Coping with Moore and more: HCI research in a moving world Gerrit C. van der Veer Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Department Computer Science Open University.

Coping with Moore and more:

HCI research in a moving world

Gerrit C. van der VeerVrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Department Computer ScienceOpen University Netherlands

overview

1. short history of HCI research

2. old and new misconceptions

3. the "H" in HCI - whom am I designing for?

4. the HCI domain in 2007 and beyond

4.1. changing unit of analysis

4.2. changing focus

4.3. moving interest

5. summary and conclusion

1. short history of HCI research

visionaries

Vannevar Bush, 1945, As we may think

Doug Engelbart, 1962, Augmenting human intellect: a conceptual framework

1. short history of HCI research

user participation

Enid Mumford: ETHICS (~1980)

Scandinavian approach

1. short history of HCI research

user-centered design

Modeling the user interface • Pfaff (Seeheim model, 1985)• Moran (CLG, 1981); Tauber (UVM, 1988)a systematic process

Modeling task knowledge• Johnson & Johnson (TKS)• Paterno (CCT)

1. short history of HCI research

contextual design

Beyer & Holtzblatt (1997)

"Contextual Design: a Customer-Centered Approach to Systems Designs"

"User Centered Design" coming of age!

• Norman & Draper (1986) User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction

• Vredenburg et al. (2000) User-centered design: An Integrated Approach

• Garrett (2002) The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web

• Lambropoulos & Zaphiris, 2006) User-centered Design of Online Learning Communities

HCI conferences 25 year anniversary

• ECCE (Europ. Conf.in Cogn. Engineering ) 1982 • CHI (Human factors in computing systems) 1982• Interact 1984

so we seem to have succeeded ......

“My students do not need to talk to people” (professor in computer science, Amsterdam, 2006)

Ergonomics

2. old and new misconceptions 2.1. the user can do it

Dutch Open University service desk,

dispatcher statistics 2005, frequency of call categories

"reset password"

2. old and new misconceptions2.2. if only the system is user friendly

2. old and new misconceptions

2.3. all users want the same thing:

International bank case:

• management / head office

• bank shops

3. the "H" in HCI - whom am I designing for?• different users and stakeholders

have different goals

the users:

• 2005: 6,000,000

• new registrations: 100,000/month

• often played in geographically spread groups

the client

3. the "H" in HCI - whom am I designing for?

• different users and stakeholders have different goal

• goals may change / develop only in an actual context

new client goals:

training for “teamwork, integrity and leadership”

3. the "H" in HCI - whom am I designing for?

• different users and stakeholders have different goals

• goals may develop only in an actual situation

• the client of design is not always willing to support all user goals

should the designer consider all stakeholders?

• Taliban / Sunnite / Shiite groups

3. the "H" in HCI - whom am I designing for?

• different users and stakeholders have different goals

• goals may develop only in an actual situation

• the client of design is not always willing to support all user goals

• "the user" suggests too simple a design space!

4. HCI in 2007 and beyond

developing technology (Moore's law);

changing types of applications ("intelligent", "connected", "embedded");

broadening scope of presence in society and environment;

• changing unit of analysis (activity);• changing focus (functionality → experience)• moving interest in / from scientific disciplines

(psychology, arts).• the context of use is a partner now

4. HCI in 2007 and beyond

developing technology (Moore's law);

changing types of applications ("intelligent", "connected", "embedded");

broadening scope of presence in society and environment;

4.1. changing unit of analysis (activity);

4.2. changing focus (functionality → experience)

4.3. moving interest in / from scientific disciplines (psychology, arts).

4.4. the context of use is a partner now

4.1. a new paradigm: activity centered design

human (user's) goal priority is function of situation:

• individual history (do I know customer at my desk?);

• the culture experienced as actual (do I consider myself employee of bank X, or team member of branch Y?);

• the context (my branch manager aims at keeping a client friendly image);

• actual needs (how to get rid of the cue at my desk).

activity centered design

situated goals → situated activities

(Norman, 2006: "human-centered design considered harmful")

activities will be chosen by people based on situated goal priorities (e.g., in a meeting, phone rings)

activities may be delegated to other agents if these can take the related role, depending on the context

this asks for a change in task analysis → activity analysis

4. HCI in 2007 and beyond

developing technology (Moore's law);

changing types of applications ("intelligent", "connected", "embedded");

broadening scope of presence in society and environment;

4.1. changing unit of analysis (activity);

4.2. changing focus (functionality → experience)

4.3. moving interest in / from scientific disciplines (psychology, arts).

4.4. the context of use is a partner now

4.2. Experience – what is it anyhow?

• a “buzz word”

• “living” the interaction with artifacts

• in fact nothing new, and still includes functionality and usability

a changed in HCI culture

from ...experts – developing their own tools“no user interface please”

to ...reactive and intelligent environment for everybody – part of

the situation, culture, and organization “I do not care what's inside, if it serves my purpose”:

• useful (for my purpose)• usable (fit to my understanding, possibilities and context)• safe (acceptable risk)• motivating (convincing / fun / warning / unpredictable)

which experience should HCI be aiming at?

e.g. Designing a web site = • designing a specific experience for the web • intended by the client & experienced by the

user

challenge for HCI research: how to build scientific knowledge to support methods and techniques.

example from a web design company-"generic experiences":

• Shopping• Learning• Feeling part of a community• Finding Information• Playing• Being entertained• Creating stuff• Personal enrichment• …• Often a mix of a primary experience with others

model for shopping:

• attract

• Inform

• activate

Attracting customers

Form:• credibility • quality of execution

Content:• personal interest• Sensational content• Specialized content

Nike (Attract)

Informing customers

…drawing people into the online messages• Provide understanding rather than plain

information

Help the audience to:• Recall • Comprehend • Evaluate

Nike (Inform)

Invoke customer action

Persuading people to ‘buy’ the online message and take action

• Present insight

• Provide guidance

• Elicit performance

• Provide reinforcement / feedback / reward

Nike (Invoke – take action)

arts and crafts in HCI research:

• needs a systematic HCI research approach

• the whole process needs a scientific base: from requirements to presentation and documentation

• knowledge is available in practice

• find inspiration and quests from real clients and use in context

4. HCI in 2007 and beyond

developing technology (Moore's law);

changing types of applications ("intelligent", "connected", "embedded");

broadening scope of presence in society and environment;

4.1. changing unit of analysis (activity);

4.2. changing focus (functionality → experience)

4.3. moving interest in / from scientific disciplines (psychology, arts).

4.4. the context of use is a partner now

4.3. new solutions require new HCI disciplines

Computer science & Psychology & Ergonomics

Ethnography, Anthropology, Sociology

Theater, Graphic design, Cinematography,Industrial design, Multimedia design

HCI, formal specifications, tools, patterns

CSCW, Contextual design, design of collaboration and organization

poor academics need to go to creative and consider experience design: arts and crafts

4. HCI in 2007 and beyond

developing technology (Moore's law);

changing types of applications ("intelligent", "connected", "embedded");

broadening scope of presence in society and environment;

4.1. changing unit of analysis (activity);

4.2. changing focus (functionality → experience)

4.3. moving interest in / from scientific disciplines (psychology, arts).

4.4. the context of use is a partner now

4.4. the context of use is a partner now

government funding of research projects in several countries now ask for industrial commitment:

• small & medium sized enterprises, as well as government and health care bodies are (non funded) partners for academic projects

• "industrial" experts as part time academic researchers (paid by industry)

• "industrial" review boards

be aware: industrial practice was there before academia

Apple Advanced TechnologiesXerox PARCIBM Science CentersPhilips DesignMicrosoftinternational banksNokia

different flavors of "new" HCI seem to emerge in academia

• in Communication Science

• in Industrial Design - not much research

• in Artistic Design (multimedia, games) - no theory?

• specialization in Computer Science – often a hard time and a decreasing number of students

• Psychology? - seems to have lost interest!

5. summary and conclusion

recognized systematic HCI approaches emerged, based on theory, models, and research

but misconceptions never disappeared and "old" knowledge is no longer true

the "H" is no longer the optimal unit of analysis, so change the unit of analysis (activity in context)

broaden the focus (functionality → experience)

identify basic disciplines (psychology → arts)

partner with the "context"