KIB210 Lecture 9: Complications in defining interaction design

when you constructed your NEEDS ANALYSIS, you were setting your project up for evaluation [assignment 3]

KEEP all of your DOCUMENTATION carefully – this will be an aspect of assignment 4

stuff to cover:

1. documentation [ass 4]
2. low-fi TO hi-fi – the table model for iterative project methodologies
3. HCI – user evaluation techniques
4. subjective evaluation techniques – fun or no fun?
5. participant and performance interactives – welcome to the war!

from last week:

Finding measurable characteristics for the user experience criteria is even harder, though. How do you measure satisfaction, fun, motivation or aesthetics? What is entertaining to one person may be boring to another; these kinds of criteria are subjective and so cannot be measured objectively [Löwgren, J. (2002). How far beyond human-computer interaction is interaction design? ]

prototype driven development: Reducing risk by embracing change and finding the fun earlier. This technique focuses on reducing overall design risk. [lost garden]

time to EMBRACE FAILURE – during the early stages!

homer demonstrates how things can go wrong if there has been no prototyping and no audience evaluation [wmv]

and dilbert shows how a prototype can work just as it is in low-fi

before we start: documentation

 

the timelines, schedules etc you produced for assignment 2 will form an important basis for assignment FOUR:

Assignment 4 Aims: You will produce a detailed report on this semester's activities. Project description: Reflective journal You are to submit a critical reflection on your progression throughout the semester. Organise this as a weekly journal, with sketches/examples of the design process and class exercises. Critical incident analysis Analyse three critical incidents related to your design activity this semester. [KIB210 week one document - look for full details under assessment later]

you should be COLLATING this documentation as you go from NOW

 

if you don't have one already, i recommend a BLOG – you could even use QUT's student e-portfolio space

 

[furious steals]don't end up drowning in paper![brazil]

 

 

 a return to assignment 3 – further development phase

Aims: Engaging the user in the development process. Further development of your prototype. Project description: User feedback Find four people to work through your prototype(s). Develop a method by which they will interact with your prototype, including a suitable method for recording their interaction. Collate, present and discuss their interaction. Prototyping Further refinement of the 'in the box' prototype as a response to the user feedback [KIB210 assignment 3]

prototyping is a long process:

from BC to 2000AD – don't expect to produce a finished work!

DO expect to produce an evaluated prototype as an aspect of ITERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS

gameinnovation.org – a taxonomy of developments

more on [further] prototyping: moving from very low- fi to a bit higher fi

from assignment 3 prototype component criteria: [doc] All of the design modifications are successfully incorporated into the prototype. Few if any bugs present, functionality is complete

notice the expectation is NOT a completed interactve but rather an IN-DEPTH exploration of functionality [sans bugs!]

bug free in this context would imply that the poor old evaluator does not need to have the miracle explained …

User test of a low-fidelity paper prototype of a website

User test of a high-fidelity paper prototype of a homepage

[from nielsen norman group training video stills]

oh … where to start!!

ingredients:

• low-fi prototype
• audience

decision one: audience definition – users, reader-viewer-listeners – participants – performers [?]

decision two: which mechanics to test? eg which mechanics hold the interactive up?

start with the documentation: – evaluation data MUST BE FORMALISED

• do you need ETHICAL CLEARANCE [example] [QUT ethics docs]
• prepare a BETA questionnaire – start with an introduction – overview
• do you need audience statistics – demographics etc [check your needs analysis - you probably predicted this]

have you ever written a survey before: check out survey design

in iterative design, the GOALS [what you want to learn about] should FOCUS on ASPECTS // functionality Q: what do you want to learn?

developing prototypes: FOCUS on functional ASPECTS

another cooking metaphor: the table model or two levels of prototyping – basically, this describes what types of capabilities are implemented in a prototype:

J. Nielsen distinguishes two levels of prototyping according to the level of interaction provided by the prototype [Nielsen 93]:

• The horizontal prototype is actually only the man-machine interface (MMI). It could even be a sketch on paper.
• The vertical prototype implements some of the functionalities of the application allowing to more interaction

Horizontal prototypes are appropriate for understanding relationships across a broad system and for showing the range of abilities of a system.

Vertical prototypes are most appropriate when a certain complex feature of a system is poorly-understood and needs to be explored, e.g. as a proof-of-concept
.[usability first]

notice: the horizontal – vertical model is actually designed for a TRADITIONAL project methodology – in an iterative innovative project, it probably won't stand up!

 methods of evaluation

There are a variety of approaches to usability evaluation that you may choose to take.

The methodologies can be divided into two broad categories:

• those that gather data from actual users and
• those that can be applied without actual users present.

[usability first glossary]

usabillity first: methods table

notice how all of these established methods assume a USER interactive

Usability and context

Usability is not a quality that exists in any real or absolute sense. Perhaps it can be best summed up as being a general quality of the appropriateness to a purpose of any particular artefact. This notion is neatly summed up by Terry Pratchett in his novel "Moving Pictures": "

'Well, at least he keeps himself fit,' said the Archchancellor nastily. 'Not like the rest of you fellows. I went into the Uncommon Room this morning and it was full of chaps snoring!'

'That would be the senior masters, Master,' said the Bursar. 'I would say they are supremely fit, myself.'

'Fit? The Dean looks like a man who's swallered a bed!'

'Ah, but Master,' said the Bursar, smiling indulgently, 'the word "fit", as I understand it, means "appropriate to a purpose", and I would say that the body of the Dean is supremely appropriate to the purpose of sitting around all day and eating big heavy meals.' The Dean permitted himself a little smile. " [Pratchett, 1990]

[john brooke - SUS - a quick and dirty scale]

SO: always CHOOSE your evaluation group appropriately to your prototype goal!

[the hunting of the snark from equator]

prototype testing for users

try the CSUQ – computer system usability questionnaire

users – the interface is designed to be invisible in order for the user to enact the TASK

a principle is 'ask and observe' – lots of usability questionnaires [usability.net]

 

 

further development [?]

• [piano]
• [piano and music]
• [piano game]

notice how each one of these iterations of the concept takes a specific FUNCTIONALITY and explores it … this is ITERATIVE methodology – a waterfall would examine stages in prototype development

piano – develops the VISUALS a little and makes key functionality more adult

piano and music ENHANCES this specific functionality by showing the musical notation

the piano game explores the potential of the MIMICRY function

simon says – turning the mimicry function into a TOY by introducing CHALLENGE

evaluating participant interactives

this development of the keyboard mechanics offers a simple challenge function [remember and follow the sequence]

the [user] interactive has become a TOY or [passive] participant interactive

why passive – no meaningful action or agency but basic engagement via challenge

HOW TO EVALUATE THIS ?

WHAT exactly is being evaluated:

• usability – use usability questionnaire
• fun factor

time for some SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION – subjective evaluation asks the user – player how they FEEL

Needs and Pleasures

Design is a way to ask questions. Design research, when it occurs through the practice of design itself, is a way to ask larger questions beyond the limited scope of a particular design problem.

When design research is integrated into the design process, new and unexpected questions emerge directly from the act of design.
[eric zimmerman - iterative design]

evaluating and documenting FUN factors:

• ask!!
• give the person some options – would you play again?
• observe – video
• video – cued recall: record the participation and ask the player questions with the video as aide memoire

Test; analyze; refine. And repeat ……

Because the experience of a viewer/user/player/etc cannot ever be completely predicted, in an iterative process design decisions are based on the experience of the prototype in progress.

The prototype is tested, revisions are made, and the project is tested once more.

In this way, the project develops through an ongoing dialogue between the designers, the design, and the testing audience.
[eric zimmerman - iterative design]

adding more participant mechanics

piano maestro – single and two player

be the piano meastro! play against the computer [single player] or against your friends, rock out to the music of the masters of the keyboard from history, challenge all comers!

inspiration – rocking out to iron man [wmv]

notice: this design takes us into physical manipulation – how big should the piano be?

evaluation

good gameplay has become the ulitimate goal pursued by anyone who wishes to remain in the business of game design [HCI & Game Design By Zhan Ye]

the ye brothers argue that there are two distinct aspects to the concept of good gameplay

 

• playability – this involves all the classic USABILITY checks and guidelines
• FUN [challenge, entertainment] – this is the subjective data collected from PLAYTESTING

play turns out to be a very problematic concept: the ambiguity of play by brian sutton-smith

oh no, MORE prototyping! you will almost certainly NEED to prototype and TEST your survey – evaluation methodology DOES your evaluation method answer the questions you are asking? homer offers an example [wmv]

but it aint as problematic as NARRATIVE …..

viewer [listener] – reader audience prototype development and evaluation

remember the viewer [listener] – reader category [?]

VIEWERS: are people who seek entertainment. They want to be surprised, seduced, led along a path. their goal is the journey, not the end result.

READERS: those who seek the same kind of interaction they get from a novel or a film – narrative experience

253 a novel for the Internet about London Underground in seven cars and a crash

idea one: piano in the wood – a musical literary work …
idea two: play the narrative

the concept here is based on the actual life of 'frere jacque' – set in the 11C, the reader can explore the tale of mystery and intrigue in any order but following the notes of the song will lead them thru' on a direct path

similar works: Milorad Pavic – Landscape Painted With Tea, Italo Calvino – If On A Winter's Night, A Traveller…

define: hypertext

evaluation

usability … a return to point and click indeed BUT here, the pleasure is the experience [of reading, comprehending the plot - unpacking the mystery]

i can see it as the new da vinci code

subjective:

this is NARRATIVE interaction – can narrative be seen as a performing art?

some say even LINEAR READING is interactive – in the sense that to understand the text, the reader suspends disbelief and becomes involved in the story – reader response theory – there are many variants on this theory:

reader response – various positions

the problem in evaluating READING as an interactive event is that you have to get inside the reader's head some of lecture three explored these possibilities

BUT ::::::::

NON-LINEAR READING – welcome to ERGODIC texts

This phenomenon I call ergodic, using a term appropriated from physics that derives from the Greek words ergon and hodos, meaning "work" and "path." In ergodic literature, nontrivial effort is required to allow the reader to traverse the text.

If ergodic literature is to make sense as a concept, there must also be nonergodic literature, where the effort to traverse the text is trivial, with no extranoematic responsibilities placed on the reader except (for example) eye movement and the periodic or arbitrary turning of pages. [espen aarseth - cybertext]

computer games can be interpreted as ergodic texts: play zork online [from infocom adventures]

the argument is that NON-TRIVIAL EFFORT provides AGENCY and therfore defies NARRATIVE

games exist in a formal/algorithmic domain, stories in a domain of interpretation, and this means that games resist the evocative themes of stories, because they cannot be formalised.
[jesper juul 2000]

in this view, the AGENCY is the thing – the narrative is secondary to the ACTIVITY

WELCOME TO THE WAR

evaluation – from this perspective is a simple matter of discovering whether or not the LUDOS [gameplay mechanics] are EFFECTIVE

BUT …….

there remains the embedded narrative issue … the manner in which gameplay and FUN is constructed by the manner in which the participant is EMOTIONEERED

read on

adding emotion …

physical space – we have you surrounded exploited physical design space to create the claustrophobia of the original fort

genevieve moved from still images to physical embodiment

the fully participant work DOOM3 calls on cinematic techniques of film noire and constructs emotion via lighting – or lack of it

doom3 trailer [wmv] and the effects: [wmv]

AUDIO is of course THE most powerful emotioneering medium

trailer for ghost recon 3 [wmv]

try this [wmv]
what about this: [wmv]
and this: [wmv]

and the original [wmv]

another battle front? of course, CINEMA – a supposed non-interactive media exploits such emotioneering techniques all the time what happens to the concept of interactivity when EMOTIONAL response is included ????? what about that suspension of disbelief and theatre??

evaluating : user and subjective data

things you should be doing:

• start by re-examining your low – fi prototype – which functionality will you explore into a hi-fi iteration?
• work on the chosen aspect
• design your evaluation methodology – TEST IT
• then test new vertical prototype with actual people
• ensure your data is collected systematically
• breathe – review and REPEAT

evaluaton – design – iteration cycle

we will cover other methods of evaluation and user study in subsequent lectures but a word of advice:

if you haven't had fun making it, it is really very likely that it won't be fun to play [anonymous]

end of chapter