1. Levels of Design
Designing Human Activities
Antonio Rizzo
University of Siena, Italy

2. Different human activities / Different levels of design
Design for Human Activities
o I know what I want and I can also specify most of the
conditions of satisfaction of my actions and target results
o I’m interested in doing it, I cannot tell you precisely what
do I expect in term of actions or results but as things
evolve I will tell you,
o I’m curious about it, but I do not know what this imply
neither what can I expect
2/13

3. The egg model
Three levels: Three phases:
reactive
pro-active
emergent
3/13

4. Reactive Level
HCI designer is called to
solve problems of use for
a well established
human activity/task
already mediated by
existing and fully
operational system/tools
4/13

5. RL example
FS
5/13

6. Task Scenario
Vediamo che treni ci sono, poi se mai, acquisto direttamente
6/13

7. Role and Look
& Feel
• Black: page
content
• Red: page title
• Green:
annotations
• Blue: links
7/13

8. RL methods
Activity: Task scenarios
Evaluation: Walkthrough
Design: Coupling “role” and
“look&feel”.
8/13

9. Proactive Level
The designer is
called to develop a
new system for a
well defined human
activity supporting a
clear category of
users
9/13

10. PL example
HIPS
10/13

11. 11/13

12. 12/13

13. Ant Fish
13/13

14. Laboratory testing
Wizard of Oz
14/13

15. Activity and Prototype
Scenarios
15/13

16. PL methods
Activity: Ethnographic observation
Evaluation: Wizard of Oz
Design: Activity Scenarios
16/13

17. Emergent Level
To “envision” new
human activities that
are designed together
with the enabling
artefacts and system.
17/13

18. EL example
POGO
18/13

19. User studies:
The Narrative Activity Model
C hao Wate Earth
s r
Sensorial
experience
Remembering
C hosing a
Air Fire the activities
favorite
through the
element
expression of
through a ritual
favorite games
of identification
C reating
Drawing
Discussing Writing Writing
costumes
Expressing
characteristic of
the element
referring to
themselves
Reading
C elebrating
the
elements
Dancing
19/13

20. Mock-up development and testing
Design Concepts:mock-up construction
Mock-up testing
To assess the validity of the concepts
To explore the potentiality of the basic and elaborated setting of POGO Tools
To gather significant data for the further experiments on interaction design
To detail User Requirements with respects to the “Acquisition”, “Manipulation” and “Publishing” Phase
Suggestions for high fidelity prototyping
20/13

21. Beamer
Torch
Bucket
Cards
21/13

22. 22/13

23. POGO
EDIT ZONE
23/13

24. POGO system
PLAY ZONE
24/13

25. Pogo Testing
25/13

26. EL methods
Activity: future scenarios
Evaluation: simulations with
stakeholders
Design: theoretical reflection,
future workshops,
26/13

27. Conclusion
o Every design process has its own story
o Egg Model provide an heuristic guide
for navigating between existing HCI
methods
o It help students to properly understand
the role of the three main design
phases for designing for human activities
27/13

28. Why is RL Important?
It can determine who
becomes president of the USA!
28/13

29. Problems
• The instructions are misleading
– Use of the phrase “vote for group” is misleading
• Should say “vote for one”
– Instructions only on lefthand side
• Implies righthand side is different
• The interleaving of holes is misleading
– Only the president page has this layout
– Other offices are one per page (with appropriate instructions)
• The sample ballot looks different
– No holes – the source of the problem
– Did not lead to complaints
29/13

32. Variations on the Theme
32/13

33. Palm Beach Phone Book (a joke)

34. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME

35. Original contribution with respect to • From that pioneering work, many
other interaction design process other formulations of the original
models currently adopted. Indeed idea were proposed with the aim
most of the available process to consolidate design practices
models derive from the early with a clear user orientation.
work of the Xerox Star research However, all these models (Beyer
group that proposed a user- and Holtzblatt, 1998, Lewis and
centred view for the design of Rieman, 1993, Preece at al. 1994,
innovative products (Bewley et al. Shneiderman, 1992) do not take
1983, Smith et al 1982, Gould and into account the different
Lewis, 1983). meanings that the “design for the
users” approach assumes in
different contexts.
35/13