Thesis seminar - Designing for cooks: interactive recipes for everyday use
-
Upload
lucy-buykx -
Category
Technology
-
view
147 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Thesis seminar - Designing for cooks: interactive recipes for everyday use
Designing for cooks: interactive instructions for
everyday useLucy Buykx
n My research investigates how cooks engage and interact with recipe instructions to inform the design of interactive recipe systems
Human-Food Interactionn Helping create the perfect recipe in the kitchen
n CounterActive (Ju, Hurwitz, Judd & Lee 2001)
n Augmented Reality Kitchen(Bonanni, Lee & Selker 2005)
n Kitchen of the Future (Siio, Hamada, Mima 2005)
n PersonalChef (Mennicken, Karrer, Russell, Borchers 2010)
n panavi (Uriu, Namai, Tokuhisa, Kashiwagi, Inami, Okude 2012)
not just cooking...
n Shopping, meal planning
n integrating persuasive & social media
n healthy eating, local food, sustainability
Initial studies with older adults
n focus groups with 15
n food diaries with 12
n meals & shopping for 7 days
n home interviews
Initial studies with younger adults
n questionnaire & interviews
n 80% collected recipes
n 11% used interactive technology
Capturing Family Recipes for digital sharing across generations
n Lucy Buykx, Helen Petrie, Paul Cairns
n include 2011, Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design
n Contribution is innovative technology in the kitchen
n Little theory behind claims
n Low quality evaluations
n Research questions:
n What problems do cooks experience working with recipes?
n What factors cause problems?
n How can interactive design mitigate these?
Procedural instructions
n step-by-step
n little explanation of how the system works
n can be used without prior knowledge
Recipe instruction set
n title
n list of ingredients
n preparation instructions
n method instructions
n meta-data
Guidelines for procedural instructions for initial use (Ganier 2004)
n “Segmented text... numbered steps rather than paragraphs”
n “Chronological linear organisation”
n “Use pictures together with text”
n “Use headings fitting to goals or sub-goals”
Experiments x 2n 24 cooks, 3 recipes
n 2 experimental conditions + control
n Videoed and analysed
n Quantitative measures: time to complete, reading time, cooks’ ratings
n Qualitative analysis: comments and feedback during cooking, problems, errors made
Experiment 1 Experiment 2
Segmented instructions Segmented instructions with pictures
Integrated, chronological instructions
Semantic structured recipe with sub-goals
Control Control
Exp1: Segmented instructions
Exp1: Integrated, chronological instructions
Integrated, chronological
Control
Results mixed
n No timing differences or rating differences
n Cooks disliked long paragraph steps AND segmented steps
n Cooks did not move linearly, needed to understand context
n Cooks did not follow instructions perfectly
Papers at
n Cooking & Eating Activities workshop IEEE MM CEA2011
n Food & Interaction Design workshop CHI2012
n Food for thought workshop DIS2012
Experiment 2
n Compared affect of
n Segmented instructions with goal state pictures
n Semantic structure with sub-goals
n against control
n Add the mince and carrot, and cook for about 8 minutes, stirring all the time, until the meat is nearly cooked.
Segmented instructions with goal-state pictures
n Add the pasta to the meat sauce with a couple of tablespoons of the pasta water.
n Mix well, sauté for a minute.
n Drain the pasta
Semantic structured recipe with sub-goals
Analysis ongoing
n Structured recipe with sub-goals
n rated easier to understand and better organised than control
n fewer errors
n Reliance on pictures - impact on validity
Conclusion
n Instruction design can offer insights recipe design
n But cooking is complex domain
n Results show were existing interactive recipe systems are not helpful ... can inform more sophisticated design
Future research
n Robust prototype to test in-home
n Investigate recipe designs to support deviations
n Work with semantic researchers to create on-the-fly transformations