cs 376 fieldwork and prototyping n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CS 376 Fieldwork and Prototyping PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
CS 376 Fieldwork and Prototyping

CS 376 Fieldwork and Prototyping

167 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

CS 376 Fieldwork and Prototyping

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. CS 376Fieldwork and Prototyping Shailendra RaoAbhay Sukumaran

  2. Fieldwork / Prototyping • Fieldwork: Contextual Design • Prototyping: Prototyping for Tiny Fingers • Case Study: Informing the Design of an Information Management Systems with Iterative Fieldwork

  3. Fieldwork: Contextual Design • Ch2: Gathering Customer Data • Ch3: Principles of Contextual Inquiry

  4. Gathering Customer Data • Marketing vs. design • Market: money, barriers to entry, niches • Design: work structure, attitudes, affordances • Quantitative vs. Qualitative • Eliciting customer needs is difficult • IT people tend to focus on technology; don’t share the user’s perspective

  5. Good Designers Can • Delve into intuitive processes and make the knowledge shareable • Using Contextual Inquiry • In the field • Co-discovery of needs with user • Shared interpretation • Directed by design purpose • Marketing tells you what will sell; design tells you how best to build it.

  6. Principles of Contextual Inquiry 1 of 5 • The Master/ Apprentice Relationship Model • Design team learns about users’ work like an apprentice learning from a master • Observation + Discussion • Go to workplace to see work as it unfolds • No generalizations, but actual instances of work • Current events trigger past events • Environments and artifacts matter

  7. Principles of Contextual Inquiry 2 of 5 Four Principles of Contextual Inquiry • Context • Partnership • Interpretation • Focus

  8. Principles of Contextual Inquiry 3 of 5 • 1. Context “Go to the customer’s workplace and see the work as it unfolds”(Whiteside and Wixon 1988) • Summary vs Ongoing Experience • Details are hard to talk about, but easy to see • Abstract vs. Concrete Data • Real artifacts and specific events make essential details salient

  9. Principles of Contextual Inquiry 4 of 5 • 2. Partnership “Make you and the customer collaborators in understanding his work” • Withdrawal and return = watching work + discussing how work in structured • Design is truly user centered when you start by investigating work structure, not by bringing a prototype • Other Relationship Models to avoid: • Interviewer/ interviewee • Expert/ novice

  10. Principles of Contextual Inquiry 5 of 5 • 3. Interpretation : What do these observations reveal about underlying structure? • Correct interpretations lead to effective design • Check the interpretation by walking the user through it • Be open-ended and pay close attention to nonverbal cues • 4. Focus : steer, but don’t blindfold • Follow up to probe for detail on relevant things • Use intrapersonal triggers to expand focus

  11. CSI: Contextual Inquiry • Crime Scene Investigation… the Contextual Inquiry season • How does Kumar manage his music collection? The Crime Scene Investigator… commits a crime! • Roles • Shailo: Kumar the customer • Abhay: Harold the interviewer

  12. Crime 1 • S: Hey I’m Kumar and I’m here for the study. Aw man, it was really tough finding the place! I took 101 and then the Dumbarton bridge and then 880 North and then got stuck in traff- • Not in users context

  13. Crime 2 • S: {feeling awkward} So, Harold how about them Warriors this upcoming season? They look good man! • A: Um, I’m not really interested in basketball. I’m more of a baseball fan. • No sensitivity to culture and not making the user feel comfortable.

  14. Crime 3 • A: Okay… moving on. Have you ever converted a CD to mp3 format with your computer? • S: Yup. • A: What program do you use to do this? • S: Well I use iTunes. • Leading question

  15. Crime 4 • A: So today I’d like you to tell me about how you manage your music collection. Do you listen to mp3’s on your computer? • S: Yes. • A: What program do you use to manage your music? • S: Hmmm, I think it’s called iTunes. That Apple one. • A: Have you ever created an Audio CD from your MP3s? • S: You mean to listen in my car? • A: Yes, whatever. • S: Oh yeah I’ve done that plenty of times. • A: How many songs do you have? • S: You mean mp3’s or cd’s? • A: In iTunes. • S: Probably 20GB • A: So how many songs is that? • S: Hmmm, a lot? • A: Okay… moving on. Have you ever converted a CD to mp3 format with your computer? • S: Yup. • A: What program do you use to do this? • S: Well I use iTunes. • Interviewer/ interviewee relationship model

  16. Crime 5 • A: Well actually you know Nero does a better job of converting CD’s to mp3 format. It’s much faster. You should use it. • S: Oh yeah? You know I’m probably not as well-versed as you in this computer music thing. • A: Well let’s just say I’ve been doing this for years. I’ve been converting CDs to mp3’s since 1996. • S: Wow, Harold! I didn’t even know mp3’s existed back then! • A: You have so much to learn, Kumar. • Expert/ Novice relationship instead of Master/ Apprentice

  17. Crime 6 • A: OK. So now it’s exactly as if you were setting at your desktop computer with your normal program and settings right? • S: I guess so. This is actually my friend’s laptop that I borrowed just for this study. • A: Well okay, but it’s exactly the same right? • S: Sure. It’s a computer with music right? • No Context- studying an artificial situation and setup

  18. Crime 7 • S: Pretty good. • A: What do you mean? Tell me three of the biggest problems you have had. • Leading, assuming that there have been problems

  19. Crime 8 • Uh, I guess sometimes a few of my files don’t transfer over. • A: Because the Bluetooth broke down? • Leading the interviewee

  20. Crimes 9 & 10 • S: Um, no, I don’t think so. Is Bluetooth the wire that connects the Ipod to the computer? • A: <haha>, are you kidding? No, it’s a short-range radio frequency standard for mobile device communication. • Expert / novice relationship model • Probe for concrete data vs. abstract

  21. Crime 11 • S: ok. Here goes. <creates two playlists> • A: <watches > Ok. Did you have any problems doing that? • S: No, I don’t think so. • Interviewer did not alternate between watching and probing.

  22. Crime 12 • A: I think you were trying to replicate a saved query there. • S: uh.. yeah, the thing is, I don’t know how to browse my music through iTunes. I just know how to search. • Interviewer should share interpretation with user, and let them fine–tune it.

  23. Crime 13 • S: come to think of it, I have a tough time browsing the stuff I’ve TIvoed. I think the problem is that I collect so many shows in such small periods of time. I’ll TiVo 5 shows a day. Actually I….. Do you ever have that problem, Harold? • A: um, no • S: Well, that’s pretty cool … • Focus was not handled properly

  24. Crime 14 • A: Yeah, next time I’ll show you how to manage your music much more effectively. • Reinforcing the wrong relationship model (expert/novice)

  25. Prototyping for Tiny Fingers • Fudd’s first law of creativity: “To get a good idea, get lots of ideas.” • Lo-fi (Paper) vs Hi-fi Prototyping • “Know your user, you aren’t your user”

  26. Not so Tiny Tradeoffs What are the Tradeoffs to Lo-Fi Prototyping?

  27. Advantages to Lo-Fi Prototyping • Quick to build (especially multiple) • Get user feedback fast • Keeps focus on conceptual elements rather “Fit and Finish”

  28. Advantages to Lo-Fi Prototyping • No false impressions of how much backend work has been completed • Avoid debugging • Great for choosing between different several different mockups

  29. Disadvantages to Paper Prototyping • Can’t sell it • Bad for testing look and feel • Can’t show a detailed proof of concept • Can’t test changes to an existing system • Could encourage excessive focus on micro-elements

  30. Lo-Fi Quickies • Think back to preschool-- Get your hands dirty • Expect the unexpected from users-- Practice for various actions • Stick to your roles (Observer, Wizard of Oz, Facilitator**, and User) • Only Facilitator should be audible and “visible” • Use realistic scenarios • Use domain relevant sample data

  31. Case Study • Informing the Design of an Information Management Systems with Iterative Fieldwork

  32. PIM design • Key question: Why does paper-based PIM persist even in the face of advantages of online formats: • Searchable • Shareable • Easily archivable • Auto-generated reminders • How to integrate paper into the new PIM • Or – how to simulate affordances of paper

  33. Paper affordances • Permanent • Lightweight • Form factor – can fold, tear, etc. • Universally available • Supports grouping (piles on desk), association (paper clips), copying. • Anything else?

  34. Pilot Interviews (Phase 1) • Reality check • proposing a radical idea (paper PIM) • fish around and get a sense of the domain • Ask: • How do you do it now? • What’s wrong with it? • Could our design make things better? • Outcomes: • Tangible, context-embedded reminders • Temporary clumps of documents (e.g., all emails+docs for a meeting)

  35. In-depth interviews (Phase 2) • Explore evolving ideas • Ask: • How and why do people organize on paper and offline? • Physical artifacts & their organization • Could we print and scan? • Outcome • Filing is difficult • Scanning isn’t going to work • Sticky note reminders are great • Documents of different types need to be grouped • All sorts of different tool combinations used

  36. In-breadth interviews (Phase 3) • Back up and distil findings • Ask: • Email usage • Organizing meetings • Taking notes • Outcome • Design to embed in everyday apps • Simple, flexible • Something like sticky notes to label / group

  37. What they did right • Didn’t just look for confirming evidence of their initial hypothesis • Paper prototype – no software to get attached to • In – context, iterative user research • Understood importance of email for coordination and collaboration

  38. What they did wrong • No observation of users • Diary study might have been effective • Scanner oriented gadget bubble • Ask them to project “whether it would work” • Slicky does not equal sticky • Making a customizable UI does not mean that people will actually take the trouble to customize it • Problems with groups – people don’t file because they have to think hard about categorization. • They do needs finding in the user domain, but the solution is still from an engineering perspective • “Raton Laveur”

  39. Advice for the field Go forth and prototype!