Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

64
Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces and other PhD stuff. Omar Sosa-Tzec School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University Bloomington info i609 Advanced Seminar I Informatics

description

Presentation at INFO I609 Advanced Seminar I Informatics. PhD in Informatics, Indiana University Bloomington. * Includes short bio, trace of work related with HCI & Design, connection of Rhetoric and User Experience Design, and previous of paper to be presented at NordiCHI 2014.

Transcript of Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Page 1: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Rhetorical Evaluationof User Interfaces and other PhD stuff.

Omar Sosa-TzecSchool of Informatics & ComputingIndiana University Bloomington

info i609 Advanced Seminar I Informatics

Page 2: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Hola!

Page 3: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Mérida, Yucatán

Page 4: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 5: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 6: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Image source: http://goo.gl/EKw66m

BSc in Computer ScienceUniversity of Yucatan

Connection with HCI & Design

• Web Design

• Usability

• Software Engineering

• Object-Oriented Hypermedia Design

Page 7: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Guanajuato, Guanajuato

Page 8: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 9: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Image source: http://goo.gl/4Kf7Vi

MSc in Computer ScienceCenter for Research in Mathematics

Connection with HCI & Design

• Usability

• Software Engineering

• Algorithm Design

Page 10: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

San Andrés Cholula, Puebla

Page 11: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 12: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Photography by Jorge Gutierrez

MSc in Information DesignUniversity of the Americas Puebla

Connection with HCI & Design

• Information Design, Visualization and Architecture

• Interface Design& Evaluation

• Design Theory

Page 13: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Influences

Rhetoric Semiotics

Page 14: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Influences

Hanno Ehses Clarisse de SouzaRhetoric for

Graphic DesignSemiotic Engineering

& Communicability Evaluation

How can rhetoric beapplied to web design?

How can unconventional GUIsbe evaluated?

Page 15: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Rhetoric and Interaction Design

User InterfaceDesigner User

SpeechSpeaker. ListenerRhetorical appeals: LogosEthosPathos

Accomplisha task.

Takeaction.

Sosa-Tzec, et al. (2009)

Page 16: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Rhetoric and Interaction Design

Logos

Ethos Pathos

Information Architecture Functionality

Design Thinking Emotional DesignUser Appropriation

Sosa-Tzec, et al. (2009)

Page 17: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Bloomington, Indiana

Page 18: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 19: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Human-Computer

InteractionDesign

Page 20: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

What is the problem?

Page 21: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 22: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

What are the consequences ofthe interactive systems that we design?

Page 23: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

How do interactive systems affect the people’s everyday?

Page 24: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

How are we, designers and researchers, contributing on making people to affect

other people?

Page 25: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 26: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

What does it meanfor the members in

the team?

Page 27: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 28: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Swipe to the right for Like

Swipe tothe le!t for Nope

Page 29: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

What does it meanbeing put on the

“nope” list?

Page 30: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

A problematic of HCI and Design

Us, designers and researchers, contribute on deploying artifacts that affect the everyday of

people, including their beliefs and attitude

Page 31: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

An Approachto HCI Design

Page 32: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

HCI Design

Rhetoric

Page 33: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Rhetoric as lenses for HCI

• Persuasion

• Content & Form

• Contingencies & People

• Metaphor, Metonymy, and other rhetorical figures

• And so on...

Page 34: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Rhetorical Evaluationof User Interfaces

Sosa-Tzec, O., & Siegel, M.A. (forthcoming). Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces.In Proc. of 8th Nordic Conference of Human-Computer Interaction,

NordiCHI 2014, ACM Press (2014).

Page 35: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Situation

Page 36: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 37: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces
Page 38: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Evaluation

Page 39: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

PurposePreventing others from seeing the content of the businessman’s laptop

FunctionProviding a feeling of privacy

Purpose vs. Function: Example

Page 40: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Purpose vs. Function

Anti-intentionalistNot seeing the creator's intention as determining the correct interpretation of the work

Page 41: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Schema of rhetorical evaluation for user interfaces

Sosa-Tzec, & Siegel (2014)

evaluator

apparent function

function

interactionuser interface

Visual ComponentsAudio ComponentsPhysical Components

UI Section(Changes Over Time)

reflectionLegitimacy / Soundness

Page 42: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

The app

Page 43: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Adding a new goal

Page 44: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Short and long swipe to the right

Page 45: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Short and long swipe to the left

Page 46: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Schema of rhetorical evaluation for user interfaces

Sosa-Tzec, & Siegel (2014)

evaluator

apparent function

function

interactionuser interface

Visual ComponentsAudio ComponentsPhysical Components

UI Section(Changes Over Time)

reflectionLegitimacy / Soundness

Page 47: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Outcome

Page 48: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Outcome of the evaluation

Apparent function Function performed bythe UI components

Page 49: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Outcome of the evaluation

Make goal tracking simpler

Apparent function Function performed bythe UI components

Page 50: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Outcome of the evaluation

Make goal tracking simpler Interaction by gesturesas embodied commitment

Apparent function Function performed bythe UI components

Page 51: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Make goal tracking simpler

Page 52: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Interaction by gestures as embodied commitment

Moving forward

Page 53: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Interaction by gestures as embodied commitment

Moving backwards

Page 54: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Discussion

Page 55: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Discussion

Evaluating an interface requires for the evaluator to learn about the system and

its purpose

Page 56: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Discussion

The evaluation considers the interaction with the system

Page 57: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Discussion

This form of rhetorical evaluation is placed between

structural approaches and hermeneutic approaches

Page 58: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Discussion

This form of rhetorical evaluation fosters reflection

and interaction criticism

Page 59: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Conclusion

Page 60: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Conclusion

• Approach for evaluating user interfaces based on the notion of function from visual rhetoric

• Apparent function

• Function performed by UI components and interaction with the system

• Reflection and interaction criticism

Page 61: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Conclusion

The goal is obtaining a wider perspective regarding the

design of interactive systems, one that takes into account experiences, communication,

and meaning.

Page 62: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

References

1. Bardzell, J. Interaction criticism and aesthetics. In Proc. CHI 2009. ACM Press (2009), 2357-2366.

2. de Souza, C. S. The semiotic engineering of human- computer interaction. MIT Press, 2005.

3. Foss, S. K. A rhetorical schema for the evaluation of visual imagery. Communication Studies, 45, 3-4 (1994), 213-224.

4. Gross, S., Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. Skeu the evolution: skeuomorphs, style, and the material of tangible interactions. In Proc. TEI 2014. ACM Press (2014), 53- 60.

5. Hill, C. A., & Helmers, M. (Eds.). Defining visual rhetorics. Routledge, 2012.

6. Hurtienne, J., & Israel, J. H. Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions: intuitive patterns for tangible interaction. In Proc. TEI 2007. ACM Press (2014), 127- 134.

7. Nelson H. G. & Stolterman, E. The Design Way. MIT Press, 2012.

8. Schön, D. A. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic books, 1983.

9. Sosa-Tzec, O., Cortina-Arteaga, S., & Holguin-Molina, R. Métodos y Proceso de Diseño de Información para una GUI en un Cliente IM bajo un enfoque Calm Technology. CLIHC 2007. Workshop at Interact 2007.

Page 63: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Acknowledgments

Chung-Ching Huang

Jordan E. Beck

Phaedra Pezzullo

Ian Wood

Erik Stolterman

HCI/d Faculty, Gabriele Ferri and PhD Students

Page 64: Presentation at Seminar I: Rhetorical Evaluation of User Interfaces

Thank you!

http://tzec.com

The images here shown are property of their author, and some of them have been taken from the results of a web search. All of them are employed for mere academic purposes.