Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DIMS | Communication and Visualisation
140520| GRS60312 / GRS65000
Ron van Lammeren
What’s wrong with this title?
Maps for Monitoring
2/49
Maps for monitoring
3/49
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/business/ibm-takes-smarter-cities-concept-to-rio-de-janeiro.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
What type of design?
Interaction Design
Setup
A Previous knowledge
B Usability
C User centered design
D Usability evaluation
E Trends
4/49
?
?
design evaluate
Interaction design: designing interactive products to support the way people
communicate and interact in their everyday and working lives
DIMS: designing interactive products to support the way people communicate
and interact with integrated monitoring systems
- Prepare a design for integrated monitoring system for a selected beneficial area
taking into account state-of-the-art developments in the field of geo-information
- Demonstrate the use of proper visualization techniques for effective communication
of the information in the monitoring system
A.Medium is the message
5/49
http://bit.ly/cSNvc1 / Rogers et al, 2011 (p 482 -487) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
What went wrong?
A.Geo-Visualisation
6/49
Bertin | cartography
Tufte | data visualisation
Ware | visual interpretation
Blok | spatio-temporal data visualisation
all linked to cognitive aspects like:
attention, perception, memory, learning, communicating, problem solving, etc
What knowledge may help ?
7/32
Geo-visualisation and more...
User
Interaction
Communication
Practical requirements
geo-referenced research messages
(un) expected responses
interface
geo-visualisation
interface
A.Interactive visualisations
8/49
What interaction?
B.Usability [of Geo-Visualisation]
Usability Making products and systems easier to use,
and
matching them more closely to user needs and requirements
International standard, ISO 9241-11:
The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to
achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction
in a specified context of use.
9/49
www.usabilitynet.org
http://icaci.org/research-agenda/usability-of-maps-and-gi/
Your daily GIS
Arthur, C. (2010)
Tovar, V. (2013)
Google Maps mobile
Crowdsourcing http://on.fb.me/KnPSgB
(Vk 25/11/2013)
10/49
Examples!
B. Six Usability Goals
Effective to use (effectiveness)
Efficient to use (efficiency)
Safe to use (safety, error tolerant)
Have good utility (in line with required tasks)
Easy to learn (learnability)
Easy to remember how to use (memorability)
Rogers, Sharp, Preece 2011
B.User experience goals
Desirable aspects
● Satisfying, enjoyable, challenging, helpful, provoactive, ..
Undesirable aspects
● Frustrating, Boring, Patronizing, Cutesy, ..
The users - who is using the product?
highly trained and experienced users, or novices?
Their goals - what are the users trying to do with the product
does it support what they want to do with it?
The usage situation (or 'context of use')
where and how is the product being used?
12/49
What to support the user’s interest?
C. Process of interaction design
Establish requirements
Design alternatives
Prototype
Evaluate
13/49
Your approach ?
C. User centered approach
14/49
Applying a user-centered development cycle to interactive visualisation design
?
?
Wassink et al 2008
“ the user never makes an error “
C. Design / Engineering stages
1. Early envisioning phase
Analysis of current situation (users, environments, tasks)
- profiles and requirements
2. Global specification phase of early prototypes
Design (by use scenarios), Proposal of solutions, present to users and
other stakeholders
3. Detailed specification phase of complete prototypes
Based on evaluation of 2.; visual representation and interaction styles
Rogers, Preece, Sharp, 2011
15/49
http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/13407stds.htm
C1. Early envisioning : Personas
16/49
personal characteristics, activities, interests thay may lead to usability scenarios
Rich descriptions of typical user of the product.
A persona represents a synthesis of a number of real people and
is characterized by a unique set of goals relating to the product intended.
Psychological characteristics: cognitive style, motivation Knowledge and experience: ranking novices to experts Physical discomfort: colour blind, pattern recognition Task related: role, frequency of use
C1.Techniques to define Personas
Questionnaires (many users, difficult to design)
Interviews (exploring, time consuming)
Existing documentation (trustworthy?)
Observation (creates understanding, time consuming)
Participation
Focus groups
Use different methods, involve all stakeholder groups
Use template for requirement description (e.g. Volere template)
http://www.volere.co.uk/articles.htm 17/49
How to create Personas?
C1 Example screenshot study for GIS
Goals:
How do GIS users organise and customise the interface?
study common users in daily usage
Users were asked to send a screenshot of their entire screen when working on routine tasks
Questionnaire to provide additional information
Sent to GIS mailing lists
Analysis:
proportion of interface assigned to map-other parts of interface (e.g. toolbars)
User experience
Screen resolution
Results: simple technique to understand how GIS is used in situ
Haklay & Zafiri 2008
18/49
Example!
C2. Global and detailed specification
Statement about an intended product that specifies what it should do or how it should perform (Rogers et al, 2011; p 355)
Requirements describe the formal specifications required to implement the system
Goals of requirements analysis:
Understand about users, tasks, context (personas)
Produce a stable set of requirements
getting requirements right is crucial
the stage where failure occurs most commonly
!! mistakes in a final product are expensive !!
try to understand underlying needs
do not decide for the user, but check with the users
19/49
C2.Translate requirements into prototypes
Translate requirements in application tasks
Involves breaking a task down into subtasks, then sub-sub-tasks and so on. These are grouped as plans which specify how the tasks might be performed in practice
Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) focuses on physical and observable actions, and includes looking at actions not related to software or an interaction device
Start with a user goal which is examined and the main tasks for achieving it are identified
Task analysis techniques such as HTA help to investigate existing systems and practices as well
20/49
C2.Examples HTA and Story Board
21/49
Example!
C3. Detailed specification |
design principles
22/49
• Visibility highly visibly attracts attention
• Feedback important to know how to continue
• Constraints eg deactivating options
• Consistency locations on a screen, symbols
• Affordance a mouse button affords to click, a door handle to push
Rogers, Preece, Sharp, 2011
http://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/
How about ArcGIS ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWc0Fd2AS3s
Verweij et al, 2010 23/49
Main design rule?
Usability evaluation
24/49
Any consistency?
Usability evaluation
25/49
What affordance?
C. Methods & Tools
26/49
Some of the same techniques are used in design and evaluation differently Different evaluation approaches and methods are often combined in one study
http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/methods.htm
D.Usability evaluation
?
?
Just bought a dog
A big one ?
No, not so big ...
Long hair?
No, short hair !
What colour?
White black spotted...
What a nice dog !
Isn’t it ?
D.Usability evaluation – how?
Approaches
Controlled involving users like Usability testing, Living lab
Natural settings involving users like Field studies
Analytical evaluation without users like Heuristic evaluations
Ranges of methods and techniques which delivers metrics
Quantitative - qualitative
Formative - summative
Users - experts
http://www.useit.com/jakob/
D.Evaluation approaches
29/49
Usability
testing
Field studies Analytical
Users do task Natural env. not involved
Location controlled Natural env. anywhere
When prototype Early use stage prototype
Data quantitative qualitative problem
Feed back measures &
errors
descriptions problems
Type applied naturalistic expert
D.Evaluation methods
Method Usability
testing
Field studies Analytical
Observing x x
Asking users x x
Asking experts x x
Testing x
Modeling x
30/49
D.Evaluation objectives
31/49
D.Usability inspection methods
32/49
Heuristic evaluation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YnKKwPyxUw Cognitive Walkthrough
Think aloud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BehiUS68KmM Tourist Eye
Performance test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mj3avh6vIw Sharepoint test
What method could you think of?
D.Usability evaluation metrics
33/49
Usually lab experiments
Performance metrics
Issues based metrics
Self-report measures
Behavioural and physiological metrics
Tullis, Albert 2008
http://www.scribemedia.org/2011/07/21/exploring-pros-and-cons-of-behavioral-metrics/
D. Eye tracking example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqD2pXqT0Z0
34/49
Example!
E. Trends
35/49
E. 3D visualisations
Increasing demand for 3D, “realistic” visualizations, with high level of detail and animation
familiarity with new technology (games)
3D, realistic visualizations are aesthetically pleasing
expected benefits of realism
● general expectations that realistic depictions minimize interpretive effort
● real world feels complete, accurate, easy (available instantly and constantly)
36/49
E.3D visualizations
If the data themselves are 3D, the third dimension communicates important information
3D useful for:
visualizing volumes, and sightlines (instead of making mental models by combining 2D visualizations)
Communication by place
navigating through areas
Realistic texturing, illumination:
may facilitate feeling of ‘presence’ in a location
may introduce affective appraisal of an area
http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/revelations/en-GB/home/
37/49
E.3D better than 2D?
2D and 3D displays support different classes of spatial tasks
2D:
tasks requiring relative positioning, such as metric judgements of distances, sizes, angles and 2D object recognition
poor for shape-understanding tasks
3D:
tasks requiring shape understanding, such as line-of-sight judgements, gross scene layout, and 3D object identification
poor for relative-position and metric judgement tasks
For many tasks (visual search, memorization etc) 2D icons seems better than 3D-icons
“Display should highlight task-relevant information, and this process of highlighting inevitably entails paring down reality.”
38/49
Hegarty et al. 2011, Lammeren et al. 2010
E.Preference for realism
• extraneous realism slowed response time and lead to more eye fixations on both task-relevant and task-irrelevant regions of the displays • some participants persisted in favoring these realistic displays over non-realistic maps.
Hegarty et al, 2011
39/49
Example!
E.Preference for 3D visualizations
Users prefer realistic, complex and high-fidelity displays, even when their performance is lower (extra information is not task relevant, and distracting)
Users have more confidence in data presented in realistic displays
Appreciation of the 3D visualization may transfer to the content of the data
User preferences, even those of domain experts, are not a good indication of effectiveness; testing required.
Smallman, St John 2005
40/49
Why 3D preference?
E. Attractive things work better
when we feel good, we overlook design faults
41/49
Any preference?
E. Attractive things work better
when we feel good, we overlook design faults
Donald Norman (2002)
“.. any pleasure, derivable from the appearance or functioning of the tool increases positive affect, broadening the creativity and increasing the tolerance for minor difficulties and blockages.
The changes in processing style released by positive affect aid in creative problem solving that is apt to overcome both difficulties encountered in the activity and those created by the interface design.
“Tools that are meant to support serious, concentrated effort (…), are best served by designs that emphasize function and minimize irrelevancies. “
42/49
Summary
Usability Goals (Efficient, Effective, Error, Utility,
Learnable, Memorable)
Develop with users
(User centered development)
Design criteria (Visibility, Feedback, Affordance,
Consistent, Constraints)
Let users participate in the design
(requirements, task hierarchy, storyboards, test
performance)
Evaluate the design by usability evaluations
Affect may become an important issue (2D versus
3D ( abstract vs realism)
43/49
?
?
References Rogers, Sharp & Preece 2011 Interaction design Wiley
Wassink et al 2008 Applying a user-centered approach to interactive visualisation design in Trends in Interactive Visualization Advanced Information and
Knowledge Processing, 2009, 3, 175-199
Verweij et al 2010 An IT perspective on integrated environmental modelling: The SIAT case ; Ecological modeling 221: 2167-2176
Haklay, Zafiri 2008 Usability Engineering for GIS: Learning from a Screenshot; The Cartographic Journal Vol. 45 No. 2 pp. 87–97
Tullis, Albert 2008 Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Senaratne et al 2012 Usability of Spatio-Temporal Uncertainty Visualisation Methods in Gensel et al. (eds.), Bridging the Geographic
Information Sciences, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography
Hegarty et al 2012 Choosing and Using Geospatial Displays: Effects of Design on Performance and Metacognition; Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied vol 18, 1: 1-17
Lammeren et al 2010 Affective appraisal of 3D land use visualization; Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 34 (2010) 465–475
Smallman, St. John 2005 Naive Realism: Misplaced Faith in Realistic Displays; Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications 2005
13: 6
Norman, 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York, NY.
Tractinsky et al 2000 What is beautiful is usable; Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 127-145
Lee, Koubekl 2010 Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use Interacting with Computers 22
(2010) 530–543
44/49
140520| rvl | www.geo-informatie.nl
Based and inspired by Joske Houtkamp lectures, Rogers et al, projects of Peter Verweij; MGI/GIMA thesis studies (2000 – 2010) of
Bos, Hoogerwerf, Ottens, Davelaar, de Roo, Momot, Velema, Witte, Gaertner, Zhou, Luisman, Milosz, Getachew, Valster, van Rooij,
Gold, Link, Petrenko, van der Mijden, Smit
45/49
Text and pictures from DiWi, Foulkes, GESO, PSPE, QUICKS, VOLANTE projects
DIMS|Communication
and
Visualisation
Usability of
Interaction design
D. Performance metrics
Best way to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency
Calculated based on specific user behaviours, using scenarios or tasks
Task success (can user complete task, binary or levels)
Time-on-task (how quickly can user perform task)
Errors (number of mistakes made during task)
Efficiency (amount of effort, cognitive/physical, to complete task/number of
steps required to complete a task/combination task success and time)
Learnability (change of efficiency metric over time)
Senaratne et al, 2012
46/49
D.Issues based metrics
Anything that
● prevents task completion
● creates confusion
● produces an error
● performing the wrong action, missing information, misinterpreting
information, not understanding navigation, etc etc.
Real issues?
How severe?
How frequent?
User groups perform tasks in lab
47/49
D.Self-report measures
Ask users about their perception of the application and
their interaction with it
Semantic differential scales
Beautiful o o o o o o o Ugly
Likert scales
“The information was easy to find”
strong disagree / disagree / neither agree nor disagree / agree / strong agree
Open-ended questions
(Which 5 elements did you like the least/most? Reasons for assessments)
Standard questionnaires: SUS (System usability scale),
QUIS (user interface satisfaction),
USE (Usefulness, Satisfaction and ease of Use)
48/49
D. Behavioural and
physiological metrics
Observation of (non)verbal behaviour
Facial expressions (video, electromyogram sensors)
Eye-tracking (analysis of fixations to create a heat map)
Skin conductance, heart rate (arousal)
Pressure on mouse, on seat
http://www.scribemedia.org/2011/07/21/exploring-pros-and-cons-of-behavioral-metrics/
49/49
D. Other inspection methods
Cognitive walkthrough, stepping through a pre-planned prototype scenario noting potential problems.
Guided by 3 questions:
● Will the correct action be sufficiently evident to the user?
● Will the user notice that the correct action is available?
● Will the user associate and interpret the response from the action correctly?
Valster 2008, MGI thesis GRS-2008-02
Full screen image with title