Trends in UCD

University of Washington HCDE 518

Trends in UCD

HCDE 518Winter 2011

With credit to Jake Wobbrock, Dave Hendry, Andy Ko, Jennifer Turns, & Mark Zachry


Agenda

Announcements, Hand in assignments

Sketching Critiques Lecture – Analytical

Evaluation Class Exercise: Heuristic

Evaluation Break – 10 mins Discussion of UCD

readings

Break – 10 mins P3 Demos Class Evaluations Group Project Work Time


Announcements

R7 returned today A3 returned today


Sketching Critiques – Friends & Family

Break into groups of about 4 people Take turns showing off and explaining your 3

sketches with each other Each critic should offer advice and feedback about

the idea Strengths, Weaknesses, Originality, Feasibility Sketcher: take notes about what feedback was offered Critic: be critical, but constructive and courteous!

Each critic should sign the page after the sketches and date it with today’s date


LECTURE – ANALYTICAL EVALUATION


Analytical Evaluation

Heuristic Evaluation Have usability experts go through your prototype

to uncover common usability problems Cognitive Walkthrough

Have experts analyze your prototype in a detailed way to understand how uses will understand it

Best for understanding novel use, not expert use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_walkthrough


Heuristic Evaluation Developed by Jakob Nielsen Helps find usability problems in a UI design Small set (3-5) of evaluators examine UI

independently check for compliance with usability principles (“heuristics”)

different evaluators will find different problems evaluators only communicate afterwards

findings are then aggregated

Can perform on working UI or on sketches


Heuristic Evaluation Process Evaluators go through UI several times

inspect various dialogue elements compare with list of usability principles consider other principles/results that come to mind

Usability principles Nielsen’s “heuristics” supplementary list of category-specific heuristics

competitive analysis & user testing of existing products

Use violations to redesign/fix problems


Heuristics (Nielsen, 1994)

1. Visibility of system status2. Match between system and the real world3. User control and freedom4. Consistency and standards5. Error prevention6. Recognition rather than recall7. Flexibility and efficiency of use8. Aesthetic and minimalist design9. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors10. Help and documentation


Phases of Heuristic Evaluation1) Pre-evaluation training

give evaluators needed domain knowledge & information on the scenario

2) Evaluation individuals evaluates UI & makes list of problems

3) Severity rating determine how severe each problem is

4) Aggregation group meets & aggregates problems (w/ ratings)

5) Debriefing discuss the outcome with design team


How to Perform Evaluation At least two passes for each evaluator (3-5 people)

first to get feel for flow and scope of system second to focus on specific elements

If system is walk-up-and-use or evaluators are domain experts, no assistance needed otherwise might supply evaluators with scenarios

Each evaluator produces list of problems explain why with reference to heuristic or

other information be specific & list each problem separately


Example Errors from Evaluators

Can’t copy info from one window to another violates “Minimize the users’ memory load” (H3) fix: allow copying

Typography uses different fonts in 3 dialog boxes violates “Consistency and standards” (H4) slows users down probably wouldn’t be found by user testing fix: pick a single format for entire interface


Severity Rating

Used to allocate resources to fix problems Estimates of need for more usability efforts Combination of

frequency impact persistence (one time or repeating)

Should be calculated after all evals. are in Should be done independently by all judges


Severity Ratings (cont.)

0 - don’t agree that this is a usability problem1 - cosmetic problem 2 - minor usability problem3 - major usability problem; important to fix4 - usability catastrophe; imperative to fix


Debriefing

Conduct with evaluators, observers, and development team members

Discuss general characteristics of UI Suggest potential improvements to address major

usability problems Dev. team rates how hard things are to fix Make it a brainstorming session

little criticism until end of session


Severity Ratings Example

1. [H4 Consistency] [Severity 3]

The interface used the string "Save" on the first screen for saving the user's file, but used the string "Write file" on the second screen. Users may be confused by this different terminology for the same function.


HE vs. User Testing HE is much faster

1-2 hours each evaluator vs. days-weeks HE doesn’t require interpreting user’s actions User testing is far more accurate (by def.)

takes into account actual users and tasks HE may miss problems & find “false positives”

Good to alternate between HE & user testing find different problems don’t waste participants


Class Activity: Heuristic Evaluation

Electronic voting machine Download prototype:

http://courses.washington.edu/hcde518/lectures/AccuvoteWithPrinter.swf

Download form: http://courses.washington.edu/hcde518/lectures/13-HeuristicEvalForm.xlsx

Use form and Nielsen’s 1994 heuristics to evaluate the voting interface


BREAK – 10 MINUTES


TRENDS IN UCD DISCUSSION


Readings Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical

Communication, 52(2), 163–74. Sears, A. and Jacko, J. (2008) Future trends in human-computer interaction

. The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, A. Sears, J.A. Jacko (eds). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1281-1290.

Vredenburg, K. Mao, J.Y., Smith, P.W., and Carey, T. (2002). A survey of user-centered design practice. CHI '02. pp. 471-478.

Mao, J.Y., Vredenburg, K. Smith, P.W. Carey, T. (2005). The state of user-centered design practice. Commun. ACM 48, 3 (March 2005), 105-109.

Norman, D.A. 2005. Human-centered design considered harmful.interactions 12, 4 (July 2005), 14-19.

OPTIONAL: Hendry, D.G. (2008). Public participation in proprietary software development through user roles and discourse. Int. J.Hum.-Comput. Stud. 66, (7), 545-557.


Participatory Design

What is it? Why should you do it? What advantages? What disadvantages?


Activity Centered Design vs. HCD

Define Activity Centered Design Example?

Thoughts?


Trends in UCD

How does this relate to your own experiences?

Is it still up to date?


Sears & Jacko

Six questions to 5 members of the HCI community What are HCI’s 3 grand challenges? What are the three most important relevant

results from the last 10 years? What are the exciting emerging domains? Most innovative changes in next 5 years? What do educators need to change? What is the future?


Grand Challenges Carroll

Organizational issues, Ubicomp, End user programming, Collaboration Ogawa

Integration of telecom & broadcast, HCI for mobile appliances, communication tools (“cyberspace”)

Rau Make HCI profitable, new methodologies, impact user experience (e.g., “killer apps”

Salvendy Science base for HCI, comprehensive education program, push the needed technology

Stephanidis Universal access, HCI theories and methodologies, digitization of HCI practices

Kientz Scaling novel computing technologies, personalizing technologies in meaningful ways,

supporting activities and long-term goals


Important Results Carroll

Interactive information visualization, collaboration via the web, powerful information retrieval tools

Ogawa Universal designs, portable devices, dispatching individual information (e.g., blogs and

homepages) Rau

Website usability, UIs for handheld devices, cellphones & mp3 players Salvendy

Concepts, metaphors, and tools; visualization, adaptive interfaces Stephanidis

User-centered approach to design, computer accessibility, user interface personalization Kientz

Usable mobile devices and always-on internet (e.g., iPhone), sensing activities of human behavior, shift to engaging user experiences rather than goal-oriented tasks


Exciting Emerging Domains Carroll

Security and privacy, universal accessibility, applications (e.g., healthcare), affect Ogawa

Portable devices for elderly, search functions Rau

Emotional design, computer games, smart environments, cross-cultural designs, fun Salvendy

Nanotechnology, different cultures, system science Stephanidis

Services, multimodal interaction, cooperation, access to information, robots Kientz

Healthcare (especially preventive health and public health), games with a purpose, ubiquitous computing


Innovative Changes of next 5 years Carroll

Cell phones, agents Ogawa

Agents/robots Rau

Wearable & ubiquitous computing Salvendy

Disappearing computer, miniaturized computing systems, intelligent interfaces Stephanidis

Mobile interaction, home environment, biometrics Kientz

Personalization of computing, activity-based computing


Visions of the Future

Where will human-computer interaction be in 10 years? 25 years? 50 years?


Apple’s Knowledge Navigator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb4AzF6wEoc


Microsoft Labs’ Visions of the Future

Productivity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff7SzP4gfg

Manufacturing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml5Bi9SvdPw

Health Care: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35Kv6-ZNGA

Retail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJL_oivIMhQ

Banking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdJArfPthwY

Home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VuQeR-N8nE


Minority Report Vision

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwVBzx0LMNQ


Class Activity: Envisioning the future

In small groups, come up with YOUR answers to three of the questions posed by Sears & Jacko What are HCD’s grand challenges? What are exciting emerging domains? What are the innovative changes of next 5 years?

Spend 10 minutes, then we’ll share


Next Class

Tuesday, March 1st Final Project Presentations Overview of Class (in prep for final take-home exam)

Due Next Week P4 Final Presentations Sketching Reflection


P3 DEMOS


Order (random!)

Healthy Eating Teleworkers Health Bridge Daily Errands Urban Gardeners


COURSE EVALUATIONS &GROUP PROJECT MEET TIME

Trends in UCD

Documents