Link
Jörn Messeter Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Eva Brandt Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Joachim Halse Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Martin Johansson Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems archive
Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques table of contents
Cambridge, MA, USA
SESSION: Interactive systems in public places table of contents
Pages: 27 - 36
Year of Publication: 2004
ISBN:1-58113-787-7
Abstract:
Information and communication technologies are moving into the era of ubiquitous computing, with increased density of technology and increased mobility and continuity in use. From a design perspective, addressing the accommodation and coordination of multiple devices and services in situated use across different contexts is becoming increasingly important. In the COMIT project, ethnographic fieldwork has been combined with participatory design engaging users, designers and researchers in order to explore mobile IT use as well as the design of mobile IT concepts. Four seclected scenarios from the project are presented and discussed regarding implications for the design of mobile IT devices, with particular focus on (1) coping with multiple social contexts, and (2) the configuration and connectivity of mobile devices.
My Discussion:
This paper did not really excite me. If it is a paper about a new form of design, it doesn't highlight how its steps or methodology is better than other forms of user-centered design, nor even if there is a specific methodology. It also spends a lot of paper discussing what we already know: users adapt to technology, users have many roles and switch between roles depending on what is required and what opportunities they have, users have opinions about technology. The resulting ideas for devices from their exercises are not innovative, really. The only place the paper really came to life for me was in the quote
Experience clip: method for user participation and evaluation of mobile concepts
Jörn Messeter Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Eva Brandt Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Joachim Halse Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Martin Johansson Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems archive
Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques table of contents
Cambridge, MA, USA
SESSION: Interactive systems in public places table of contents
Pages: 27 - 36
Year of Publication: 2004
ISBN:1-58113-787-7
Abstract:
Information and communication technologies are moving into the era of ubiquitous computing, with increased density of technology and increased mobility and continuity in use. From a design perspective, addressing the accommodation and coordination of multiple devices and services in situated use across different contexts is becoming increasingly important. In the COMIT project, ethnographic fieldwork has been combined with participatory design engaging users, designers and researchers in order to explore mobile IT use as well as the design of mobile IT concepts. Four seclected scenarios from the project are presented and discussed regarding implications for the design of mobile IT devices, with particular focus on (1) coping with multiple social contexts, and (2) the configuration and connectivity of mobile devices.
My Discussion:
This paper did not really excite me. If it is a paper about a new form of design, it doesn't highlight how its steps or methodology is better than other forms of user-centered design, nor even if there is a specific methodology. It also spends a lot of paper discussing what we already know: users adapt to technology, users have many roles and switch between roles depending on what is required and what opportunities they have, users have opinions about technology. The resulting ideas for devices from their exercises are not innovative, really. The only place the paper really came to life for me was in the quote
but then doesn't go further than the platitude
"Storage, display, software for main functions and other elements are separated in different devices implying a more ‘architectural’ approach to providing services to users. In line with these ideas the last two examples serve to illustrate that use qualities do not necessarily emerge on a device level. Rather, in these scenarios the most important use qualities emerge on the level of a configured set of devices. Arguably, it is the particular device configuration as a response to the needs of a use situation that produces relevant use qualities, suggesting a shift in the design agenda regarding what to design in mobile technologies. This further implies that the designated functions of a device may be defined on a level more loosely connected to specific user activities. The cell phone being re-configured as a remote control referred to
in the introduction, may be reframed to be portable keypad supporting wireless communication with other devices."
"From this perspective, technology is deliberately open to configuration to further enable the user to manipulate freely the adaption of various devices in any given situation. This implies that the user could be in control of configuring, manipulating and adapting mobile devices to their personal needs."Doesn't every UI designer already know users use the stuff they have, and like to configure it?
Link
Authors
Minna Isomursu University of Oulu
Kari Kuutti University of Oulu
Soili Väinämö University of Oulu
Participatory Design archive
Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices - Volume 1 table of contents
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
SESSION: Methodological considerations table of contents
Pages: 83 - 92
Year of Publication: 2004
ISBN:1-58113-851-2
Abstract:
This paper describes experiences from using a field testing technique for collecting user experience information for evaluating mobile applications used in everyday life. Our technique is based on the usage of mobile camera phones that are used for capturing video and audio during the use of the mobile application. The users helped researchers in collecting user experience material by shooting the video clips themselves. To our surprise they also started to participate actively by presenting "miniplays" in the clips to make their point clear. Our results show that with this technique we can get richer emotional material and more versatile usage situations than with traditional observation methods, and additionally there is clearly a yet unexplored potential to develop a more systematic design method around participation.
MyDiscussion:
A mobile map + location-sensitive ads application, hosted on a PDA, was user tested on the streets of Finland using video. The innovation was not to shadow the users with a video-camera by a member of the research team, but giving another member of the group of users a video-phone so the grouo could do their own recording. This changes the situation from standard shadowing int three ways: 1) users are far more willing and open to share experiences with their friends, becoming much more communicative in showing their triumphs and frustrations 2) There is no researcher to whom the user can turn when the user is stuck, thus removing the 'help me!' factor that makes the shadowed user experience artificial when compared to an actual user experience using the product 3) mobile phones are so much part of the urban landscape that users do not become self-concious with regards to onlookers about being shadowed.
Of course the video experience immediatly becomes participatory between the user and the friend with the phone, and the teams start communicating their ideas and feelings using staged drama. It is easy to find this predictable once you read the paper, but it is a good reminder that users actually do always want to express themselves about the tools they use, and will if they have the right tools. The resulting video is not suitable for doing data-oriented user studies about products, as the user is not videoed all through the experience in a controlled locations. It is extremely good for getting soft data like emotions, major points of frustrations in the product, as those will be vdieoed, and enthousiasm over specific features.
The paper puts the video and the technique in a larger context of user-participation in design, using video as more than a registering tool but also a design tool, and validity in ehtnographic studies by de-influencing the context as a researcher.
Authors
Minna Isomursu University of Oulu
Kari Kuutti University of Oulu
Soili Väinämö University of Oulu
Participatory Design archive
Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices - Volume 1 table of contents
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
SESSION: Methodological considerations table of contents
Pages: 83 - 92
Year of Publication: 2004
ISBN:1-58113-851-2
Abstract:
This paper describes experiences from using a field testing technique for collecting user experience information for evaluating mobile applications used in everyday life. Our technique is based on the usage of mobile camera phones that are used for capturing video and audio during the use of the mobile application. The users helped researchers in collecting user experience material by shooting the video clips themselves. To our surprise they also started to participate actively by presenting "miniplays" in the clips to make their point clear. Our results show that with this technique we can get richer emotional material and more versatile usage situations than with traditional observation methods, and additionally there is clearly a yet unexplored potential to develop a more systematic design method around participation.
MyDiscussion:
A mobile map + location-sensitive ads application, hosted on a PDA, was user tested on the streets of Finland using video. The innovation was not to shadow the users with a video-camera by a member of the research team, but giving another member of the group of users a video-phone so the grouo could do their own recording. This changes the situation from standard shadowing int three ways: 1) users are far more willing and open to share experiences with their friends, becoming much more communicative in showing their triumphs and frustrations 2) There is no researcher to whom the user can turn when the user is stuck, thus removing the 'help me!' factor that makes the shadowed user experience artificial when compared to an actual user experience using the product 3) mobile phones are so much part of the urban landscape that users do not become self-concious with regards to onlookers about being shadowed.
Of course the video experience immediatly becomes participatory between the user and the friend with the phone, and the teams start communicating their ideas and feelings using staged drama. It is easy to find this predictable once you read the paper, but it is a good reminder that users actually do always want to express themselves about the tools they use, and will if they have the right tools. The resulting video is not suitable for doing data-oriented user studies about products, as the user is not videoed all through the experience in a controlled locations. It is extremely good for getting soft data like emotions, major points of frustrations in the product, as those will be vdieoed, and enthousiasm over specific features.
The paper puts the video and the technique in a larger context of user-participation in design, using video as more than a registering tool but also a design tool, and validity in ehtnographic studies by de-influencing the context as a researcher.
