HCI Notes
Bad techniques: Subjective reports. One user (the programmer). Hypothesis without analysis. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cognitive Walkthrough: Under the user model a user sets a goal to be accomplished. The user searches the interface for possible actions, selects the action that seems likely to make progress towards the goal, then performs and evaluates the systems feedback. Users aren't involved; evaluators describe a description of users, tasks to be completed and the correct actions for them. Present are the interface designer, a group of peers, a scribe and a facilitator. They consider the users goal, accessibility of controls, the quality of the controls label and goal, and the feedback of the system. Cognitive walk-through deals with inexperienced users performing possibly new actions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heuristic Evaluation: Nielsen suggested that the usability of a system should be evaluated by a number of experts, each working from a list of usability heuristics. Separate evaluators, if possible from different backgrounds, each evaluate the system independently perhaps by running through scenarios. All evaluators use the same heuristics. Nielsen gave a list of sample heuristics including “Visibility of system status”,”Match between system and the real world”, “User control and freedom”, “Consistency and standards”, “Error prevention”, “Recognition rather than recall”, “Flexibility and efficiency of use”, “Aesthetic and minimalist design”, “Help users recognize, diagnose and recover from errors”, “Help and documentation”. Heuristic evaluation is used often as it is cheap, simple and easily understood. It doesn't however touch deeper issues or offer answers for them, and doesn't have concepts of different users. Unlike with walkthrough, evaluators work separately. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Task Orientated Analysis: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Structured Interviews: Normally find requirements from representative. Also conduct studies such as interviews with the users. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Observational Studies: Video recordings of the subject, which are transcribed into a video protocol. Can also do diary studies. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ethnographic field studies: Observe subjects in a wide range of contexts, over a period of time. Useful for requirements capture. Microsoft write personas from market research (with photographs, fictional biographies etc.) then the designer tries to accommodate this user. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Field tests: Such as the follow me home program by Quicken, where users are given the software free in exchange for designers following them home and observing them install and use it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Use case design: Analyse user activities in terms of use cases - specific scenarios for interactions with the system. The systems behavior is described from the point of view of actors- representations of roles that users will take when interacting with the system. Useful in later stages of design, to trace the specification and validation of different subsystems. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cognitive Dimensions of notations: The Cognitive Dimensions of Notations is an approach to analyzing the usability of information artefact's (eg software systems, physical machines etc.) It is a small vocabulary of about 12 terms which describe aspects that are cognitively-relevant. Such as: Premature commitment (can you perform actions in any order?), Hidden dependencies (eg HTML links), Viscosity (easy to change?), Visibility (Easy to see what you're editing?), Closeness of mapping (between notation and the real world), Consistency (similar semantics?), Diffuseness (brief notation?), Error-proneness (some mistakes easy to make?), Hard mental operations, Progressive evaluation, Provisionality (can you sketch?), Role expressiveness. There are also sub-devices: Helper devices (eg post-it notes), redefinition devices (eg short cut codes). There are notational activities: search, incrementation (adding new data), modification (changing structure), transcription, exploratory design. To evaluate, identify the main notation and environment in which it is manipulated. Then identify sub devices and describe their notations (there may be separate layers to be analysed separately). Consider each notation in terms of dimensions. Identify problems, and consider design decisions. Useful for complex software with notations such as spreadsheets. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Research trends: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Users normally work with other users. Design discussions, for example, can be broken down into questions, options for addressing them, and criteria by which an option should be selected. This provides a design rationale (reasons why design decisions were taken). Examples of what is looked into include shared whiteboards and social networking sites. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New interaction devices: Immersive virtual reality, augmented reality (superimpose virtual onto real). Audio responses to actions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
End user programming: Psychology of programming. Useful for things such as laboratory automation language. Programming by example is where a computer infers what the user wants. Also programming languages to teach programming. |
