Interaktionsdesign. Jan Stage. Research leader, Professor Aalborg University Department of Computer Science HCI-Lab.

Transkript

1 Interaktionsdesign Jan Stage Research leader, Professor Aalborg University Department of Computer Science HCI-Lab

2 Agenda Baggrund Usability og usability-evaluering Undervisning i usability Aktiviteter og teknikker 2

3 Agenda Baggrund Min baggrund Forskningsgruppe Usability og usability-evaluering Undervisning i usability Aktiviteter og teknikker 3

4 Min baggrund Mat-fys student, Esbjerg Statsskole, 1978 Datalog, Aalborg Universitet, 1984 Speciale om Metoder til analyse, samarbejde med Mentor informatik PhD i Informatik, Universitetet i Oslo, 1989 Afhandling om Arbejdsformer for analyse og design i systemudvikling Adjunkt-Lektor-Professor, Institut for Datalogi, Aalborg Universitet, Gæst ved SUNY Binghamton (1991), University of Auckland ( ) Forskning inden for: Usability-evaluering Interaktionsdesign Objekt-orienterede metoder OOA&D Systemudvikling og systemudviklingsmetoder Prototyping Institut for Datalogi 4 4

5 Human-Computer Interaction Research Group Generally: Design and evaluation of the interaction between a user and a computerised system Two focus areas: Design of human-computer interaction Usability evaluation Applications: Desktop systems Web applications Mobile systems Colleagues (HCI): Mikael B. Skov, Jesper Kjeldskov, Jeni Paay, Anders Bruun, 6 PhD-studerende, specialestuderende 5

6 Agenda Baggrund Usability og usability-evaluering Definition Betydning Undervisning i usability Aktiviteter og teknikker 6

7 Usability: Hvad er det og hvad er det ikke? Klassisk definition (ISO 1998): The effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which a specified set of users can achieve a specified set of tasks in a particular environment Nye typer systemer (spil, underholdning osv.) og nye brugssituationer (anytime, anywhere osv.) giver anledning til nye definitioner User experience Moderne definitioner skelner mellem tre begreber Konstruktivt mål: usability-problemer Eksempel: Booking/Ledige tider: kan ikke tvinge en akut operation ind. Utility Usability 7

8 Usability: Hvorfor er det vigtigt? Et stigende antal software-organisationer har fokus på usability Kravene til systemerne ændrer sig: Risiko: flere systemer, hvor fejl påvirker menneskers helbred Nødvendighed: flere systemer uden mulighed for hjælp i brugssituationen Konkurrence: flere systemer, som er i direkte konkurrence med andre tilsvarende systemer Kundekrav: flere systemer, hvor kunden eksplicit stiller krav til usability Systemerne udvikles: Antallet og typen af brugere Brugssituationen og -formålet Kompleksiteten af software (og hardware) Mange systemer lever slet ikke op til dette 8

9 Usability: Hvorfor er det vigtigt? Dårlig usability vedbliver med at give problemer Tiden heler ikke dårligt design Longitudinal study of usability with EPR system: IBM IPJ 2.3 ( og ) Evaluation with nurses

10 Hvorfor: Dårlig usability koster Evaluering af IKEA s hjemmeside Det er vist lettere at køre derned (til Århus) Evaluering af Budget Cars hjemmeside Lej en bil på 60 sekunder 10 personer: 4-17 min.; snit: 7,5 min. 79 usability problemer (5 / 36 / 38) Dokumenteret, at det koster kunder 10

11 Agenda Baggrund Usability og usability-evaluering Undervisning i usability Materiale Erfaringer Aktiviteter og teknikker 11

12 Undervisning i usability Der kan undervises i det selv på introducerende niveau Giver en god forståelse for systemers brug gerne før de lærer at konstruere Note til gymnasiet 12

13 # Lecture Exercises Training Course Teach software developers and designers to conduct usability evaluations Provide participants with skills in formative usability evaluation No prerequisites It was done in a week Result: a usability report Could be reduced to the core 1 Introduction to the course and basic website technology 2 Basic introduction to usability issues and guidelines for interaction design 3 The think-aloud protocol and how to set up a test scenario. User groups and their different needs 4 Application of questionnaires for collecting data and how to use different kinds of questions 5 Computer architecture and website technology 6 Describing the usability testing method and how to collect and analyze empirical data 7 Other usability evaluation methods and how to conduct a full-scale usability test session 8 Website structures, information search and web surfing 9 Guidelines for website design and principles for orientation and navigation 10 Principles for visual design and different interaction styles Pilot test: Each team conducts simple pilot usability tests of websites to train their practical skills in usability evaluation. The teams choose the website themselves. Experience with conducting tests and the results achieved are discussed afterwards. Usability evaluation: The teams conduct a usability evaluation of the Hotmail website according to a specification provided by the course instructors. The usability evaluations are conducted at the university in assigned rooms for each team. After the usability test sessions, the teams analyze the empirical data and make a usability report that describes the identified usability problems. 13

14 Method Website: hotmail.com Participants: First-year university students Four educations: Informatics Architecture and design Planning and environment Chartered surveyor Setting: their group offices Total number of students Total number of teams Team size Average / 8 Number of test subjects Average Number of test subjects Min / Max Age of test subjects Average Team size Min / Max Age of test subjects Min / Max / 5 21,2 19 / 30 Assessment based on their usability report 14

15 Results (1) Evaluation Teams Conducting the evaluation Task quality and relevance Questionnaire/ Interviews Student (N=36) Professional (N=8) 3.42 (0.73) 3.22 (1.05) 2.72 (1.00) 4.38 (0.74) 3.13 (1.64) 3.50 (1.69) The students did quite well in conducting the evaluation The professionals did significantly better On task quality and relevance the students seem to do better than the professionals (but not significant) 15

16 Results (2) Report Teams Test description Data quality Clarity of problem list Executive summary Clarity of report Layout of report Student (N=36) Professional (N=8) 3.03 (0.94) 3.19 (1.33) 2.53 (1.00) 2.39 (0.80) 2.97 (0.84) 2.94 (0.89) 4.00 (1.31) 2.13 (0.83) 3.50 (0.93) 3.38 (1.06) 4.25 (0.71) 3.25 (0.71) The students did well on describing the test and providing underlying data in appendices The worst student performance was in clarity of the problem list and executive summary 16

17 Results (3) Results Team Number of problems Problem categorization Practical relevance Qualitative results overview Quantitative results overview Use of literature Conclusion Evaluation of test Student (N=36) Professional (N=8) 2.56 (0.84) 2.06 (1.22) 3.03 (1.00) 3.03 (1.00) 2.28 (1.14) 3.08 (0.81) 2.64 (0.90) 2.44 (1.08) 4.13 (1.13) 3.25 (1.75) 4.25 (1.49) 3.75 (1.16) 2.00 (1.51) 3.13 (0.35) 3.88 (0.64) 2.88 (1.13) The students did poorly on problem identification and description All did poorly in describing the quantitative results (efficiency and effectiveness) 17

18 Agenda Baggrund Usability og usability-evaluering Undervisning i usability Aktiviteter og teknikker Interaktionsdesign Aktiviteter i usability-evaluering Teknik til usability-evaluering 18

19 Interaktionsdesign Aktiviteter og samspil i interaktionsdesign (HCI-design) Udgangspunkt Generer design Identificer behov Etabler krav Evaluer design Alternativ start: Byg noget og prøv det af Lav flere design af et system Evaluér noget eksisterende Byg interaktiv version Resultat: Endeligt produkt 19

20 Aktiviteter i usability-evaluering Evaluation plan: Purpose Key questions User profile Participants and roles Test methods Task list Context and equipment Data to be collected Report structure Determine basics Plan evaluation Prepare tests Form: formative/summative When in development process: Exploratory Assessment Validation Comparison Participants and roles Location and equipment Recreation of context Selection of test subjects Design of tasks Each user: Introduction Task solving Data collection Logging Debriefing Conduct tests Interpret data Transcription of log files Data summary Data analysis Documentation (report) 20

21 Udfordring: Tidsforbrug til usability-evaluering Rolf Molich: CUE-2 projektet ( 8 grupper, men ikke alle opsamlede systematisk data om tidsforbrug A B C D E F G H J Gennemsnit Forberedelse Testing Analyse og rapportering Samlet tidsforbrug Andre tal: timer for en total evaluering med 6-8 brugere og systematisk video-baseret dataanalyse Varighed: 4-6 uger 21

22 Teknik: Instant Data Analysis (IDA) Conduct 4-6 standard think-aloud sessions. A test monitor and a data logger are present Conduct a 1-1½ hour data analysis session: based on brainstorming and systematic discussion. Organized by a facilitator Brainstorm Screen printouts Notes Let the facilitator spend 1-1½ hours on writing up the content of the whiteboard into a ranked list of usability problems with clear references to the system Review the problem list for final consensus 22

23 IDA: Experiment Subject Room Test subject Test monitor We studied the use of Instant Data Analysis through an exploratory experiment Observer Data logger and video equipment operator Purpose Gaining practical experience with the use of the technique Comparing results produced instantly with results from traditional video data analysis Identifying opportunities and challenges for improving IDA The system: resource booking at a large hospital Participants 5 test subjects 1 test monitor + 1 data logger 1 IDA facilitator Observation Room Control Room 23

24 IDA: Results Instant Data Analysis can Assist usability evaluators in quickly identifying the most critical and serious usability problems experienced by users in a think-aloud evaluation Was conducted in 10% of the time it takes to do a traditional video data analysis Reduce the noise of unique (false?) usability problems 24

25 Afslutning Baggrund Min baggrund Forskningsgruppe Usability og usability-evaluering Definition Betydning Systemudvikling Undervisning i usability Materiale Erfaringer Aktiviteter og teknikker Interaktionsdesign Aktiviteter i usability-evaluering Teknik til usability-evaluering 25

26 Litteratur Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M. B. and Stage, J. (2012) Interaktionsdesign. Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M. B. and Stage, J. (2004) Instant Data Analysis: Evaluating Usability in a Day. Proceedings of NordiCHI 2004, pp ACM. Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M. B. and Stage, J. (2010) A Longitudinal Study of Usability in Health Care: Does Time Heal? International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79(6): Skov, M. B. and Stage, J. (2009) A Conceptual Tool for Usability Problem Identification in Website Development. International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering, 4(4): Skov, M. B. and Stage, J. (2011) Training Software Developers and Designers to Conduct Usability Evaluations. Behaviour and Information Technology (in press, available online, DOI: / ). 26

27 IT-Vest: Master i IT for IT-lærere Fagpakke i Interaktionsdesign og Usability-evaluering Interaktionsdesign Metoder til usability-evaluering Evaluering og design i praksis Link: 27