working with users, part 2. hall of fame los angeles parking signs
TRANSCRIPT
Working with users, part 2
Hall of FameLOS ANGELES PARKING SIGNS
The Original Parking Sign
Visibility
One format
Mapping
Chronological time slots
Cultural Constraints
Colors and Form
Allows for Errors
Contact information
Tied to Technology
The Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame/Shame
Roll-up Headphones
Hall of Fame
Constraints for pulling the headphones out, will allow you to roll the cord up providing good feedback to the users
Since the headphone cord gets wrapped up like a ball it will provide an easy conceptual model for relating the Wheel shape for interacting with it.
Tangled up headphones don't afford immediate affordance to music
Review of main user discussion
“Imaginary Users” - Personas
• Basis– Cluster users by relevant attributes– Identify clusters– Create “realistic” representatives– Force you to consider whether your design is
appropriate
One Persona
• Patricia is a 31 year old accountant for a technical publisher who has used Windows for six years at the office. She is fairly competent and technical. She installs her own software; she reads PC Magazine; she has programmed some Word macros. She has a cable modem for her home PC. She’s never used a Macintosh. “They’re too expensive”, she’ll say, “you can get a quad core PC with 8 GB of RAM for the price of…”
Another Persona• Nelson has been an English professor at
Wartburg since 1975. He’s written several books of poetry and has been using computer word processors since 1980, but has only used two programs, WordPerfect and Microsoft Word. He doesn’t care how computers work; he tends to store all his documents in whatever directory they get put in.
Examples for a specific domain28 year old single woman with no children. Works full time.
Didn’t go to college. Uses the internet sparingly to email family and friends. She attends movie theaters proximately 3 or 4 times a year. She rents however at least one every other week.
For this user she is more concerned about getting a good value and a good quality price because money is important to her. On the other hand she wants a movie that she can relate to or enjoy.
When she is looking for a movie she wants to see the ratings that critics have giving the movie, a brief description of the movie, so she can have some idea what it is about. Finally, who is in the movie because there are some actors/actresses that she finds completely repulsive.
Examples for a specific domainA 65 year old grandmother of 13. She works taking care of the house
and feeding her family. She is married to a farmer and finds ways to help out in her spare time. She is also an avid church attendant who likes to be involved with her community. She finds herself using the internet to buy things online for her grandchildren. She also uses MSN to keep in touch with her family.
When it comes to movies this user and her husband would rather go to a theater. She is interested in movies with a good plot. She is open to new ideas and also like to see many different varieties of films. Content is somewhat important but she prefers not to view anything with too much violence. Cost is also important, but not the deciding factor. She would like to attend more drive in movies theatres.
Different types of users
• Characteristics – ability, background, attitude towards computers
• System use
• Novices
• First-time users
• Knowledgeable but infrequent
• Experts
• Job role – e.g., nurse, physician, medical-record maintainer, database administrator
Novices / First-timers
• Novices– Little task or interface knowledge
• First-time users– Knowledgeable about the task, but not the interface
• Goal – get the job done• Design approach
– Step-by-step prompting– Constrained action– Clear procedures– Error recovery– Feedback is crucial
Knowledgeable but infrequent
• They know the task and interface concepts in general, but may find it difficult to remember interface details
• Design approach – Well-designed menus– Consistency, e.g. of terminology– Recognition over recall
Experts
• Power users
• Design approach– Speed is a key – quick responses– Shortcuts– Feedback should be brief and non-distracting– Support for user-defined macros
It’s not just users that differ, it’salso their work contexts
• Physical: dusty? noisy? vibration? light? heat? humidity? hands free?
• Social: sharing of files, of displays, in paper, across great distances, work individually, privacy for clients
• Organizational: hierarchy, IT department’s attitude, user support, communications structure and infrastructure, availability of training
Selecting users to work with
• Brainstorm a preliminary list
• Create a user – task matrix– These tasks are your initial, high-level ideas of
what users are trying to accomplish– Think of what types of users would do each
task
Example User-Task MatrixUsers Query by
PatientUpdate Data
Query Across Patients
Add Relations
Evaluate System
Nurse X X
Physician X X
Appointment Personnel
X
Medical-record maintainer
X X X X
DB Programmer
X X X
Narrowing the list
• Discuss your assumptions
• What do you want to know?– How users define themselves (jobs, tasks,
mental models)– How they differ– How they will use the products over time
Moving on
OK, how do you gather data from users?
• Questionnaires
• Interviews– Workshops / Focus Groups
• Observations
• Studying Documentation
• Participatory Design
Questionnaires• A series of questions designed to elicit specific
information • Questions may require different kinds of
answers: • YES/NO; choice of pre-supplied answers; comment
• Often used in conjunction with other techniques• Can give quantitative or qualitative data• Good for answering specific questions from a
large, dispersed group of people• But you need to know what questions to ask –
design is crucial
Interviews• Forum for talking to people • Structured, unstructured or semi-structured • Props, e.g. sample use scenarios, prototypes,
can help• Good for exploring issues • But are time consuming and may be
infeasible to visit everyone
Workshops / Focus Groups
• Group interviews • Good at gaining a consensus view and/or
highlighting areas of conflict
Observation• Spend time with stakeholders in their day-
to-day tasks, observing work as it happens• Gain insights into stakeholders’ tasks • Good for understanding the nature and
context of the tasks• But it requires time and commitment
from a member of the design team, and it can result in a huge amount of data
Studying Documentation
• Procedures and rules are often written down in manuals
• Good source of data about the steps involved in an activity, and any regulations governing a task
• Not to be used in isolation• Good for understanding legislation, and getting
background information• No stakeholder time, which is a limiting factor for
the other techniques
Choosing between techniques
• Data gathering techniques differ in two ways:• Amount of time, level of detail, and risk associated
with the findings• Knowledge the analyst requires
• The choice of technique is also affected by the kind of task to be studied• Sequential steps or overlapping series of subtasks?• High or low, complex or simple information?• Task for a layman or a skilled practitioner?
Comparing techniquesTechnique Good for Kind of data Advantages Disadvantages
Question-naires
Answering specific questions
Quantitative and qualitative
Can reach many people with little effort.
Design is crucial. Response rate may be low.
Interviews Exploring issues
Mostly qualitative Interviewer can guide user. Encourages user/ designer interaction.
Time consuming. Artificial setting may intimidate user.
Focus groups Collecting multiple viewpoints
Mostly qualitative Highlights areas of consensus and conflict. Encourages user/designer interaction.
Possibility of dominant characters.
Observation Understanding context of user activity
Qualitative Observing actual work gives insights that other techniques can’t.
Very time consuming. Huge amounts of data.
• OK, instead of just learning from users, what if they are brought into the design team?
Participatory Design
• End users become partners in the design team • Developed in Scandinavia• Two motivations
– Data gathering is imperfect, so designers can’t get to know users well enough to resolve all issues that come up during the design process Better communication and sharing of knowledge will lead to better designs
– Workplace democracy• Protect workers’ rights, allow their voices to be heard• Preserve the quality of their work
• When applied in the USA, the second motivation has been de-emphasized
The PD process
• Users become first-class members of the design team– Active collaborators in all phases, not just
passive participants or data providers
• Users are the subject matter experts• Iterative process – try designs, modify• Workshops• Mockups / LoFi prototypes
We’ll talk about these starting next week
PD upsides
• End users are excellent at providing feedback on proposed designs– Designs are concrete and visible, great “objects to think
with”
• Users bring important “folk” knowledge of their work context– They know more than they can say… so designers
probably won’t get access to this information otherwise
• Often leads to greater buy-in for the final system
PD downsides
• Hard to get users who can be full members of the team– They have full-time jobs, and this isn’t it
• Users aren’t expert designers– While everyone has a contribution to make, producing
designs isn’t one end users should be expected to make
• Users aren’t always right– Don’t expect users to know what they want or
whether/how they could use new technologies
Exercise
• Consider the general task of voting– A voter chooses one (or more) candidate from a
set of candidates for a particular office– In a given election, voters may have to make
choices for multiple offices
Exercise – Part 1
• Consider users– Who are they?– What are relevant user characteristics?
• Result write personas describing two users
Some example users
• Voter
• Poll worker
• Vote counter
• Party official / candidate representative
Next Steps
• Project– User visit plan
• Reading– If not finished yet, read TCUID chs. 1 and 2