[Week 02, IID] Introduction to UX Prototyping

Lecture 2

Introduction to User Experience Prototyping

UX Prototyping / IID 2015 Spring Class hours : Tuesday 2 pm – 6 pm Lecture room : International Campus Veritas Hall B320 10th March

To Do List for Today

• Present your personal statements and portfolio

• Lecture

– Introduction to User Experience Studies

– Users’ Mental Model

• Workshop

– Voting the class representative for the summer show 2015

– Studio Setting

– Make each service account

– Warm up with Pinterest workshop

Lecture #2 IID_UX Prototyping 2

The Last Week’s Homework


Make Blog Upload

Personal Statement

Upload Portfolio

1 2 3

Make a personal blog - Blogger - Wordpress - Tumblr

Your Blog Post #1 - Length : 1,000 words or less - Who I am, and What I have

been through - Things that I like - What I like to Learn from the

course - My dreams

Your Blog Post #2 - Upload images of your works - Pick your Favorite - Tell us why the work is your

favorite

Individual Presentation

• Personal Statement Presentation Bullet Points

– Who I am, and What I have been through

– Things that I like

– What I like to Learn from the course

– My dreams

• Portfolio Presentation Bullet Points

– Title

– Ideas

– How it reflected the original idea, and how it evolved

– Tools(or Techniques) that I used


INTRODUCTION Lecture


The components of UX

• User Experience

– User experience is the totality of the effect or effects felt by a user as a

result of interaction with, and the usage context of, a system, device, or

product, including the influence of usability, usefulness, and emotional

impact during interaction, and savoring the memory after interaction.

– “Interaction with” is broad and embraces seeing, touching, and thinking

about the system or product, including admiring it and its presentation

before any physical interaction.



• Usability

– Usability is the pragmatic component of user experience, including effectiveness,

efficiency, productivity, ease-of-use, learnability, retainability, and the pragmatic aspects

of user satisfaction.

• Usefulness

– Usefulness is the component of user experience to which system functionality gives the

ability to use the system or product to accomplish the goals of work(or play).

• Functionality

– Functionality is power to do work(or play) seated in the non-user-interface

computational features and capabilities.



• Emotional Impact

– Emotional impact is the affective component of user experience that

influences user feelings. Emotional impact includes such effects as

pleasure, fun, joy of use, aesthetics, desirability, pleasure, novelty,

originality, sensations, coolness, engagement, appeal and can involve

deeper emotional factors such self-identity, a feeling of contribution to the

world and pride of ownership.


Ubiquitous Interaction

• Desktop, Graphical User Interfaces, and the Web Are Still Here and

Growing

– The “old-fashioned” desktop, laptop, and network-based computing

systems are alive and well and seem to be everywhere, an expanding

presence in our lives.

– Word processing, database management, storing and retrieving

information, spreadsheet management.



• The Changing Concept of Computing

– Computer systems are being worn by people and embedded within

appliances, homes, offices, stereos and entertainment systems, vehicles,

and roads.

– Computation and interaction are also finding their way into walls, furniture,

and objects we carry (briefcases, purses, wallets, wrist, watches, PDAs,

cellphones)

– Most of the user-computer interaction attendant to this ubiquitous

computing in everyday contexts is taking place without keyboards, mice,

or monitors.



• The Changing Concept of Interaction

– With an obviously enormous market potential, mobile communications are perhaps the fastest

growing area of ubiquitous computing with personal devices and also represent one of the

most intense areas of designing for a quality user experience.

– Interaction, however, is doing more than just reappearing in different devices such as we see

in Web access via mobile phone. Weiser (1991) said “. . . the most profound technologies are

those that disappear.”

– Russell, Streitz, and Winograd (2005) also talk about the disappearing computer—not

computers that are departing or ceasing to exist, but disappearing in the sense of becoming

unobtrusive and unremarkable. They use the example of electric motors, which are part of

many machines we use daily, yet we almost never think about electric motors per se. They talk

about “making computers disappear into the walls and interstices of our living and working

spaces.”



• The Changing Concept of Interaction

– When this happens, it is sometimes called “ambient intelligence,” the goal

of considerable research and development aimed at the home living

environment. In the HomeLab of Philips Research in the Netherlands

(Markopoulos et al., 2005), researchers believe “that ambient intelligence

technology will mediate, permeate, and become an inseparable common

of our everyday social interactions at work or at leisure.”

– In these embedded systems, of course, the computer only seems to

disappear. The computer is still there somewhere and in some form, and

the challenge is to design the interaction so that the computer remains

invisible or unobtrusive and interaction appears to be with the artifacts,

such as the walls, directly. So, with embedded computing, certainly the

need for a quality user experience does not disappear. Imagine embedded

computing with a design that leads to poor usability; users will be clueless

and will not have even the familiar menus and icons to find their way!


SKIN : Emotional Sensing(2008)

IID_UX Prototyping 13

http://youtu.be/WRX-3DDBow0

Lecture #2

http://youtu.be/WRX-3DDBow0

Intimacy 2.0 (2011)


Interactive fashion by Studio Roosegaarde

https://vimeo.com/29952304



From Usability to User Experience

• The Traditional Concept of Usability

– Usability is that aspect of HCI devoted to ensuring that human–computer

interaction is, among other things, effective, efficient, and satisfying for

the user. So usability includes characteristics such as ease of use,

productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, learnability, retainability, and user

satisfaction (ISO 9241-11, 1997).



• Misconceptions about Usability

– First, usability is not what some people used to call “dummy proofing.”

– Usability is not equivalent to being “user-friendly.”

– To many not familiar with the field, “doing usability” is sometimes thought

of as equivalent to usability testing.

– Finally, another popular misconception about usability has to do with

visual appeal.



• The Expanding Concept of Quality in Our Designs

– The field of interaction design has grown slowly, and our concept of what constitutes

quality in our designs has expanded from an engineering focus on user performance

under the aegis of usability into what is now widely known as user experience.

– Thomas and McCredie (2002) call for “new usability” to account for “new design

requirements such as ambience or attention.”

– At a CHI 2007 Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting (Huh et al., 2007), the discussion

focused on “investigating a variety of approaches (beyond usability) such as user

experience, aesthetic interaction, ambiguity, slow technology, and various ways to

understand the social, cultural, and other contextual aspects of our world.”



• Is Not Emotional Impact What We Have Been Calling User Satisfaction?

– Some say the emphasis on these emotional factors is nothing new—after

all, user satisfaction, a traditional subjective measure of usability, has

always been a part of the concept of traditional usability shared by most

people, including the ISO 9241-11 standard definition.

– Technology and design have evolved from being just productivity-

enhancing tools to more personal, social, and intimate facets of our lives.

Accordingly, we need a much broader definition of what constitutes

quality in our designs and quality in the user experience those designs

beget.



• Functionality is Important, but a Quality User

Experience Can Be Even More So

– The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are products that

represent cool high technology with excellent

functionality but are also examples that show

the market is now not just about the features—it

is about careful design for a quality user

experience as a gateway to that functionality.

– To users, the interaction experience is the

system.


First Apple store opened in the Netherlands on 3rd March 2012. It has an amazing spiral staircase, a trademark like those in all other Apple stores.


• Functionality Is Important, but a Quality User Experience Can Be Even More So

– Hassenzahl and Roto (2007) state the case for the difference between the functional view

of usability and the phenomenological view of emotional impact. People have and use

technical products because “they have things to do”; they need to make phone calls,

write documents, shop on-line, or search for information.

– Hazzenzahl and Roto call these “do goals,” appropriately evaluated by the usability and

usefulness measures of their “pragmatic quality.” Human users also have emotional and

psychological needs, including needs involving self-identity, relatedness to others, and

being satisfied with life.

– These are “be goals,” appropriately evaluated by the emotional impact and

phenomenological measures of their “hedonic quality.”



• A Good User Experience Does Not

Necessarily Mean High-Tech or “Cool”

– The best user experience requires a

balance of functionality, usability, aesthetics,

branding, identity, and so on. (eg. Microsoft

Vista Package)

– In addition to user experience not just being

cool, it also is not just about technology for

technology’s sake. (eg. University

Conference Call system)


Figure 1-1 A new Microsoft software packaging design


• Design beyond Just Technology

– Design is about creating artifacts to satisfy a

usage need in a language that can facilitate a

dialog between the creator of the artifact and

the user. That artifact can be anything from a

computer system to an everyday object such

as a door knob.



• Components of a User Experience

– The newer concept of user experience still embodies all these implications of usability.

How much joy of use would one get from a cool and neat-looking iPad design that was

very clumsy and awkward to use? Clearly there is an intertwining in that some of the joy

of use can come from extremely good ease of use.

– The most basic reason for considering joy of use is the humanistic view that enjoyment is

fundamental to life. (Hassenzahl, M., Beu, A., & Burmester, M. (2001). Engineering joy.

IEEE Software, 18(1), pp. 70–76.)

– As a result, we have expanded the scope of user experience to include:

• effects experienced due to usability factors

• effects experienced due to usefulness factors

• effects experienced due to emotional impact factors



• User Experience Is (Mostly) Felt Internally by the User

– User experience, as the words imply, is the totality of the effect or effects

felt (experienced) internally by a user as a result of interaction with, and

the usage context of, a system, device, or product.

– Here, we give the terms “interaction” and “usage” very broad

interpretations, as we will explain, including seeing, touching, and

thinking about the system or product, including admiring it and its

presentation before any physical interaction, the influence of usability,

usefulness, and emotional impact during physical interaction, and

savoring the memory after interaction.



• User Experience Cannot Be Designed

– A user experience cannot be designed, only experienced. You are not

designing or engineering or developing good usability or designing or

engineering or developing a good user experience.

– There is no usability or user experience inside the design; they are

relative to the user. Usability occurs within, or is revealed within, the

context of a particular usage by a particular user. The same design but

used in a different context—different usage and/or a different user—

could lead to a different user experience, including a different level of, or

kind of, usability.




– We illustrate this concept with a non-computer example, the

experience of enjoying Belgian chocolates. Because the “designer”

and producer of the chocolates may have put the finest ingredients

and best traditional processes into the making of this product, it is

not surprising that they claim in their advertising a fine chocolate

experience built into their confections.

– However, by the reasoning in the previous paragraph, the user

experience resides within the consumer, not in the chocolates. That

chocolate experience includes anticipating the pleasure, beholding

the dark beauty, smelling the wonderful aromas, the deliberate and

sensual consumption (the most important part), the lingering bouquet

and after-taste, and, finally, pleasurable memories.




– When this semantic detail is not observed and the chocolate

is marketed with claims such as “We have created your

heavenly chocolate experience,” everyone still understands.

– Similarly, no one but the most ardent stickler protests when

BMW claims “BMW has designed and built your joy!” In this

book, however, we wish to be technically correct and

consistent so we would have them say, “We have created

sweet treats to ensure your heavenly chocolate experience”

or “BMW has built an automobile designed to produce your

ultimate driving experience.”




Figure 1-2 User experience occurs within interaction and usage context

User’s Mental Models : The Very Ideas

• Book

– Stephen J. Payne, “User’s Mental Models : The Very Ideas” in John M.

Carroll, (2003) HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks : Toward a

Multidisciplinary Science, CA : Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 135-156.

IID_UX Prototyping 29 Lecture #2

Design Philosophy

• Herb Simon:

“Engineers are not the only professional designers. Everyone

designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing

situations into preferred ones.

The intellectual activity that produces material artefacts is no different

fundamentally from the one that prescribes remedies for a sick patient or the one

that devises a new sales plan for a company or a social welfare policy for a state.”

– Herbert A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, 1969 (p.129 of 1981 MIT press 2nd

edition)


Intro


Figure 1 (adapted from Norman (1988) p. 16): The problem of ensuring that the user's mental model corresponds to the designer's model arises because the designer does not talk directly with the user. The designer can only talk to the user through the "system image" - the designer's materialised mental model. The system image is, like a text, open to interpretation.

Lecture #2

Users

• Mental Models

– User’s knowledge about the system they use.

• Bounded Rationality (Simon, 1955)

– People often have to act too quickly to allow full consideration of all their relevant

knowledge – they do the best they can to achieve their goals according to the

knowledge they can bring to mind, and the inferences that knowledge supports, in the

time allowed.

– “Bounded rationality” : rationality that is bounded by the environmental constraints on

their performance, interacting with their limits on access to knowledge and the limits on

their performance, interacting with their limits on access to knowledge and the limits on

their ability to process relevant information.


Mental Models

• Idea 1. Mental Content vs. Cognitive Architecture : Mental Models as

Theories

– Bounded Rationality : the general limits of the human information-processing

system – the constrains on attention, retrieval, and processing.

– Human information-processing architecture : theories of the structure of the

mind.

– Contents of the mind : what do people believe about an aspect of the world,

what is the relation between these beliefs and reality, and how do the beliefs

affect their behavior?


Cognitive Architecture


A model of the user based on an information processing metaphor

Lecture #2

Mental Models

• Idea 2. Models vs. Methods : Mental Models as Problem Spaces

– Mental models of machines can provide a problem space that allows more

elaborate encoding of remembered methods, and in which novice or expert

problem solvers can search for new methods to achieve tasks.

– Stepping through a sequence of states in some mental models of a machine, is

often called “mental simulation” in the mental-models literature, and the kind

of model that allows simulation is often called “surrogate”

– Reasoning is performed by sequential application of completely domain-

specific rules and thus is knowledge bounded rather than architecture

bounded.


Her - Alien Child / Hologram sequences





Mental Models

• Idea 3. Models vs. Descriptions : Mental Models as Homeomorphisms

– Mental models are a special kind of representation, sometimes called an

analog representation – one that shares the structure of the world it

represents.

– Example

• The spoon is to the left of the fork spoon fork

• The knife is to the left of the spoon knife spoon fork

– Such a model allows deductive inferences to be “read off”


Swankolab


Mental Models

• Idea 4. Models of Representations : Mental Models Can Be Derived

from Language, Perception, or Imagination

– Mental models can be constructed by processing language, but the same

models might also, in principle, have been constructed through

interaction with and perception of the world. Therefore a mental model

provides a way of mapping language to perception.


Interactive landscape 'Dune 4.2'


http://youtu.be/TsnBo0CZMRk

Lecture #2

http://youtu.be/TsnBo0CZMRk

Mental Models

• Idea 5. Mental Representations of Representational Artifacts

– The yoked state space hypothesis(Payne, Squibb, & Howes, 1990)

• To construct a conceptual model of a device, the user must conceptualize the

device's representation of the task domain. This knowledge can be

represented by three components: a device-based problem space, which

specifies the ontology of the device in terms of the objects that can be

manipulated and their interrelations, plus the operators that perform the

manipulations; a goal space, which represents the objects in terms of which

user's goals are expressed; and a semantic mapping, which determines

how goal space objects are represented in the device space.


Social Networking Space


Mental Models

• Idea 6. Mental Models as Computationally Equivalent to External

Representations

– If structure-sharing is taken to be an important property of mental models,

then a mental model derived from text shares the structure of the situation,

not of the text.

– However, it is not clear that this distinction extends to mental models

derived from “reading” other representational artifacts, such as maps, or

diagrams.


Wishing wall by Varvara Guljajeva and Mar Canet


http://youtu.be/MX0Z6aHZYDw



Next Week Reading List

• Download From YSCEC > User Experience Prototyping > Books &

Papers > Week 03 Reading

– Gaver, W., Dunne, A., & Pacenti, E. (1999). "Cultural Probes," Interactions

6(1), pp21-29.

– Gaver, W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S. and Walker, B., (2004). Cultural

Probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions, Volume XI.5, pp. 53-56.


Homework


Complete Studio Assignments

Finish Video in a time

capsule

Readings And Critiques

(Assign

Presenters for Each Paper)

1 2 3

Pinterest - Set up your

account

- Make the initiall boards

- Upload requited images

Your Blog Post #3 - Title “Digital Memento” - Edit it in the length of 2-3

mins - Share the vimeo(or youtube)

link on your blog

Your Blog Post #4 - Summarize the papers - Add your critiques for each

papers

Submission Due : 11: 59 pm Sun. 15th March

Contacts

• Email

– [email protected]

• Class Blog

– https://prototypinginvisiblecities.wordpress.com/


mailto:[email protected]

https://prototypinginvisiblecities.wordpress.com/

Education

[Week 02, IID] Introduction to UX Prototyping