ovetto x students

Levels of DesignDesigning Human Activities

Antonio Rizzo

University of Siena, Italy

2/13

Design for Human Activities

o I know what I want and I can also specify most of theconditions of satisfaction of my actions and target results

o I’m interested in doing it, I cannot tell you precisely whatdo I expect in term of actions or results but as thingsevolve I will tell you,

o I’m curious about it, but I do not know what this implyneither what can I expect

Diff

eren

t hu

man

act

iviti

es /

Diff

eren

t le

vels

of d

esig

n

3/13

Three levels:

The egg model

reactive

pro-active

emergent

Three phases:

4/13

HCI designer is called tosolve problems of use fora well establishedhuman activity/taskalready mediated byexisting and fullyoperational system/tools

Reactive Level

5/13

RL exampleFS

6/13

Task Scenario

Vediamo che treni ci sono, poi se mai, acquisto direttamente

7/13

• Black: pagecontent

• Red: page title• Green:

annotations• Blue: links

Role and Look& Feel

8/13

Activity: Task scenarios

Evaluation: Walkthrough

Design: Coupling “role” and“look&feel”.

RL methods

9/13

The designer iscalled to develop anew system for awell defined humanactivity supporting aclear category ofusers

Proactive Level

10/13

PL exampleHIPS

11/13

12/13

13/13

FishAnt

14/13

Laboratory testingWizard of Oz

15/13

Activity and PrototypeScenarios

16/13

Activity: Ethnographic observation

Evaluation: Wizard of Oz

Design: Activity Scenarios

PL methods

17/13

To “envision” newhuman activities thatare designed togetherwith the enablingartefacts and system.

Emergent Level

18/13

EL examplePOGO

19/13

User studies:The Narrative Activity Model

Chaos

Water

Earth

FireAir

Sensorialexperience

Rememberingthe activitiesthrough the

expression offavorite games

Discussing Writing

Chosing afavoriteelement

through a ritualof identification

WritingDrawing Creatingcostumes

Expressingcharacteristic of

the elementreferring tothemselves

Reading

Dancing

Celebratingthe

elements

20/13

Mock-up development and testingDesign Concepts:mock-up construction

Mock-up testingTo assess the validity of the conceptsTo explore the potentiality of the basic and elaborated setting of POGO ToolsTo gather significant data for the further experiments on interaction designTo detail User Requirements with respects to the “Acquisition”, “Manipulation” and “Publishing” Phase

Suggestions for high fidelity prototyping

21/13

Beamer

Torch

Cards

Bucket

22/13

23/13

EDIT ZONE

POGO

24/13

PLAY ZONEPOGO system

25/13

Pogo Testing

26/13

Activity: future scenarios

Evaluation: simulations withstakeholders

Design: theoretical reflection,future workshops,

EL methods

27/13

Conclusion

o Every design process has its own storyo Egg Model provide an heuristic guide

for navigating between existing HCImethods

o It help students to properly understandthe role of the three main designphases for designing for human activities

28/13

Why is RL Important?

It can determine whobecomes president of the USA!

29/13

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

32/13

Variations on the Theme

Palm Beach Phone Book (a joke)

THANK YOU

FOR YOUR TIME

35/13

Original contribution with respect toother interaction design processmodels currently adopted. Indeedmost of the available processmodels derive from the earlywork of the Xerox Star researchgroup that proposed a user-centred view for the design ofinnovative products (Bewley et al.1983, Smith et al 1982, Gould andLewis, 1983).

• From that pioneering work, manyother formulations of the originalidea were proposed with the aimto consolidate design practiceswith a clear user orientation.However, all these models (Beyerand Holtzblatt, 1998, Lewis andRieman, 1993, Preece at al. 1994,Shneiderman, 1992) do not takeinto account the differentmeanings that the “design for theusers” approach assumes indifferent contexts.