Top Banner
Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces and other PhD stuff. Omar Sosa-Tzec School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University Bloomington info i609 Advanced Seminar I Informatics
64

Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Nov 28, 2014

Download

Design

Omar Sosa Tzec

Presentation at INFO I609 Advanced Seminar I Informatics. PhD in Informatics, Indiana University Bloomington.

* Includes short bio, trace of work related with HCI & Design, connection of Rhetoric and User Experience Design, and previous of paper to be presented at NordiCHI 2014.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Rhetorical Evaluationof User Interfaces and other PhD stuff.

Omar Sosa-TzecSchool of Informatics & ComputingIndiana University Bloomington

info i609 Advanced Seminar I Informatics

Page 2: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Hola!

Page 3: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Mérida, Yucatán

Page 4: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 5: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 6: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Image source: http://goo.gl/EKw66m

BSc in Computer ScienceUniversity of Yucatan

Connection with HCI & Design

• Web Design

• Usability

• Software Engineering

• Object-Oriented Hypermedia Design

Page 7: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Guanajuato, Guanajuato

Page 8: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 9: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Image source: http://goo.gl/4Kf7Vi

MSc in Computer ScienceCenter for Research in Mathematics

Connection with HCI & Design

• Usability

• Software Engineering

• Algorithm Design

Page 10: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

San Andrés Cholula, Puebla

Page 11: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 12: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Photography by Jorge Gutierrez

MSc in Information DesignUniversity of the Americas Puebla

Connection with HCI & Design

• Information Design, Visualization and Architecture

• Interface Design& Evaluation

• Design Theory

Page 13: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Influences

Rhetoric Semiotics

Page 14: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Influences

Hanno Ehses Clarisse de SouzaRhetoric for

Graphic DesignSemiotic Engineering

& Communicability Evaluation

How can rhetoric beapplied to web design?

How can unconventional GUIsbe evaluated?

Page 15: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Rhetoric and Interaction Design

User InterfaceDesigner User

SpeechSpeaker. ListenerRhetorical appeals: LogosEthosPathos

Accomplisha task.

Takeaction.

Sosa-Tzec, et al. (2009)

Page 16: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Rhetoric and Interaction Design

Logos

Ethos Pathos

Information Architecture Functionality

Design Thinking Emotional DesignUser Appropriation

Sosa-Tzec, et al. (2009)

Page 17: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Bloomington, Indiana

Page 18: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 19: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Human-Computer

InteractionDesign

Page 20: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

What is the problem?

Page 21: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 22: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

What are the consequences ofthe interactive systems that we design?

Page 23: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

How do interactive systems affect the people’s everyday?

Page 24: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

How are we, designers and researchers, contributing on making people to affect

other people?

Page 25: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 26: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

What does it meanfor the members in

the team?

Page 27: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 28: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Swipe to the right for Like

Swipe tothe le!t for Nope

Page 29: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

What does it meanbeing put on the

“nope” list?

Page 30: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

A problematic of HCI and Design

Us, designers and researchers, contribute on deploying artifacts that affect the everyday of

people, including their beliefs and attitude

Page 31: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

An Approachto HCI Design

Page 32: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

HCI Design

Rhetoric

Page 33: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Rhetoric as lenses for HCI

• Persuasion

• Content & Form

• Contingencies & People

• Metaphor, Metonymy, and other rhetorical figures

• And so on...

Page 34: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Rhetorical Evaluationof User Interfaces

Sosa-Tzec, O., & Siegel, M.A. (forthcoming). Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces.In Proc. of 8th Nordic Conference of Human-Computer Interaction,

NordiCHI 2014, ACM Press (2014).

Page 35: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Situation

Page 36: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 37: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 38: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Evaluation

Page 39: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

PurposePreventing others from seeing the content of the businessman’s laptop

FunctionProviding a feeling of privacy

Purpose vs. Function: Example

Page 40: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Purpose vs. Function

Anti-intentionalistNot seeing the creator's intention as determining the correct interpretation of the work

Page 41: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Schema of rhetorical evaluation for user interfaces

Sosa-Tzec, & Siegel (2014)

evaluator

apparent function

function

interactionuser interface

Visual ComponentsAudio ComponentsPhysical Components

UI Section(Changes Over Time)

reflectionLegitimacy / Soundness

Page 42: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

The app

Page 43: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Adding a new goal

Page 44: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Short and long swipe to the right

Page 45: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Short and long swipe to the left

Page 46: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Schema of rhetorical evaluation for user interfaces

Sosa-Tzec, & Siegel (2014)

evaluator

apparent function

function

interactionuser interface

Visual ComponentsAudio ComponentsPhysical Components

UI Section(Changes Over Time)

reflectionLegitimacy / Soundness

Page 47: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Outcome

Page 48: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Outcome of the evaluation

Apparent function Function performed bythe UI components

Page 49: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Outcome of the evaluation

Make goal tracking simpler

Apparent function Function performed bythe UI components

Page 50: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Outcome of the evaluation

Make goal tracking simpler Interaction by gesturesas embodied commitment

Apparent function Function performed bythe UI components

Page 51: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Make goal tracking simpler

Page 52: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Interaction by gestures as embodied commitment

Moving forward

Page 53: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Interaction by gestures as embodied commitment

Moving backwards

Page 54: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Discussion

Page 55: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Discussion

Evaluating an interface requires for the evaluator to learn about the system and

its purpose

Page 56: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Discussion

The evaluation considers the interaction with the system

Page 57: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Discussion

This form of rhetorical evaluation is placed between

structural approaches and hermeneutic approaches

Page 58: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Discussion

This form of rhetorical evaluation fosters reflection

and interaction criticism

Page 59: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Conclusion

Page 60: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Conclusion

• Approach for evaluating user interfaces based on the notion of function from visual rhetoric

• Apparent function

• Function performed by UI components and interaction with the system

• Reflection and interaction criticism

Page 61: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Conclusion

The goal is obtaining a wider perspective regarding the

design of interactive systems, one that takes into account experiences, communication,

and meaning.

Page 62: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

References

1. Bardzell, J. Interaction criticism and aesthetics. In Proc. CHI 2009. ACM Press (2009), 2357-2366.

2. de Souza, C. S. The semiotic engineering of human- computer interaction. MIT Press, 2005.

3. Foss, S. K. A rhetorical schema for the evaluation of visual imagery. Communication Studies, 45, 3-4 (1994), 213-224.

4. Gross, S., Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. Skeu the evolution: skeuomorphs, style, and the material of tangible interactions. In Proc. TEI 2014. ACM Press (2014), 53- 60.

5. Hill, C. A., & Helmers, M. (Eds.). Defining visual rhetorics. Routledge, 2012.

6. Hurtienne, J., & Israel, J. H. Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions: intuitive patterns for tangible interaction. In Proc. TEI 2007. ACM Press (2014), 127- 134.

7. Nelson H. G. & Stolterman, E. The Design Way. MIT Press, 2012.

8. Schön, D. A. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic books, 1983.

9. Sosa-Tzec, O., Cortina-Arteaga, S., & Holguin-Molina, R. Métodos y Proceso de Diseño de Información para una GUI en un Cliente IM bajo un enfoque Calm Technology. CLIHC 2007. Workshop at Interact 2007.

Page 63: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Acknowledgments

Chung-Ching Huang

Jordan E. Beck

Phaedra Pezzullo

Ian Wood

Erik Stolterman

HCI/d Faculty, Gabriele Ferri and PhD Students

Page 64: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Thank you!

http://tzec.com

The images here shown are property of their author, and some of them have been taken from the results of a web search. All of them are employed for mere academic purposes.