User as a two-component-system: physical/cognitive processor

“Earlier, it was asserted that usability-based approaches tend to encourage human factors specialists to consider people as processors. Physical processors with attributes such as strength, height and weight, and cognitive processors with attributes such as memory, attention and expectations. Here, then, the user is often looked at as being simply a cognitive and/or physical component of a three component system – the other two components being the product and the environment. It could be argued that the traditional human factors approaches to people ignore the very things that make us human – our emotions, our values, our hopes and our fears.
In order to find a way into these issues, we need to have an understanding not only of how people use products, but also of the role that those products play in people’s lives. This gives a chance to understand how the product relates to the person in a wider sense than just usability and can help the human factors specialist in gaining a wider view of the user requirements – the requirements for pleasure.”

From: Jordan, P. W. (2002), ‘Human factors for pleasure seekers’ in ed. Frascara, J. Design and the Social Sciences: Making Connections, London: Taylor & Francis, p.16

Hierarchy of user needs

The User needs hierarchy (variation of Maslow’s pyrmaid) has three levels
1. Functionality
2. Usability
3. Pleasure

“Abraham Maslow (1970) developed a “hierarchy of human needs.” This model views the human as a “wanting animal” who rarely reaches a state of complete satisfaction. Indeed, if a nirvana is reached it will usually only be temporary because once one desire has been fulfilled another will soon surface to take its place. The idea is that as soon as people have fulfilled the needs lower down the hierarchy, they will then want to fulfill the needs higher up. This means that even if basic needs such as physiological needs and safety have been met, people will still et with frustration if their higher goals are not met.”

From: Jordan, P. W. (2002), ‘Human factors for pleasure seekers’ in ed. Frascara, J. Design and the Social Sciences: Making Connections, London: Taylor & Francis, p.13

Personas

“A summary representation of the system’s intended users, often described as real people. Any project can have one or more personas, each representing a different kind of audience for the system. Also known as: user profiles, user role definitions, audience profiles.”

From: Brown, Dan (2007), Communicating Design, Berkeley: New Riders, p.15

Doing user testing

1. Determine the goals and explore the questions
2. Choose the paradigm and techniques
3. Identify the practical issues: Design typical tasksIdentify the practical issues: Select typical users
4. Identify the practical issues: Prepare the testing conditions
5. Identify the practical issues: Plan how top run the tests
6. Deal with ethical issues
7. Evaluate, analyze, and present the data

From: Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. (2002), Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, New York: Wiley

Interviewing: Asking users and experts

1. There are three styles of interviews: structured, semi-structured and unstructured.
2. Interview questions can be open or closed. Closed questions require the interviewee to select from a limited range of options. Open questions accept a free-range response.
3. Many interviews are semi-structured. The evaluator has a predetermined agenda but will probe and follow interesting, relevant directions suggested by the interviewee. A few structured questions may also be included, for example to collect demographic information.
4. Structured and semi-structured interviews are designed to be replicated. Focus groups are a form of group interview.
5. Questionnaires are a comparatively low-cost, quick way of reaching large numbers of people.
6. Various rating scales exist including selection boxes, Likert, and semantic scales.
7. Inspections can be used for evaluating requirements, mockups, functional prototypes, or systems.
8. Five experts typically find around 75% of the usability problems.
9. Compared to user testing, heuristic evaluation is less expensive and more flexible.
10. User testing and heuristic evaluation often reveal different usability problems.
11. Other types of inspections include pluralistic and cognitive walkthroughs.
12. Walkthroughs are very focused and so are suitable for evaluating small parts of systems.

From: Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. (2002), Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, New York: Wiley, p. 424

Observing users

1. Observation in usability testing tends to be objective, from the
   outside. The observer watches and analyzes what happens.
2. In contrast, in participant observation the evaluator works with
   users to understand their activities, beliefs and feelings within
   the context in which the technology is used.
3. Ethnography uses a set of techniques that include participant
   observation and interviews. Ethnographers immerse themselves in
   the culture that they study.
4. The way that observational data is collected and analyzed depends
   on the paradigm in which it is used: quick and dirty, user
   testing, or field studies.
5. Combinations of video, audio and paper records, data logging, and
   diaries can be used to collect observation data
6. In participant observation, collections of comments, incidents,
   and artifacts are made during the observation period. Evaluators
   are advised to discuss and summarize their findings as soon after
   the observation session as possible.
7. Analyzing video and data logs can be difficult because of the
   sheer volume of data. It is important to have clearly specified
   questions to guide the process and also access to appropriate
   tools.
8. Evaluators often flag events in real time and return to examine
   them in more detail Identifying key. events is an effective
   approach. Fine-grained analyses can be very time-consuming.

From: Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. (2002), Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, New York: Wiley, p.386

User-centred approaches to interaction design

1. Involving users in the design process helps with expectation
   management and feelings ownership, but how and when to involve
   users is a matter of dispute.
2. Putting a user-centered approach into practice requires much
   information about the users to be gathered and interpreted.
3. Ethnography is a good method for studying users in their natural
   surroundings.
4. Representing the information gleaned from an ethnographic study
   so that it can be used in design has been problematic
5. The goals of ethnography are to study the details, while the
   goals of system design are to produce abstractions; hence they
   are not immediately compatible.
6. Coherence is a method that provides focus questions to help guide
   the ethnographer towards issues that have proved to be important
   in systems development.
7. Contextual Design is a method that provides models and techniques
   for gathering contextual data and representing it in a form
   suitable for practical design.
8. PICTIVE and CARD (collaborative analysis of requirements and
   design) are both participatory design techniques that empower
   users to take an active part in design decisions.

From: Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. (2002), Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, New York: Wiley, p. 312

Understanding users

KEY POINTS
1. Cognition comprises many processes, including thinking,
   attention, learning, memory, perception, decision-making,
   planning, reading, speaking, and listening.
2. The way an interface is designed can greatly affect how well
   people can perceive, attend, learn, and remember how to carry out
   their tasks.
3. The main benefits of conceptual frameworks and cognitive
   theories are that they can explain user interaction and predict
   user performance. . The conceptual framework of mental models
   provides a way of conceptualizing the user’s understanding of the
   system.
4. Research findings and theories from cognitive psychology need
   to be carefully reinterpreted in the context of interaction
   design to avoid oversimplification and misapplication.

From: Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. (2002), Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, New York: Wiley

How do users think about the site’s content?

(…)

There are (four) good ways to learn how people think about your content:

1. observe others
2. study the enemy
3. visit your search logs
4. do a card sort

From: Wodtke, Christina (2003), Information Architecture: Blueprints for the Web, Berkeley, CA: New Riders

How do users think about the site’s content?

(…)

There are (four) good ways to learn how people think about your content:

1. observe others
2. study the enemy
3. visit your search logs
4. do a card sort

From: Wodtke, Christina (2003), Information Architecture: Blueprints for the Web, Berkeley, CA: New Riders