Implications for Design

Loading...

En provenance du cours de University of Minnesota

User Research and Design

263 notes

Explorer les vidéos de cours associées

Vous trouverez chez Coursera les meilleures vidéos de cours du monde. Voici quelques-unes de nos recommandations personnalisées pour vous

University of Minnesota

User Research and Design

263 notes

Cours 2 sur 5 dans Specialization User Interface Design

In this course you will learn and practice techniques of user research and early UI design exploration. First, you will learn and practice several techniques for user research, including in-person research and survey and log-analysis techniques. Then, you will learn to analyze and deliver user research in forms that support UI design, including personas, use cases, tasks, and scenarios. Finally, you will learn and practice ideation techniques that start from user research and broadly generate potential design ideas.

À partir de la leçon

Analyzing and Delivering User Research

The 3rd and 4th week of the course are intended to be a unit, with more lecture content in week 3, and more practice (assignment and quizzing) in week 4.

Introduction: Translating User Research to Support Design4:27

Qualitative Analysis16:07

Quantitative Analysis8:07

Personas I: What They Are; How They're Used14:44

Personas II: Walking Through Examples25:30

Tasks and Walkthrough Scenarios14:37

Implications for Design12:11

Rencontrer les enseignants

Loren Terveen
Professor
Computer Science and Engineering
Haiyi Zhu
Assistant Professor
Computer Science and Engineering
Lana Yarosh
Assistant Professor
Computer Science and Engineering
Dr. Brent Hecht
Assistant Professor
Computer Science and Engineering
Joseph A Konstan
Distinguished McKnight Professor and Distinguished University Teaching Professor
Computer Science and Engineering

Hello and welcome back.

Today, we'll be talking about the idea of implications for design,

which is another way of communicating the findings of your formative research work.

So the key questions in implications for design is how we can get others, so

let's a say a team of designers or

a team of builders who didn't participate in the formative study.

To really understand the newest findings of our formative work and

use those understandings to make specific design decisions as we move

forward with implementation while the design process and technology.

So we talked about a few of those in previous videos, so

we talked about things like personas and news cases But implications for

design is a particularly common one in computer interaction research.

So frequently, when you look at papers and

this is the example of a previous paper of mine.

I don't expect you to be able to read this but it has something,

a section titled, translating themes into implications and opportunities for design.

Or other papers will actually just have a section that's titled

implications for design.

That help draw out the lessons from this very new ones informative worked

into something that others can intervene and act on.

Overall there's four types of designed implications.

There are sensitizing concepts, there are abstraction and meta-abstraction,

instantiation of the designed, and prescription.

And we'll talked about each of these when we look at more details here.

So the first of these are Sensitizing Concepts.

The idea that your formative work could have pointed out to some

underlying concept that a designer must keep in mind as they are designing.

These are frequently rather broad.

So sometimes, they point out kind of shortcomings of previous work in their

field or something that previous work in the field hasn't really considered.

So three examples of this might be considering conflict and

non-consensus in families.

This is something that came out of my previous research.

What I saw is that a lot of work in human computer interaction

treated the family as a single unit that had kind of harmonious goals.

But as I was studying divorced families and families where parents travel a lot,

I actually found that there were a lot of examples where the two parents don't agree

with each other, or

the goals of the parents may conflict with the goals of the child.

And so, a sensitizing concept that I may want to communicate to designers for

family technologies is not to assume that everybody's on the same page.

To really consider the idea of conflict and non-consensus.

Similarly, in a recent talk I heard, it talked about the idea of digital privacy.

And particularly focused on a very important group,

survivors of partner abuse.

Frequently when you talk about digital privacy to technology researchers,

you might get flippant answers like privacy is good.

If you expect privacy,

then that's something you're never going to get in the modern world.

But the context of survivors of partner abuse is a really interesting one where we

really do want people to be able to feel safe again and to be able

break the cycle of abuse, escape their abuser, and be safe afterwards.

But where technology may actually do things that can reveal their location or

reveal something about them that they don't want their abuser to know.

And it kind of flips that idea.

Really does mean that we have kind of a moral imperative as designers to consider

digital privacy, rather than say, if somebody wants privacy,

they should not use our system.

And as another example, a lot of work on online health support communities.

So in my case, this is working with people who use technology for recovery from

addiction and alcoholism, finds underlying concepts like the idea of trust.

So how people use the community and what they find valuable and

it really depends on how much they trust the other members of the community.

So if you think about trust as a desensitizing concept,

you may design your systems in different ways.

You may design your systems in such a way that it increases that idea of trust.

Or increases the idea of social capital between two people really continue

exchanging support until they can trust one another.

But as you see these are all kind of broads.

So they're not saying specifically build X or build Y.

They're saying consider this ideas because they're important to think about as you're

deciding what to design or how to go about it.

The other kind of level may be something like abstraction or meta-abstraction.

So what it does is it's clarifies important abstract functionalities, but

it may not yet specify specific technologies or solutions.

So for example I did a lot of work with cross cultural families,

one of the things I found that one abstract functionalities that may help

those people Is helping them discover shared or conflicting values.

So when people come from different cultures they may not even know ahead of

time that they have some values that conflict but

actually asking them to perhaps share those values or respond to them

is helpful for them deciding what to do in cases where conflict does arise.

Now, here I'm not saying, well, you should design a Facebook of sorts,

where you put down all your values and then it compares all your values to your

extended family's values and points out the differences.

I'm just saying that any way you can confide of helping

family members discover those shared values could be useful.

Similarly, in my work on supporting parent-child communication across

distance, one of the things that I found was that a lot of technologies that have

developed for communication really have originally been developed for adults so

they focus on this idea of conversation, the idea of talking to each other.

But I found that the abstract functionality that's particularly

important for communication with children is actually shared activities,

because that's what parents and kids tend to have their most meaningful

conversations is when they're doing something together.

Whether that's playing a game or helping with homework or even doing the dishes

together, rather than just sitting across the table from each other and

asking each other questions.

So again, I'm not saying exactly how that shared activity could be supported.

I mean it could be Minecraft,

it could be World of Warcraft that you're playing together.

It could be some sort of an online help for homework portal.

But I'm just saying that the abstract functionality that is important to support

is that idea of shared activity.

And as the last example one of the things that I find in my work on

helping people recover from addiction and

alcoholism is that in person contact is very important for that social support.

So you may think about the idea of how to reward people as they spend more time

together with other people in recovery, or how to help connect them with other people

who are nearby, so they can get that in person contact.

But again, the idea is that the abstract functionality you want to support

is connecting people in person, rather than only connecting people online.

So let's talk about the third type of implication for

design which is known as instantiation.

So this is perhaps the easiest one to explain.

So this is about providing a possible design solution.

So these are actually two sketches from a paper on class cultural parenting.

And they provide two very specific instantiated design solutions.

So the one on the right is called cultural care box,

and the idea is that members of the family from multiple cultures would sign up for

a box to learn more about the other culture.

And they would get digital artifacts like recipes for food to make, videos to watch,

something like cartoons to share with kids.

Articles about specific holidays, and so

it's basically information to help them respect the other culture more.

Another example, the one on the left here is called Quizomatics.

So this is kind of a specific instantiation of one of the abstractions,

abstract functionalities that I was talking about on the previous slide.

So before I was saying help family members discover shared and conflicting values.

And Quizomatic is supposed to do that by giving you fun quizzes that you can take.

Which generates sharables that you can share on Facebook something like

the Harry Potter parent I most like is Molly Wesley or

something like that, something that you have fun sharing.

But then it also combines those answers from your partner, from your extended

family and gives you kind of points where you can easily compromise so

things where perhaps one person really cares deeply about something.

The other person may not agree but

they don't really care that much about the way it's done.

That's needed compromise or discussion points so areas where both people care

deeply and we have disagreements that can lead to discussions on the topic and gives

some opportunities to celebrate the values that they do share in common as well.

So again, these are very specific actual solutions to the idea here as I'm saying

you make a website and the person who's using this website goes through this

process to actually arrive at identifying these shared values.

Whereas the previous abstraction idea was just identifying

abstract functionalities that would be useful for people.

And the last type of implication for design is known as prescription.

So this idea is about prescribing or saying specific requirements for

a solution to work.

So these can be fairly low levels.

So for example, if you're designing some sort of video chat system,

you may say that the frame-rate should be at least 30 frames per second to support

smooth interaction.

So it's a very concrete specific requirement that the system might need.

Or maybe you're doing something like a crowdsource system,

system where answers for questions are gathered from people online.

And so, what you want is your answers to be validated by at least three other

crowdworkers in order to prevent spam from being part of the answer.

So it's a kind of another example, it's being very concrete.

Or it may be you're doing something like experience sampling which is sending

texts to participants to ask them answers to specific questions.

Perhaps to inform your digital system that you're building.

And a specific requirement might be something like it's

not sending anymore than three texts a day.

Otherwise, participants might find that intrusive and not accept your system.

So again these are very, very specific,

they're telling exactly what the system should do and system to actually work.

So taking all those together, what is it that makes a good implication for design,

because all of these four are actually quite different from each other.

And so, I said there's kind of four different things that are important for

implication for site to have.

I mean the first one is obvious, it should be accurate to your context,

so if you're trying to describe and get these implications for

design from your formative work.

The implication should in fact be true to what your participants shared whether

through interviews or things that you observe,

the participants doing informative study.

The other thing is should be interesting enough that it generates and

inspires future work.

If you're telling people something they already knew,

then i'ts not early going to do that much to inspire future work.

It should be actionable.

So this is perhaps harder with some of them are more abstract ideas like

sensitizing concept or future abstractions.

But it should be something that the designer can look at him and think, yes,

I think I can see which designs would work based on a implication, and

which designs wouldn't work based on a implication.

And lastly, it should be original and novel, and this is perhaps

the quality that's most prized in research publications on the topic, but I

think most people want to be surprised by the findings of of a formative study and

not just be told things that they already know.

Now, the last point that I want to leave you with is that

the question of who writes implications for

design is actually a very debated question in our research community.

So in the past it's typically been kind of the ethnographer or

the formative researcher who works on the project.

But others have pointed out that perhaps doing good implications for

design requires some design skills as well.

And perhaps it should be a designer that actually creates those implications for

design, and then acts on them.

And certainly, there's a lot of debate and

I'll point you to the paper that has that discussion.

I'd be curious to hear what you think of this.

So for more information, there's two papers that I think are really good reads,

so, one is generating implications for design and it actually covers all

four of these categories that I've also covered in these slides.

It kind of discusses how other authors have.

Discussed implications for design that came out of their formative work, and

in general, which ones are more or less common is our research community.

And the second one is a critical discussion of implications for

design that kind of follows onto this question of,

who should be writing these implications for design and should formative research

towards the judge based on the implications for design that it provides.

So that's all that I have for you today and I hope to see you in the next video.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play