I.C. MariAnne Karlsson · The information often took the character of a story, a narrative: •E.g. ... ooo xxx xxx * * * oo oo oo ooo oo x xx xx o o o xx x **

1

©I.C.MariAnne Karlsson

’Mediating tools’, productrepresentations, and their role in

user studies

I.C. MariAnne Karlsson


2



3



4


Mediating tool

• ’Medium’ (sw.) = medel, kanal

• To mediate (eng.) = ”to bring about something”

• Mediating tool or mediating object is here a ’stimulus’ Something which enhances reflection

Something which enhances discussion

Something which brings about ’focus’

The purpose may be divergent or convergent


The stages of the design process

Identify needs

and req.

Generate and assess ideas

Choose anddevelop concept

Detaileddesign

Prototype .... .... ....

5


• What type of mediating tool could and should be useddepends on the purpose of the study

• Mediating tools may be used in user studies with thepurpose to describe problems elicit requirements generate ideas and concepts evaluate design solutions etc


• A mediating tool may be, e.g. A product representation

• A representation of– the existing and/or future prodduct / design /use situation ...– similar products / designs ...– any product / design /use situation ...

• May take the shape of a sketch, a model, a mock-up, a prototype, aCAD-drawing, or a VR-representation

Other stimuli• A stimulus, of any kind, that triggers reactions and reflections

regarding ’something’– Examples of other stimuli are: a piece of music, a film, photos, a play,

etc.– ’Cultural probes’

Mediating tools are not synonymous with product representations.The main part of the existing research has, however, focused onproduct representations and evaluation of design solutions

6


Choosing product representation foreliciting requirements


Study I: Travellers requirements fora new tram

• Data collection method Focus group interviews (4 altogether)

• Participants Individuals with product experience (frequent travelllers) Individuals without product experience (infrequent travellers)

• Mediating tools A series of photos representing ”a trip with public transport, a

tram trip”

The actual tram (1:1) accessible in a garage

7


• Frequent travellers • Focus group 1: Photos

• Focus group 2: Tram

• Infrequent travellers • Focus group 3: Photos

• Focus group 4: Tram

Study design


”The pictures show animagined trip with a tram.The tram arrives to thestop, you enter, youvalidate the ticket,...”

8


• Quantitative aspects The elicitied number of requirements is almost the same

independent of mediating tool or character of participants• The outcome may be more time-dependent than dependent upon the

mediating tools used (?)

• Qualitive aspects The themes are the same - but on the other hand these were

determined by the moderator of the focus groups

The character of the information differs


• Frequent travellers The participants seldom referred to the specific photos or to

the specific tram. Instead they referred to situations they hadexperienced when travelling by tram.

The information often took the character of a story, anarrative:

• E.g. ”One day when I ... ” or ”It happens sometimes that ...”

The photos and the tram (i.e. the physical product) helpedtrigger these stories, helped the participants to focus onparticular aspects

• The frequent travellers did not seem dependent, however, of thespecific type of representation

The information content of the photos were sometimesquestionned by the participants

9


• Infrequent travellers The participants referred to the specific photos shown or the

specific situation as experienced in the tram The participants assessed the specific situation, at the

specific time• E.g. ”This is not particularly comfortable ...”

If they spoke about other issues, it was in very generalterms, they spoke about the tram as a concept not as a”product” which to get on, travel with, get off etc.

• E.g. ”Trams are part of Göteborg ....”

The participants never questioned what was represented inthe product representations, i.e. the photos and the tram

The content of the product representations determined to alarge extent the information that was elicited


Study II: User requirements for ahealth scanner

• Data collection method Focus group interviews (6 altogether)

• Participants Experience of the technology (in this case IT) Domain knowledge / interest in one’s health

• Mediating tools Verbal description Sketch A non-functional 3D-model

10


Group 6Group 5Group 4Younger

< 25 years

Group 3Group 2Group 1Elderly

> 65 years

3D modelSketch

Verbaldescription

Study design


The sketch includedcertain pieces if text.The text was, however,identical with the one usedin the verbal description.

The physical 3D-modelhade the same shape,colour(s), format etc. asthe product representationin the sketch.

11


Number of requirements elicited

Verbal

description Sketch 3D model

Elderly

> 65 26 21 43

Younger

< 25 29 33 31


Environmental

issues

Expression, image

Functionality

Usability,

interaction

Information displayDurability, cleaning

Security,reliability

Distribution,cost

ooooooo

oo

oo

x x xx x

x

***

**

******

*

o

ooo

oo

oo

x

x x x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x

***

********

ooooooooo

x x xx x x

***

**

****

**

ooo

oooo

x

x x

x x

*

***

**

oooooo

x x

x x

x x x

*****

***

**

*

oo

o

ooo

x x x

x x x***

******

oo

oo ooooo

oo

x

x x

x x

**

**

**

****

o

o

o

x x

x

**

*

*

Each req. isindicated byone of threemarkers

0 = verbalX = sketch* = 3D model

12


Creating experiencesto enhance reflection


13


Choosing mediating tools forgenerating design ideas


Scenario inkl. Personas

14


Moodboard


Image board

15


Choosing product representationwhen evaluating design solutions


Categorisation of productrepresentations (enl. Nielsen 1993)

Vertical prototype

Horizontal prototype

Features

Function-ality

Källa: Nielsen 1993

16


Different types of productrepresentations

• Verbal descriptions, scenarios• Physical prototypes

Paper prototypes Paper, OH-projections, Post-it notes Mock-up Models

• Analogue and digital prototypes Sketches, drawings CAD drawings VR representations


• Interactive prototypes Hyper Card/SuperCard, PowerPoint ’Wizard -of-Oz’

17


• The actual, ’finished’, product is the reference• Often the assumtion is made that the more concrete the

representation, the better (the more certain) ... the elicited information• Studies have shown that it is probably not a matter of the type of

product representation but of the information content of therepresentation The aspects that you may want to evaluate must be part of/be

included in the product representation• The choice of participants can compensate for a lack of information in

the product representation Participants with product (area) experience will provide more and

more detailed information, also of aspects which are not present inthe representation


Educating users asa metiating tool

18


Educating users asa metiating tool

• The case of Product Semantics and productSemantic Analysis


The Product - A Trinity

[Monö, 2000]

• The technical whole The product’s technical function, construction, production

• The ergonomic whole The adjustment of the product to fit the human user (the

consumer), physical aspects

• The communicative whole The product’s ability to communicate with the user (the

consumer), cognitive aspects

19


Reactions in terms of feelings emotions recognition understanding etc.

The communicative function

Describe factsExpress propertiesExhort reactionsIdentify origin

Product


Product semantic analysis

• In, e.g., focus group interviews, the users learn about productsemantics and the expression of products

• Words (adjectives), describing desired and undesiredexpressions are generated

• The words are analysed, clustered and reduced• An instrument - an assessment scale is constructed, e.g. a

visual analogue scale• The adjectives are given synonyms• Different users assess the expression of the product using the

instrument

20


The value/expression

Maximum

The opposite

0

Neutral


21


neutral

harmonious

functional

cosy

durable

soft

professionalexclusive

moderncomplicated

unreliable

uninspiring

opposite

property

maximum

the company’s assessments of the product

the customers’ assessments of the product


22


Design ADesign B

Two differentweb-designs areperceived asexpressingdifferentproperties

Median values,n=20


Summary

23


The choice of mediating tool isdetermined by the purpose of the study

Identify problem, elicit requirements

Investigate the user’s attitude towards different design solutions

Generate ideas, assess ideas, choose between design solutions

Evaluate usability

Assess accessibility Etc.


.... But also the participants

• Novices/ users with little product experience seem toneed more information, more support in the productrepresentation than do the experts / more experiencedusers

24


.... And type of product

• Assessment of a completely new product (a radicalinnovationj) may require a more realistic productrepresentation compared to a well-known product orproduct area ...

Documents

I.C. MariAnne Karlsson · The information often took the character of a story, a narrative: •E.g. ... ooo xxx xxx *** *** *** oo oo oo ooo oo x xx xx ** ** ** ** ** o o o xx x **

I.C. MariAnne Karlsson · The information often took the character of a story, a narrative: •E.g. ... ooo xxx xxx * * * oo oo oo ooo oo x xx xx o o o xx x **