.abasolo@universidadeuropea.es

No I don't.

I'm so sorry.

There is more links to help you;

Does it have to be a software app? An alternative would be to do this within HTML. It would not be too challenging for your student to create a basic HTML page using javascript to accomplish what you are looking for. Furthermore, if you are at a University you could probably have someone in IT or a student set this up on a University server.

it is an interesting case. its seems you would need buy in from architects as well. that is why qualitative research may help. the research too would form a platform others can build on.

If your work addresses the luminous or visual aspect of space design, you may wish to consult publications by John Flynn, who pioneered work related to the perceptual/psychological effects of light in spaces. A good summary with citations to his and other work is online at: https://www.informedesign.org/_news/feb_v02-p.pdf

In my experience the most accurate technology is UWB. RSSI based systems are not so accurate.

What you described is definitely is NOT a card-sorting exercise. I would not describe it as such.

It sounds like you were doing an exploration usability test. Did you have any tasks you asked users to perform? Were you measuring task success? If so, that would be a performance test. 

What you described also seems like a contextual inquiry methodology. I'd have to know more details to give you a definitive answer.

IMHO, the phrase 'content analysis' is more encompassing  than 'thematic analysis.'  So it might be safer to call it a 'content analysis'.

Hi Mary! So what you are doing right now seems to be a content analysis with emerging coding, where you look at what is being said and aggregate codes into categories. You look at the data and try to identify important or interesting stuff. You could alternatively do a-priory coding, with defined categories, and look at the distribution of replies and comments in relation to these. You can also combine the forms of coding. This form of simple content analysis where one look at frequencies of distributions and categories is common in our field.

Thanks Stephan! I will check it out and let you know if I have any questions. 

All the best,

Raphael

Related to Mr. Rahim's comment, but more general, is the issue of user control and training.  It is often not clear what the controls of the chair do, resulting in trial and error.  Training may be provided to the first user, but what about the second user?  Some chairs have well labeled controls, but most do not.  Some have quick reference cards attached via a chain, but some do not.  Further, the controls may be marked, but not visible when you are sitting in the chair as they are blocked from view by the seat pan.  That is another reason why the Aeron chair was such a breath of fresh air, because you could adjust it easily and know what you were doing mostly while you were sitting on it.

There is a lot of work in this area, although much of it is in the form of disparate design case studies rather than focused research programs. Two examples of design cases are: 

Veerasawmy, Rune, and Ole Sejer Iversen. "Bannerbattle: introducing crowd experience to interaction design." Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design. ACM, 2012.

Or.. Particularly..

Woźniak, Paweł, et al. "RUFUS: Remote Supporter Feedback for Long-Distance Runners." Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM, 2015.

Good luck with your thesis!

The difference lies in the focus of the person-product relationship - the elements of the experience that relate to having purchased the product (finding out about it, packaging, warranty, service and repair, end-of-life, etc) are customer experience, whereas those that relate to getting something done with the product are user experience. The customer may often not be the user and the user is very often not the customer.

There is clearly plenty of scope for overlap (which is a large part of the reason for user experience having been defined) but at the same time it is a big mistake to think of them as equivalent.

Hi Luca,

I can suggest two articles that were part of a special issue that I edited. I hope they are useful.

 Ann Heylighen & Jasmien Herssens (2014) Designerly Ways of Not Knowing:What Designers Can Learn about Space from People Who are Blind, Journal of Urban Design, 19:3, 317-332, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2014.890042

 Veerle Cox, Marleen Goethals, Bruno De Meulder, Jan Schreurs & Frank Moulaert (2014) Beyond Design and Participation: The ‘Thought for Food’ Project in Flanders, Belgium, Journal of Urban Design, 19:4, 412-435, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2014.923742

best wishes,

A

Caroline, there may be some value in comparing results of another objective reviewer of the transcripts. From that you can compare overlap and get an interrater reliability measure that may provide some assurance to your committee that there are others who at least somewhat agree with your list.  If there  is no agreement, you may want to consider what that other objective reviewer of the transcripts is saying. They should, in advance of reviewing, have some level of expertise, or you may consider training them (or having someone else train them) until they are competent to evaluate the transcripts. 

In terms of other researchers who have some related experience, I would encourage you to consider seeing research of Jesse Crosson (on ResearchGate; was at New Jersey School of Medicine and Dentistry, now at Princeton Health and has experience with Medical Informatics). 

You may also see the research articles from Mihaela Vorvoreanu (also on ResearchGate).  Both have specialized for a number of years in more qualitative methods related to human-computer interaction.

Their research (and the research of their students or co-authors) will be considered credible in view of your committee members.  If additional questions arise, you may contact me directly for any follow up.

Hello Zheng,

I think that the right questionnaire selection depends on your goals and the amount of effort that you want to invest, and of course the system that you're trying to assess.

There are several available tools:

If you want to publish your results, I suggest that you review papers from the conference or journal to see which one is used the most.

On other topic, I agree with Ather Nawaz, if you have recordings of transcripts of your evaluations, you could categorize the comments' polarity and establish your metrics based on that review.

Best of luck.

No tool out there, only the feedback you receive.

Thank you so much Napoleon and Mark for the feedback. Really appreciate and it helps me a lot :D God bless...

Efforts to measure and understand long-term user experience are all quite recent, so I am not sure 'best practices' exist.

However, you might want to look at the work of Sari  Kujala, for example.

Kujala, Sari, et al. "UX Curve: A method for evaluating long-term user experience." Interacting with Computers 23.5 (2011): 473-483

This will also most certainly give you pointers to other work in this area. 

The quantification of brand values is certainly interesting and could also be an fundamental approach. Actually i think at least it can help to get a better understanding how brand values are exactly defined as principle to build by.

But, what I mean with the transfer of strategic definitions of a brand into user experience design or communication design is presumably something different.

As a example: You know Tesla Motors Inc. and maybe as well their website or other communication media of Tesla. E-Mobility is on everyone's lips. But spontaneous enthusiasm, it does not fire. But the Tesla brand is different. Tesla managed it to give the entire automotive market a new perspective. Innovation & sportsmanship are compatible. Teslamotors.com enters this on the emotional (by the image of a quite fast driving elegant S 70D Model on a street out in a natural park) and factual evidence (by different claims like - 240 Miles Range. All-Wheel Drive Standard - or Autopilot and All-Wheel Drive Standard).

Tesla therefore made it up as a model to the top of this "movement" that inspires. You can call that form a marketing perspective a kind of "Role model".

So i am interested in the approach to transfer strategic brand definitions to the development of communication design, visual and conceptional design, interactive design, interface design.

Maybe to quantify the value of Tesla could help to understand at least this example. So what are your thoughts?

I agree with above. However if you want to get back to fundamentals this question lies firmly in the field of the ergonomics of display. Basically ergonomics has another field of control, what you do to make something happen, whereas display is about conveying what does happen. Gross oversimplification of course. There are countless references in display ergonomics but googling that might throw up some interesting leads. The other implied strand to your question is how might we measure success. This in turn raises several issues. Success is surely measured by a mental state change in the observer. Are you interested in how well they remember the information later, or how accurately they perceive it immediately and so on. Huge field of cognitive measurement there. An example of this...research has shown that we pay more attention in video to gesture than words, so for example someone gesturing 'large' is more likely to convey the largeness of soemthing than using the word either written or spoken.  There are so many parallels her to investigate.  If you had a more specific question I might be able to help more directly

STISIM Drive uses something called "Open Module" which is a kind of plug-in software that lets you add functionality via programming languages such as C++

An easier route may be the included Scenario Definition Language (SDL) which is a scripting language to detail and add environments and events along the way (hazardous situations, objects, changes).

There is a basic overview of these features in these two document:

Each has links to the advisory who can provide details on the SDL (there is a guide available), and can also advise on the API for linking via C++

Hi Juan,

This is truly a challenge! Children and young adults are very different target groups. Educational games already have the challenge to be appealing for a very broad usergroup. I think asymmetric games could be a solution. Having different roles for different user groups. I am not aware of any work on this for educational games but there is a lot of work on parameterizable games (attached paper) as well as different types of gamers (link to gamasutra). Maybe you can be successful combining both concepts. The idea is that players can customize the game to their play style with some parameters. You can either ask players or make a self adapting game. I hope this was helpful. If not do not hesitate to ask ;-).

Cheers,

 Markus

I like your approach, the design process and experience differ depending on culture. You will find that much of the literature is bias to Eurocentric perspectives with non-western perspectives rarely being explored. To understand these concepts from alternative cultural perspectives, an ethnographic type of enquiry is effective. This type of work is important.

Doug Bowman has done a lot of work over the years in defining taxonomies - especially for 3DUI. See: http://people.cs.vt.edu/~bowman/3dui.org/course_notes/siggraph2001/evaluation.pdf . At the moment I can't quite point you to a taxonomy of hardware or software.

There is a rather vivid discussion of lab studies vs. field or in-the-wild studies within HCI and Ubicomp. It concerns mobile and ubicomp technologies particularly. The references below should help identify that body of work. It may not provide you with straightforward answers to your questions but may help you develop your method further.

Check out Aldwin & Yancura (2006) for the ways we dealt we similar problems. .

Hi Teisanu,

maybe check the proceedings of this year's CHI Play conference?

Cheers

I agree that there is no silver bullet. I would suggest that there are generally two values to aim for:

(1) reduce cognitive distance between the human and the activity or environment in which they are engaged, and

(2) preserve flow.

Gamification, while sometimes well-intentioned, tends to increases cognitive distance. Likewise, gamification can break flow as one is being asked to think of one sort of activity as if it were something else. For example, one of the teams I'm working with at UCSC is developing games that can crowd-source formal code verification. We and our colleagues have all gotten player feedback that says, variously, drop the gamification (whether it is a narrative or a metaphor). For our audiences, framing the activity frankly as citizen science is a better and more honest choice.

Hope this helps.

You need to begin by giving a good definition of what an information system is.

If you are thinking of some kind of course then human computer interaction (HCI) would be a vital part of understanding of an information system. 90% of information system projects get cancelled. Very few of these few are cancelled because they're not technologically capable of delivering what was specified. The failure of 87% of Information Systems tends to attributed to user rejection (or lack of take up), that's after you exlcude the ones which don't implement what was actually required. Most of the major software disasters can be attributed to users/customers not being able to operate the system.

HP attributed  40% of downtime on super reliability services, down to operator errors. Documentation and training is another area which is high cost to most projects and these are frequently used to overcome limitations of the user interface. The savings of getting the human computer interaction right is potentially huge.

Failure to plan a good human computer  interface is a plan for the human computer interface to fail.

To clarify UX is A term typically reserved to cover both the direct digital experience and associated information (for example a paper user guide is not part of the user interface but is part of the user experiance).  

 

Hello,

our research team has experiences from industry cases. Most successful cases are when the workshops are facilitated. We use cause-effect mapping capturing the most important product parameters and how they interact.These are connected to customer needs.

The engineering knowledge changes from tacit to explicit in these sessions also. This enables the company to validate the design reasoning for their products. Then the company has better ability to manage the design and the properties of the artefact i.e. the product.

So you have 16 cases in which you want to get the users' feedback on and then rank the cases.

Did I understood the question well?

If so, (Shahab PourTalebi) I don't think merging the variables to two is a good idea. You should define (maybe 5 to 10) metrics for the users to vote on. I don't know which type fits your case, but probably all of these metrics have 3 / 5 or 7 answers (Likert Scale):

3: Good/Average/Bad

5: Very Good/Good/Average/Bad/Very Bad

7: Completely Agree / Agree / Maybe yes / Neutral / Maybe no / Disagree / Completely disagree

And devote between 0 to 6 (for the last one, for example; 6="Completely Agree") to each answer.

Now you can do many things on the test results of (let me say 100 users) on your metrics;

You can determine the importance of each metric, consider weights for each one, and then define a final formula to consider different aspects with respect to their importance and rank your 16 cases.

You can also do analyses like Correlation Analysis on the metrics.

Thanks for the interest Antonella, would love to hear what you create. I have run several teacher training workshops around designing for seamless learning (e.g. http://prezi.com/vavrzadbpvfu/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share & http://goo.gl/iT2tOI ) and I am now doing some seamless learning design projects with language learners. Will share designs here...

Dear Dr Sedano,

I do not know if you have already studied the papers referred below. They are useful bits and pieces in this topic. Kind regards,

Prof. Dr. Imre Horvath

Salter, T., Dautenhahn, K., & Boekhorst, R. T. (2006). Learning about natural human–robot interaction styles. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 54(2), 127-134.

Munoz-Salinas, R., Aguirre, E., García-Silvente, M., & González, A. (2005). A fuzzy system for visual detection of interest in human-robot interaction. In 2nd International Conference on Machine Intelligence (ACIDCA-ICMI’2005) (pp. 574-581).

Guo, C., & Sharlin, E. (2008, April). Exploring the use of tangible user interfaces for human-robot interaction: a comparative study. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 121-130). ACM.

Robins, B., Amirabdollahian, F., Ji, Z., & Dautenhahn, K. (2010, September). Tactile interaction with a humanoid robot for children with autism: A case study analysis involving user requirements and results of an initial implementation. In RO-MAN, 2010 IEEE (pp. 704-711). IEEE.

Kuczogi, G., Horváth, I., Rusák, Z., Vergeest, J. S. M., & Jansson, J. (2000, May). Strategy and process of interpretation of verbal communication related to shape conceptualization. In International Desgin Conference-Design.

Lang, S., Kleinehagenbrock, M., Hohenner, S., Fritsch, J., Fink, G. A., & Sagerer, G. (2003, November). Providing the basis for human-robot-interaction: A multi-modal attention system for a mobile robot. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Multimodal interfaces (pp. 28-35). ACM.

Sato, E., Yamaguchi, T., & Harashima, F. (2007). Natural interface using pointing behavior for human–robot gestural interaction. Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 54(2), 1105-1112.

Varga, E., Horváth, I., Rusák, Z., De Smit, B., & Broek, H. (2004). Survey and investigation of hand motion processing technologies for compliance with shape conceptualization. In Proceedings of DETC (Vol. 4, pp. 1-14).

Lee, W., Ryu, H., Yang, G., Kim, H., Park, Y., & Bang, S. (2007). Design guidelines for map-based human–robot interfaces: A colocated workspace perspective. International journal of industrial ergonomics, 37(7), 589-604.

Moeslund, T. B., Störring, M., & Granum, E. (2002). A natural interface to a virtual environment through computer vision-estimated pointing gestures. In Gesture and Sign Language in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 59-63). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Skubic, M. (2005). Qualitative spatial referencing for natural human-robot interfaces. interactions, 12(2), 27-30.

Hello, if I understood you correctly you want to include users in the creative process when design ideas are developed, am I right? From my point of view, there is not much of a difference whether you aim at gamification or not. Users are rarely developers or designers or usability experts. So basically, users do not know how to make good software. If you want to include them in the creative process, you have to guide them through the process in any case. It might be a little more challenging when your goal is a gamification approach, because you want to have a final product that uses patterns the users are not familiar with. But the underlying problem is the same. Which is why I think it can be done.

When I would include users I would set up joint meetings with all the disciplines. It is the moderators job to explain the goal, establish an atmosphere of openness, and set up a methodology that everyone can comprehend and contribute to. Of course there should be a briefing during which the moderator explains what gamification means and give a few examples for everybody to grasp the concept. Of course users are never going to become gamification experts after a 20-minute "bleaching", but what you seem to see as a disadvantage might very well turn out to be a great advantage. Because the users might come up with totally new ideas by transferring patterns taken from card, board games, pen & paper role playing, even childs' play, ... you name it. The tricky part is exactly that briefing. It must be specific enough so that participants focus on creating software and abstract enough so that everyone can rely on their individual gaming/playing experience.

To ease the process it might be useful to select users: people who play in their free time, maybe because they have children, maybe because they simply love to play games. But while easing the process is a valid goal, selecting only a sub-group of users might cause additional problems. They may come up with ideas that will only be accepted within this particular sub-group of players. The non-players may not feel comfortable with it and, thus, reject a good piece of software because they find it "too playful".

Hi Lennart Weiß,

Your recommendation is very appreciated. Gerlach has also an other paper that i get interesting. It's entitled : A novel method for pulse shaping of Split Hopkinson tensile bar signals.

Best regards,

Larbi

I would like to add two additional challenges faced in doing in the wild studies.

First, the logs make it very clear what people are doing, but they cannot tell you why. If possible, it is always great to get a little qualitative information to ground the insights pulled from the logs.

Second, a hypothesis driven approach to analysis is not always best. It is important to be open to discovery. If you are releasing a novel system, and not a redesign of a current system, you need to be open to seeing how people appropriate new technology for uses never imagined during their development. A simple example used by Schön describes how when 3M release Scotch tape as a way to repair books, people began to use it to remove lint. If you are doing a longitudinal study, do you have the ability to see this kind of appropriation?

Would any of the prosocial behavior assessments help? I looked into PsycTests and found the PCQ - Perceptions of Collaboration Questionnaire that assesses perceptions of the cognitive compensation and interpersonal enjoyment functions of collaboration among middle-aged and older married couples. There is the Smither, Robert & Houston Competitive Index....

We should be looking for opportunities to improve common widgets all the time, because of examples exactly like yours. The widgets are always constantly evolving, and platform developers usually find the best value in supporting convention. If we just use whatever comes built in by the platform developers, we're guaranteed to be a step behind whatever other designers across industry are also surely recognizing is the obvious next step. There's more opportunities for this on mobile because it's relatively newer, but even on desktop the opportunities are still popping up.

One caveat: I generally only go for an improvement if we have enough time and money for two iterations of user testing. Fundamental interactions have to be very fine-tuned, or they get annoying. Even if the first iteration validates the general idea, the chances are very low that there isn't going to be a course-correction to make and validate with a second iteration.

I see nobody here talked about sound yet. If your app needs sound respond, remember to regulated really well the noise threshold. He can be using it in a busy street and still get his voice to be differentiated from the rest of the sound polution.

This is more of a bandwidth issue. Let the user decide as much as possible.