Sunday, December 2, 2007
My contribution
I contributed to the Coffee Shop project in which our group carried out observations and contextual interviews to evaluate and redesign the interface of coffee shops. We performed five interviews, with six users consisting of college age students. Most of our users were occasional coffee goers. I performed the observations and interviews for User 5. This user's experience went rather smoothly and she did not encounter the breaking points that we had derived from the other users. For this reason, we used User 5's experience as a template for how we would redesign a universal coffee shop.
My personal contribution was to facilitate one of the five contextual interview sessions following the Master-Apprentice model. I also was a participant in our group session when we met up at Geisel Library to brainstorm, have interpretation sessions, and discuss what we would write in our project paper. Considering the problem with group papers that had been encountered in previous classes (i.e. Cognitive Science 102C), we decided to learn from our mistakes and to not write the paper in the same ways that we had before (since those had not turn out the way that we had hoped). Therefore, we decided that one person would write the first draft, another would add onto that draft, and two would jointly work as editors. The fifth person in our group proofread the collaborative paper and was responsible for a figure. This way, the ideas in the paper would flow better and we would not have to be so concerned about unifying writing styles. This allowed us to focus our time on the substance instead of the aesthetics of the paper. I served as one of the two editors; I met with my fellow co-editor to work on the second draft after the two writers had finished.
My personal contribution was to facilitate one of the five contextual interview sessions following the Master-Apprentice model. I also was a participant in our group session when we met up at Geisel Library to brainstorm, have interpretation sessions, and discuss what we would write in our project paper. Considering the problem with group papers that had been encountered in previous classes (i.e. Cognitive Science 102C), we decided to learn from our mistakes and to not write the paper in the same ways that we had before (since those had not turn out the way that we had hoped). Therefore, we decided that one person would write the first draft, another would add onto that draft, and two would jointly work as editors. The fifth person in our group proofread the collaborative paper and was responsible for a figure. This way, the ideas in the paper would flow better and we would not have to be so concerned about unifying writing styles. This allowed us to focus our time on the substance instead of the aesthetics of the paper. I served as one of the two editors; I met with my fellow co-editor to work on the second draft after the two writers had finished.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Assignment 2 Update 1
This week, we were supposed to join other classmates and create a group to come up with a contextual design project. I joined a group that grew to nine people. This weekend we met up as a large group, with a few people missing. We decided that the best way to split our group into two would be to nominate the top ideas and then divide depending on topic preference.
The top two topic choices were technical appliances (such as kitchen utilities) and the interface of a coffee shop. Both ideas were intriguing to me, but at the time that we were deciding, the technical appliances group was wavering between a couple ideas. Therefore, I decided to go with the coffee shop group, since it is an interface that I am familiar with and have access to many users of the coffee shop interface experience. I find that everyday activities, such as going to the local Starbucks, are experiences that may be confusing to a novel user, but have become so ordinary for us in contemorary times that we take interaction and design of a coffee shop for granted. We have become accustomed to a typical coffee shop scenario that it will be interesting to see the flaws of the design and possible design changes.
My group, consisting of Daniel, Jenn, Tim, and myself, have many variables to consider for this topic. We decided to narrow down the user group to the customer, opposed to the coffee shop employee. We have yet to make any further decisions, but some ideas that we've brainstormed include the following:
1. The variation of customers depending on the time of day. For example, perhaps early morning coffee-shop-goers are the regular customers who already know what they want and are in a hurry to get to work/class, the afternoon crowd is more of the stroll-in crowd that are meeting others for a social hour, and the night group might be that need their caffine fix for a long night of studying. These factors would affect how the users interact with and what they expect from the menus, organization, etc.
2. It would be interesting to observe where the customers stand to wait in line to order, how they approach the counter, and where the relocate after they order and are waiting for their drink. These types unspoken rules of where to stand reminded me of Professor Hollan's example of the ATM and bank lines(i.e.how far could you push the lines until people ignored them, did they use physical marks on the floor,etc.)
3. Often times, there are other items to be purchased while waiting in line and a customer may reach over with his/her body to grab the item, while still leaving his/her foot to hold his/her spot in line. Why do we do this?
4. Depending on the purpose of the coffee shop endevour, some people may use the tables in the coffee shop for socializing or studying. Sometimes, the customer needs to claim a spot before he/she can order his/her drink, or vice versa.
5. Individual customers would vary from group customers. For example, a group of customers may ask eachother for drink suggestions instead of interacting with the coffee-shop employees or menu.
6. How do customers respond to mistakes in the order?...taking to long? ...a drink that tastes bad?
7. Who/where do customers approach when the cream/sugar/chocolate/etc has run out of the side table? What tactics are used to get those refilled? (i.e. a customer may approach one of the coffee shop employees in the back instead of the cashier so as not to defile social rules of cutting in line)
8. How effective are gift cards? .. advertising new products? ... music sampling exclusively at Starbucks?
These are just a few of the examples that we have brainstormed at our first meeting. Our goal for this week was to come up with more ideas and then narrow them down to the ones that we want to focus on. We will be interviewing six people, hopefully with a variety of individuals and groups indifferent time frames. We will most likely focus on the user group of college students, though this has yet to be established. We have many more decisions and actions to take as we continue to work on our contextual interviews, but these are the first steps to our assignment 2.
The top two topic choices were technical appliances (such as kitchen utilities) and the interface of a coffee shop. Both ideas were intriguing to me, but at the time that we were deciding, the technical appliances group was wavering between a couple ideas. Therefore, I decided to go with the coffee shop group, since it is an interface that I am familiar with and have access to many users of the coffee shop interface experience. I find that everyday activities, such as going to the local Starbucks, are experiences that may be confusing to a novel user, but have become so ordinary for us in contemorary times that we take interaction and design of a coffee shop for granted. We have become accustomed to a typical coffee shop scenario that it will be interesting to see the flaws of the design and possible design changes.
My group, consisting of Daniel, Jenn, Tim, and myself, have many variables to consider for this topic. We decided to narrow down the user group to the customer, opposed to the coffee shop employee. We have yet to make any further decisions, but some ideas that we've brainstormed include the following:
1. The variation of customers depending on the time of day. For example, perhaps early morning coffee-shop-goers are the regular customers who already know what they want and are in a hurry to get to work/class, the afternoon crowd is more of the stroll-in crowd that are meeting others for a social hour, and the night group might be that need their caffine fix for a long night of studying. These factors would affect how the users interact with and what they expect from the menus, organization, etc.
2. It would be interesting to observe where the customers stand to wait in line to order, how they approach the counter, and where the relocate after they order and are waiting for their drink. These types unspoken rules of where to stand reminded me of Professor Hollan's example of the ATM and bank lines(i.e.how far could you push the lines until people ignored them, did they use physical marks on the floor,etc.)
3. Often times, there are other items to be purchased while waiting in line and a customer may reach over with his/her body to grab the item, while still leaving his/her foot to hold his/her spot in line. Why do we do this?
4. Depending on the purpose of the coffee shop endevour, some people may use the tables in the coffee shop for socializing or studying. Sometimes, the customer needs to claim a spot before he/she can order his/her drink, or vice versa.
5. Individual customers would vary from group customers. For example, a group of customers may ask eachother for drink suggestions instead of interacting with the coffee-shop employees or menu.
6. How do customers respond to mistakes in the order?...taking to long? ...a drink that tastes bad?
7. Who/where do customers approach when the cream/sugar/chocolate/etc has run out of the side table? What tactics are used to get those refilled? (i.e. a customer may approach one of the coffee shop employees in the back instead of the cashier so as not to defile social rules of cutting in line)
8. How effective are gift cards? .. advertising new products? ... music sampling exclusively at Starbucks?
These are just a few of the examples that we have brainstormed at our first meeting. Our goal for this week was to come up with more ideas and then narrow them down to the ones that we want to focus on. We will be interviewing six people, hopefully with a variety of individuals and groups indifferent time frames. We will most likely focus on the user group of college students, though this has yet to be established. We have many more decisions and actions to take as we continue to work on our contextual interviews, but these are the first steps to our assignment 2.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Chapter 3: Understanding Users
This chapter focused on understanding the cognitive aspects of users. According to Interaction Design, cognition includes attention, perception / recogntion, memory, learning, reading / speaking / listening, and problem solving / planning / reasoning / decision making.
Attention is crucial for us to focus on information to process and is dependent on our goals and how the information is presented to us. Information presentation is important for how easily and accurately we understand the material. The design implication for attention would be to make information avaiable when it needs to be attended to at a given stage of a task, and to use techniques such as spacings, groupings, pictures, colors, and sounds to help the user to focus and sort.
Perception is complex and incorporates memory, attention, and language. Vision is the most dominant type of attention, followed by auditory and touch. The design implications for perception include using borders (which are more effective than color contrasts), icons & other graphical representations (which should enable users to readily distinguish their meaning), use sound effects, etc.
Memory is exercised through a filtering process. This includes 1) encoding: the extent to how information is interpreted when it is encountered affects the ability to recall it later, 2) context in which it is encoded (such as the neighbor at the train station), 3) better at recognizing things than recalling (it is better to browse through a list than have to recall from memory). This is all a part of the PIM, or personal information management.
Learning takes into account both learning how to use a novel application or using an application as an aid to learn. Interactive technologies is a strong example of learning; other design implications include encouraging exploration and to dynamically linking concrete representations and abstract concepts to help difficult material to be more understandable.
Attention is crucial for us to focus on information to process and is dependent on our goals and how the information is presented to us. Information presentation is important for how easily and accurately we understand the material. The design implication for attention would be to make information avaiable when it needs to be attended to at a given stage of a task, and to use techniques such as spacings, groupings, pictures, colors, and sounds to help the user to focus and sort.
Perception is complex and incorporates memory, attention, and language. Vision is the most dominant type of attention, followed by auditory and touch. The design implications for perception include using borders (which are more effective than color contrasts), icons & other graphical representations (which should enable users to readily distinguish their meaning), use sound effects, etc.
Memory is exercised through a filtering process. This includes 1) encoding: the extent to how information is interpreted when it is encountered affects the ability to recall it later, 2) context in which it is encoded (such as the neighbor at the train station), 3) better at recognizing things than recalling (it is better to browse through a list than have to recall from memory). This is all a part of the PIM, or personal information management.
Learning takes into account both learning how to use a novel application or using an application as an aid to learn. Interactive technologies is a strong example of learning; other design implications include encouraging exploration and to dynamically linking concrete representations and abstract concepts to help difficult material to be more understandable.
HALL OF SHAME!!!
This is a true story.
My sorority had interviews on Friday and Saturday, but unfortunately I had missed the first couple of candidates. Kelly had recorded all of interviews on the new JVC camcorder, so I asked her to watch those earlier interviews during our lunch break. She handed me the camcorder then left for lunch. I, a perfectly proficient technology user, figured that I would be able to easily playback the video as I had on so many other cameras before. I own a camera, so I thought It would be just like mine. I was wrong.
As a first time user, I looked at this camcorder to find any sort of player buttons. On the right side there were three options: “REC”, “OFF”, and “PLAY”. I switched it to “PLAY” and proceeded to look for an external button to start the recording. Nothing on the outside, and nothing when I opened the left side viewer. There was nothing that indicated play, pause, fast forward, rewind, arrows, or anything that resembled those types of functions. I tried pressing a couple ambiguous buttons (such as “MENU”) that I thought might start the video, but then I got scared that I might unintentionally press a delete or record-over button. I stared at the blank black screen frustrated and defeated.
After spending the whole lunch break trying to figure out how to play camera, Kelly finally returned. After explaining to her how much I hated her camera (and thinking to myself how perfectly this fits into the Hall of Shame), I asked her to assist me. She told me to open the left side viewer and switch the right side to “PLAY” (as I had done), then to use the little joystick on the viewer (what little joystick?!?). She pointed to a little knob on the bottom left of the screen, which I thought was a button. On this “joystick” are the words “QUICK REVIEW”, “FOCUS”, and “LIGHT”. I wasn’t sure how to use this joystick, so Kelly showed me to press it up to play the video. Sure enough, as soon as I pressed the joystick up, the video started to play. How does this function make any sense? I really have no idea.
It turns out that as soon as the joystick is pressed, a screen pops up that directs the user to a screen with the icons for play/pause, fast forward, stop, and rewind around a circular shape. This assumes that the user knows that to play/pause, he or she must press the joystick to the top, to fast forward to the right, stop to the bottom, and rewind to the left. Though this would serve as a helpful reminder to the user after they know how to figure it out, this function would not even be encountered by a first time user like myself.
The reason that I’ve nominated the interface device JVC camcorder’s play function for the HALL OF SHAME is on account of the usability factor of learnability. There are other functions on this camcorder, such as the volume controls (that double as the zoom function), that also deserve to be in the Hall of Shame. The users of this type of camcorder would be average people, most likely ranging from high school students to adults, who probably have had experience using other similar technologies.
As far as the player features, this camcorder fails to present any features that users are familiar with from existing technologies, such as an arrow icon for play or the word “PLAY”. The user is then unable to resort to previous knowledge when manipulating this new product. The degree to which the playback design facilitates attention and perception are crucial factors for its usability success. It is important for functions to be visible so that users will know what to do and how to do it (Interaction Design, 29). This device lacks those visual cues, such as icons and other graphical representations, which have proven to be the most helpful to for users to distinguish meaning and assist in recognition (Interaction Design, 99). A simple picture or familiar word would drastically improve the user’s experience, so that the user doesn’t get frustrated (like me!).
Once utilized correctly and practiced routinely, the play function may be simple to remember. The screen that displays the functions acts as a helpful reminder for usages over short time intervals. However, after an extended time of not using the camera, a user could easily forget how to use the player functions. In this case, there are no visual or audio cues to remind the user, he or she would need to resort to memory or outside resources. Perhaps this playback feature is a usable function as one “joystick”; instead of several buttons that need to be looked at and pressed, once the user had acquired the understanding of which direction represents which function (play/pause, rewind, etc.) a single joystick could be a more efficient tool. Regardless, it is a difficult feature to learn which undermines its usability value.
Ultimately, this JVC camcorder’s playback feature lacks real affordances because it is difficult to know how to interact with it. It is inconsistent with pre-existing and already learned elements of similar devices. Though the playback joystick might be a brilliant idea, its learnability and memorability have helped to nominate this JVC camcorder into the Hall of Shame.
Just for kicks, I performed a partial usability test on my roommate. I asked her to play the video that was in the camcorder. She had difficulty even finding how to turn the device on and switch it to the player (opposed to the recorder). Once that was done, she was looking for buttons just as I had done, and ended up pressing “MENU” several times. She, apparently more technologically adept than I, figured it out after about fifteen minutes. Throughout the whole thing she was cursing the device.
My sorority had interviews on Friday and Saturday, but unfortunately I had missed the first couple of candidates. Kelly had recorded all of interviews on the new JVC camcorder, so I asked her to watch those earlier interviews during our lunch break. She handed me the camcorder then left for lunch. I, a perfectly proficient technology user, figured that I would be able to easily playback the video as I had on so many other cameras before. I own a camera, so I thought It would be just like mine. I was wrong.
As a first time user, I looked at this camcorder to find any sort of player buttons. On the right side there were three options: “REC”, “OFF”, and “PLAY”. I switched it to “PLAY” and proceeded to look for an external button to start the recording. Nothing on the outside, and nothing when I opened the left side viewer. There was nothing that indicated play, pause, fast forward, rewind, arrows, or anything that resembled those types of functions. I tried pressing a couple ambiguous buttons (such as “MENU”) that I thought might start the video, but then I got scared that I might unintentionally press a delete or record-over button. I stared at the blank black screen frustrated and defeated.
After spending the whole lunch break trying to figure out how to play camera, Kelly finally returned. After explaining to her how much I hated her camera (and thinking to myself how perfectly this fits into the Hall of Shame), I asked her to assist me. She told me to open the left side viewer and switch the right side to “PLAY” (as I had done), then to use the little joystick on the viewer (what little joystick?!?). She pointed to a little knob on the bottom left of the screen, which I thought was a button. On this “joystick” are the words “QUICK REVIEW”, “FOCUS”, and “LIGHT”. I wasn’t sure how to use this joystick, so Kelly showed me to press it up to play the video. Sure enough, as soon as I pressed the joystick up, the video started to play. How does this function make any sense? I really have no idea.
It turns out that as soon as the joystick is pressed, a screen pops up that directs the user to a screen with the icons for play/pause, fast forward, stop, and rewind around a circular shape. This assumes that the user knows that to play/pause, he or she must press the joystick to the top, to fast forward to the right, stop to the bottom, and rewind to the left. Though this would serve as a helpful reminder to the user after they know how to figure it out, this function would not even be encountered by a first time user like myself.
The reason that I’ve nominated the interface device JVC camcorder’s play function for the HALL OF SHAME is on account of the usability factor of learnability. There are other functions on this camcorder, such as the volume controls (that double as the zoom function), that also deserve to be in the Hall of Shame. The users of this type of camcorder would be average people, most likely ranging from high school students to adults, who probably have had experience using other similar technologies.
As far as the player features, this camcorder fails to present any features that users are familiar with from existing technologies, such as an arrow icon for play or the word “PLAY”. The user is then unable to resort to previous knowledge when manipulating this new product. The degree to which the playback design facilitates attention and perception are crucial factors for its usability success. It is important for functions to be visible so that users will know what to do and how to do it (Interaction Design, 29). This device lacks those visual cues, such as icons and other graphical representations, which have proven to be the most helpful to for users to distinguish meaning and assist in recognition (Interaction Design, 99). A simple picture or familiar word would drastically improve the user’s experience, so that the user doesn’t get frustrated (like me!).
Once utilized correctly and practiced routinely, the play function may be simple to remember. The screen that displays the functions acts as a helpful reminder for usages over short time intervals. However, after an extended time of not using the camera, a user could easily forget how to use the player functions. In this case, there are no visual or audio cues to remind the user, he or she would need to resort to memory or outside resources. Perhaps this playback feature is a usable function as one “joystick”; instead of several buttons that need to be looked at and pressed, once the user had acquired the understanding of which direction represents which function (play/pause, rewind, etc.) a single joystick could be a more efficient tool. Regardless, it is a difficult feature to learn which undermines its usability value.
Ultimately, this JVC camcorder’s playback feature lacks real affordances because it is difficult to know how to interact with it. It is inconsistent with pre-existing and already learned elements of similar devices. Though the playback joystick might be a brilliant idea, its learnability and memorability have helped to nominate this JVC camcorder into the Hall of Shame.
Just for kicks, I performed a partial usability test on my roommate. I asked her to play the video that was in the camcorder. She had difficulty even finding how to turn the device on and switch it to the player (opposed to the recorder). Once that was done, she was looking for buttons just as I had done, and ended up pressing “MENU” several times. She, apparently more technologically adept than I, figured it out after about fifteen minutes. Throughout the whole thing she was cursing the device.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Chapter 2:Understanding and conceptualizing interaction
The two focal points of this chapter were understanding the problem space and conceptualizing the design space. Understanding the problem space is a crucial element to interaction design, and the description seemed pretty self explanatory-- to work around what the user actually needs. The conceptualizing the design space was much more interesting to me.. especially the four fundamental types of interaction that a user can have, including instructing, conversing, manipulating, and instructing:
The section that I found to be the most insightful was the discusssion of the pros and cons of major metaphors and analogies. For example, the analogy of the computer as a desktop with files that can be grouped into folders or thrown away in a trashcan, etc. Of course I understood that the computer uses familiar items so that I could easily understand its functionality, but I had never stepped aside to realize that someone had to have thought of that specific metaphor to use.. these metaphors have always existed in my conscious lifetime and therefore have seemed to become innate to me. Though there are many advantages of using such metaphors, I had never considered the limitations that are linked to them.
This book has described of how interaction is fundamental to the usability success of a product with examples that I have encountered before, and I think that these examples will be helfpul for me to remember those elaborated ideas. I thought that the vending machine and ticket machine examples were well-selected choices to explain how instructing is crucial to the interaction between the user and machine. (The usage of something I encounter everyday proves to me that the writers of these books have made this Interaction Design book user friendly for the reader... and maybe they DO know what they're talking about.) Using the reader's existing knowledge to further expand the ideas has been helpful, such as comparing how IKEA's help center, Ask Jeeve's for Kids, and an insurance company all utilize different modes of conversing.
One idea that stood out to me was the testing of the Chromarium color cubes... "in a study exploring color mixing, it was found that young children (aged 4-6 years) were far more creative, collaborative, and reflexive when mixing colors with the physical-digital cubes... in particular, they explored many more combinations and tried to see if they could change the density of the colors being mixed, for example, by placing the cubes on top of each other and pressing them hard on the table" ( Interaction Design, 71). Using children as the users would help to bring the level of usability down to a basic leven and to explore ways that a narrow minded adult might not think to do. However, a downfall to this would be that some more expertised users may find such a product to be too elementary.
... more to come later :D
The section that I found to be the most insightful was the discusssion of the pros and cons of major metaphors and analogies. For example, the analogy of the computer as a desktop with files that can be grouped into folders or thrown away in a trashcan, etc. Of course I understood that the computer uses familiar items so that I could easily understand its functionality, but I had never stepped aside to realize that someone had to have thought of that specific metaphor to use.. these metaphors have always existed in my conscious lifetime and therefore have seemed to become innate to me. Though there are many advantages of using such metaphors, I had never considered the limitations that are linked to them.
This book has described of how interaction is fundamental to the usability success of a product with examples that I have encountered before, and I think that these examples will be helfpul for me to remember those elaborated ideas. I thought that the vending machine and ticket machine examples were well-selected choices to explain how instructing is crucial to the interaction between the user and machine. (The usage of something I encounter everyday proves to me that the writers of these books have made this Interaction Design book user friendly for the reader... and maybe they DO know what they're talking about.) Using the reader's existing knowledge to further expand the ideas has been helpful, such as comparing how IKEA's help center, Ask Jeeve's for Kids, and an insurance company all utilize different modes of conversing.
One idea that stood out to me was the testing of the Chromarium color cubes... "in a study exploring color mixing, it was found that young children (aged 4-6 years) were far more creative, collaborative, and reflexive when mixing colors with the physical-digital cubes... in particular, they explored many more combinations and tried to see if they could change the density of the colors being mixed, for example, by placing the cubes on top of each other and pressing them hard on the table" ( Interaction Design, 71). Using children as the users would help to bring the level of usability down to a basic leven and to explore ways that a narrow minded adult might not think to do. However, a downfall to this would be that some more expertised users may find such a product to be too elementary.
... more to come later :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)