5778049
Description
Flashcards by 101ldaniels ., updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by 101ldaniels .
over 8 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Humancomputer interaction | the design, evaluation, and implementation of interactive computing systems for human use |
| Interaction design | designing interactive products to support the way people communicate and interact normally and in their everyday lives, user experience is essential |
| Architects, Engineers | Architects – specialize in how people interact with spaces, Engineers – bringing these spaces to reality |
| Interactive Design process | Establish user requirements Develop alternatives Prototype these Evaluate these |
| User experience goals, Usability goals | User experience goals – “satisfying”, describe feeling Usability goals effective to use, easy to learn |
| HCI consists of Norman (1998) | Visibility (can you see your options to do an action?) Feedback (can you see the effect of your action?) Constraints (does your action actually go towards the end goal, is it useful?) Mapping (is there a natural relation between your actions and their effects on the world?) Consistency (are there similar options and elements for similar tasks?) Affordance (do interface elements correctly “signal” how they are to be used, does it make sense?) |
| Cognition – made up of : | Cognition – made up of attention – process by which we focus our minds and our senses on one thing perception and recognition – how info is acquired from the world through senses memory – remembering things, the context in which you remembered it |
| Mental model | The user’s understanding of a system, learned through using the system |
| Gulf of execution | Forming intentions, specifying right action, selecting appropriate interface mechanism. (how do I work out the right thing to do?)(towards physical) |
| Gulf of evaluation | Processing the interface, interpreting interface information, and assessing information meaning. (how do I work out what the system did?)(towards goals) |
| External cognition | how do we interact with external representations (maps, tools, instruments) |
| Distributed cognition | how the cognitive process is split through other people, tools, etc. |
| Modern Videoconferencing | leads to Longer conversational turns (O’Connaill et al. 1993) Fewer interruptions of each other Greetings and farewells longer and more ritualised Turntaking more explicit |
| Peripheral awareness | keeping an eye on things happening in the periphery, overhearing, overseeing |
| Anthropomorphism | attributing or inserting human like qualities to inanimate objects |
| Ethnographic | is the study of a culture or people(work culture) |
| Questionnaires | open form. (better but longer) closed form.(less better but quicker) 40% response rate is high: 20% often acceptable |
| How to choose between prototypes | Safety: how safe? Utility: any functions superfluous? Effectiveness: task coverage, feasibility? Efficiency: performance measurements? |
| User centered design approach | Study cognitive, behavioral, emotional, physical social aspects Observe, record, analyze users reactions and performance in prototypes, etc. When user testing reveals problems, fix problems and continue a. Early focus on users and tasks a. Empirical measurement a. Iterative design |
| Types of users | Primary: frequent and hands on (students, instructors) Secondary: occasional user or via someone else (tutors, admin staff) Tertiary: can change a system directly, manage it (ITS, mySInet admins) |
| Naturalistic observation | observing a user perform the task in their natural settings |
| Qualititative/quantitative data analysis | – recording ideas/theme or numbers/amounts respectively |
| Data gathering methods | interviews, questionnaires, observation |
| Five key data gathering issues | 1. Setting goals Decide kind of answers needed (qualitative, quantitative) 2. Identifying participants Decide who to gather data from 3. Relationship with participants Clear and professional Informed consent when appropriate 4. Triangulation Look at data from more than one perspective 5. Pilot studies Small trial of main study to make sure it runs OK. |
| Pleasureinteraction | – physiopleasure (sensory, eg. visual or tactile) – sociopleasure (social, communicative) – psychopleasure (emotional and cognitive) – ideopleasure (values and higher aesthetics) |
| Core threads of experience – | Sensual (activity absorption, a bit like Norman’s “visceral” level) Emotional (affect, such as joy, delight, frustration, etc) Compositional (“narrative” of an interaction and how it unfolds) Spatiotemporal (effects of time and space on experience) |
| Emotional interaction | concerned with how interactive systems make people respond emotionally |
| Formalization of usability goals | -Situation of concern -Onesentence problem statement -Usability requirement (one of many) -expressed as a goal Proforma test plan -Proforma test report |
| Situation of concern example | “Car park users find parking ticket payment machines difficult to use, requiring long use sessions, frequent unsatisfactory results, and necessitating a uniformed attendant." |
| One sentence problem statement exmaple | “Design a parking ticket payment machine to support quick and easytouse parking fee payments via credit, EFTPOS or cash by car park users.” |
| Usability requirement (one of many) expressed as a goal example | “It is a usability requirement of the ticket machine that car park users should be able to complete a transaction in one minute or less without requiring help.” |
| Proforma test plan example | “We intend to carry out laboratory userbased tests of the prototype to confirm that at least 90% of users can perform transactions via each payment method in 1 minute or less.” |
| Proforma test report example | “Test results with 20 members of the driving public aged 1860 years confirmed that 80% of users could perform transactions via each payment method in 1 minute or less but that 20% of users became confused with credit card payments.” |
| Vertical prototype | provide a lot of detail, but only for a few functions |
| Horizontal prototype | provide a wide range of functions, but with very sparse detail |
| Evaluate metaphor with 5step framework (Erickson, 1990): | 1. How much structure does metaphor provide? 2. How much is relevant to the problem? 3. Is metaphor easy to represent? 4. Will the audience understand metaphor? 5. How extensible is metaphor? |
| DECIDE | Determine goals the evaluation addresses, clarify user needs Explore specific questions to be answered, answer questions such as, “What are requirements?” Choose evaluation paradigm and techniques to answer the questions Identify practical issues, determine technical and budget constraints, find users to test with Deal with ethical issues, create a consent form etc. Evaluate, interpret and present data, does the test have the right scope? Are the questions biased? |
| Empirical evaluation | observing, studying users in controlled labs, or in the field |
| User testing guidelines | Location – usability lab or other interruption free controlled and private space Focus of session – select 5 to 10 representative users, test representative tasks chosen to test specific usability goals, conceptual models etc. Informed consent form – explains tasks and expectations in general terms, reassures about privacy Use a session protocol – test session should run the same way for every tester, protocol is a script saying exactly what needs to be done, rehearse this Run participants for no longer than 45 minutes – including instructions, all tasks, debriefing etc. |
| Proforma test plan | specifies what data is to be collected, “objective performance data” (how well they did, number of errors in task, time to complete etc.) and questionnaires (usability, satisfaction...) |
| Heuristic Evaluation | Heuristic Evaluation – method for determining whether an interface meets a min standard of usability, usually done by employing experts in the field 3 stages Briefing session, Evaluation period Debriefing session 4 point rating scale for problems 0 (not) 1(cosmetic) 2(minor usability) 3(major) 4(catastrophic) |
| Cognitive walkthrough pt1 | 1. Will the correct action be sufficiently evident to the user? 2. Will the user notice that the correct action is available? 3. Will the user associate and interpret the system response correctly? |
| Pluralistic walkthrough | variation on cognitive walkthrough, panel of experts begin by working separately, there is managed discussion and agreed decisions |
| Predictive models | – provides a way of testing without users, cheaper, useful for simple tasks |
| GOMS | Goals – what the user wants to achieve Operators cognitive processes and physical actions needed to attain goals Methods – procedures to accomplish goals Selection rules – decide which method to select when there are more than one |
| MHP | – Model Human Processor, where a humans capabilities are measured eg eye movement takes 20 ns. |
| Kraut, 1990 “telepresence” | a 3 x 8 ft ‘picturewindow’ between two sites with video and audio Talked constantly about system Spoke more to other people in same room than in other room When tried to get closer to someone in other place had opposite effect went out of range |
| BiReality (Jouppi, 2002) | virtual telepresence via a physical robot in the room |
| Marcus (1993) | proposed interfaces for different user groups, specified a particular interface that was round and curvy as for “white American females”, the boxier one for “male engineers” |
| Teasley et al (1994) – | found Marcus (1993)to be untrue, people actually preferred the easier to use |
| emotional design | Emotional design is to design with an emotional intent. |
| Conceptual Design | Processing of transforming user and functional requirements into a conceptual model before starting physical design |
| Conceptual Model | A description of the proposed system in terms of a set of integrated ideas and concepts about what it should do, behave and look like, that will be understandable by the users in the manner intended. (Preece et al 2002) ● The concepts people need to understand in order to use the interface ● The conceptual basis for user’s mental model ● Focuses on system as a whole, not individual tasks ● Involves abstract constraints, not technical or implementationlevel constructs |
| Problem Space | “Understanding and conceptualising what is currently the user experience/product and how this is going to be improved or changed” |
| Conversation Analysis rules | ○ Rule 1: Current speaker choose next speaker by asking opinion, question or request ○ Rule 2: Another person decides to start speaking ○ Rule 3: The current speaker continues speaking |
| Hydra(Sellen, Buxton & Arnott 1992) | ● Focuses on ‘direction gaze’ ● Preserved absolute and relative directional visual and auditory cues ● 3 units ○ One unit represents a person’s eyes (camera) ○ One unit represents a person’s voice (speaker) ○ One unit represents a person’s ears (microphone) |
| Babble (IBM, Erickson et al 1999) | Circle with marbles represents people taking part in conversation in a chatroom ● Those in the middle are doing most of the chatting ● Those towards the outside are less active |
| User Stories | Real world experiences, ideas, anecdotes and knowledge |
| Conceptual Scenario | More abstract that user stories |
| Concrete Scenario | Starting to develop form of solution (eg. design) |
| Low fidelity Prototyping | Advantages ○ Quick ○ Cheap ○ Easily changed |
| High fidelity prototyping | Advantages: ○ Looks alot like the actual system ● Disadvantages: ○ Risk user expects an actual final product |
| Skiers in the Wild Jambon et al (2009) | ● Skiers preferred to get feedback about their skiing performance when in bar during breaks not when on active on the slopes ● Evident in data logs ● Reported in subsequent focus groups |
| Grounded Theory (Qualitative) | Derive theory from systematic analysis of data ● Based on categorisation (also called ‘coding’) ● Three levels of coding ○ Open identify categories ○ Axial flesh out categories and link them to subcategories ○ Selective form theoretical schemes |
| Activity Theory (Qualitative) | ● Explains human behavior in terms of our activity Tools ■ What tools are used? ○ Subject ■ Who is involved? ○ Object ■ Why is this taking place? ○ Rules ■ Norms/rules/regulations governing the performance of the activity ○ Community ■ What is the environment? ○ Div. of Labour ■ Who is responsible for what? ○ Outcome ■ What is desired outcome? |
| heuristics adv/dis | Advantages ■ Few ethical issues ■ Few practical issues Disadvantages ■ Can be difficult to find experts best experts have knowledge of usability ■ Can be expensive ■ Important problems may get missed ■ Many trivial problems identified ■ Comparison of heuristic evaluation with other methods is not scientifically and domain precise |
| empirical evaluation | evaluates how a user interacts with the system and asks the user for their feedback on the system |
| Analytic evaluation | does not take user input into account. |
| one sentence problem statement | Activity to be supported ○ Form of the solution ○ Identity of the users ○ Level of user support |
| Attention aware computing | Attention aware computing stops the technology from distracting the user unessecarily. It is aware of where the user's attention is and when it should be interrupted. |
| The Butterfly Ballot | A ‘badly designed’ ballot used in US elections in 2000. 1 in 10 had some problem 1 in 100 failed completely |
| Time Magazine App on iPad Budia and Nielsen (2010) | ● Affordance was unclear Users didn’t know how to access menus |
| Project Ernestine | Used The Model Human Processor (Card, Moran & Newell 1983) to make workstations for telephone operators more efficient. |
| TiVO vs APEX remote | ● APEX remote ○ Square shaped remote doesn’t sit naturally in hand ○ Many buttons with same layout grid layout TiVO remote ○ Peanut shaped to fit hand ○ Logical layout and colorcoded distinctive buttons |
| Norman’s (1986) Seven Stages of Action | ● Stage 1 Goals: User is given a goal. gulf of ex gulf of ev |
| cognitive walk through part 2 | ● Designer presents an aspect of the design and usage scenarios ● Expert is told assumptions about user population, context of use and task details. ● One or more experts walk through the design prototype. ● Experts are guided by three (or more) key questions |
| HCI consists of Nielsen (2001) | Visibility of system status ○ Match between system and real world ○ User control and freedom ○ Consistency and standards ○ Error prevention ○ Recognition rather than recall ○ Flexibility and efficiency ○ Aesthetic and minimalist design ○ Help users recognise, diagnose and recover from errors ○ Help and documentation |
| Interaction paradigm | Framework in which interaction takes place ■ Eg. WIMP Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointers |
| Interaction mode | ■ The way the user interacts with the system. ■ Input and output: communication/giving instructions. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.