ovetto x students
TRANSCRIPT
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.