in1060: design for og med brukere – inkludert evalueringTo improve the usability of an application...

in1060:designforogmedbrukere–inkludertevalueringToneBratteteig

in1060:26/22018

Institutt for Informatikk

læringsmål

-  redegjøreforuliketilnærmingertilevaluering

-  forklareulikemetoderforevaluering

-  beskrivehvabrukerekanbidramedidesignprosessen

-  redegjøreforhvordanbrukerekaninvolveresidesign

-  diskuteregraderavbrukermedvirkning

ToneBratteteig,in1060:26/22018


læringsmål&oversikt







-  hvaerevaluering-  hvagjørmannårmanevaluerer?

-  hvamenesmeddesignforogmedbrukere?-  hvaerdetbrukernekanværemedpåidesign-  graderavbrukermedvirkning:hvabestemmerde?


hvaerevaluering?

é-valuer:severdienav..evaluere:systematiskteste,prøve,sjekke,veriBisere,validere…testehvaiforholdtilhva?-hvaerdetsomskalevalueresogiforholdtilhva/hvem:kriterierogmål-avhvem:hvemutførerevalueringenoghvordan-forhvem:hvaskalevalueringenbrukestilToneBratteteig,in1060:26/22018


fradesign-forelesningendesignsomen“samtalemedmaterialet”

“see–move–see”(Schön&Schön&Wiggins)

evalueringerintegrertmeddesign&analyse(iterativutvikling)ToneBratteteig,in1060:26/22018



fradesign-forelesningen


hvorforevaluering?

hvavilviviteunderveisidesign-prosessen,førresultateterklart?-klarerbrukernebrukeproduktet?-vildebrukedet?(Ogvildekjøpedet?)

-hvakanvitesteunderveis,ognår?(ide,skisse,prototype..)-hvoroghvordanskalviteste?(labellernaturligeomgivelser)



hvateste:kriterierogmålforevaluering

-atartefaktetvirkerogblirforstått-funksjonalitet(ift.behov):hvaskalartefaktetgjøre?-kommunikasjon&presentasjonavfunksjonalitet-evalueringskriterier……..validereogveriBisere-atartifaktet1)gjørderiktigetingeneog2)gjørdemriktig-allevalueringavhengeravhvemoghvasomevalueres

deriktigetingene,detviønsket/behov

riktigresultat,dvs.funksjonalitetift.kravspesiBikasjon


automatisering:input->output


hvemoghvordanevaluere?

-densomharlagetartefaktet?-densomharbestiltartefaktet?-densomskalbrukeartefaktet?-utenforstående(eksterne)?-eksperter?-mål:hvaergodtnok?Hvembestemmerdet?

evalueringskriterieromfang

kostnad

(ressurser)

tid

kvalitet



hvordanevaluere:metoder

-analytiskevaluering-heuristiskevaluering-summativevaluering-formativevaluering&-kombinasjoneravdisse

-bruker-testing-brukbarhets-testing-brukbarhets-studier-bruker-studier-feltstudier-brukbarhets-lab-kontrollerteksperiment…osv.



hvordan:tilnærminger

3hovedtyper:ilab,ifelten,påkontoretilab:brukbarhetstesting

–observereogmålefunksjonalitet/kommuniserefunksjonalitetifelten:feltstudier

–observereogintervjueibruk/medbrukerepåkontoret:analytisk

–inspeksjoner,reviews–heuristiskevaluering(f.eks.NielsensΣ249brukbarhetsproblemer)



tilnærminger

3hovedtyper:ilab,ifelten,påkontoretgirforskjelliginformasjonogforegårpåforskjelligtidspunktidesign

brukbarhetstesting feltstudier analytisk

brukere gjøroppgaver naturligpraksis ikkeinvolvert

sted kontrollertomgivelse(lab) naturlig hvorsomhelst

tid prototype tidlig prototype

data kvantitative kvalitative problemer

feedback målingerogfeil beskrivelser problemer

typeeval. bruk/anvendelse naturligpraksis ekspertvurdering

(fra

Pree

ce e

t al

)



ilab

IFI:Design&SINTEF:HCIdeltlabforbrukeropplevelse


i“kunstige”omgivelser


ifelten


inaturligeomgivelser(ikkeiscenesatt)


5/13/11 3:29 PM10 Heuristics for User Interface Design

Page 2 of 2http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.Help and documentation

Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, itmay be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such informationshould be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to becarried out, and not be too large.

I originally developed the heuristics for heuristic evaluation in collaboration withRolf Molich in 1990 [Molich and Nielsen 1990; Nielsen and Molich 1990]. I sincerefined the heuristics based on a factor analysis of 249 usability problems [Nielsen1994a] to derive a set of heuristics with maximum explanatory power, resulting inthis revised set of heuristics [Nielsen 1994b].

Updated Findings

I'll present my newest usability guidelines in the tutorial on FundamentalGuidelines for Web Usability at the Usability Week 2009 conference in Las Vegasand Berlin.

The conference also includes a full-day course on other methods beyond usertesting.

See Also:

Bruce "Tog" Tognazzini's list of basic principles for interface design. The list isslightly too long for heuristic evaluation but serves as a useful checklist.Examples of the 10 heuristics in Web applications.The 10 usability heuristics applied to everyday life (just for fun).Full set of 2,397 usability guidelines (across multiple reports).

ReferencesMolich, R., and Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a human-computer dialogue, Communications of

the ACM 33, 3 (March), 338-348.Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces, Proc. ACM CHI'90

Conf. (Seattle, WA, 1-5 April), 249-256.Nielsen, J. (1994a). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Proc. ACM CHI'94

Conf. (Boston, MA, April 24-28), 152-158.Nielsen, J. (1994b). Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L. (Eds.), Usability

Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Copyright © 2005 by Jakob Nielsen. ISSN 1548-5552

5/13/11 3:29 PM10 Heuristics for User Interface Design

Page 1 of 2http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

useit.com Papers and Essays Heuristic Evaluation Listof Heuristics

Search

Ten Usability Heuristicsby Jakob Nielsen

These are ten general principles for user interface design. They are called"heuristics" because they are more in the nature of rules of thumb than specificusability guidelines.

Visibility of system statusThe system should always keep users informed about what is going on,through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.

Match between system and the real worldThe system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases andconcepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.

User control and freedomUsers often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearlymarked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to gothrough an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.

Consistency and standardsUsers should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, oractions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.

Error preventionEven better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents aproblem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-proneconditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation optionbefore they commit to the action.

Recognition rather than recallMinimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and optionsvisible. The user should not have to remember information from one part ofthe dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visibleor easily retrievable whenever appropriate.

Flexibility and efficiency of useAccelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up theinteraction for the expert user such that the system can cater to bothinexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.

Aesthetic and minimalist designDialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed.Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant unitsof information and diminishes their relative visibility.

Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errorsError messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely

5/13/11 3:36 PMAskTog: First Principles of Interaction Design

Page 1 of 11http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html

nn/g useit.com jnd.org

Interaction Design Solutions for the RealWorld

Google Search

Interaction Design Section Living Section About Bruce TognazziniSelect Language

Powered by Translate Search WWW Search

asktog.com

NN/g Home AskTog Basics Principles First Principles of Interaction Design

Jump to:

AnticipationAutonomyColor BlindnessConsistencyDefaultsEfficiency of theUserExplorableInterfacesFitts' LawHuman-InterfaceObjectsLatencyReductionLearnability Limit TradeoffsMetaphorsProtect theUser's WorkReadabilityTrack StateVisible Interfaces

The following principles are fundamental to the design andimplementation of effective interfaces, whether for traditional GUIenvironments or the web. Of late, many web applications have reflecteda lack of understanding of many of these principles of interaction design,to their great detriment. Because an application or service appears onthe web, the principles do not change. If anything, applying theseprinciples become even more important.

• Belorussian Version:http://www.fatcow.com/edu/designedtogivefitts-be/

• Deutsche (German) Version:http://meiert.com/de/publications/translations/asktog.com/firstprinciples/

• Italian Version:http://www.10people.net/tutorial/interaction_design-ask_tog/pricipi_di_interaction_design.html

• Nederlands (Dutch) Version:http://aifia.org/nl/translations/000187.html

• Polish Version:http://offline.pl/blog/podstawy-projektowania-interakcji.html

• Portuguese Version:http://userdesign.org/principios.html

• Spanish Version:http://galinus.com/es/articulos/principios-diseno-de-interaccion.html

Effective interfaces are visually apparent and forgiving, instilling in theirusers a sense of control. Users quickly see the breadth of their options,grasp how to achieve their goals, and do their work.

Effective interfaces do not concern the user with the inner workings ofthe system. Work is carefully and continuously saved, with full optionfor the user to undo any activity at any time.

Effective applications and services perform a maximum of work, whilerequiring a minimum of information from users.

This work is copyright 2003 by Bruce Tognazzini. Permission to makecopies for personal use is granted without reservation, provided thiscopyright notice remains on the copy. Please contact the author forpermission to republish on a web site, to publish in bound form, or tomake multiple copies, except that educators and in-house corporate


påkontoret


5/15/11 2:33 PMShneiderman's Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design

Page 1 of 1http://faculty.washington.edu/jtenenbg/courses/360/f04/sessions/schneidermanGoldenRules.html

Shneiderman's "Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design"

These rules were obtained from the text Designing the User Interface by Ben Shneiderman. Shneidermanproposed this collection of principles that are derived heuristically from experience and applicable inmost interactive systems after being properly refined, extended, and interpreted [9].

To improve the usability of an application it is important to have a well designed interface.Shneiderman's "Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design" are a guide to good interaction design.

1 Strive for consistency.Consistent sequences of actions should be required in similar situations; identical terminology should beused in prompts, menus, and help screens; and consistent commands should be employed throughout.

2 Enable frequent users to use shortcuts.As the frequency of use increases, so do the user's desires to reduce the number of interactions and toincrease the pace of interaction. Abbreviations, function keys, hidden commands, and macro facilities arevery helpful to an expert user.

3 Offer informative feedback.For every operator action, there should be some system feedback. For frequent and minor actions, theresponse can be modest, while for infrequent and major actions, the response should be more substantial.

4 Design dialog to yield closure.Sequences of actions should be organized into groups with a beginning, middle, and end. Theinformative feedback at the completion of a group of actions gives the operators the satisfaction ofaccomplishment, a sense of relief, the signal to drop contingency plans and options from their minds,and an indication that the way is clear to prepare for the next group of actions.

5 Offer simple error handling.As much as possible, design the system so the user cannot make a serious error. If an error is made, thesystem should be able to detect the error and offer simple, comprehensible mechanisms for handling theerror.

6 Permit easy reversal of actions.This feature relieves anxiety, since the user knows that errors can be undone; it thus encouragesexploration of unfamiliar options. The units of reversibility may be a single action, a data entry, or acomplete group of actions.

7 Support internal locus of control.Experienced operators strongly desire the sense that they are in charge of the system and that the systemresponds to their actions. Design the system to make users the initiators of actions rather than theresponders.

8 Reduce short-term memory load.The limitation of human information processing in short-term memory requires that displays be keptsimple, multiple page displays be consolidated, window-motion frequency be reduced, and sufficienttraining time be allotted for codes, mnemonics, and sequences of actions.

From http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/almstrum/cs370/elvisino/rules.html



hvavilvivite?

-klarerbrukernebrukeproduktet?Vildebrukedet?Ogkjøpedet?

-hvakanvitesteunderveis,ognår?(ideer,modeller,prototyper..)

-hvoroghvordanskalviteste?(labellernaturligeomgivelser)

evalueringmedbrukere

-  kaninngåibådeanalyseogdesign+somtesting-  førstogfremstifelten+ilab(workshops,seminarmm)

brukbarhetstest feltstudier analytisk

brukere gjøroppgaver naturligpraksis

ikkeinvolvert

sted kontrollertomgivelse(lab)

naturlig hvorsomhelst




typeeval.

bruk/anvendelse naturligpraksis

ekspertvurderingToneBratteteig,in1060:26/22018

tenkoverhvasomevalueres

•  iforholdtilhva/hvem:kriterierogmål

•  avhvem:hvemutførerevalueringoghvordan

•  forhvem:hvabrukesevalueringentil


hvavilvivite?

-klarerbrukernebrukeproduktet?Vildebrukedet?Ogkjøpedet?

-hvakanvitesteunderveis,ognår?(ideer,modeller,prototyper..)

-hvoroghvordanskalviteste?(labellernaturligeomgivelser)

evalueringmedbrukere

-  kaninngåibådeanalyseogdesign+somegentest-aktivitet-  førstogfremstifelten+ilab(workshops,seminarmm)

brukbarhetstest feltstudier analytisk

brukere gjøroppgaver naturligpraksis

ikkeinvolvert

sted kontrollertomgivelse(lab)

naturlig hvorsomhelst




typeeval.

bruk/anvendelse naturligpraksis

ekspertvurderingToneBratteteig,in1060:26/22018


designsomen“samtalemedmaterialet”

“see–move–see”(Schön&Schön&Wiggins)

evalueringerintegrertmeddesign&analyse(iterativutvikling),menkanogsåværeenegenaktivitet



fradesign-forelesningen:designsomen“samtalemedmaterialet”

reBlektere(tenke)-førvidesigner-mensvidesigner-etteratvihardesignet


Schön:moveexperiments:“see–move–see”see:forståsituasjonen,semuligheter&valgmove:velgeettrekkoggjøredetsee:evalueretrekket(motvisjonen)


fradesign-forelesningen:designsombeslutningsprosess

see:hvilkemuligheterBins–hvilkevalgharvi?move:hvilkenvalgmulighetskalviprøve?-velgeenmulighet-konkretiseredensee:vurderedennyesituasjonen–lederdenossetskrittiriktigretning?

createselectconcretizeevaluatechoicesachoicethechoicethechoice



1

Design decisions and the sharing of power in PD Tone Bratteteig

Dept. of Informatics, U. of Oslo POBox 1080 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo

[email protected]

Ina Wagner Dept. of Informatics, U. of Oslo

POBox 1080 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo [email protected]

ABSTRACT The paper explores what exactly it is that users participate in when being involved in participatory design (PD). We argue that a focus on decision-making in design is important for understanding participation in design. Building on Schön we see design as involving creating choices, selecting among them, concretizing choices, and evaluating the choices and the design result. We discuss different ways for users to participate in these activities and address issues of participation as the sharing of power. Author Keywords Participation, decision-making in design, power, design moves, decision linkages, power/knowledge ACM Classification Keywords H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous. INTRODUCTION Participatory Design (PD) is an approach to the design of IT where the designers invite future users to participate in all phases of the design process. Much of the PD literature today explores and provides guidance on how to enroll (prospective) users as co-designers; how to organize the design process; how to develop a common ground and mutually learn from each other; how to develop ideas and evaluate them as a multidisciplinary team, etc. (Simonsen & Robertson, 2012). What is discussed less is what exactly it is that participants influence and how they may recognize their influence. In this paper our aim is to find a way to discuss and evaluate how participatory a PD project is. To achieve this, we focus on decision-making in design, which in itself is a conceptually challenging issue. The core of PD is design: to make an artefact and to introduce a change in somebody’s practice by means of this artefact. In design, making decisions about which changes to make is crucial for the design result. We argue that a focus on issues of choice and decision-making in design is important for understanding how and why an artefact gets its final form, and hence what the participants contribute to in the design. Going back to Schön’s notion of ‘design moves’ we make an analytical distinction between: creating choices, selecting among them, concretizing choices, and

evaluating the choices and the design result. The next sections explain our view in more detail, addressing the question of what it is that users participate in. We base this discussion on examples from a number of PD projects that we have participated in. We then elaborate the notion of participation as the sharing of power, before concluding the paper with some reflections on what practitioners of PD can learn from the conceptual tools we propose. DECISION-MAKING IN DESIGN Schön’s notion of ‘move experiments’ captures some aspects of decision-making in design (Schön, 1995). A move experiment includes the designer’s evaluation of a situation, a move to change it, and an evaluation of the move. ‘Seeing-moving-seeing’ is a process, in which problems are set and solutions are found and evaluated. Design moves involve different kinds of seeing: seeing ‘what is there’ (what has been drawn, built) as well as seeing and judging (‘is this how it should be’, ‘does it work’?), before taking the next move. Schön addresses the important insight that what we call a ‘decision’ is an integral part of design practice. PD projects are intensely collaborative, with stakeholders convening to discuss, propose, evaluate solutions etc. These are activities where the ‘seeing’ of the solitary designer that Schön observed is complemented by argumentation and reflection from several participants, and more explicit types of ‘decisions’ will be taken. Moreover, in PD much effort is spent on understanding the practices of future users. This involves activities, such as observing the practice and developing shared representations of it, on which the design can build. The fact that a use practice can never be fully represented except through users themselves participating, adds a range of new criteria to the making and evaluating of design choices. Similarly, evaluating an evolving prototype (in use) involves observation, the joint critical assessment of these observations and, eventually, new ‘move experiments’. Some theorists have argued that we can only determine what the decisions were when looking back in an act of ‘reflection-on action’ (Schön, 1983), trying to reconstruct the process that led to a particular choice. Although both concepts, decision and choice, are used almost interchangeably in economic as well as in organization theory, we prefer to (in line with the philosopher Alfred Schütz) talk about choices, as design (and PD) is about creating alternatives to choose from. Hence, we reserve the term decision to the act of selecting between choices. Schütz argued that choice only happens in situations which ‘give rise to a decisive new experience: the experience of doubt, of questioning, of choosing and

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. PDC�14, 06-OCT-2014, Windhoek, Namibia. Copyright 2014 ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-2256-0�$10.00.

designsombeslutningsprosess

3prinsipperfor“participatorydesign”(brukermedvirkningidesign)

1) hainnBlytelse(”haveasay”)2) gjensidiglæring(2-veis)3) samarbeidomdesign(“co-design”)




1



[email protected]











KristenNygaard


1



[email protected]











makt&innElytelse:Ø maktovernoenØ makttilåhandle


designsombeslutningsprosessmedbrukere

see:hvilkemuligheterBins,hvilkevalgharvi?move:hvilkenvalgmulighetskalviprøve?-velgeenmulighet-konkretiseredensee:vurderedennyesituasjonen,lederdenossetskrittiriktigretning?

...basertpåbrukernesideer…prioritertibrukskontekst...utformemedbrukere...evaluereiftbrukskonteksten



-hvaerriktigretning?



-  hvaerproblemet?-  “wickedproblems”

-  hvaermulig?

-  hvakanværeenløsning?

-  hvaerriktigretning?-  åpnernyemuligheter?

-  hvordaninkluderebrukerne?

-  organisereprosessen


designmedbrukereutvideriderommet

see:hvilkemuligheterBins,hvilkevalgharvi?move:hvilkenvalgmulighetskalviprøve?-velgeenmulighet-konkretiseredensee:vurderedennyesituasjonen,lederdenossetskrittiriktigretning?



-hvaerriktigretning?

• deltakerneskompetanse• deltakerneserfaringer–  omteknologier–  ombruksområdet–  andrerelevantekunnskaper

• hvordankandisseutvides?–  medteknologien(design-

materialet)–  medbruksområdet(undersøk)–  metoder&teknikker

utgangspunktiutvide


designsombeslutningsprosessmedbrukere





• vektpåto-sidigforståelse• brukeremediallefaser–  organiseregjensidiglæring–  organiseresarabeidomdesign–  organiserebeslutninger

• maktogbeslutninger–  delemaktidesign-prosessen–  forhandle,samarbeide…–  diskutereeffekter(evaluere)–  økebrukerneshandlingsrom


bruker-medvirkning

-hvilkenrolleskalbrukerneha?Hvaskaldebidramed/til?-hvaerbrukernesmotivasjon?Hvaskaldefåutavprosessen?-hvordankommuniseremedbrukerne?-hvordansamarbeidemedbrukerne?



bruker-medvirkning



-informant(kilde)

-idegenerator(inspirator)

-evaluator(tilbakemelding)

-designer(kreativsamarbeidspartner)


bruker-medvirkning


-informant(kilde)

-idegenerator(inspirator)

-evaluator(tilbakemelding)

-designer(kreativsamarbeidspartner)



bruker-medvirkning



-hjelpedere

-tropåprosjektet

-behovforløsning

-lærenoenytt

-bidra

-klarteikkeåsinei?

hvordanpåvirkerbrukernesmotivasjonprosessen?


bruker-medvirkning



-muntlig

-skriftlig

-skisser&tegninger

-demonstrasjoner

-prototyper

-design:gjørenoesammenikkebaresnakke


bruker-medvirkning



-  tid&tillit

-  to-veisrespekt&forståelse


iterasjon

oppstartbruks-praksiser settemål,planlegge“problem-situasjon”

testing& undersøkepraksisevaluering

materialisering, identEiserebehovkonkretisering &ønsker

krav-spesiEikasjon

bruks-orientertdesign



læringsmål







forelesningeneintrodusererbegreper&metoder

somkanprøvesogvurderesprosjektet

in1060: design for og med brukere – inkludert evalueringTo improve the usability of an application...

Documents

Transcript of in1060: design for og med brukere – inkludert evalueringTo improve the usability of an application...