Introduction - Chalmers · 2008-04-10 · 6approaches to the assurance of usability have been described: Product attributes-Assessing whether a product conforms to ... The active

Group 1Lu Shanna, Li Lin, Sun Dong and Susanne Edevåg

By Earthy et al

Introduction

� This article discusses the development of standards for user-centred design and the implications of their application, it also discusses the outcomes challenges of the process standard for user-centred design.

� Key words:user-centred design; human-centred design; ISO 13407; ISO TR 18529; process improvement; process capability assessment.

� Sections 2-7

� Determinants of usabilityThe benefits of taking a user-centred approach to design: reduce development times and rework for new versions, improve the

productivity of users, and reduce training, documentation and support costs.

� Deciding best combination of components to assure usability6 approaches to the assurance of usability have been described:Product attributes- Assessing whether a product conforms to

ergonomic guidelinesUser performance and satisfaction- Measuring the usability of a

productProcess certification- Assessing whether a user-centred development

process was usedOrganizational human centredness- Assessing the maturity of human

centredness of an organizationTechnical competence- Accrediting the ability of an organization to

act as a provider of usability servicesProcess capability- Assessing the capability of an organization to

perform user-centred activities

ISO 13407:1999 Human-centred design processes for interactive systems.

� The active involvement of users and a clear understanding of user and task requirements.

� An appropriate allocation of function between users and technology.

� The iteration of design solutions.

� Multi-disciplinary design.

It specifies the following activities.� Planning of the human-centred design process.

� Specification of the user and organizational requirements.

� Understanding and specification of the context of use.

� Production of design solutions.

� Evaluation of designs against requirements.

ISO TR 18529:2000 Human-centred lifecycle process descriptions

The standard defines individual components within these primary

steps:

� ensure human-centered design content in system strategy

� plan and manage the human-centered design process

� specify the stakeholder and organizational requirements

� understand and specify the context of use

� produce design solutions

� evaluate designs against requirements

� introduce and operate the system

User-centred design activity

� HCD.1 System strategy

� HCD.2 Plan and manage HCD

� HCD.7 Introduce and operate the system

� HCD.3 Specify user and Organizational requirements

� HCD.5 Produce design solutions

� HCD.4 Understand context of use

� HCD.6 Evaluate designs against requirements

Different roles

� User-centred design activity as process

� User-centred design as methodology

� User-centred design as project plan

� User-centred design as tools and techniques

The challenges presented by ISO 13407 and ISO TR

18529

� Designers who cannot trace their design processes to ISO 13407 are potentially at risk

� The ability to measure the extent to which good practice is being followed (using ISO TR 18529) has further implications.

1. It is likely to promote uptake of user-centred design, on the principle of “what gets measured gets done''.

2. It raises the competitive stakes by enabling suppliers in competitive markets to provide validated product endorsement based on process metrics.

The implications of ISO 13407 and ISO TR 18529

� ISO 13407 and ISO TR 18529 present a definition of user-centred design expressed in the language of its user-the system designer. This definition can be integrated with definitions of software engineering and system engineering.

� Usability is being pushed to centre stage in the marketplace.

� The implication for applied research is a need for re-definition of focus and direction to support effective practice in a new framework.

Defining a user-centered design process

Questions:� Are there cases when HCD is a burden for the

developing process?

� Satisfaction of use is a part of the ISO definition of usability – But how can it be measured and is it always necessary to include?


By Donald A. Norman


Summary of the article� To propose a change towards Activity-Centered Design instead of Human-

Centered Design.

� HCD was developed to overcome the poor design of software product. This have now lead to more complex product that have lost focus on the activity.

� Before HCD all product were designed without user studies and these still work good. E.g. the car and the clock. These are complex things that has to be learnt.

� Why are they still used and work well? Because they have been developed with a deep understanding of the activity that were to be performed. This can be called Activity-centered Design.


What is ACD?� Activity centered Design is to design

toward the activity and not the user.

� To gain a deep understanding of the activity rather than the user and design for that.

� User considerations should ONLY be considered if it does not disturb the activity.

� Examples that have worked:

The car, people learn to drive even though it is a lot to learn.

The clock: an arbitrary divison of time that people have to learn.


Activities Are Not the Same as Tasks

An activity is a coordinated,

integrated set of tasks.

There is one activity,

many tasks.


What adapts? Technology or people?

� ”Tools adapt to the people” or ”People adapt to the tools”?

� Norman says that people should adapt to the tools, and points at many successful adaptations such as: the Clock, Writing systems and Musical Instruments.

� Successful devices are those that fit gracefully into the requirements of the underlying activity, supporting them in a manner understandable by people. Understand the activity, and the device is understandable.


HCD vs ACD� HCD and ACD is very similar.

� Many attributes from HCD carries over.

� Several differences:

� The attitude (mindset) of the designer.

� A deep understanding of people is part of ACD, but it also requires a deep understandning of the technology, the tools and the reasons for the activities.

� Many of the systems that has apssed through HCD design phases and usability reviews are superb at the level of the static, individual display, but fail to support the sequential requirements of the underlying tasks and activities. The HCD method tend to miss this aspect of behaviour: Activity-centered methods focus on it.


Why Might HCD be harmful?

� Focusing on improving for one group might make it worse for others.

� The focus upon humans detracts from support for the activities themselves.

� Too much attention to the needs of the users can lead to a lack of cohesion and added complexity in the design.


Too Much Listening to the Users� Listening to the users are the basic philosophy in HCD. This can lead

to overly complex designs.

� Activity-centered philosophy guards against this since the focus is on the activity and not the human. If a user suggestion fails to fit within this design model, it should be discarded.

� This leads to more cohesive, well-articulated design models.


What response did the article get?� This article made quite a stir in the HCD world. Here are some

responses :

� In ”More from ”The Don” Norman – Activity- Based Design” the writer critizises the fact the this is not entirely new, although Norman makes it look brand new.

� This got many comments, some of which mentioned Cooper’s ”Goal-based-design” and didn’t see that many differences.


� In ”Activity Centered Design”,Tom Chi points of that ”…if in ACD, the nature of the activity is defined by the tool, but the tool being created is a novel one…then both the tool and activity are loosely bounded variables which don’t serve as helpful design constraints.”

� This take into question how useful ACD is . Should it be developed as its own theory or just be used to rejuvenate the HCD philosophy?

� In ”Designing Web Applications for Use” Larry Constantine agrees with Norman and says:

”…understanding your users as people is far less important then understanding them as participants in activities. /…/ that shifting the focus from users to the activities in which they are engaged leads to better tools- and that means a better user experience and happier users.”


HCD Harmful? A Clarification� After a lot of response (mostly on bloggs) Norman wrote this

clarification of the article and the concept ACD.

Here is some parts of that clarification:

”The problem,.., is that HCD has developed as a limited view of design. Instead of looking at a person’s entire activity, it has primarily focused upon page-by-page analysis, screen-by-screen. As a result, sequences, interruptions, ill-defined goals – all the aspects of real activities, have been ignored.”


”There has been far too much emphasis on individual people, trying to model them, trying to build fascinating scenarios and ”personas”. I think much of this work misplaced, irrelevant and potentially harmful if it diverts the limited time and resources of the design team away from matters that can actually help.”

”I believe that we should increase our focus upon the tasks and activities to be accomplished and reduce the focus on these cute but design-empty scenarios and personas. If I truly understand the mixture of tasks that together comprise an activity, and if I truly understand the interruptions, ill-defined nature of most people’s approach to their activities, then I can provide far better support than if I focus upon the training, age, or personality of the individual people who might use it.”

”Design for the activity and the rest will take care of itself, better than reverse, design for the person, without proper support for the activity.”


Other Works by Donald A. NormanLogic Versus Usage: The Case for Activity-Centered Design

Describes how Activity-Centered Design can be used in interface design and explains the difference between design based on taxonomies and taskonomies.

Interaction Design Is Still an Art Form: Ergonomics is Real Engineering

In this article, Norman looks at the missing similarities in methods used by people practising ergonomics and HCI.

Do companies fail because their technology is unusable?

Here he looks at the relationship between sales and usability. Is usability really that important when it comes to selling a product?


Related articles� Activity Centered Design – Tom Chi: http://www.ok-cancel.com/archives/article/2005/08/activity-

centered-design.html

� Designing Web Applications for Use – Larry Constantine: http://www.uie.com/articles/designing_web_applications_for_use/

� Do Companies fail because their technology is unusable? – Don Norman:

http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/do_companies_fa.html

� HCD harmful? A Clarification – Don Norman: http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/hcd_harmful_a_clari.html

� Interaction Design Is Still an Art Form. Ergonomics is Real Engineering - Don Norman: Interactions: Vol 13 (1) : 45 - 60: 2006 http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1109069.1109097

� More from ”The Don” Norman – Activity Based Design: http://www.peterme.com/archives/000549.html

� Logic Versus Usage: The case for Activity- Centered Design – Don Norman:

Interactions: Vol 13 (6): 45 - ff: 2006

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1167948.1167978&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE


Questions� Are there cases when HCD can limit the understanding of the functionality, so

that it limits the way users improve their skills?

� Which one is correct: Tools adapt to people or people adapt to the tools? Describe.

� Why UCD/HCD consider as harmful?

� Give examples of products/projects where you would prefer using ACD and other projects where HCD is to prefer.

� The notion of interaction design is strongly tied to usability and human centred design. Can you find examples of interaction design focused on activities (ACD) rather than users (HCD)?


Are there cases when HCD can limit the understanding of the functionality, so that it limits the way users improve their skills?

Yes. New innovative products does not come from safe design. If we only do what the users wants us to do, the new and innovative will not follow. Users

often do not know what they want, they think they do, but not really.

If you use and ACD approach, the activity is the main purpose and the users will easily learn how to use the new invention.


Which one is correct: Tools adapt to people or people adapt to the tools? Describe.

� Both are correct.

People are able to to adapt to tools, such as cars and instruments as well as watches. Tools can also adapt to people as in HCD where we often over-complicate things to adapt them to people.

Norman advocates ACD in which tools adapts to people, and this seems like and intriguing approach.


Why UCD/HCD consider as harmful?

Norman’s definition of harmful is that when focus is on the humans instead of the task, there can be a lack of cohesion and added complexity in the design.

There is focus on the humans and less support for the activities themself.

In ”HCD harmful? A Clarification” Norman wrote this, which explains it great in his words:

”There has been far too much emphasis on individual people, trying to model them, trying to build fascinating scenarios and ”personas”. I think much of this work misplaced, irrelevant and potentially harmful if it diverts the limited time and resources of the design team away from matters that can actually help.”


Give examples of products/projects where you would prefer using ACD and other projects where HCD is to prefer.

� As I see it there is no great divide between these two principles, and I would rather use a blend of them. Both are useful in all circumstances according to me, and according to Norman, ACD is to prefer in most any circumstances.

� After reading many articles about ACD I would say that it, as HCD can be used on any project.


The notion of interaction design is strongly tied to usability and human centred design. Can you find examples of interaction design focused on activities (ACD) rather than users (HCD)?

� Apple is using ACD when designing new things. They have one top designer that makes sure that their vision is followed. If the user’s requirement fit into the vision they are considered, but otherwise not.

� Photoshop: It is not intuitive and it is hard to learn. But every function is in there. (Although, it could be argued that it is overdesigned and has too many functions and therefore not focused on the activity at all).

By Jan Gulliksen


Summary� Initial set of UCSD principles

� Problems with initial set of UCSD principles in case study

� The 12 key principles for UCSD

� Why are these principles defined?


Related articles� Principles behind the Agile Manifesto

(www.agilemanifesto.org)

� Software Developers’ Attitudes toward User-Centered Design (http://education.indiana.edu/~frick/aect2001/theodorefrick_softwaredevelopersattitudes.doc)

� User Centered Design – Problems and Possibilities, Jan Gulliksen.

� (http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigchi/bulletin/1999.2/gulliksen.pdf.)


Initial Principles� The work practises of the users control the development. (early

focus on users and task)� Active user participation throughout the project(work domain

expert, actual end-users)� Early prototyping

� Evaluate and develop design solutions� Builda shared understanding of the needs and future works of the

users

� Continues iteration of design solution� Evluation and redesign should be repeated� Uers’ reactions and attitude should be observed

� Multidisplinary design teams.(achieved by including a usability designer)

� Intergrated designGroup 1Lu Shanna, Li Lin, Sun Dong and Susanne Edevåg

Problems with intitial principles� No lifecyle perpective on UCSD

� Usability designers were ignored

� Use case mania

� Poor understanding of the design documentation

� Major changes in the project

� Problems establishing a user centered attitude


12 Key Principles� User focus – the goals of the activity, the work domain

or context of use, the users’ goals, tasks and needs should early guide the development

� Active user involvement – representative users should actively participate, early and continuously throughout the entire development process and throughout the system lifecycle

� Evolutionary systems development – the systems development should be both iterative and incremental


12 Key Principles� Simple design representations – the design must be

represented in such ways that it can be easily understood by users and all other stakeholders

� Prototyping – early and continuously, prototypes should be used to visualize and evaluate ideas and design solutions in cooperation with the end users

� Evaluate use in context – baselined usability goals and design criteria should control the development


12 Key Principles� Explicit and conscious design activities – the development

process should contain dedicated design activities

� A professional attitude – the development process should be performed by effective multidisciplinary teams

� Usability champion – usability experts should be involved early and continuously throughout the development lifecycle


12 Key Principles� Holistic design – all aspects that influence the future use

situation should be developed in parallel

� Processes customization – the UCSD process must be specified, adapted and/or implemented locally in each organization

� A user-centered attitude should always be established.


Why are these principles defined?� Address shortcomings and obstacles in the

development process

� UCD methods with a consideration of Cost-benefit tradeoffs

� Lack of knowledge on how to apply UCSD method, defining UCSD in more specified terms is required

� UCD definition is ambiguous and vague

� To support the development process

� ...


Questions� What attitude should the developers have? How can you

measure their commitment to the principles behind HCD?

� How can the importance of a UCD attitude be communicated to i.e developers?

� What decisions might result in breaking the twelve key principles and what might the consequences be?

� Should one keep the same group of people during the whole design process or should one choose new participants for each step?


Questions� How do we avoid overuse and misuse of UCD principles?

� Should one keep the same group of people during the whole design process or should one choose new participants for each step?

� How do we avoid overuse and misuse of UCD principles?

� How do we avoid overuse and misuse of UCD principles?


What attitude should the developers have? How can you measure their commitment to the principles behind HCD?

� Developers attitude:

Should be aware of and committed to the importance of usability and user involvement.(user-centered attititude)

� Measure their commitment to the principles:

� Have lifecycle perspective on UCSD (active user involvment, usability champion)

� Have deep understanding of content of use (simple design representations, prototyping, evaluate use in context, explicit and conscious design activities, user-centered attititude)


How can the importance of a UCD attitude be communicated to i.e developers?

� Benefits of involving users in the development process:

� Active user involvement was judged to be the No.1 criterion on how to be successful in IT-development projects in the CHAOS report

� Respondents viewed UCD as a positive, worthwhile practice (Software Developers’ Attitudes toward User-Centered Design, Theodor)

� The software developers reported more positive attitudes than others. Suggests that active participation in usability tests may be a factor in developers’ positive outlook concerning usability tests.


What decisions might result in breaking the twelve key principles and what might the consequences be?

� Decisions: Major changes in projects, such as technical changes, difficult to meet the requirements, has no attention to usability matters

� Breaking principles such as: ’user focus’ ’Usability Champion’

� Consequences:

� Lose the ’User focus’

� very difficult to meet the usability requirements

� Insufficient experience


Should one keep the same group of people during the whole design process or should one choose new participants for each step?

� One should choose new participants, because involve the same group of people on a full-time basis in a project quickly turns them into domain experts, to make sure the participants are the representatives of the end users, it is important to keep them on a tempotary basis.


How do we avoid overuse and misuse of UCD principles?

� The principles are originate from in contract and in-house development of bespoke software for work situations. It has potential in being applied in other types of development projects, however, the principles must always adapted to the context.


Are there any agile Methods used in UCD today, and if so, how dothey work?

� Yes, for example, they are used by Extreme Programming. � Methods are:

� Agile Modeling� Agile Unified Process(AUP)� Agile Data Method� Daily kickoff and review of goals� …,etc.

� Agile methods differ to a large degree in the way they cover project management.

� Principles behind agile methods — The Agile Manifesto � Focus on overall goal of delivering a usable system� Delivering working software� Projects should be communication centric


How can we enhance the communication between users and designers and developers besides prototyping?

� According to the the principle ’Simple design representations’, other kind of design representations can be used for communication between designers and users, such as Use case, but they should give users a concrete understanding of the future use situations.



By Nico Macdonald


Related articles[1]Design by or for the people? (by Nico Macdonald)

http://www.spy.co.uk/Articles/Guardian/PeopleAndDesign/

[2] Human Centered Design (HCD) Is Innovation's New Secret Weapon http://blog.futurelab.net/2007/08/human_centered_design_hcd_is_i.html

[3] Panel: Beyond Human-Centered Design? http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1020000/1013184/p373-macdonald.pdf?key1=1013184&key2=0259367021&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=62856308&CFTOKEN=62016595

Introduction� The Designing Interactive Systems(DIS) 2004 conference

in Cambridge, Massachusetts, featured a panel on the theme”Beyond Human-Centered Design?”

� Discussion：But today does a diminished view of the user, and corporate cowardice, leave people short-changed with respect to the design of new products?



Introduction (cont.)� Is user research helping designers to really understand the people for who they are designing, or

blinkering designers view of possible solutions?

� Is user-centered design ensuring that products fit the needs and contexts of users, or acting as a bulwark to qualitative developments in interface design?

� How should we re-imagine humans in user-centered design?

� Panelists:

� Martyn Perks :user experience consultant London.

� Robert Reimann :manager, User Interface Design, BOSE Corporation, Framingham, Mass.,

� Aaron Oppenheimer :Principal Product Behaviorist, Design Continuum, Boston, Mass., USA.

Statement from Robert ReimannThe key to achieving true innovation using human-centered

methods is for the innovators to lead the process.

Transform


Glean information form user

Solutions meet their

needs


Design methods� Human-centered design:

� Technology Centered design

� Business-centered design


What is innovation?(R.R.)

� Innovation is misunderstood by narrowly applied to:

� Technology (by engineer organization)

� Business (reducing product and service costs)

� It should be also be considered from HCD view.


Are HCD methods lack of innovation? (R.R.)

� A critical part of the HCD process is the transformation of user requirements into creative design solutions. Lacking of articulation of creative process lead to the misconception that HCD is not ceative.


Four rules to make innovations

(R.R)Designers focus on:

� Allowing people to do more with less(or seemingly less).

� Empowering people to do desireable things that they couldn’t do before-or do them better/easier.

Bussiness people focus on:

� Saving time, effort, money, or all of these.

� Implementing without undue cost and difficulty

This divided focus can create mismatch in expectations!

HCD methods are important to design

innovation (R.R)

HCD design methods are critical for establishing a context for design innovation answer the following questions:� What are people currently doing?

� How are they currently doing it?

� What problems does this cause for them?

� What things can’t they do that would really help them if they could?

� What might they want or need to do in the future?


Solutions for constructing HCD

methods

� Design educators and designs organizations need to better integrate generative research into their design training.

� Designers focus more on communicating the business value of design. Since many corporations viewed design innovation as a risky


Statement from Martyn Perks� A tool for understanding and balancing the many

priorities and tensions between the client and the technology

� Designers should fight caution and risk-aversions because of outside pressures. But the prizes far outweigh the risk.


Statement form Aaron

Oppenheimer

� UCD is merely a toolkit. It helps to defining the features of products

� result from the failure of designers to successfully communicate their power (and their drawbacks) to the larger business community. This tends to lead to misunderstanding, misapplication, and missed

opportunities.



Questions� Some argue that the user stereotype in HCD is that of victimhood.

What advantages would it bring to design more for users’ innate abilities and adaptabilities?

� Should businesses interpret their own understanding of UCD or should they use some standard or build a consortium for standards?

� How could we best link business success to pure design innovation in order to fill in the gap?

� What is innovation different from design perspective business perspective?

Should businesses interpret their own understanding of

UCD or should they use some standard or build a

consortium for standards?

� Form Aaron oppenheimer’s view, UCD is a toolkit. The business can use it directly in the correct way. It can’t be over used or not used at all. And not be misunderstood and misused.


How could we best link business success to pure design

innovation in order to fill in the gap?

� The designers need to be ready to articulate their vision of innovation in a manner that business stakeholders can understand.

� Designers need to focus more on communicating the business value of design.

� Find a way to manufacture and distribute correctly.


What is innovation different from design perspective

business perspective?

When talk about the innovation the designer focus on:

� Allowing people to do more with less(or seemingly less).

� Empowering people to do desireable things that they couldn’t do before-or do them better/easier.

Bussiness people focus on:

� Saving time, effort, money, or all of these.

� Implementing without undue cost and difficulty


Some argue that the user stereotype in HCD is that of victimhood.

What advantages would it bring to design more for users’ innate

abilities and adaptabilities?

Even if design could be purely driven by what people say they want the designer would still have to apply their skill in prioritising these desires and giving them form. Recognising this, designers should rise above the interests and perspectives of particular users and push their own intuition, and instinct for innovation.[1]


Questions?

Thank you！


Introduction - Chalmers · 2008-04-10 · 6approaches to the assurance of usability have been described: Product attributes-Assessing whether a product conforms to ... The active

Documents