This presentation looks at many of the user centred design processes being used today and the different steps they take to shepard a system from conception through to production. It highlights some major common shortcomings within these processes and offers a solution based on research and evaluative techniques that may lead to a more holistic appraisal of a system with regard to experiential data.
Abortion Pills in Oman (+918133066128) Cytotec clinic buy Oman Muscat
Expanding the User Centred Design Process to incorporate an Experience Evaluation Technique
1. Expanding the User Centred
Design Process to incorporate an
Experience Evaluation Technique
e : h o y h o y @ j a m e s ke o g h . c o m
w : w w w. j a m e s ke o g h . c o m
Twitter: JimmyUX
2. What is UCD?
• Involves potential users of a system early on in the design
process.
• Continues to evaluate the system right throughout the design
process through methods like card sorting, prototyping,
questionairres, heuristic evaluations, etc.
6. Problems with these processes?
• Problem lies in the evaluation methods in the latter stages of
the process.
• Fixed on evaluating the system being designed through
effectiveness, efficiency and general feedback.
• Other than satisfaction or mental effort scales there is no real
focus on what the participant would experience, is
experiencing or had experienced during the evaluation of a
prototype
7. Experience-Centred Design
(McCarthy and Wright)
• ‘dialogue puts the focus clearly on processes
between people. It sees communication,
knowledge, and identity as constructed in
relationships between people, not within
individuals’
• ‘Empathy is about being able to imaginatively
construct the world from another person’s
perspective, while at the same time
remembering one’s own point of view in order
to creatively work with the difference’
8. Experience Design
(Hassenzahl)
• Hassenzahl’s model of experience design there
consists three hierarchical goals the ‘Why’, the
‘What’ and the ‘How’.
• proposes the ‘Why or be goals’ to come before
anything else to ‘consider the experience
before the products’
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. First Impressions
• Previous evidence shows, people that viewed a particular
system more favorably tended to overlook minor problems or
issues with that system, something referred to as ‘cognitive
confirmation bias’.
• This pre-cognitive response, Lindgaard explains, is ‘hard-
wired’ into us and requires no learning. It is also declared that
if ones perceptions do not ‘reflect objective reality’ there is a
further impetus to deliver a good first impression.
14. First Impressions
• Previous evidence shows, people that viewed a particular
system more favorably tended to overlook minor problems or
issues with that system, something referred to as ‘cognitive
confirmation bias’.
• This pre-cognitive response, Lindgaard explains, is ‘hard-
wired’ into us and requires no learning. It is also declared if
ones perceptions do not ‘reflect objective reality’ there is a
further impetus to deliver a good first impression.
15.
16.
17. Hedonic & Pragmatic Qualities
• Hassenzahl argues the distinct difference between the two
perceived hedonic qualities, beauty and goodness.
• “ . . a product that allows for effective and efficient goal-
achievement is perceived as pragmatic .In contrast, hedonic
attributes are primarily related to the users’ self. They can be
further subdivided into stimulation and identification.” (HASSENZAHL,
2004)
• Hedonic Quality-Identity - perceived capability of communicating
identity to others (outward, mainly social attribute)
• Hedonic Quality-Stimulation - implies a high degree of perceived
novelty, stimulation and challenge (inward, personal growth)
• Pragmatic Quality - looks at the systems usability from users
perspective
18.
19. Emotion & Affect
• Its not only the central part of human activity, but also the
motivating force for intelligent action
• Affect is the subconscious experience of emotion and is a
major component to decision making as it colours thoughts
before the initial information has been consciously assessed
• The user acceptance of a system relies on the perceived ease
of use and the perceived usefulness of that system
• The Positive and negative affect scale (PANAS) is another
method adopted from psychology to independently measure
the constructs of positive and negative affect.
20.
21. Personality
• A personality consists of various characteristics: reliable,
authority, atmosphere, balance, attitude, colour, content, etc.
• It has also been proven that systems that respond to a
disappointing experience with social-affective feedback
(expressing empathy and sympathy) can significantly alter a
users disposition
22. Personality
• A personality consists of various characteristics: reliable,
authority, atmosphere, balance, attitude, colour, content, etc.
• It has also been proven that systems that respond to a
disappointing experience with social-affective feedback
(expressing empathy and sympathy) can significantly alter a
users disposition
Programmer became frustrated with Metlab 3.5 . . .
23. Personality
• A personality consists of various characteristics: reliable,
authority, atmosphere, balance, attitude, colour, content, etc.
• It has also been proven that systems that respond to a
disappointing experience with social-affective feedback
(expressing empathy and sympathy) can significantly alter a
users disposition
Programmer became frustrated with Metlab 3.5 . . .
. . . . . FUCK . . . . .
24. Personality
• A personality consists of various characteristics: reliable,
authority, atmosphere, balance, attitude, colour, content, etc.
• It has also been proven that systems that respond to a
disappointing experience with social-affective feedback
(expressing empathy and sympathy) can significantly alter a
users disposition
Programmer became frustrated with Metlab 3.5 . . .
. . . . . FUCK . . . . .
. . . . . Your place or mine? . . . . .
25. Aesthetics
• Classical represents aesthetic opinion up until the 18th
century and what was regarded as clean and orderly design,
while, expressive design is created by the designer and their
ability to break design conventions through creativity and
originality
• Aesthetics becomes a major differentiating factor between
technologies
• Evaluations are visual and thus are susceptible to immediate
and sustainable aesthetic impressions
• Aesthetics satisfies our basic human needs and since
technology can now satisfy these needs it is expected that it
does so
26. Experience Evaluation Proposal
• This experience evaluation
technique has been developed
using methods and techniques
that are widely known in
academia but are rarely used in
industry.
– first impressions stage
– appearance based experience
– Interaction based experience
27. Experience Evaluation Proposal
• been developed using methods
and techniques that are widely
known in academia but are rarely
used in industry.
– first impressions stage
– appearance based experience
– Interaction based experience
28.
29.
30.
31. Conclusion
• This paper demonstrates the need for an experience
evaluation method within the UCD process.
• Empirical methods are used making results more palatable to
stakeholders.
• This paper attempts to contribute to the UCD process by
selecting some of these techniques to help evaluate systems
in the latter stages of the design process
• endeavors to offer feedback on designs at the experiential
level
• A down side is that many experiences can’t be analysed until
the system has been released.
• The technique produces a large amount of data.
What are the stimuli within a prototype that lead to greater attractiveness levels? Does the system offer the necessary elements to nurture a personal attachment? Did interaction with the system cause a participant to reassess their overall impressions of a system and if so what does this mean? Can stakeholders and designers truly understand the extent to which the system (as it stands in prototype form) ingrains the experiences intended from the outset of the project?
They single out one element as being the most crucial of all in accomplishing an experience centred design, dialogue‘dialogue puts the focus clearly on processes between people. It sees communication, knowledge, and identity as constructed in relationships between people, not within individuals’Through ‘creative understanding’ a designer can develop a more holistic comprehension of another persons needs and aspirations while also taking account of the fact that no two experiences are ever exactly the same.‘Exploration, curiosity and learning’ are all necessary for the ‘active transformation of a situation in order to make sense of it’They push for a deeper knowledge of who it is being designed for through empathy that is based on stories and interviews.
Through action theory Hassenzahl developed this framework integrating ‘experiential aspects’ and ‘observable behavior’.lowest level lie the ‘How or motor goals’ describing the operational level of ringing someone on my mobile phone and the many sub goals subsumed by this.The ‘What or do goals’ target actions based around wanting to ‘do’ something but are not completely technology independentAccording to Hassenzahl, HCI shows more interest in actions and goals than top level ‘be goals’ in the design process.The ‘Why’ or ‘be goals’ in Hassenzahl’s framework focus on the self referential, something related to the person like ‘“being competent”, “being admired”, being close to others”’In this orientation the designer is compelled to research the area more thoroughly to produce user stories. These highly abstract stories may then be analysed to understand ‘how we can create this story through technology’
Three different studies took place first designed to measure the visual appeal of 100 homepages visible for half a second eachthey viewed each page twice second phase displayed in a random rated their visual appeal using a slider that went from ‘Very Unattractive - Very Attractive’.The final study alternated the viewing time of homepages between 500 milliseconds and 50 millisecondssurprisingly high correlation at a very small exposure time.Overall the experiment proved that first impressions really do make a difference and within the first 50ms.
Three different studies took place first designed to measure the visual appeal of 100 homepages visible for half a second eachthey viewed each page twice second phase displayed in a random rated their visual appeal using a slider that went from ‘Very Unattractive - Very Attractive’.The final study alternated the viewing time of homepages between 500 milliseconds and 50 millisecondssurprisingly high correlation at a very small exposure time.Overall the experiment proved that first impressions really do make a difference and within the first 50ms.
The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products Zimmerman (2009) concludes a very similar view breaking an individuals identification with a system down into ‘role enhancement’, taking a person closer to their ideal self, and ‘role transition’, enabling one to become who they want to be.
If that person accredits the system with even a partial accomplishment of that goal its plausible they might value that system (Hassenzahl, 2004). The strength of the emotional bond between a user and system can aid greatly in the analysis of that connection. There is a definite relationship between need fulfilment and positive affectIn essence Panas records the results of the positive and negative valence that affect has assigned to the interactive system
Klein gives is of a person who became frustrated while working in METLAB 3.5 typed ‘F%@k’ into the command line to which it responded ‘your place or mine?’, a witty little mood changing hack that caused ‘surprise and delight’ pulling the user back from the brink of frustration.Firefox plays on similar personable rich language when its browser fails with sentences like ‘Oops! This page appears broken’ and ‘Well this is embarrassing’ in reference to tabs not reloading automatically
Klein gives is of a person who became frustrated while working in METLAB 3.5 typed ‘F%@k’ into the command line to which it responded ‘your place or mine?’, a witty little mood changing hack that caused ‘surprise and delight’ pulling the user back from the brink of frustration.Firefox plays on similar personable rich language when its browser fails with sentences like ‘Oops! This page appears broken’ and ‘Well this is embarrassing’ in reference to tabs not reloading automatically
Klein gives is of a person who became frustrated while working in METLAB 3.5 typed ‘F%@k’ into the command line to which it responded ‘your place or mine?’, a witty little mood changing hack that caused ‘surprise and delight’ pulling the user back from the brink of frustration.Firefox plays on similar personable rich language when its browser fails with sentences like ‘Oops! This page appears broken’ and ‘Well this is embarrassing’ in reference to tabs not reloading automatically
Klein gives is of a person who became frustrated while working in METLAB 3.5 typed ‘F%@k’ into the command line to which it responded ‘your place or mine?’, a witty little mood changing hack that caused ‘surprise and delight’ pulling the user back from the brink of frustration.Firefox plays on similar personable rich language when its browser fails with sentences like ‘Oops! This page appears broken’ and ‘Well this is embarrassing’ in reference to tabs not reloading automatically
reasons why they have never been integrated with financial costs, no directional aid to assist in gathering the data and then understanding this collected data, not having enough time or not believing in the listed constructs of experience.Each of these subjects demand a deep understanding and this is only possible through conversing with the people who will potentially use the product that the data is needed for.It is impossible to cover every experience scenario with any one framework as many techniques would prove invalid depending on the system in question and the experiences it affords. Because of this the framework has been kept relatively light and robust to make it easier to integrate into design processes.The various techniques used in this evaluative proposal target many of the core experience constructs.It is true that much of the data would be based on their perception of the system but data that looks at how the system affects the individual is also gathered through both ‘Hedonic Identification’ and the use of the PANAS method. Usability testing is not within the scope of this paper but could be easily captured alongside these techniques as the interactive stage in the evaluative method is task based. The evaluator can also calculate each participants perceptions of the usability of the system through ‘Pragmatic Quality’ assessmentThe first impressions a participant has of a system is another important measurement captured by this evaluative cluster of techniques and is also based on visual appeal. The third stage of the evaluation takes place after participants have interacted with the system and ‘goodness’ helps colour their perceptions through ease of use and usefulness and reassign their original thoughts of the systems design. The study here jumps from an appearance based assessment to an experience based one and the changes if any that interaction with the system has upon their overall appraisal. The ‘Positive and Negative Affect Scale’ is used before and after the three stage evaluation. Through the ratings of 10 positive and 10 negative verbs before and after the evaluation it is possible to assess the affect, whether positive or negative, the system being tested has upon a participant. An SMEQ sale or a simple semantic differential mental effort scale can also be used as well as open ended questions to understand each participants thoughts on the system in question and the grievances/optimisms they had involving their interaction with the system.
reasons why they have never been integrated with financial costs, no directional aid to assist in gathering the data and then understanding this collected data, not having enough time or not believing in the listed constructs of experience.Each of these subjects demand a deep understanding and this is only possible through conversing with the people who will potentially use the product that the data is needed for.It is impossible to cover every experience scenario with any one framework as many techniques would prove invalid depending on the system in question and the experiences it affords. Because of this the framework has been kept relatively light and robust to make it easier to integrate into design processes.The various techniques used in this evaluative proposal target many of the core experience constructs.It is true that much of the data would be based on their perception of the system but data that looks at how the system affects the individual is also gathered through both ‘Hedonic Identification’ and the use of the PANAS method. Usability testing is not within the scope of this paper but could be easily captured alongside these techniques as the interactive stage in the evaluative method is task based. The evaluator can also calculate each participants perceptions of the usability of the system through ‘Pragmatic Quality’ assessmentThe first impressions a participant has of a system is another important measurement captured by this evaluative cluster of techniques and is also based on visual appeal. The third stage of the evaluation takes place after participants have interacted with the system and ‘goodness’ helps colour their perceptions through ease of use and usefulness and reassign their original thoughts of the systems design. The study here jumps from an appearance based assessment to an experience based one and the changes if any that interaction with the system has upon their overall appraisal. The ‘Positive and Negative Affect Scale’ is used before and after the three stage evaluation. Through the ratings of 10 positive and 10 negative verbs before and after the evaluation it is possible to assess the affect, whether positive or negative, the system being tested has upon a participant. An SMEQ sale or a simple semantic differential mental effort scale can also be used as well as open ended questions to understand each participants thoughts on the system in question and the grievances/optimisms they had involving their interaction with the system.
It discussed experiments by UX researchers related to these elements and hypothesised how they could fit into an evaluation form to target these different elements and calculate the extent to which they effect the overall design and interaction experience of a system.This can help identify if values and experiences labeled as significant at the beginning of the process are still preserved within the system after the design stage.
