Saffer, D. (2007) Designing for Interaction. Berkeley: New Riders. [chapters 4, 5]
Design Research - investigation of product or service's potential or existing users or environments.
Hunt statement: research objectives to focus research efforts.
Interview: directed storytelling, unfocus group, role playing etc.
unfocus group-> unlike focus group which gather typical users with scripted questions, unfocus group approach gather experts from different persepctives to get diverse opinion on the product or service.
Design implications: draw out the requirements from design research
brainstorming
Research models: communicate findings from design research
Use cases and task analysis: outline what the product needs to accomplish
mood boards (emotional landscape), scenarios, storyboards, task lfows, sketches, wireframes, prototypes: piece together waht the product or service will be in visual form
Personas: document to describe archetypal people involved with products or services, listing only those characteristics relevant to the product (user profiles) - componenets include experience goals, end goals, life goals to describe what the product means to the user
Scenarios: outline design concepts in use
*******
Wittrock, M.C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531-541.
Model of Generative learning and teaching
is based on the understanding of our brain processes involved in cognition and learning from neuropsychology (i.e. Luria's functional systems of brain consisting of arousal and attention, integration of sensory information, and generative processor)
Learning is seen as the effects of generation of meaningful relations, implying the active engagement by the learners.
The model consists of 4 processes
1. attention
2. motivation
3. knowledge and preconcpetion
4. generation
Studies support the model that more generative methods of learning/instruction is more effective in learning comprehension, math, science and more.
*******
Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In Mayer (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, pp.287 -296. New York: Cambridge.
Schnotz and Lowe (2003)
Animation can be characterized over 3 levels:
technical - technology used for delivery
semiotic - signs and dynamics represented
psychological - perceptual and cognitive processes involved when viewing animation
types of Interactivity
- control: capacity of users to pace and direct succession of frames
- interactivity: capability to act on what will appear in the next succession
The advantage of animation over static representation is not clear due to either cognitive limitations in processing dynamic information or that each discrete screen in the animation might be perceived as static steps despite being displayed in continuous manner. Providing learner control might help overcome such limitations for better learning with animation (well, learner control throws in whole another slew of problems and limitations) as well as segmenting the animation into smaller chunks (similar to control solution)
'illusion of understanding' since animation visualizes the dynamic processes of the system being represented, this might lead to shallow cognitive processing by the learners in forming the visual representation of the phenomenon.
5 design priniciples for animation
1. apprehension principle: to reduce visual complexity, representations should be readily comprehensible and non-redundant
2. congruence principle: dynamic changes should represent conceptual change rather than behavior of the phenomenon
3. Interactivity principle: learners should have control over the pace of animation, higher level of control should only be provided in learners can handle it
4. Attention-guiding principle: signaling etc. to guide learner's attention to reduce overwhelming cognitive capacity
5. Flexibility Principle: provide option of static or animation version of the material, without redundant presentation
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Interaction Design I
Saffer, D. (2007) Designing for Interaction. Berkeley: New Riders. [chapters 1, 2, 3]
Interaction design: designing the behavior of product and services, i.e. how it works
Historically, interaction design emerged as product design shifted focus from 'engineering' to 'designing'. This is in alignment with the technological sophistication where as the computers became more capable, more attention could be put into the issues of usability.
4 approaches to design:
user-centered design - focus on user's needs and goal
activity-centered design - focus on acitivities or tasks to be accomplished through the system
systems design - focus on components of the system, useful for seeing the big picture
genius design - focus on the designer's ability
Elements of interaction design:
motion, space, time (rhythm), appearance, texture, sound
Laws of Interaction Design
Moore's Law - Intel guy hypothesizing that processing power will double every year
Fitt's Law - larger the target, faster it can be pointed to
Hick's Law - faster the choice of navigation if lesser number of choice available
Magical number seven - George Miller's identification of working memory limitation ranging 7 +/- 2 chunks
Tesler's Law of the Conservation of Complexity: tasks have inherent complexity
Poka-Yoke Principle - putting constraints to minimize error as soon as possible
Direct and Indirect Manipulation
Feedback and Feedforwrad
Characteristics of Good Interaction Design
Trustworthy, appropriate, smart (sharing cognitive load), responsive, clever (delightful intelligence), ludic (playful), pleasurable
********
Shedroff (1999). Information Interaction Design: A Unified Field Theory of Design. In Jacobsen, R. (Ed.), Information Design, pp. 267–292. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
data - information - knowledge - wisdom
The distinction between them probably comes from information technology field where it is necessary to identify the characteristics associated with different level of 'organization'. It is interesting to see how cognitive psychologists do not make such distinctions and they almost feel it unnecessary. This might be because the distinction really comes from the perspective of people that manipulate meaning for presentation (provider), while the psychologists come from the perspective of the meaning making (receiver). In this sense, it is rather problematic when Shedroff says that knowledge can be affected directly by the designers...Information can indeed be directly manipulated but knowledge is constructed 'actively' by the perceiver, through their selective attention, perception and organization, in that there really is no way we can 'directly' influence the process.
the continuum of interactivity
feedback; control; creativity;productivity;communications;adaptivity
defines the level of interactivity from passive to active participation by the users. It is interesting that the author notes, it is not always desired to provide the most interactivity, this depends on the goal of design. (defying the assumption that more interactivity is better)
********
Shneiderman, B. & Plaisant, C. (2005). Designing The User Interface. Chapter 2: Guidelines, Principles, and Theories (pp. 60–106). Boston: Pearson.
guidelines - principles - theories
at different levels, they serve different purposes by informing designers with differing specificity and understanding.
Guidelines provide specific rules that can be readily applied in design practice, however, due to their specificify, might not apply to all cases.
- Navigation
- organization of the display
- managing attention
- data entry
few principles keep coming up throughout the guidelines: consistency (theoretical explanation: easy to learn & maintain), sufficient user control, non-distracting
Pinciples
Good balance of attention between individual difference and universality is needed in consideration of their skill, preference, task
8 golden rules of interaction design
1. strive for consistency (managing expectation)
2. cater to universal usability
3. offer informative feedback
4. Design dialogs to yield closure (satisfaction of experience)
5. Prevent errors
6. permit easy reveral of actions
7. Support internal locus of control (especially for experienced users; balance between automation and control)
8. Reduce short-term memory load
Theories
cognitive theories inform how users process information the cognitive task demands.
Taxonomies to categorize tasks, preference etc.
levels of analysis
- conceptual level
- semantic level
- syntactic level
- lexical level
The distinction appears to be more of categorization (of information) rather than the pure sense of level (i.e. hierarchical leveling). Also, the distinction is outdated due to the fact that the levels were based on command line interface (c.f. modern GUI)
Stages-of-action models
Based on user interaction with tools (Norman)
Forming the goal - forming the intention - specifying the action - executing the action - perceiving the system state - interpreting the system state - evaluating the outcome
The model fits well in identification of
- gulf of execution (user's intention vs allowed action)
- gulf of evaluation (user's expectation vs feedback)
GOMS model (Card, Moran, Newell)
goals - operators - methods - selection rules
keystroke level model - simplified version of GOMS predicting the error-free expert performance of achieving the goal
Action Grammar (Reisner) -> Task Action Grammar (Payne & Greene)
outline multiple levels of consistency
OAI model (Object Action Interface)
Task, interface hierarchical models
Interaction design: designing the behavior of product and services, i.e. how it works
Historically, interaction design emerged as product design shifted focus from 'engineering' to 'designing'. This is in alignment with the technological sophistication where as the computers became more capable, more attention could be put into the issues of usability.
4 approaches to design:
user-centered design - focus on user's needs and goal
activity-centered design - focus on acitivities or tasks to be accomplished through the system
systems design - focus on components of the system, useful for seeing the big picture
genius design - focus on the designer's ability
Elements of interaction design:
motion, space, time (rhythm), appearance, texture, sound
Laws of Interaction Design
Moore's Law - Intel guy hypothesizing that processing power will double every year
Fitt's Law - larger the target, faster it can be pointed to
Hick's Law - faster the choice of navigation if lesser number of choice available
Magical number seven - George Miller's identification of working memory limitation ranging 7 +/- 2 chunks
Tesler's Law of the Conservation of Complexity: tasks have inherent complexity
Poka-Yoke Principle - putting constraints to minimize error as soon as possible
Direct and Indirect Manipulation
Feedback and Feedforwrad
Characteristics of Good Interaction Design
Trustworthy, appropriate, smart (sharing cognitive load), responsive, clever (delightful intelligence), ludic (playful), pleasurable
********
Shedroff (1999). Information Interaction Design: A Unified Field Theory of Design. In Jacobsen, R. (Ed.), Information Design, pp. 267–292. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
data - information - knowledge - wisdom
The distinction between them probably comes from information technology field where it is necessary to identify the characteristics associated with different level of 'organization'. It is interesting to see how cognitive psychologists do not make such distinctions and they almost feel it unnecessary. This might be because the distinction really comes from the perspective of people that manipulate meaning for presentation (provider), while the psychologists come from the perspective of the meaning making (receiver). In this sense, it is rather problematic when Shedroff says that knowledge can be affected directly by the designers...Information can indeed be directly manipulated but knowledge is constructed 'actively' by the perceiver, through their selective attention, perception and organization, in that there really is no way we can 'directly' influence the process.
the continuum of interactivity
feedback; control; creativity;productivity;communications;adaptivity
defines the level of interactivity from passive to active participation by the users. It is interesting that the author notes, it is not always desired to provide the most interactivity, this depends on the goal of design. (defying the assumption that more interactivity is better)
********
Shneiderman, B. & Plaisant, C. (2005). Designing The User Interface. Chapter 2: Guidelines, Principles, and Theories (pp. 60–106). Boston: Pearson.
guidelines - principles - theories
at different levels, they serve different purposes by informing designers with differing specificity and understanding.
Guidelines provide specific rules that can be readily applied in design practice, however, due to their specificify, might not apply to all cases.
- Navigation
- organization of the display
- managing attention
- data entry
few principles keep coming up throughout the guidelines: consistency (theoretical explanation: easy to learn & maintain), sufficient user control, non-distracting
Pinciples
Good balance of attention between individual difference and universality is needed in consideration of their skill, preference, task
8 golden rules of interaction design
1. strive for consistency (managing expectation)
2. cater to universal usability
3. offer informative feedback
4. Design dialogs to yield closure (satisfaction of experience)
5. Prevent errors
6. permit easy reveral of actions
7. Support internal locus of control (especially for experienced users; balance between automation and control)
8. Reduce short-term memory load
Theories
cognitive theories inform how users process information the cognitive task demands.
Taxonomies to categorize tasks, preference etc.
levels of analysis
- conceptual level
- semantic level
- syntactic level
- lexical level
The distinction appears to be more of categorization (of information) rather than the pure sense of level (i.e. hierarchical leveling). Also, the distinction is outdated due to the fact that the levels were based on command line interface (c.f. modern GUI)
Stages-of-action models
Based on user interaction with tools (Norman)
Forming the goal - forming the intention - specifying the action - executing the action - perceiving the system state - interpreting the system state - evaluating the outcome
The model fits well in identification of
- gulf of execution (user's intention vs allowed action)
- gulf of evaluation (user's expectation vs feedback)
GOMS model (Card, Moran, Newell)
goals - operators - methods - selection rules
keystroke level model - simplified version of GOMS predicting the error-free expert performance of achieving the goal
Action Grammar (Reisner) -> Task Action Grammar (Payne & Greene)
outline multiple levels of consistency
OAI model (Object Action Interface)
Task, interface hierarchical models
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
