Speak to Go: Explore the world with your voice

AutoDraw: Fast Drawing for Everyone

The GV research sprint: a 4-day process for answering important startup questions

The GV research sprint: a 4-day process for answering important startup questions

The founders and designers we work with in the Google Ventures portfolio have a lot of important questions. Is there a market for my product? Will my product help people solve their problems? What should I build? The answers to these questions just raise more questions: Do people understand my product?

How to Fix a Grainy Photo in Photoshop CS6

LEARN PREMIERE PRO IN 20 MINUTES ! - Tutorial For Beginners

The Complete Ethical Hacking Course: Beginner to Advanced!

Tabs and ViewPager (Android Development Patterns Ep 9)

Making a Simple Game in Unity (Part 1) - Unity C# Tutorial

Human Computer Interaction - Subject: User Testing: 2014 UX Industry Survey

The 2014 UX Industry Survey is the results of a survey conducted by the User Testing corporation with 2,675 user experience professionals working in a variety of companies. The results tell us more about the state of user experience in industry and the ways in which user experience design and testing is being conducted "in the trenches." After reading the report and thinking about what the data tells you, please provide a thoughtful response to each of the following.

1. Based upon what you know about ideal human-computer interaction methodologies from this class, provide a high-level synthesis of the most important challenges facing user experience professionals in the field. Use data from the reporta and your knowledge of HCI to support your argument and explain your rationale.
2. Provide a short (3-5) item list of the key questions (inspired by data from this report) that you'd like to ask a UX professional in the field. 

High Level Synthesis

The most important challenge facing UX professionals in the coming years is how they will port everything that has, up to this point, been on a screen onto an infinite, 360 degree user interface as Augmented Reality & Virtual Reality become the most common modes of interacting with our digital world.  This will be a serious and exciting challenge as people will seek to synthesize their physical and digital worlds into one seamless technological (though less ostensibly) cosmos.  Augmented reality head mounted devices (HMDs) will be a given by 2020 and UX professionals will need to create interfaces that blend & compliment the physical world yet stand out enough to be a competently interactive overlay.  Motion gesture and speech recognition software will need to become very subtle and highly accurate in order lubricate the transition from the archaic keyboarding input tradition to a more human interaction with our virtual technologies.  

None of this is mentioned - other than gesture tracking and speech recognition - in the survey.  Curious, right?  Haven't people seen Ironman or Minority Report?  LOL.  I was aware of the huge impact that AR was going to make at the beginning of 2014.  Teaching with tablets and mobiles at a vocational school in the Saudi desert, we could see that interfaces needed to change to engage students need to train safely prior to interacting with dangerous equipment - oil refinery, chemical, undersea, etc.  Pilots have been using flight simulation forever.  The technology to virtually interact is here.  Let's get on this!

Key Questions

• How important is usability testing - given that only 30% of respondents' companies have dedicated teams for it?
• Why is VR not a category in the question regarding important trends in the next 5 years for UX?
• How important is your personal intuition on UX - given that nearly half on respondents said that only 1-5 users were recruited for usability studies?
• What kind of blogs are most important to you to improve usability knowledge - given the high quantity of responses?
• What is your preferred usability testing tool?

Human Computer Interaction - Subject: Carr (2014): Automation makes us dumb

Carr's article highlights a growing concern in HCI -- that sophisticated technology can result in degradation of human skills (both motor and cognitive).  How do we reconcile the important benefits of computational offloading and computerized checks within systems at the same time that we prevent human users from becoming "rusty"? In your answer, provide a concrete example of how a system designer may counteract this concern within a specific design for educational technology. (I.e., describe a feature, set of controls, or type of interaction that you think could effectively combat this problem.)

Increasing automation in whatever industry is driven economically, meaning more tasks can be done by artificially intelligent automation than by manual human effort.  That is a bit of an over-simplification.  However, as long as industry is driven by greater efficiency, automation will continue to take over "human" jobs.

I see nothing wrong with this.  Though early efforts in automation of information work are leaving out things to be desired - as in the glaring case of the first Ebola death - upgraded algorithms within programs will catch those near misses. The job is not to make computers coax less responsive human operators into responsiveness - it's for computers to become more human-like in their diagnoses and broad coverage of situations.  The computer can then take into account that larger array of variables in a decision-making process that were left out in previous iterations of programming.  And this much is inevitable.  

Humans can prevent themselves from becoming less rusty by trusting their minds more and retaining the discipline that we were required to use pre-information age.  This takes some discipline.  However, I see no reason to design interfaces with paradoxical training wheels, simply to keep humans from becoming intellectually lazy in their endeavors.  Those training wheels & prompts will be hacked around by smart humans that realize the machine can do more and that the "humane" design is a silly vestige of humans wanting to remain useful in a situation where it is becoming increasingly less necessary.

With all that Terminator-speak out of the way, I think it is very valuable for there to be processes like low-fidelity, colored-pencil/paper prototyping, for example.  Such steps will retain that human element prior to the placing of the design into a terminal.  

I do believe, though, that economic thrust will be the ultimate driver of what becomes automated, not human aesthetic.

Human Computer Interaction - Subject: Lewis & Rieman (1994) and Mahotody, Sagar, & Kolski (2010): Evaluating without users

Assigned readings:

• Lewis & Rieman (1994): http://hcibib.org/tcuid/chap-4.html (Links to an external site.) 
• Mahotody, Sagar, & Kolski (2010): MahatodySagarKolski_2010.pdf

Question:

How are HCI methods for evaluating the design without users different from typical instructional design methods? That is, is HCI evaluation without the users the same process as planning and implementing instruction from an instructional design perspective? Please explain your thoughts and use information from the readings to support your ideas.

I wouldn't say that I could really speak about what typical instructional design methods are, at this point in my training.  It does seem, from the one course I have taken (Foundations of Instructional Design), that there is a greater emphasis on design-a-little, test-a-little.  Instructional design seems more iterative.  Or perhaps, real-worldly iterative.  

Human Computer Interaction methods appear to use a more imaginative, intuitive strategy by comparison to the sort of scientific method approach that we learned about last semester.  For example, when describing cognitive walkthroughs, Lewis and Reiman refer to "a formalized way of imagining people's thoughts and actions when they use an interface for the first time" (p. 4).

This is very appealing to me.  Although I do love implementing instructional design that I have developed (maybe I should just call it curricula, at this point) and them learning from my mistakes - very trial and error - the idea that "the walkthrough is really a tool for developing the interface, not validating" seems more efficient, productive, and less embarrassing method of going about it (Lewis & Reiman, p. 5).

Also, the developer is not just a developer - he's a user, too.  And, by methodically putting on the shoes of the imaginary user (if the developer's imagination is up to the task) the developer is forced to step out of his own shoes and become the user.  I think that developers do this anyway, of course.  But, it is a very good practice to formalize and call it a "action analysis" or "heuristic analysis."  The formalization of the process itself requires the developer to become more conscious of the process of defining and mitigating problems with an interface.

Human Computer Interaction - Subject: Chen (2009) and Busche (2014): Low-Fidelity Prototyping

Step 1: Read both of the assigned, online articles about low-fidelity prototyping:

• Chen, A. (2009). Why low-fidelity prototyping kicks butt for customer-driven design. (Links to an external site.)
• Busche, L. (2014). The skeptic’s guide to low-fidelity prototyping. Smashing Magazine, October 6, 2014. (Links to an external site.)

Step 2: Create a landing page for a website in two versions: a good example of a low-fidelity prototype and a poor example of a low-fidelity prototype. Hint: You are not creating a good and bad web design. The design of your webpage should be good in both cases, but one version will demonstrate a good low-fidelity representation and the other will show us a bad low-fidelity representation. 

• You may use whatever tools make sense for you. Feel free to sketch and snap a picture with your Smartphone.
• You can use your design as an example, but feel free to create a fake website or draw inspiration from an existing site. 

Step 3. Post your pictures in this discussion, and explain what makes your good example good and what makes your bad example bad. Focus on the essential characteristics of a low-fidelity prototype. Hint: You first will need to upload each image to "My Files." Then, you will click the "Canvas" tab and navigate to your uploaded image to add it to the discussion.

• Be sure you clearly identify which image is the good vs. bad example.
• Use information from the online articles to support your explanation.

So, my initial "low-fidelity" prototype was sort of weak & just a copy of online screenshots I found along with my accompanying notes.

Initial:

https://www.imore.com/sites/imore.com/files/styles/larger/public/field/image/2016/07/catch-pikachu-screenshot-pokemon-go.jpg?itok=fsROqiXx

This is a "bad" prototype because everything is all laid out and leaves little to the imagination. 

When I made a greater effort, and having read the "kick-butt" material with cool suggestions, I came up with the following:

The NHMU image that I used as the reality to be augmented:  https://architizer-prod.imgix.net/mediadata/projects/492011/e89041ca.jpg?q=60&w=1080

This is a "good" prototype, because while it clearly draws from my initial Pokemon Go inspiration, it leaves much to the imagination and is even a bit interactive - a client can walk through prompts/response options (folded blue and pink stickies, respectively) and see how a user might progress through the landing page of the AR app.

Human Computer Interaction - Subject: Cooper & Reimann (2007): Scenarios and Requirements

After reading Cooper and Reimann's (2007) chapter on scenarios for design (CooperReimann_Chap6Scenarios_AboutFace3-Text.pdf), please provide a thoughtful response to the following challenge:

• Given what you read about the purpose and goals of writing scenarios, revise steps 1-3 of the context scenario (p. 12 in the PDF) into a key path scenario. The key path scenario adds data and functional elements to the story. It defines HOW the user will accomplish the key actions in the story. You can make up the requirements of the system as needed, but be prepared to explain your choices if we discuss your key path scenario next week. (I realize that the chapter did not tell you how to write the key path scenario. Therefore, you will have to make inferences based on what you read and attempt to apply your knowledge. Yes, this is intentional!)

Augmented Reality Telephonic Interface Key Path Scenario:  Vivien Strong, real-estate agent

1.  While getting up in the morning, Vivien uses the heads-up display of her augmented smart visor interface to scroll through her Gmail inbox.  The 5G connection (super low latency) allows human-unnoticeable delays and gaze-recognition software tracks her pupillary movement, easily scrolling from one message preview to the next - occasionally opening a desired message as she rests her gaze momentarily.  The interface of the inbox overlays the entire surface of the refrigerator as she selects sandwich makings with her hands and the anticipated email with gaze-recognition, simultaneously.  

2.  Vivien opens an email from her newest client, Frank, who has viewed 360 Virtual Reality (VR) content of the home on her virtual listings page.  Frank would like to now take a look at the actual home, offline, albeit with Augmented Reality (AR) overlays of his current furnishings and home decor.  Using her individually-calibrated, speech-recognition Google assistant, Vivien requests a call to Frank, which her virtual assistant (VA) pleasantly grants and begins dialing, listing Franks status at work as "Busy, but looking forward to your call, Vivien (smiley face)".

3.  While she chats with Frank, gaze-recognition allows her to scroll through her schedule interface, holographically overlaying the living room to her left so that she is able to quickly wrap up the sandwich, carrots, milk, and cookies for her daughter Alice.  She discusses her delight in the lovely location - holographically projected onto the dining table in photorealistic detail, capable of zooming in & out with pinch and spread gestures registering in the smart visor's motion sensors.  She makes a swipe gesture to push automatically linked Google maps directions into Franks email reply and taps her finger in the air to send it.  Vivien's VA marks the time of her afternoon appointment, composes a preset virtual business card from her templates and forwards it to Frank.  She sighs happily, "God bless artificial intelligence!"

Human Computer Interaction - Subject: Cooper & Reimann (2003): Modeling Users: Personas and Goals

After reading the chapter on personas (CooperReimann_2003_PersonasChapter.pdf), please answer the following two questions:

1.In our HCI class, you are learning how to develop effective user interviews that inform the design process. Using what you (now) know about effective user interviews, please explain how the quality of the user interview will affect the usefulness of your persona. That is, explain how good vs. poor interview questions are likely to affect the development of personas. Please be specific and try to provide a concrete example. (I.e., don't just say: poor questions will lead to bad data that results in a bad persona. Explain HOW and WHY poor interview questions will be problematic in this context.)

2. To what extent do you see a good instructional designer as being able to create a user persona without extensive data collection and/or interviewing? Please be specific and explain your position using information about personas from the chapter. 

1. Interview quality & usefulness of persona development

Our design of an Augmented Reality app proposes to engage the young user in the museum.  Regardless of how youthful I believe I still am, I cannot anticipate the responses (through my imagination and empathy) of the Digital Natives (a useful metaphor I have borrowed from Marc Prensky for young learner's).  I found in our early interviews last week, following our draft creation of interview questions, that it wasn't simply the subject matter of the question that was asked that was important, it was also how the question itself was asked.  

Interview of Potential Gamified Aplication for Museum Augmented Reality (GAMAR) User

I found that the young learners - between the ages of 9 - 12 at this point - perceived themselves as subject matter experts (SMEs) in the interaction.  And SMEs they certainly are.  I found that it was necessary to consider their opinion as a professional user - they saw themselves as equals to adults in the process.  So, we addressed them that way with equal respect and dignity.  

I also found myself falling easily into the questioning patterns that we agreed were "bad" questioning - yes/no questions and questions suggesting what we might be developing (forgive the enthusiasm of a creative designer making solutions for problems that don't really exist).  A "yes" to a question we had already hypothesized an answer for - "Do you think more tech would be useful in the museum?" - really doesn't lead anywhere.  It simply coaxes the ego of the designer/interviewer.  And the kids seemed eager to answer "yes."  But of course, the answer "yes" to the previous question is really vacuous & sort of a "no-brainer."

2.  User persona creation without extensive data collection

A good designer should, perhaps, be familiar with the market segment for which he/she is creating an interface.  The designer should have had some experience with the potential user prior to hypothesizing an interface that would address the goals of the user for which he/she is creating the design - in our case, the Digital Natives.   As implied in the previous question's answer, it is important to empathize with potential primary users without simply becoming "self-referential" - we are not the kids - (Cooper, p. 58) or projecting "stereotypes" (Cooper, p. 60) - who are these kids anyway, and really, it is a bit arrogant to assume we know how they think and feel.

It's important, as Cooper (p. 56) points out, to choose the "right individuals to design for."  This much must be anticipated by a designer, otherwise the seeking of interviews may be too broad.  Too broad of a scope for the derivation of a persona may produce too many applications on a designer's interface.  The vagueness of that kind of supposition would doubtless create an interface with many yet unusable applications, unfocused on a specific user, as in the sports car/Humvee synthesis in Figure 5-1 (Cooper, p. 56).  Such creations are useful only as examples of bad designs.