O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

The Semiotic Inspection Method - Overview, Analysis and Critique

1.671 visualizações

Publicada em

Analysis and critique to the Semiotic Inspection Method (de Souza, 2006). Final presentation for INFO 502 "Human-Centered Research Methods" class at Indiana University, Bloomington. PhD in Informatics. Prof. John Paolillo. Spring, 2013. By Omar Sosa Tzec.

Tzek, Tzek Design. HCI PhD.

Publicada em: Educação, Tecnologia, Negócios
  • Entre para ver os comentários

The Semiotic Inspection Method - Overview, Analysis and Critique

  1. 1. The SemioticInspection MethodOverview, Analysis and CritiqueBy Omar Sosa Tzecinfo 502Human-Centered Research MethodsProf. John PaolilloPhD in InformaticsSpring 2013
  2. 2. analyzed work• de Souza, C., Leitão, C., Prates, R., da Silva, E. (2006) The Semiotic Inspection Method• de Souza, C., Leitão, C., Prates, R., Bim, S., da Silva, E. (2010) Can inspection methods generate valid new knowledge in HCI? The case of semiotic inspection• Peixoto, D., Prates, R., Resende, R. (2010) Semiotic Inspection Method in the Context of Educational Simulation Games
  3. 3. “In HCI the purpose of theory-based evaluationmethods is to assess the quality of the interfacesand the interaction in the light of a givenperspective on human-computer interaction.”de Souza, C., Leitão, C., Prates, R., da Silva, E. (2006)
  4. 4. Semiotic Engineering theory evaluationMessage Semiotic Inspection Method (SIM)Signs CommunicabilityMetacommunication Evaluation Method (CEM)CommunicabilityCommunicationbreakdowns
  5. 5. d Interface u
  6. 6. signsd Interface u
  7. 7. “Unlike cognitive theories, which have tended tofollow a generalization path, semiotic engineeringviews human-computer interaction as a set ofunique and contingent instances ofmetacommunication from designer-to-user”de Souza, C., Leitão, C., Prates, R., da Silva, E. (2006)
  8. 8. meta-communicationd Interface u
  9. 9. “Evaluators using semiotic engineering methodsare the ‘producers’ (and reporters) of knowledgereferring to unique cases of HCI... Semioticengineering evaluation methods are qualitativeand interpretative.”de Souza, C., Leitão, C., Prates, R., da Silva, E. (2006)
  10. 10. the metacommunication template “Here is my [the designer’s] understanding of who you [users] are, what I’ve learned you want or need to do, in which preferred ways, and why. This is the system that I have therefore designed for you, and this is the way you can or should use it in order to fulfill a range of purposes that fall within this view.” de Souza, C., Leitão, C., Prates, R., da Silva, E. (2006)
  11. 11. signs Interface u signsDocumentation
  12. 12. semiotic engineering sign classes1. Static signs2.Dynamic signs3.Metalinguistic signs de Souza, C., Leitão, C., Prates, R., Bim, S., da Silva, E. (2010)
  13. 13. steps of the semiotic inspection methodde Souza, C., Leitão, C., Prates, R., Bim, S., da Silva, E. (2010)
  14. 14. case 1: analysis of feedback on simple css editorde Souza, C., Leitão,C., Prates, R., Bim,S., da Silva, E. (2010)Fuente: http://cloud.addictivetips.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Simple-CSS.png
  15. 15. case 1: validation Exogenous Sources Google SCSS Groups Endogenous sim Sources Google Groups Help Forum sim triangulation
  16. 16. case 1: results• “It’s important to evoke the perceptible qualities that a configurableobject may acquire. These perceptible qualities are effectively signified by‘iconic’ signs, that is, signs that bring up the firstness of their referent.”•“The systematic association between parameter values and prototypeobject qualities [...] is a sign of secondness. [...] The user become skilled inanticipating the correct effects of using conventional symbols.”•“Once they dominate the symbolic representations that must be used toachieve their specific configuration goals, uses can be said to have learneda conventional configuration language, an unmistakable sign ofthirdness.”
  17. 17. case 2: analysis of feedback on simse game Peixoto, D., Prates,R., Resende, R.(2010)Fuente: http://cloud.addictivetips.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Simple-CSS.png
  18. 18. case 2: validation SimSE Endogenous Sources sim triangulation
  19. 19. case 2: results•It was found that “the consistent use of icons, indices, and symbolsthat refer to the same feedback (redundancy) may improve the designermetacommunication.•This study reaffirms the “importance of the perceptible change of theiconic representation of the elements after changing of their attributes[in the game].”•It’s important to take in count the “correct visual effect of the indices[in the game].”•It’s also important to take in count “an explicit and consistent symbolicrepresentation of partial results and strategies used to calculate them[in the game] could improve the feedback [from the game].”
  20. 20. analysis1. SIM vs. cognitive approaches2. Consistency/relevance of the triad icon-index-symbol3. Human-centered research method for HCI4. Contribution to development of design competences*5. Expansion on design/evaluation of GUI * Nelson & Stolterman, 2012
  21. 21. limitations (based on analyzed work)1. Possible theoretical barrier2. Expertise vs. development of researcher’s repertoire*3. Resources4. Validation through “triangulation” as a factor of error5. Adaptation to other styles of interaction * Schön, 1987
  22. 22. integration/expansion sim Communication in the context of designers and technical communicators Metalinguistic Content Signs Analysis
  23. 23. integration/expansion HCI, Design, and the everyday life and sim decision-making Dynamic Observation/ Signs Ethnomethodology
  24. 24. integration/expansion Dynamic Signs sim observation Static Signs Styles of interaction beyond the GUI
  25. 25. Thank you!omarsosa@indiana.edu