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.