Usability and Human Factors

1. Usability and Human Factors Approaches to Design Lecture b This material (Comp 15 Unit 8) was developed by Columbia University, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology under Award Number 1U24OC000003. This material was updated by The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston under Award Number 90WT0006. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.

2. Approaches to DesignLecture b – Learning Objectives • Describe requirements analysis and cognitive task analysis (Lecture b) • Characterize the role of prototypes in design (Lecture b) • Describe the principles of participatory design (Lecture b) • Explain the difference between low fidelity and high fidelity prototypes (Lecture b) • When it would be appropriate to use one versus the other (Lecture b)

3. Needs and Requirements • Definition of requirements: • An explanation of what the system should “be” or should “do” • Documentation of “needs” in order to communicate between everyone involved in system development • A set of goals that define objectives for design • What are we trying to achieve? • Identifying needs so that the system can support the user’s goals. • Produce a set of stable requirements that can be moved forward into the design activity

4. Why Do We Need Requirements? • To make communication clear, unambiguous and specific on system “needs” • To identify potential mismatch between user needs and designers’ understanding • To reduce the time and costs involved in developing a system • To evaluate the functions of a system during testing

5. Task Descriptions • Scenarios • “Stories” • Use Cases • Focus on user-system interactions • Essential Use Cases • Abstractions from scenarios • User intention vs. System responsibility Usability.gov

6. Cognitive Task Analysis • Tools and techniques for describing knowledge and strategies required for task performance • Hierarchical decomposition of goals and component tasks • Objective: Yield information about the knowledge, thought processes, and goal structures that underlie observable task performance • Models of competent performance

7. Task Analysis: ATM Machines • Goal: Obtain Cash from machine • IF ATM is available THEN insert card in appropriate slot • IF Card is accepted by Machine THEN enter PIN code • IF you cannot remember PIN THEN Retrieve slip of paper with number • IF Machine prompts you for an action THEN Indicate that you wish to withdraw cash • IF “Withdraw Cash” button/icon is visible THEN press button/icon • IF “Withdraw Cash” button/icon is not visible THEN locate button/icon

8. A Partial Walkthrough: ATM Goal: Obtain $80 Cash from Checking Account 1. Action: Enter Card (Screen 1) System response: Enter PIN > (Screen 2) 2. Sub-goal: Interpret prompt and provide input 3 & 4. Actions: Enter “Pin” on Numeric keypad and Hit Enter (press lower white button next to screen) System response: “Do you want a printed transaction record”. Binary Option: Yes or No (Screen 3) 5. Sub-goal: Decide whether a printed record is necessary

9. A Partial Walkthrough: ATM (Cont’d – 1) Goal: Obtain $80 Cash from Checking Account, continued 6. Action: Press Button Next to No Response System response: Select Transaction-8 Choices (Screen 4) 7. Sub-goal: Choose Between Quick Cash and Cash Withdrawal 8. Action: Press Button Next to Cash Withdrawal System response: Select Account (Screen 5) 9. Action: Press Button Next to Checking System response: Enter Dollar Amounts in Multiples of 20 (Screen 6) 10 & 11. Action(s): Enter $80 on Numeric Key Pad and Select Correct

10. Prototypes • Artifact used to facilitate team communication • Test novel ideas • Central to all design disciplines • Answer questions and support designers in choosing between alternatives • Clarify requirements

11. Low Fidelity Prototyping • Storyboards, Sketching • Fast and cheap • User participation • Throw away • Hard to convey flow • Harder to convert to code and specifications

12. IDEATel Launchpad Starren, J., Hripcsak, G., Sengupta, S., Abbruscato, C.R., Knudson, P.E., et. Al. (2002)

13. IDEATel Launchpad Mockup Starren, J., Hripcsak, G., Sengupta, S., Abbruscato, C.R., Knudson, P.E., et. Al. (2002)

14. High Fidelity Mockup Kaufman, D.R., Cronin, P., Rozenblit, L., Voccola, D., Horton, A., et. Al. (2011).

15. Measure Selector Mockup • Selector is tool designed for scientists involved in autism research • High fidelity mockup assembled with a diagramming/visualization tool • Interface approximates final design • Functionally partitions the screen • Anticipates structure of user interaction/dialogue • Based on prior usability testing and requirements analysis (Affairs, 2016)

16. PICTIVE Output Kaufman, D. (2012).

17. High Fidelity Prototyping • Functional, Interactive • “Living specification” • Expensive and slow • Throw-away vs. Evolutionary

18. Low versus High Fidelity 1.1 Table: Preece, et al. (2007).

19. Participatory Design • Approach to design actively involve and continuously engage all stakeholders • Not just end-users • Focuses on processes and procedures • Embraces a philosophy of empowerment and democratization • Core set of principles

20. Participatory Design Principles • Every stakeholder has a voice regardless of status • Workers are a prime source of innovation • Systems are networks of people, practices, and technology embedded in particular organizational contexts • Find concrete ways to improve the working lives of co-participants • reducing tedium associated with work tasks • designing new opportunities for exercising creativity • increasing worker control over work content

21. A Case Study in Participatory Design:Children’s Contributions in Designing a Communication Tool for Children with Cancer • Ruland CM, Starren J, Vatne TM. Participatory design with children in the development of a support system for patient-centered care in pediatric oncology. J Biomed Inform. 2007 Nov 13; • Center for Shared Decision Making and Nursing Research, Rikshospitalet Medical Center Oslo, Norway • Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, NY • Funding: Norwegian Research Council

22. SISOM • A communication tool to: • Help children with cancer communicate their symptoms and problems – give them a “voice” • Improve communication between the child, parents and health care providers • Assist health care providers in individually tailored patient care

23. Design Challenges • Developmental factors • Valid data capturing • Seriously ill children as primary users • Limited verbal skills • Adjustment to clinical context and different users

24. Children’s Contributions • Graphical user interface • Understandable child-friendly terms • Iconic and graphical representations • Usability

25. Design Techniques • Scenarios • Brainstorming, drawing, building feedback • Low – tech prototyping • Observation • Evaluation of ideas • Videotaping

26. Design Session Ruland ,C.M., Starren, J., Vatne T.M.(2008).

27. How to Decide Which Ideas To Use • Evaluation of ideas based on: • System requirements • Usability criteria (Nielsen) • Usability heuristics • Interface guidelines

28. Island Ruland, C.M., Starren, J., Vatne, T.M. (2008).

29. My Body Ruland, C.M., Starren, J., Vatne, T.M. (2008).

30. Pain and Discomfort Ruland, C.M., Starren, J., Vatne, T.M. (2008).

31. Conclusions from Design Study • Many creative suggestions that the design team would not have thought of • Difficulty to stick to specifications – play mode • Importance of role play • Mixture between children’s ideas and experts knowledge

32. Approaches to DesignSummary – Lecture b • Characterized requirements analysis • Demonstrated a cognitive task analysis • Characterize the role of prototypes in design • Explain the difference between low fidelity and high fidelity prototypes • When it would be appropriate to use one versus the other • Provided a detailed case study of participatory design • Up next: design principles to support usability and a focus on Nielsen’s heuristics and their role in design

33. Approaches to DesignReferences – Lecture b References Kaufman, D.R., Pevzner, J, Hilliman, C., Weinstock, R.S., Teresi, J. Shea, S. & Starren, J. (2006). Re-designing a telehealth diabetes management program for a digital divide seniors population. Home, Healthcare, Management & Practice. 18: 223-234. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2007). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.). West Sussex, England: Wiley. Starren J, Hripcsak G, Sengupta S, Abbruscato CR, Knudson PE, Weinstock RS, Shea S.  Columbia University's Informatics for Diabetes and Telemedicine (IDEATel) Project: technical implementation.  JAMIA 2002;9:25-36. Kaufman D.R., Cronin P., Rozenblit L., Voccola D., Horton A., Shine A., Johnson S.B. (2011). Facilitating the iterative design of informatics tools to advance the science of autism. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 69, 955-9. Affairs, A. (2016). Use Cases. Usability.gov. Retrieved 14 September 2016, from https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/use-cases.html Images Slides 12 &13: Starren, J., Hripcsak, G., Sengupta, S., Abbruscato, C.R., Knudson, P.E., Weinstock, R.S., Shea, S.(2002). Columbia University's Informatics for Diabetes and Telemedicine (IDEATel) Project: technical implementation.  JAMIA 2002;9:25-36. Slide 14: Kaufman, D.R., Cronin, P., Rozenblit, L., Voccola, D., Horton, A., Shine, A., Johnson, S.B. (2011). Facilitating the iterative design of informatics tools to advance the science of autism. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 69, 955-9.

34. Approaches to DesignReferences – Lecture b (Cont’d – 1) Images Slide 16: Kaufman, D. (2012). Plastic Interface for Collaborative Technology Initiative through Video Exploration. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. Slide 26: Ruland, C.M., Starren, J., Vatne, T.M.(2008). Participatory design with children in the development of a support system for patient-centered care in pediatric oncology. JBI. 2008;41(4):624–635. Slide 28-30: Ruland, C.M., Starren, J., Vatne, T.M. (2008). Participatory design with children in the development of a support system for patient-centered care in pediatric oncology. JBI. 2008;41(4):624–635 Charts, Table, & Figures 1.1 Table: Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2007). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.). West Sussex, England: Wiley.

35. Usability and Human FactorsApproaches to DesignLecture b This material was developed by Columbia University, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology under Award Number 1U24OC000003. This material was updated by The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston under Award Number 90WT0006.