Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

2015-11-11 research seminar

Nächste SlideShare
Models 2021
Models 2021
Wird geladen in …3

Hier ansehen

1 von 64 Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)


Ähnlich wie 2015-11-11 research seminar (20)

Weitere von ifi8106tlu (20)


Aktuellste (20)

2015-11-11 research seminar

  1. 1. The HCI Group Research Seminar 11.11.2015
  2. 2. Staff ● Aleksander Väljamäe, Researcher (1.00) ● David Lamas, Professor (1.00) ● Ilya Shmorgun, Teacher of Informatics (1.00) ● Mati Mõttus, Analyst (0.20) ● Sónia Sousa, Associate Professor (0.50)
  3. 3. ● Ilya Shmorgun (2011) ● Mati Mõttus (2012) ● Arman Arakelyan (2012) ● Joanna Kviatkovska (2013) ● Abiodun Ogunyemi (2013) ● Baseer Ahmad Baheer (2014) ● Abdul Wahid Samadzai (2014) ● Anastassia Väljamäe (2015) ● Siddharth Nakul Gulati (2015) ● Õnne Mets (2015), in cooperation with the University of Milan Doctoral students
  4. 4. Resources ● [IDLAB] Interaction Design Laboratory ○ Work, teaching and research lab ● [UXLAB] User Experience Laboratory ○ Teaching and research lab
  5. 5. The interaction design laboratory ● Purpose ○ The interaction design lab supports all sorts of practices related with designing interactive digital products, environments, systems, and services. ○ As a work, teaching, and research lab, it supports not only the design practices mentioned above, but also the development of individual competences, and the development of the field itself. ● This lab is managed by Ilya Shmorgun and it is colloquially referred to as IDLAB
  6. 6. The interaction design laboratory
  7. 7. The user experience laboratory Purpose ● UX lab will be used to assess emotional, cognitive and perceptual reactions to mixed and real environments using psychophysiological, behavioral and subjective responses from users. Supported activities / Example projects ● Aesthetics of implicit interaction [methodology development] ● Hyperscanning studies on group decision making [evaluation] ● Neuro- and biofeedback applications for prosocial behavior [training]
  8. 8. The user experience laboratory
  9. 9. Our frames of reference (Paul Dourish) Electrical Symbolical Textual Graphical Tangible First analog computers where operations were directly encoded in their circuits which needed to be configured for each new task. There were no “users”, only programmers. First assembly languages appeared, that rendered machine level instructions into symbolic expressions. The actual interaction took still place with encoded punch cards, although the languages could already be considered textual. With the appearance of teletype machines and video terminals, the primary form of interaction became textual. This can be considered the origin of interactive computing - “interactive loop” in which the interaction became an endless back and forth loop of instruction and response between user and system. With the appearance of graphical UIs the interaction moved from the one dimensional stream of characters to a two dimensional space. The task of managing interaction became the task of managing space. Interaction directly through physical artifacts rather than graphical interfaces or classical input devices.
  10. 10. Our frames of reference (John M. Carrol) focus on the properties of specific system components focus on tasks at hand focus on socially and materially embedded interactions
  11. 11. Our frames of reference (Susanne Bødker) 1st Wave 2nd Wave 3rd Wave Rigid guidelines. Formal methods. Systematic testing. Focus on context and groups working with a collection of applications. Theories: situated action, distributed cognition and activity theory. Proactive methods: variety of participatory design workshops, prototyping and contextual inquiry, qualitative approaches studying use as it happens. Use of context and application types are broadened. Computers are increasingly being used in private and public spheres. Technology spreads from workplace to homes and everyday lives and culture. Theoretical focus on aesthetics, cultural level, cognitive expands into emotional, cultural, historical focus on experience. Methods moved away from commitment to users towards more exploratory take-it-or- leave it approach where designers seek inspiration from use.
  12. 12. Our frames of reference (Yvonne Rogers) Classical theories Modern theories Contemporary theories Applying basic research. Cognitive modeling. Distributed cognition. Situated action. Ethnomethodology and ethnography. Activity theory. Grounded theory. Human values. Research in the wild. Turn to design, culture, embodiment.
  13. 13. Our frames of reference Classical theories Modern theories Contemporary theories 1st Wave 2nd Wave 3rd Wave Electrical Symbolical Textual Graphical Tangible
  14. 14. Our frames of reference
  15. 15. Our frames of reference
  16. 16. Our frames of reference conceptual artefacts technical artefacts design artefacts
  17. 17. A pattern language for distributed user interfaces
  18. 18. The DUI pattern library and language
  19. 19. Motivation We can no longer design applications in isolation and for one specific platform. The concept of DUIs is fuzzy and hard to grasp without reading a large amount of literature. It is even harder to understand what are the available options for designing DUIs and how to actually make those ideas tangible. It is difficult to use existing DUI design projects as examples, because it is not clear how design synthesis occurred and how the final working prototype was created.
  20. 20. Maturity Does ● Provides an overview of DUI design possibilities. ● Is based on systematic research and theory. ● Provides alternative means of accessing and browsing the data. ● Can be fairly easily extended and improved. Does not ● Is not currently systematically tested for analysing existing DUIs. ● Is not currently systematically tested for designing DUIs. ● Does not include include empirical evidence, such as performance characteristics of individual patterns. ● Lacks infrastructure for testing individual patterns.
  21. 21. What has been done
  22. 22. Ongoing research
  23. 23. Distributed user interface pattern testbed
  24. 24. Motivation The DUI pattern library offers descriptions of how interactions with distributed user interfaces can be designed. However, the library does not currently provide any empirical evidence about the patterns, such as task times, error rates, and perceived cognitive load. Neither is there evidence of how the patterns can be used to support user activities, such as collaboration, or want kinds of experiences can be fostered. Finally, it is not currently possible to test the patterns on real devices.
  25. 25. Maturity Does ● Exist on paper. ● The current options are: ○ DireWolf ○ HuddleLamp ○ Panelrama Does not ● No tangible outcomes yet.
  26. 26. What has been done At the moment designing the testbed was offered as a design challenge for the participants of the Web Workshop. The challenge has been formulated as a statement of what needs to be done, a set of patterns to be prototyped, and a range of examples to support ideation. The purpose of this activity is to sensitise students to the idea of developing the testbed and collecting a range of ideas about how the testbed can be implemented.
  27. 27. Ongoing research The idea for the testbed is to implement it with web technologies: ● It will be easier to manage and develop; ● Can run a wide range of devices; ● There can be an API to implement native interfaces if necessary.
  28. 28. A socio-technical model of trust
  29. 29. Motivation ● One main motivation is to understand why is there no change in user behaviour despite repeated trust breaches. ○ Notable examples include trust breaches by Facebook (Kramer, Guillory & Hancock, 2014), NHS in the UK (The Guardian, 2012) and extensive reporting on surveillance practices and privacy breaches by Edward Snowden (Lyon, D. (2014). ● There has been no change in user behaviour despite these breaches! ○ Why is it so? ● Lack of a clear understanding (and definition) of role of trust in HCI & user engagement. ● Paucity of academic research from both a social and a technical perspective on understanding trust.
  30. 30. Maturity Does ● Provides a concise and succinct model for understanding trust in HCI. ● Is a conceptual model based on a vast literature review. ● Integrates several different indicators in a unique model to further our understanding of trust. Does not ● Was proposed in an E-learning context and we need to situate this within HCI. ● For this, indicators need to be defined more precisely from a HCI perspective. ● Empirical validation needed.
  31. 31. Ongoing work ● Extensive and systematic literature review to further elaborate and understand role of trust in user engagement. ● Comparison of prior trust models and their attributes proposed in the literature (more details here) with the attributes of STM. ○ Simultaneously, logging of theories used in these models so as to further advance and refine STM is also being currently done. ● Exhaustive review of context, validation process and examples which would also help refine STM. ● Elaborating and defining the different attributes within STM to situate it within the HCI domain.
  32. 32. Model of appropriation for software sustainability
  33. 33. The model
  34. 34. Motivation ● Software sustainability (prolonged use) lacks studies of interaction design, thus the interest in design choices for shaping interactions that prolong software use. ● A current model of appropriation, borrowed from the Information System domain, lacks the design choices that would foster the different stages of appropriation. ● Having worked in the software development industry I have seen many projects redone with few added value, where an alternative, participatory and evolution based design approach would have prolonged the use of software and saved resources.
  35. 35. Maturity Does ● Focus on temporal aspects (stages) of appropriation ● Describe and explain the process of appropriation and interface-based qualities that support it ● Introduce 5 main enabling “qualities” that can support the stages. ● Detail the specifics on how the qualities can be implemented. Does not ● Have predictive maturity ● Has not been tested in a longitudinal study ● Lacks operationalization of the concepts (ongoing)
  36. 36. What has been done ● Development of the model ○ Literature review ● Explore and transfer IxD methods for appropriation-enabling design ○ Card sorting ○ Design Space Analysis ○ Delphi Study
  37. 37. Ongoing research Assessment of the expressiveness of the model ● Understand descriptive potential ● Develop the model with input from two case studies Operationalization of the Model ● Factors ● Examples (patterns) ● Dependent and independent variables ● Influence of enabling design choices on prolonged use
  38. 38. Aesthetic experience scale
  39. 39. What is aesthetic experience scale? An aesthetic experience scale is a questionnaire for evaluating Users’ aesthetic experience during the interaction. It will utilize the episodes of interaction as a stimuli and registers users’ judgement on semantic differential scales. These semantic differentials are attributed to aesthetics of interaction, taking into account the multimodality of aesthetics.
  40. 40. Motivation Literature review: Visual aesthetics of interaction: ● Evaluation methods (Lavie2004, Moshagen2010, Ngo2003) ● Analyses of relevance (Kurosu1995, Tractinsky2000, Lindgaard2006-2007, Moshagen2009, Cyr2010, Reineke2013, Mõttus2013, Mõttus2014) Beyond the visual aesthetics: ● Reviews (Hassenzahl2008, Lenz2014) ● Evaluation methods, models, frameworks (Hassenzahl2004, Lenz2013, Hashim2010-2011) ● Design research, case studies (Djajadiningrat2007, Rocchesso2009-2010) Conclusion: Aesthetic’s evaluation in HCI has addresses mainly visual and appearance-related beauty (Mõttus2015). The earlier works provide useful frameworks and mappings (Lenz2013-2014, Hassenzahl2004) that facilitate developing a questionnaire of aesthetic evaluation.
  41. 41. Ongoing work Empirical study of eliciting aesthetic attributes: ● stimuli: interaction episodes, extracted from popular free apps on mobile devices ● participants: having mobile use experience, suggested expertise ongeneral aesthetics ● elicitation: repertory grid technique (RGT) - semistructured interview ● Analysis: ○ Semantic analysis ○ Factor analysis ○ Multidimensional scaling
  42. 42. Future work ● Development of scales for questionnaire (data analysis of previous study) ● Refinement of scales (empirical study) ● Validation of questionnaire (empirical study) ….Further studies may be... ● Generalization of questionnaire on other fields of HCI ○ Distributed UI ○ Tangible interactions ○ Ubiquitous computing ○ Brain-computer interface
  43. 43. HCI uptake maturity model and assessment tool
  44. 44. The Model and Tool ● Model ○ Conceptual ■ Systematic review ■ Research findings ■ Based on theory of Diffusion of Innovations ● HCI-Maturity Self -Assessment Tool ○ Assessment by CEOs ○ Assessment by Company’s HoUs/HoDs ○ Assessment by Expert ■ Project evidence
  45. 45. Motivation “While the growing body of literature continues to focus on process descriptions and recommended tools, the day-to-day work involved and the many and varied settings in which the tools and processes are applied, remain largely unexplored.” – (Ferreira, Sharp, & Robinson, 2012; p.11) ● From a research perspective, uptake of research findings is low and many of the current proposals lack methodological strength and theoretical guidance. ● From practice point of view, companies are in need of tools to help self- assess their practice and processes. - How can we facilitate implementation of HCI values and approaches in software development companies?
  46. 46. Maturity Does ● Deductive tool from two existing maturity models ● Deductive tool from field studies ● Help companies self assess and reflect on their process and maturity ● Enhance collaboration with experts ● Cover three aspects of maturity ○ HCI infrastructure – process, resources, management ○ HCI performance – performance of usability design ○ Usability-meeting impact Does not ● Replace existing models ● Follow third-party assessments
  47. 47. What has been done ● Literature review (scoping study) ● Full study in Nigeria ○ Short paper publication in INTERACT 2015 proceedings ○ Journal paper submission ● A survey and one case study interview in Estonia
  48. 48. Ongoing research ● Systematic literature review ● Conference paper (for AfriCHI 2016) ● Questionnaire for a proposed web-based HCI maturity self-assessment tool ○ HCI infrastructure – process, resources, management ○ HCI performance – performance of usability design ○ Usability-meeting impact ● Research Traineeship at Aalborg University, Aalborg Denmark ○ Usability evaluation projects ○ Pilot testing questionnaire on Danish software companies
  49. 49. Physiology-based interactive media toolbox
  50. 50. Creating affective audio-visual dictionary
  51. 51. Implicit interaction research topics ● Hybrid distributed user interfaces (hyperscanning) ● Trust/collaboration ● Affective metadata (e.g. reactions to films as intangible heritage) ● Emerging applications (serious games, assistive & health apps, neurocinema, neurotheatre) ● Design process (new low cost developments, e.g., Open BCI platform)
  52. 52. And the rest...
  53. 53. hci.tlu.ee