CS 376 Fieldwork and Prototyping Shailendra Rao Abhay Sukumaran

Fieldwork / Prototyping Fieldwork: Contextual Design Prototyping: Prototyping for Tiny Fingers Case Study: Informing the Design of an Information Management Systems with Iterative Fieldwork

Fieldwork: Contextual Design Ch2: Gathering Customer Data Ch3: Principles of Contextual Inquiry

Gathering Customer Data Marketing vs. design –Market: money, barriers to entry, niches –Design: work structure, attitudes, affordances Quantitative vs. Qualitative Eliciting customer needs is difficult IT people tend to focus on technology; don’t share the user’s perspective

Good Designers Can Delve into intuitive processes and make the knowledge shareable Using Contextual Inquiry –In the field –Co-discovery of needs with user –Shared interpretation –Directed by design purpose Marketing tells you what will sell; design tells you how best to build it.

Principles of Contextual Inquiry 1 of 5 The Master/ Apprentice Relationship Model –Design team learns about users’ work like an apprentice learning from a master –Observation + Discussion –Go to workplace to see work as it unfolds –No generalizations, but actual instances of work –Current events trigger past events –Environments and artifacts matter

Principles of Contextual Inquiry 2 of 5 Four Principles of Contextual Inquiry 1.Context 2.Partnership 3.Interpretation 4.Focus

Principles of Contextual Inquiry 3 of 5 1. Context “Go to the customer’s workplace and see the work as it unfolds” (Whiteside and Wixon 1988) –Summary vs Ongoing Experience Details are hard to talk about, but easy to see –Abstract vs. Concrete Data Real artifacts and specific events make essential details salient

Principles of Contextual Inquiry 4 of 5 2. Partnership “Make you and the customer collaborators in understanding his work” –Withdrawal and return = watching work + discussing how work in structured –Design is truly user centered when you start by investigating work structure, not by bringing a prototype –Other Relationship Models to avoid: Interviewer/ interviewee Expert/ novice

Principles of Contextual Inquiry 5 of 5 3. Interpretation : What do these observations reveal about underlying structure? –Correct interpretations lead to effective design –Check the interpretation by walking the user through it –Be open-ended and pay close attention to nonverbal cues 4. Focus : steer, but don’t blindfold –Follow up to probe for detail on relevant things –Use intrapersonal triggers to expand focus

CSI: Contextual Inquiry Crime Scene Investigation… the Contextual Inquiry season How does Kumar manage his music collection? The Crime Scene Investigator… commits a crime! Roles –Shailo: Kumar the customer –Abhay: Harold the interviewer

Crime 1 S: Hey I ’ m Kumar and I ’ m here for the study. Aw man, it was really tough finding the place! I took 101 and then the Dumbarton bridge and then 880 North and then got stuck in traff- Not in users context

Crime 2 S: {feeling awkward} So, Harold how about them Warriors this upcoming season? They look good man! A: Um, I ’ m not really interested in basketball. I ’ m more of a baseball fan. No sensitivity to culture and not making the user feel comfortable.

Crime 3 A: Okay … moving on. Have you ever converted a CD to mp3 format with your computer? S: Yup. A: What program do you use to do this? S: Well I use iTunes. Leading question

Crime 4 A: So today I ’ d like you to tell me about how you manage your music collection. Do you listen to mp3 ’ s on your computer? S: Yes. A: What program do you use to manage your music? S: Hmmm, I think it ’ s called iTunes. That Apple one. A: Have you ever created an Audio CD from your MP3s? S: You mean to listen in my car? A: Yes, whatever. S: Oh yeah I ’ ve done that plenty of times. A: How many songs do you have? S: You mean mp3 ’ s or cd ’ s? A: In iTunes. S: Probably 20GB A: So how many songs is that? S: Hmmm, a lot? A: Okay … moving on. Have you ever converted a CD to mp3 format with your computer? S: Yup. A: What program do you use to do this? S: Well I use iTunes. Interviewer/ interviewee relationship model

Crime 5 A: Well actually you know Nero does a better job of converting CD ’ s to mp3 format. It ’ s much faster. You should use it. S: Oh yeah? You know I ’ m probably not as well-versed as you in this computer music thing. A: Well let ’ s just say I ’ ve been doing this for years. I ’ ve been converting CDs to mp3 ’ s since S: Wow, Harold! I didn ’ t even know mp3 ’ s existed back then! A: You have so much to learn, Kumar. Expert/ Novice relationship instead of Master/ Apprentice

Crime 6 A: OK. So now it ’ s exactly as if you were setting at your desktop computer with your normal program and settings right? S: I guess so. This is actually my friend ’ s laptop that I borrowed just for this study. A: Well okay, but it ’ s exactly the same right? S: Sure. It ’ s a computer with music right? No Context- studying an artificial situation and setup

Crime 7 S: Pretty good. A: What do you mean? Tell me three of the biggest problems you have had. Leading, assuming that there have been problems

Crime 8 Uh, I guess sometimes a few of my files don’t transfer over. A: Because the Bluetooth broke down? Leading the interviewee

Crimes 9 & 10 S: Um, no, I don’t think so. Is Bluetooth the wire that connects the Ipod to the computer? A:, are you kidding? No, it’s a short- range radio frequency standard for mobile device communication. Expert / novice relationship model Probe for concrete data vs. abstract

Crime 11 S: ok. Here goes. A: Ok. Did you have any problems doing that? S: No, I don’t think so. Interviewer did not alternate between watching and probing.

Crime 12 A: I think you were trying to replicate a saved query there. S: uh.. yeah, the thing is, I don’t know how to browse my music through iTunes. I just know how to search. Interviewer should share interpretation with user, and let them fine–tune it.

Crime 13 S: come to think of it, I have a tough time browsing the stuff I’ve TIvoed. I think the problem is that I collect so many shows in such small periods of time. I’ll TiVo 5 shows a day. Actually I….. Do you ever have that problem, Harold? A: um, no S: Well, that’s pretty cool … Focus was not handled properly

Crime 14 A: Yeah, next time I’ll show you how to manage your music much more effectively. Reinforcing the wrong relationship model (expert/novice)

Prototyping for Tiny Fingers Fudd’s first law of creativity: “To get a good idea, get lots of ideas.” Lo-fi (Paper) vs Hi-fi Prototyping “Know your user, you aren’t your user”

Not so Tiny Tradeoffs What are the Tradeoffs to Lo-Fi Prototyping?

Advantages to Lo-Fi Prototyping Quick to build (especially multiple) Get user feedback fast Keeps focus on conceptual elements rather “Fit and Finish”

Advantages to Lo-Fi Prototyping No false impressions of how much backend work has been completed Avoid debugging Great for choosing between different several different mockups

Disadvantages to Paper Prototyping Can’t sell it Bad for testing look and feel Can’t show a detailed proof of concept Can’t test changes to an existing system Could encourage excessive focus on micro-elements

Lo-Fi Quickies Think back to preschool-- Get your hands dirty Expect the unexpected from users-- Practice for various actions Stick to your roles (Observer, Wizard of Oz, Facilitator**, and User) –Only Facilitator should be audible and “visible” Use realistic scenarios Use domain relevant sample data

Case Study Informing the Design of an Information Management Systems with Iterative Fieldwork

PIM design Key question: Why does paper-based PIM persist even in the face of advantages of online formats: –Searchable –Shareable –Easily archivable –Auto-generated reminders How to integrate paper into the new PIM Or – how to simulate affordances of paper

Paper affordances Permanent Lightweight Form factor – can fold, tear, etc. Universally available Supports grouping (piles on desk), association (paper clips), copying. Anything else?

Pilot Interviews (Phase 1) Reality check –proposing a radical idea (paper PIM) –fish around and get a sense of the domain Ask: –How do you do it now? –What’s wrong with it? –Could our design make things better? Outcomes: –Tangible, context-embedded reminders –Temporary clumps of documents (e.g., all s+docs for a meeting)

In-depth interviews (Phase 2) Explore evolving ideas Ask: –How and why do people organize on paper and offline? –Physical artifacts & their organization –Could we print and scan? Outcome –Filing is difficult –Scanning isn’t going to work –Sticky note reminders are great –Documents of different types need to be grouped –All sorts of different tool combinations used

In-breadth interviews (Phase 3) Back up and distil findings Ask: – usage –Organizing meetings –Taking notes Outcome –Design to embed in everyday apps –Simple, flexible –Something like sticky notes to label / group

What they did right Didn’t just look for confirming evidence of their initial hypothesis Paper prototype – no software to get attached to In – context, iterative user research Understood importance of for coordination and collaboration

What they did wrong No observation of users Diary study might have been effective Scanner oriented gadget bubble Ask them to project “whether it would work” Slicky does not equal sticky Making a customizable UI does not mean that people will actually take the trouble to customize it Problems with groups – people don’t file because they have to think hard about categorization. They do needs finding in the user domain, but the solution is still from an engineering perspective “Raton Laveur”

Advice for the field Go forth and prototype!