A focus group was conducted with 7 students and shown the prototype and our ideas were presented. One of the objectives was to evaluate the dimensions the space and some of the feedback and comments are featured bellow.
Social
The social dimension of the space was achieved by creating an inviting, exciting, comfortable and attractive lower tier level. This space allows for users to relax and gather in groups or individually. It was felt by the focus group that the location though being a central point to much of the campus facilities on its own did not have a sense of purpose and the proposed i-Browse could be used as a meeting place and as a place “to hang out”.
Interaction
The interaction was tackled from two levels namely Interactivity with the system and Interactivity amongst humans.
The i-Browse system offers a one to one experience where users will interact with the holographic display by voice recognition software. Interactivity also exists between students and with the surrounding environment in the expandable and moveable seating and a Jenga game. Excitingly the system is also interactive with the environment adjusting the display on the roof and i-Browse system to show flames on a cold day and water feature on a warm day. This is enhanced with the corresponding under floor heating or fan system.
Interactivity amongst humans has played a major function with the design. Students felt that the space captures the mood created on the grass outside the church/ library on a hot summer’s day. Here the enclosed space puts people in close proximity allowing for them to relax comfortably and interact between groups and amongst groups. This was achieved through natural colours, a clear roof and soft comfortable seating right around the lower level. This is further heightened by the Jenga game.
The response of the group to the prototype received exciting support and recognised the overall impact which the space set out to achieve. It was showed that the space does not necessitate interactivity yet provides a stimulus/catalyst for interactivity between people.
Emotion
When asked to agree on words which reflected their impressions of the designed space they chose intriguing, exciting, unique, useful and well thought out.
Collaboration
Various ideas were suggested throughout the design cycle which could provide a collaborative dimension to the space. The previous suggestions were also put to the focus group and although it was felt that some of the other systems that were proposed such as the Graffiti wall gave a greater collaborative experience it was agreed that it was more suitable to have a longer lasting useful feature for the system other than a novelty idea which perhaps would have been experienced only a small number of times.
The space was however likened to something which you’d expect to see in a modern Silicon Valley office which has “funky chilled atmosphere which encourages creativity” and it was thought that the Jenga game gave students the chance to work together on something fun building teamwork.
Communication
Communication stems from both communications with the i-Browse system and amongst individuals. The group saw the holographic display as an enhancement that could show 3D visuals such as maps in a more effective way than 2D images. The close proximity in the lower tier and the adjustable seating arrangements was also seen to promote communication allowing for groups 2 sit together an all be heard.
Fun
The group saw the space as fun filled and a great contrast to the existing space although it was deemed that this did not appear the primary function but more of a supporting dimension.
Sunday, 13 January 2008
i-Browse software agent implementations
Development of software agent i-Browse:
An initial design session/thought shower enabled us to try out a number of designs and follow up various ideas/conceptions.
We decided upon using an existing university symbol: the 'i' and creating a character based on the i symbol that can be customized by the individual users. The character can then be stored on their profiles so that every time they utilize the system their own character will appear. The default figure is an androgenous figure who expresses emotions through his eye brows. This also plays on the agents name, i.e. it is an 'i' and his purpose is to 'browse' the university intranet and internet. 'agent-i' is the default setting, which can be used by anybody. Students of the university however can change the profiles held on their student cards to personalize the agent character.
In the prototype stage agent-i was sculpted into the space to give us some idea of how users would utilize the agent and what his role was within the space.
Within the final computer prototype agent-i went digital and fully interactive. Here he can be seen assisting a student named Will to find the location of his interaction design lecture.
An initial design session/thought shower enabled us to try out a number of designs and follow up various ideas/conceptions.
We decided upon using an existing university symbol: the 'i' and creating a character based on the i symbol that can be customized by the individual users. The character can then be stored on their profiles so that every time they utilize the system their own character will appear. The default figure is an androgenous figure who expresses emotions through his eye brows. This also plays on the agents name, i.e. it is an 'i' and his purpose is to 'browse' the university intranet and internet. 'agent-i' is the default setting, which can be used by anybody. Students of the university however can change the profiles held on their student cards to personalize the agent character.In the prototype stage agent-i was sculpted into the space to give us some idea of how users would utilize the agent and what his role was within the space.
Within the final computer prototype agent-i went digital and fully interactive. Here he can be seen assisting a student named Will to find the location of his interaction design lecture.
Design Phases/Re-evaluations
The design process went through a number of distinct phases/iterations that resulted in the final proposed interactive space. The process raised a number of design problems/dilemmas that forced us to re-evaluate how users would interact with the space.
Initial spatial prototype:
An initial spatial prototype helped us to designate areas within the space and understand how our proposed system would be incorporated into the surrounding area.
Second Spatial Prototype:
After various refinements a second prototype was produced, this time taking into consideration disabled access, colour schemes and overall housing units for the various areas. The ground floor is designated for the i-Browse system from which a ramp/walkway leads down to an interactive social area.
Initial i-Browse interface prototype:
The original i-Browse user interface consisted of a central unit at the ground floors central focal point. We decided that this went against our original concept of encouraging multiple users to utilize the space and interact with each other.
Secondary i-Browse implementation:
Multiple units are position around the outside of the central space with seating positioned for its users. After consideration we decided that this too contradicted with our initial conceptual models of the space. The space had lost its focal point which did not seem like an appropriate replacement of the original space.
Final i-Browse interface prototype:
A central Kiosk housing four i-Browse units bring users together around a unified focal point encouraging users to interact with both the interface and other users. The primary seating space is designated on the lower floor. The area now reaches a compromise between public and private space. The dividers between the central units respects the individual users privacy whilst maintaining a central focus for the public space.
With the interface prototype complete it can be incorporated into the overall space complete with roof and seating areas:
Initial spatial prototype:
An initial spatial prototype helped us to designate areas within the space and understand how our proposed system would be incorporated into the surrounding area.
Second Spatial Prototype:
After various refinements a second prototype was produced, this time taking into consideration disabled access, colour schemes and overall housing units for the various areas. The ground floor is designated for the i-Browse system from which a ramp/walkway leads down to an interactive social area.
Initial i-Browse interface prototype:
The original i-Browse user interface consisted of a central unit at the ground floors central focal point. We decided that this went against our original concept of encouraging multiple users to utilize the space and interact with each other.
Secondary i-Browse implementation:
Multiple units are position around the outside of the central space with seating positioned for its users. After consideration we decided that this too contradicted with our initial conceptual models of the space. The space had lost its focal point which did not seem like an appropriate replacement of the original space.
Final i-Browse interface prototype:
A central Kiosk housing four i-Browse units bring users together around a unified focal point encouraging users to interact with both the interface and other users. The primary seating space is designated on the lower floor. The area now reaches a compromise between public and private space. The dividers between the central units respects the individual users privacy whilst maintaining a central focus for the public space.
With the interface prototype complete it can be incorporated into the overall space complete with roof and seating areas:
Design Process
Our design process was based on the following model, created by Dix (2004):
We included five fundamental stages in the process:
1. Requirements
Through the use of questionnaires (see benchmarking section) we attempted to ascertain users’ current perceptions of the space and what they would like to see in the future.
2. Analysis
We then analysed the results of the questionnaire and identified the key concepts and issues relating to the space and what could potentially be seen in the future.
3. Design
Once the key concepts were highlighted we then set about the design process, generating various ideas based on what the users would like to see the space used for.
4. Iteration and Prototyping
This was possibly the most lengthy phase of the design process, as we came up with a variety of prototypes (see design phases section) and adjusted these through various cycles, based on their evaluation and re-evlaiuation.
5. Implementation and Deployment
The final design! Once this was agreed we completed the final prototype for presenting.
Source: Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G.D. and Beale, R. (2004): Human-Computer Interaction. Third Edition. London: Prentice Hall Publishers
We included five fundamental stages in the process:1. Requirements
Through the use of questionnaires (see benchmarking section) we attempted to ascertain users’ current perceptions of the space and what they would like to see in the future.
2. Analysis
We then analysed the results of the questionnaire and identified the key concepts and issues relating to the space and what could potentially be seen in the future.
3. Design
Once the key concepts were highlighted we then set about the design process, generating various ideas based on what the users would like to see the space used for.
4. Iteration and Prototyping
This was possibly the most lengthy phase of the design process, as we came up with a variety of prototypes (see design phases section) and adjusted these through various cycles, based on their evaluation and re-evlaiuation.
5. Implementation and Deployment
The final design! Once this was agreed we completed the final prototype for presenting.
Source: Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G.D. and Beale, R. (2004): Human-Computer Interaction. Third Edition. London: Prentice Hall Publishers
Additional Theoretical Design Issues
In addition to the consideration of Norman's principals of effective design, we referred to Schneiderman's eight golden rules for interface design, specifically concerning the "i-browse" information hub:
1. Consistency
The action sequence and layout of the "i-Browse" i-agent is very simple, with only three limited fundamental actions so as not to confuse the user. These consist of the question state, an answer state and a confused state, for when the user has requested information which the i-agent does not understand.
Similarly the command use of the i-agent is very simplistic, with basic terminology being used in order to active the hub, direct it and close session.
These features in turn, create a consistent, easy to understand and learnable interface for the user.
2. Shortcuts for frequent users
As the i-agent will be intuitive, it will recognize returning users and make suggestions based on their previous usage, namely short-cuts to frequently access information and suggestions for further points of interest. This will in turn generate efficient usage and increase the likelihood of users returning to the system.
3. Feedback
With the i-agent resembling human form, formative feedback will be clearly visibly and audible to the user, via the use of the three actions mentioned above.
4. Closure dialogues
Again, as the i-agent resembles human form, the closure dialogues informing the user when they have completed a task, will be clear.
5. Error prevention and handling
Error prevention has been taken into account via constraining the choices of the user by making all actions of, interactions with and feedback mechanisms for the i-agent clear and visible to the user.
6. Easy reversal of actions
This also links to error prevention mechanisms above. However, i-agent has been designed so that the user can undo any action they have made and/or return to the home screen via a simple command.
7. Internal control mechanisms
While the i-agent is an intuitive system, the user maintains control at all times and has the ability to select and deselect the level of information they require.
8. Keeping displays simple
This again links to consistency above and has been explained.
Source: Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G.D. and Beale, R. (2004): Human-Computer Interaction. Third Edition. London: Prentice Hall Publishers
Saturday, 12 January 2008
Design & Implementation issues
Design considerations & Issues:
Lack of system complexity: The system has to be able to be learnt without the user perceiving the system to be too complex. The users must be able to form a conceptual modal of what they think the system should do. The user must be able to map between what they think would happen and what would actually happen.
As suggested by Donald Norman in "The Design of Everyday things"
"Visibility indicates the mapping between intended actions and actual operations"
Another important principle suggested by D. Norman is the affect of affordance on the user.
It is important within the design of the space that we do not mislead the user and that actions preform the required tasks.
The importance of the systems ability to be understood and provide usable information: The agent has to be understandable to all users even if they are visually impaired, hearing impaired and or speak another language. The system must be able to adapt to the users who is currently using the hub,whether they adapt to the disability or the language the option must be available.
Vandalism: An issue considered is the materials used and how users will precise the objects and materials used. A particular concern was the Hub, the hub will be made of clear glass/ or some form of durable plastic but this will lead the opportunity for people who wish to vandalise the space to graffiti the hub. There is no foreseeable way to prevent this from occurring at the moment.
Safety: Safety and providing a safe environment to the users is an important factor to the design of the space, due to the space being on two levels there have been various design additions that will help ensure the safety of the users. For example, Safety rails, ramps, warning signs (Visual), warning signals (Audio), and different types of surface (i.e surfaces used for the visually impaired to indicate raised or lowered surfaces)
Lack of system complexity: The system has to be able to be learnt without the user perceiving the system to be too complex. The users must be able to form a conceptual modal of what they think the system should do. The user must be able to map between what they think would happen and what would actually happen.
As suggested by Donald Norman in "The Design of Everyday things"
"Visibility indicates the mapping between intended actions and actual operations"
Another important principle suggested by D. Norman is the affect of affordance on the user.
It is important within the design of the space that we do not mislead the user and that actions preform the required tasks.
The importance of the systems ability to be understood and provide usable information: The agent has to be understandable to all users even if they are visually impaired, hearing impaired and or speak another language. The system must be able to adapt to the users who is currently using the hub,whether they adapt to the disability or the language the option must be available.
Vandalism: An issue considered is the materials used and how users will precise the objects and materials used. A particular concern was the Hub, the hub will be made of clear glass/ or some form of durable plastic but this will lead the opportunity for people who wish to vandalise the space to graffiti the hub. There is no foreseeable way to prevent this from occurring at the moment.
Safety: Safety and providing a safe environment to the users is an important factor to the design of the space, due to the space being on two levels there have been various design additions that will help ensure the safety of the users. For example, Safety rails, ramps, warning signs (Visual), warning signals (Audio), and different types of surface (i.e surfaces used for the visually impaired to indicate raised or lowered surfaces)
Evaluation
(1) Usability,
(2) Accessibility,
(3) Learnability,
(4) Fun,
(5) Usefulness,
The group decided that a focus group session would be the best option to address aspects and extract ideas from the participants regarding the interactive space.
We gathered 7 people varying in degrees & Levels from the Student populous.
The Focus groups environment was situated in the UCLANS Preston Library, all members where contacted via email to meet first at the praying hands memorial. Participants where asked to think about the space they where in and talk in a group about their thoughts. The Warp Team did not focus on what was said by the members of the focus group but used the time go get the participants familiar with the context and the environment of the design space.
After that we conducted the rest of the focus group in the experiment area within the UCLAN Library as stated earlier.
The prototype was set up in the centre of the room (on a table) The participating group was informed of the concept and was asked the following prompting questions,
(1) "How usable do you think the prototype is?"
(2) "Do you consider the space to be accessible?"
(3) "How easy/hard do you think it is to learn the system and retain that knowledge?"
(4) "Is the space fun and inviting? / Would you stay there with your friends?"
(5) "How useful is the "i-Browse" concept, would it be a success?"
In response to Question (1):
Users considered the concept of the space to be very usable. The concept appealed to the participants. The users stated that they can look at the system and understand how it is used (Suggesting the formation of a conceptual mental modal of the spaces functionality).
In response to Question (2):
One of the participants stated the accessibility for users with disabilities and there ability to access the spaces design features without limiting an individuals experiences regardless of their inabilities.
The main accessibility issues raised where as follows,
(2) Accessibility,
(3) Learnability,
(4) Fun,
(5) Usefulness,
The group decided that a focus group session would be the best option to address aspects and extract ideas from the participants regarding the interactive space.
We gathered 7 people varying in degrees & Levels from the Student populous.
The Focus groups environment was situated in the UCLANS Preston Library, all members where contacted via email to meet first at the praying hands memorial. Participants where asked to think about the space they where in and talk in a group about their thoughts. The Warp Team did not focus on what was said by the members of the focus group but used the time go get the participants familiar with the context and the environment of the design space.
After that we conducted the rest of the focus group in the experiment area within the UCLAN Library as stated earlier.
The prototype was set up in the centre of the room (on a table) The participating group was informed of the concept and was asked the following prompting questions,
(1) "How usable do you think the prototype is?"
(2) "Do you consider the space to be accessible?"
(3) "How easy/hard do you think it is to learn the system and retain that knowledge?"
(4) "Is the space fun and inviting? / Would you stay there with your friends?"
(5) "How useful is the "i-Browse" concept, would it be a success?"
In response to Question (1):
Users considered the concept of the space to be very usable. The concept appealed to the participants. The users stated that they can look at the system and understand how it is used (Suggesting the formation of a conceptual mental modal of the spaces functionality).
In response to Question (2):
One of the participants stated the accessibility for users with disabilities and there ability to access the spaces design features without limiting an individuals experiences regardless of their inabilities.
The main accessibility issues raised where as follows,
- Visually impaired/ Blind Users
- Hearing Impaired/ Deaf Users
- Motor Impaired (Wheel chair users) Users
Visually Impaired and or Blind Users: This issue was solved due to the technology used with the site, the "i-Browse" systems functionality enables the agent to read relevant i.d cards, thus the i.d card containing relevant information i.e information regarding a persons disability. For this example the Blind, the system would react (direct feedback) by using more expressive terminology and higher sounds. Also areas such as the stair area users who are visually impaired or blind will have flooring indications and hand rails.
Hearing Impaired/ Deaf Users: It was considered the Hearing impaired experience will not be hindered in the site due to the agent being able to provide visual output.
Motor Impaired (Wheel chair users) Users: Certain facilities have been added to the site to ensure that no users of the site has a lesser experience of the site. There will be a ramp provided (built into the steps) and the chair sand the hub can be retracted if needed.
In response to Question (3):
The users considered the system to be self explanatory and previous skills and/or knowledge is not required, the system is voice activated, and no buttons have to be pressed to preform functions.
In response to Question (4):
Participants considered the space to be fun and inviting and they would enjoy interacting and socialising within that space, the understood and welcome the premise of promoting interaction, collaboration and communication. They hoped that the space would be implemented in the future.
In response to Question (5):
Participants considered the concept of an interactive agent and the "i-Browse" to be an innovative idea that aided in providing users with information. They enjoyed the idea that the agent would be fully interactive and helped them with tasks such as checking time tables and looking for cinema listings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)