What's New in Human Factors And Interaction Design For Medical
•
1 gostou•454 visualizações
Bill Horan talks new trends associated with human factors including things like how our relationship with technology is shifting, and how consumer design's influence on healthcare is accelerating. Bill goes on to discuss the six best practices for medical product development. For more information about medical product design and to connect with Bresslergroup, visit http://www.bresslergroup.com/expertise/medical-product-design/
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Semelhante a What's New in Human Factors And Interaction Design For Medical
Semelhante a What's New in Human Factors And Interaction Design For Medical (20)
Mais de Bresslergroup
Mais de Bresslergroup (10)
Último
Último (20)
What's New in Human Factors And Interaction Design For Medical
- 1. What’s New in Human Factors and Interaction Design for Medical Devices Bill Horan Creative Director, Interaction Design Conall Dempsey Director of User Research
- 2. BILL HORAN Creative Director, Interaction Design At Bresslergroup, Bill leads our Interaction Design (IxD) team to create world- class software, mobile, and integrated touchscreen experiences for our clients, often working in tandem with our research, industrial design, and engineering disciplines. Bill also writes and presents on many aspects of his multifaceted field, particularly mobile app design, problem finding, and concept development. Bill holds a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Communication Design from Kutztown University. His experience spans financial, medical, and consumer products — past clients include Neat, Comcast, PNC Bank, Pew Charitable Trusts, Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline.
- 3. CONALL DEMPSEY Director of User Research Conall has made a career out of innovation strategy — as a consultant at Deloitte; as Creative Catalyst for Embrace, a medical startup in a developing market; and heading up UX and product strategy for Unilife, where he gained experience working to FDA compliance requirements. At Bresslergroup he leads the user research team to unearth new, meaningful insights for clients. Conall earned a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a Master of Product Development from Carnegie Mellon.
- 9. 3 Trends In Human Factors, IxD, and Medical
- 10. TREND #1
- 11. • Sensors • Beacons • Machine learning • VR / AR • Augmentation • AI • Analytics • Data connectivity
- 13. “The assumption that humans could be a reliable backup for the system was a total fallacy.” -Astro Teller, Google X
- 14. Users were quick to assume that the error prevention features were foolproof and thus relieved them of this cognitive responsibility. -Bruvelo User Testing
- 15. TREND #2
- 16. • Daily use • Interaction Patterns • Iconography • Gestures • Navigation Models • Natural Language • Connectivity • Responsiveness
- 17. • Design Thinking • Prototyping • Test Early & Often • Rapid Iteration • Agile / Sprints • Lean • MVP
- 18. TREND #3
- 19. • Embracing new technologies • Incorporating common UI patterns & icons • Gesture-based interaction • Early prototyping • Rapid iteration
- 20. • Defining critical tasks with a more complete view of use and users • Stepping away from probability • Declaring confidence in device usability
- 21. 6 Best Practices For Medical Product Development
- 22. 1
- 24. • Balance needs of first- time vs. power use scenarios • Consider walk- through interactions for novice and infrequent use
- 25. • Versatile products lead to diverse use environments • Usability and design priorities differ with use environment • Plan for and test in multiple environments (focus on worst case)
- 26. 2
- 29. 3
- 34. 4
- 35. Use common: • Interaction patterns • Iconography • Gestures • Navigation models • Rapid iteration / testing
- 36. Don’t assume: • Viewing distance • Viewing angle • Display brightness / contrast / density • Target distance • Target height • Target stability • Environment
- 37. 5
- 38. • Spending time with users leads to insights which inform design • Design should be tested with users, then improved • User determines if the final design is functional and valuable
- 39. • Display Size • Display Technology • Viewing Angles • Pixel Density • Brightness • Contrast UX requirements should inform: • Graphics capability • Memory • Connectivity • Firmware • Responsiveness
- 40. 6
- 41. Paper Medium Fidelity High Fidelity Low Fidelity
- 42. Summary + Q&A
- 43. 1. Understand User Types & Environments 2. Combine Digital & Physical 3. Clarify the Human-Machine Relationship 4. Borrow Wisely From Consumer 5. Users First, Users Last 6. Get Crafty
- 44. Questions? Contact us! Bill Horan bhoran@bresslergroup.com Conall Dempsey cdempsey@bresslergroup.com
Notas do Editor
- Good morning, I’m Chris Murray & I’m director of industrial design team for the Bresslergroup consultancy based in Philadelphia Today, I’d like to discuss how branding in product development has changed our deliverables & our work processes across industrial design & interaction design
- Much of our work is in consumer and IoT
- 40% is in medical devices and systems
- [Notes: In our work we’re noticing 3 overarching trends in the cross-section of HF, IxD and Medical. We’re going to give you a high-level overview of each trend, followed by best practices and we’ll end with some actionable takeaways]
- Technology is adapting to humans vs. other way around. Physical and cognitive limitations remain somewhat static. HCD and Technology allow us to adapt to peoples’ limitations. Bridge the gap b/t what technology and humans are capable of by creating interactions that people will use and understand.
- More tools at our disposal Ability to sense and react Learn from mistakes (as a group) Less a physical transformation Cognitive augmentation Freeing us of burden of knowing things Or deciding things But first we need to define our relationship with technology…
- More capability to analyze and learn means more burden of decision / responsibility on machines Determine what level is appropriate based on user, scenario, and technical capabilities
- How much of our cognitive burden can we (and should we) outsource to our machines? many things that our machines can do better and more consistently than we can. -machines don’t do well in novel or unexpected situations. -when we perceive that a machine is error-proof, we shift our attention elsewhere and relieve ourselves of responsibility, often erroneously. Deciding who does what, and managing the transition, can be tricky. ] [Notes: Who decides? Who is in control? This is important to establish upfront, and it differs even within industries Boeing and Airbus have different paradigms as do wind turbine companies – GE versus Vestis and all others
- How much of our cognitive burden can we (and should we) outsource to our machines? many things that our machines can do better and more consistently than we can. -machines don’t do well in novel or unexpected situations. -when we perceive that a machine is error-proof, we shift our attention elsewhere and relieve ourselves of responsibility, often erroneously. Deciding who does what, and managing the transition, can be tricky. ] [Notes: Who decides? Who is in control? This is important to establish upfront, and it differs even within industries Boeing and Airbus have different paradigms as do wind turbine companies – GE versus Vestis and all others
- Medical devices are starting to look more like consumer devices. This influence extends to icons, interaction patterns (ex.: testing with a medical device with a touchscreen – nurses trying to swipe to get to the next screen), powering of the device (battery icon example), higher expectations across the board for technology/screens, adoption of design thinking and the concurrent process (iterate, prototype, test)]
- Mobile in particular has created ubiquitous daily interaction Reinforcing over and over again creates automatic behaviors Higher expectations across the board for interaction/animation/quality
- HCD methods and “Lean/agile” approaches Began in manufacturing Brought to software design “Darwinian playground” – “Fail fast” – rapid evolution
- The formalities around development are changing on the medical side. - regulatory bodies are reacting - still not clear what best practices are - FDA guidance formalized - timelines shifting But medical continues to play a fundamentally different game. - lifecycle hasn’t shortened - no tolerance for risk - can’t release into the wild for testing (there is a limit to how much iterating/prototyping/testing can be done) - legacy - user inertia (ingrained use patterns/learned behaviors, workflows) - regulation - So how do you apply consumer design principles and process without risk? The message: we understand you’re playing a fundamentally different game and we can help you improve that game. mitigating The medical space takes a more measured approach to innovation, as gambling on new and exciting interactions isn’t worth the risk vs. making incremental improvements to what already works. Compounding this issue is that processes and workflows become so ingrained in the (highly specialized) user base over time, there’s additional friction and risk in disrupting these despite there being a better way. There becomes then a widening gap between consumer and Medical user experiences – what people use in their lives seems more advanced and slick than the medical devices they use. The takeaway is to look to consumer for technologies, icons, and interaction patterns that are becoming commonplace, and to implement them appropriately. It’s important to consider context however. A touch screen interface, while great for a mobile device, may not be the best choice in a busy medical setting, where users are wearing gloves, and aren’t as focused on the interaction. They may need simple tactile feedback, and be sure no errors are made. Medical’s timeline to market is multiple years, so it makes sense to be cautious about adopting what’s new and cool now – most of it will be passé a few years from now.]
- Haptic versus touch controls When are icons, screens, and workflows understood based on legacy products versus being interpreted like consumer goods to consumer for technologies, icons, and interaction patterns that are becoming commonplace, and to implement them appropriately A touch screen interface, while great for a mobile device, may not be the best choice in a busy medical setting, where users are wearing gloves, and aren’t as focused on the interaction. They may need simple tactile feedback, and be sure no errors are made.
- FDA makes it clear they are looking to enable advanced medical developments FDA Expects a stand on the usability of your products; only way to do that is a clear, well-structured, and robust process Expects a clear process and story from start to finish Knows a lot about the category and communicates, don’t fail to consider items you know they are focused on User research and human-centered design needs to go beyond seeing FDA as the only driver (not just a stage-gate, but also for added value)
- Note that there are different stages of a user with a system – first-time needs handholding; occasional user needs guidance every time; then there’s the heavy everyday workflow user who you want to get out of the way of as much as possible. You have to figure out ways to present appropriate experiences for those users by creating onboarding experience with step by step instructions; ; need to get out of the way of the efficiency user How skilled is the user? How frequent? What parts of the process can be automated to reduce error? What is the appropriate mix of user / machine control?]
- [Neat Receipts (consumer learning to cross-pollinate) Bill to pull together
- [Neat Receipts (consumer learning to cross-pollinate) Bill to pull together
- Notes: - Map physical and digital together in a user journey map; at Bresslergroup we merge the two. - There are physical actions and digital components that tie the two together seamlessly and make it simple for people – using the newer tech and probing how a user is dividing his mental and physical energies, you can create experiences that are fool-proof. - cs: Baebies: The physical-digital workflow drove the experience.
- Notes: - There are different patterns of interactions – f.e., ones like wizard and ones that’re less linear. - cs: with Baebies, there’s an expectation that I can’t screw it up as the user -- when you start to establish those expectations, people will assume the system will do everything automatically – has to be a fully driverless car or a car that you drive. This point was driven home when we were usability testing a smart coffee maker. Make sure there’s a clear delineation between what kind of experience you’re going to have – the experience needs to deliver on the assumptions made early on about the system and how much it’s going to do for you.
- - Touchscreens are not always the magic answer. Touchscreen solutions as relative to current CF program - here's what they can be good for in this type of environment; here are some places where they might not be the best choice (where tactile experiences might be better) - we can add what we know from working in similar categories. Not necessarily an easier experience when you to to a touchscreen. Giving up tactile feedback. What are you giving up and what are you getting? Don’t make it connected just because it’s cool (internet goes out, what do you do?)]
- You don’t know, what you don’t know Generative, Formative, Summative, Lifecycle Actual use versus expected use (and use environments) Recent CareFusion research: integrated wireless pump; Some features are not currently used / understood Some icons designed to match legacy (integrated system) are being interpreted like cell phones Intent for system to convey data from pump to health system and records, but users expect it to become tool for managing workflows Medical space is becoming more and more sophisticated (competitive driver) and FDA is clearly communicating higher expectations
- BD Diabetes Long-term engagement, application of user research and design Global ethno (learn user paint points) Design solutions (easier to use pen-needles, multi-needle modules for quick replacement and easier handling) Global VOC and usability research (on-going, 100+ participants, 3 countries)
- [Notes: - do things in the right order; IxD and research first to define the experience – take your designers and engineers with you when you do research. Understand the impact of decisions – eng decisions can influence the UX - the environment of use; and all the stakeholders - when we look at digi-physical design, IxD can easily turn into a service design exercise where we start to see issues in higher-level workflows and being able to have influence over those can have impact - can I read it from 12 feet away? Question taken from requirement – needs to be able to read it from 12 feet away - IxD often combines digital, physical, and the environment - it goes beyond the screen and the form factor; it’s about micro and macro: with Haemonetics it is about the micro-interactions and the experience for the donor and the phlebotomist, but is also about designing the experience to improve the operational efficiency, throughput and revenue for the client's customers – it goes beyond designing what is onscreen - with CF is it about how the pumps are monitored from different distances cs: Haemonetics and carefusion/
- Prototype- It’s becoming so easy! Show vs. Tell
- Levels of fidelity Quick and dirty
- [Notes: In our work we’re noticing 3 overarching trends in the cross-section of HF, IxD and Medical. We’re going to give you a high-level overview of each trend, followed by best practices and we’ll end with some actionable takeaways]
- [Notes: - Design the experience for the best balance between tech and human – consider the nuances of that relationship, and make the interplay intentional. Let machines do what they do well, but don’t lull users into a false sense of security. Keep users engaged appropriately and clearly establish who is in charge. - Cross pollinate, with caveats - Understand the implications every decision has on the experience (i.e. eng decisions on experience); Let the desired experience guide the decisions as opposed to letting the decisions guide the experience. Encourage constant collaboration between research and design (engineering).]