Yu Centrik

As I was opening a CAMINO chocolate bar, I saw this drawing on the packaging. This got me thinking about how large of a role sketching plays in explaining concepts in our day-to-day lives.

In the case of Camino, a sketch is being used to explain the company’s philosophy based on an equation: “Following the rules of fair trade when producing organic chocolate promotes sustainable development.”

The approach was described in six words and three drawings on the packaging. I described it in 13 words. Seven less words to be translated in various languages, we already see an advantage of associating text with illustrations.

As for the 3 sketches, there is nothing to translate. If they were well-tested, the images could be explicit enough to be spread internationally and be understood by a large audience, regardless of their country and language spoken.
Just in case they are not explicit enough, the text provides missing keywords.

I could also cite relevant examples of airplane security and IKEA furniture assembly instructions

In the past, image was used to support text, bringing further clarity to a message.
Today, text completes image.
Still, a question remains: why does the sketch have so much impact on us and why are designers using it more and more in product design, services, telecommunications, advertisement, documentation, training, etc?

Let’s try to answer this using a small exercise.

Let’s compare sketches and photos.
To what extent does this dimension change the message conveyed by the designer and received by the observer?

In this situation, we can see that sketching is a more effective way to communicate an idea, concept, or philosophy to a large audience because:
- visuals are processed first;
- presented situations are linked to people’s experiences without giving too much detail (which tends to slow down processing of the message);
-the sketch amplifies the meaning of the message by presenting a tiny story which can be understood and easily remembered by all (and can often make people smile, too).

The sketch can be very seductive but, as illustrated by Camino, it is inseparable from keywords which specify its message and “lock its meaning” (Scott McCloud, Faire de la bande dessinée).
So go forth and sketch!… but remember to associate some text.

References

. Bill Buxton, 2007, Sketching the user Experiences – getting the design right and the right design, Elsevier Inc.
. Scott McCloud, 1993, Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art
. Scott McCloud, 2007, Faire de la bande dessinée, Paris, Delcourt, 2007

Read more blogs on the subject

Why (do) we sketch?
http://www.uie.com/articles/why_sketching/
http://keepthenoisedown.typepad.com/keep_the_noise_down_blog/user-centred-design/
http://www.simplestroke.com/wp/?p=64

Source images

Photo - CAMINO
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UptJac8-y1k/TYanXhBP8rI/AAAAAAAAA5U/L6BqiYAd72E/s1600/camino.jpg

Photo - Biologique
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/DbdrtTesv53/Migrant+Workers+Employed+Colorado+Largest/rBePyZssvD_

Photo – Commerce équitable
http://maineroot.com/?page_id=95

Communautés développement durable
http://www.thejetnewspaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/KINDERGARTEN-VISIT-webcopy-254×134.jpg

Icons
http://www.seoguruji.com/images/icon_organic.gif
http://www.green-living.com/designimages/icon-fair-trade.gif
http://www.shu.ac.uk/business/sites/all/themes/zen/shu/assets/sustainability/communities.png

Facebook as a social media platform to share photos, links, knowledge, experiences, opinions, thoughts, text, articles, events …

… Or as a rewarding promotional tool, as a visibility tool for micro-communities (music bands, associations, movements, “like”) …

… Or as a tool for games / competitions / quizzes and other fun gadgets …

This, we know.

But Facebook as an online ethnography tool which can help us understand how users operate in a certain domain, this is less known.

Several articles mention social networks as an incredible source of information which can help us design products adapted to users.

Robert V. Kozinets (2010) has put forward the concept of “Netnography” [1], asserting that in order to fully understand society, it would be relevant to observe user activity on the Internet, especially on social networks.

Johan Fuller et al. [2] describe how virtual communities can be a a source of innovation and expertise during different stages of the design process. This collaborative design approach would involve selecting members of an online community to work with on a regular basis through a sharing application.

So why and how can Facebook be such a valuable source of information to understand behaviour in a way which will help design process?

Facebook as a huge logbook
User participation throughout the design process is highly relevant to collect data on their overall experience, even if neither the participants nor the developers had initially agreed to collaborate in any official agreement.

We noticed this during a recent project. We realized Facebook’s potential as a tool for an analysis of needs which could fuel improvements of both Facebook « pages » and external websites.  Not to mention the inspiration this data can provide for long-term design directions.

Some background…
The project centered on redesigning a website for a lifestyle challenge; the aim is to advocate health through better eating habits and regular physical activity. The challenge takes place over six weeks and any Quebecers older than 4 years old can participate. To win the challenge (and win prizes), a participant must achieve three objectives related to diet, physical activity and well-being.

The website offers numerous articles and editorials on the subject and also offers tools, interactive games, quizzes, videos, etc.

In addition to the website, the challenge also has a Facebook page. The primary objective of this page is to provide a stimulating and unifying tool where a community of fans and participants can interact and get motivated during the challenge.

This platform helped us better understand the perceptions and behaviours of participants at three key stages: before, during and after the challenge.

While these elements were only analyzed after the challenge ended, Facebook’s temporal archiving of past activities easily allowed us to return to these three specific periods.

Example 1 :
During registration, the ambassador of the challenge promotes the challenge on Facebook and asks open-ended questions to figure out participant motivations:

• How many times have they participated in this challenge?

• What do they expect to get out of this challenge? Etc.

In addition to learning more about participants’ expectations and motivations, we also learned of their difficulty with the registration form.

These clues enabled us to instantiate specific changes to the future registration form, but above all we were able to further inform our decisions by using surveys and diving deeper on certain questions.

Example 2 :
During the challenge, the ambassador tries to learn more about how participants are meeting the challenge:

• Have they experienced difficulties from the beginning?

• What “tricks” are they using to complete the challenge?

Some participants described a calendar they had designed themselves to view their progress; this indirectly informed us of which criteria were important to help people stay motivated.

A forum also emerged, created entirely by the participants themselves without any moderation from the administrators of the challenge. This forum was being used by participants to make announcements for their peers (eg, creating a walking group for participants living in the same municipality, etc.).  The forum was also a venue for informal discussions among participants without having to respond directly to the moderator.

Example 3:
At the end of the challenge, a number of comments indicated that participants had enjoyed the challenge and would maintain their objectives to the longer term.

Facebook was not only used as a promotional showcase for the challenge, but also analyzed as an ethnographic tool similar to diary/journal study.  The approach was exploratory (neither the participants nor the team members of the challenge thought of Facebook in this way, therefore they hadn’t guided discussions or analyzed this data through any experimental and scientific protocol), limited (eventual solutions are the result of a small group of individuals, and the content had not been tested by medical experts such as nutritionists, psychologists, etc..) and had bias (discussions had been fed the same people).  However, the advantages lie in the approach being simple, instantaneous, affordable, non-intrusive and a natural facilitator of participant-designer interaction.

Discussion
There are a few principles and issues which must be followed to carry out a collaborative design via Facebook.

Facebook and moderation
A moderator / analyst has an important role in the success of these discussions. For our project, this moderator was the ambassador of the challenge, a public and officially designated representative. Would our results have been as good with a researcher who is unknown in the virtual community?

According to Kozinets, the presence of the researcher must be revealed to the virtual community [3] but this information will grow the risk of bias. This discussion must be had by the designers.

Facebook and confidentiality or data protection
The comments were often very positive. Does this tendency to voice positive sentiment on a social network (mind you, one which provides the ability “Like” without the ability to “Dislike”),  influence user feedback?

Or is it the lack of confidentiality that prevents users to truly express themselves and participate in discussions?  This could diminish the open collaborative element, biasing the results.

Another question: Does the fact that Facebook’s content is public make the data a little less credible? Some form of private Facebook could probably get more objective feedback and ideas, closer to the reality experienced by the participants.

Facebook and scientific rigour or data relevance
The comments on Facebook may be imprecise or unclear with respect to the actual experience of participants.

Questions asked by the moderator should be prepared specifically to guide conversations and collect relevant data on targeted goals.

Participants could also be classified in order to contribute to different profiles, generating new ideas, concepts and opportunities in the longer term.

Other external actors could also be integrated into the project (such as medical experts) to explain some reactions, behaviours and psychological mechanisms.

Facebook could be used as a first step to identify topics and issues, setting a foundation for deeper, extensive research endeavours (surveys, iterative interviews, personalized testimonials, etc.) which go beyond the verbal, identifying exactly what values should inform the design process.

Facebook and the diversity of tools
There are a wide range of tools relevant to the user experience on Facebook which can facilitate data gathering by offering users choice of which functionalities they feel most comfortable with: forums, archives, whiteboards to draw design ideas or emotional states, archive the “tricks” used by participants to complete the challenge.

Analysis of these data could reveal the main themes of discussions, identifying the factors which affect the experience of challenge participants.

Facebook and the context of the project
The context here is a study of a 6-week challenge that aligns with the temporal reality of Facebook.

Using this approach in other contexts, one should ensure that Facebook could be adapted as a tool for collaborative design.

Conclusion
Facebook is not yet an accepted collaborative design tool to consider for the reasons mentioned above. However it does have the potential give ideas and trends on how users interact with the interface. It can inspire design ideas. Any data must be analyzed carefully.

Further studies need to be conducted to determine the contribution of such a tool in collaborative design process.

Where does Yu Centrik fit in?

Yu Centrik is a firm renowned for applying ethnographic methods to the design of innovative customer experiences. We are currently looking for tools to extend the techniques for gathering information such as observation, shadowing and interviews. When the analyst is gone, what can we use to get feedback from user experience and inform developers?

Journal studies are cumbersome to administer; this is why we are actively searching for experience sharing tools which not only enable us to gather information, but also allow us to create the same « social » effect as a group interview where participants encourage each other and provide more detail than they would alone. We are seeking a tool which enables participants to document their ideas, comments, wishes, etc. on a private social platform for the obvious reasons of confidentiality for both of our participants and the intellectual property of our customers. If this tool does not yet exist, I guess we’ll have to design it! ☺

—————————————-

SOURCES

Bibliography

[1] Robert, V. Kozinets, 2010, Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research, Sage Publications Ltd.

[2] J. Füller et co., 2006, Community based innovation: How to integrate members of virtual communities into new product development, Electronic Commerce Research , Volume 6, Issue 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[3] L. Touzani et J.L. Gianelloni, Le choc culturel dans l’expérience d’hospitalité touristique. Une approche netnographique (2010), 15ème Journée de Recherche en marketing de Bourgogne.

Image

People in the street by Marlies Odehnal

http://www.redbubble.com/people/artodem/art/7743013-people-in-the-street99998

Prototyping is an essential part of design. At some point during the process of creating and releasing a great product, building a prototype is inevitable. Prototyping allows you to validate your design choices with developers, project stakeholders and, most importantly, target users. A good prototype is simply the best way to share, communicate and get quick feedback on your design ideas.

In the world of mobile devices, the evaluation of native applications, mobile websites and web apps is crucial. While desktop PCs have been around for about 40 years and the World Wide Web is celebrating its 20 year anniversary, mobile devices are relatively new. The history of web has seen a number of design standards emerge. Despite the constant evolution of the platform, best practices can help anticipate user behaviour on any desktop web application. Since the same can’t be said about touch phones and tablets, validating design choices as soon as possible becomes crucial. For mobile, fewer best practices exist and user behaviour is hard to predict.

PROTOTYPE SOONER THAN LATER
So what’s the right moment to prototype when designing for mobile devices? It’s not that different than other areas of design: you need start as soon as possible and you can’t stop until you are confident about the solution you are proposing. Throughout the creative process, the purpose of your prototype will evolve, and so should its actual manifestation.  At the brainstorming stage, you may simply be trying to communicate and get feedback about specific ideas from your peers with a couple of hand-drawn sketches.  However, later in the process, you may be hoping to perform a more serious evaluation of high-fidelity prototypes with real users.

One persistent issue with mobile prototyping is its small screen.  While you may be able to get away with larger brainstorm sketches, we advise running all prototypes on a real mobile device to simulate the size of your user interface (UI), the feel of your website/application, and the way people interact with it.

Another crucial aspect surrounds the fact that prototypes are meant to be shared. The whole point is to share them with the people from whom you need feedback, so the ability to serve as a communication tool for your interaction design is a basic attribute of every prototype. You have to easily be able to get it out there to see what people think, how they use it and what they understand (or don’t understand), in a way which reflects the actual proposed application.

But before you start building a prototype, you need to clearly define what you want to communicate, what kind of interaction you want to validate and what type of feedback you need. List the features you want to show, the questions you want to ask and based on that, write the usage scenarios that will help take people through your product.

Depending on your scenarios the prototype you will develop will fall in one of the three different categories:

LOW-FIDELITY PROTOTYPES
Prototypes can be as simple as a slide show of drawings made of pictures taken with your phone camera. Showing these pictures in your phone allow people to provide initial feedback regarding labels, positioning of objects, visibility and other elements that don’t require interactivity.

If you want to go one step further, you need to provide a way for people to interact with the pictures in order to simulate realistic scenarios. A number of different applications available in the market today make adding interactivity to your screens and running your prototype on a mobile phone quite easy. These tools help you link your screens together so people can navigate through them as if they were using a real mobile website or app. On the iPhone, tools like Realizer and Mockability help you build a prototype in a couple of minutes and easily share them. Invision is a recently launched web-based prototyping tool that works with all platforms.

If learning how to use another piece of software in not on your plans, some of the best tools for basic prototyping are likely already on your system: Apple’s Keynote and Microsoft Powerpoint. They both have the necessary functionality to link slides very easily and then export the “presentation” to a PDF file that can be “read” on all mobile platforms. A major advantage of these software packages is the number of available UI libraries for iPhone, Android, Blackberry and others.

One the best libraries in the market today is Keynotopia. Available for Keynote, Powerpoint and even OpenOffice, it provides UI libraries for the iPhone, iPad, Android, Blackberry and Windows Phone 7. It also offers an iPhone/iPaq app optimized to display your PDF prototypes. Or you can use your PDF reader of choice, like Goodreader on the iPhone or ezPDF on Android.

These tools are extremely useful when you need to create rapid prototypes to validate basic aspects of your design like labels, size and location of objects and the basic understanding of the navigation and flow.

MEDIUM-FIDELITY PROTOTYPES
Basic prototypes can only take you so far. You will frequently face the challenge of trying to communicate or test your design when users can’t see or do certain things you need them to do. Simple things like page scrolling can’t be achieved with linked screenshots like those in the basic prototyping category. You will often find yourself hitting a wall with the limitations imposed by basic prototypes. You will want to overcome some of these limitations to be able to explore your ideas in more detail.

The tools previously presented are good for the early stages of a project but as you move forward, more advanced tools are needed to allow you to reproduce the behaviour of your product. Fortunately we are not short of them. The market is full of powerful and simple to use tools that will take your prototypes to another level. Tools like Axure, Justinmind, Flairbuilder, Protoshare and Fireworks let you create more complex interactions and allow you to quickly share and get feedback on your prototypes. You can simulate data entry, add conditional behaviour, and even animations; all this without writing a single line of code. These tools have a slightly higher learning curve, but nothing that is out of the reach of designers accustomed to typical drawing tools.

These tools give more control over the whole experience and help you simulate behaviours that are closer to the way your application or website will actually work.

HIGH-FIDELITY PROTOTYPES
If you need a prototype that behaves as close as possible to how the final product is supposed to behave, you’ll need to dedicate more time it, maybe even getting your hands dirty and writing some code. It doesn’t mean you need to start from scratch, but you’ll need be ready to play with HTML/CSS/JavaScript or some other programming languages. Combining rudimentary coding skills with tools like PhoneGap, jQuery Mobile and Sencha Touch will allow you to create extremely rich prototypes that can be tweaked to run well in different platforms. Limitations lie only in your coding skills and time.

The advantages of this approach are extended control of the final result and the ability to reuse generated code if done well.

CONCLUSION
There’s no excuse today to skip the prototyping phase of designing mobile applications/websites. The number of tools available, whether you need a rapid prototype or a more advanced one, is growing everyday.  These tools can do a pretty good job of simulating interactivity for validation purposes at very reasonable prices (often for free). The market for mobile applications and websites is growing more and more competitive. Transparent review systems where people openly criticize and spread the word about bad applications make prototyping an essential part of your design process: you simply can’t afford to correct mistakes after building your application.

In industrial design projects, including everything from improving the user experience of an interactive television system to performing open-ended user research for an upcoming product, designers are presented with the challenge of synthesizing best practices and contextual analysis into an effective human-computer interface.  I’ve encountered a significant amount of confusion with respect to the priority of quantitative and qualitative information.  The fact is, commercial design is a discipline which will forever walk the line between the subjective and objective.  This raises a major question:

How do we know when to rely on statistics and when to trust our creative instincts?

STATISTICS VS. CREATIVITY

The scientific approach to solving a problem suggests hypothesizing a solution based on previous work, testing it experimentally, and reporting results.  Through such theory and experimentation, we can draw conclusions which move us closer to understanding and solving real problems.  And so goes the science of user experience design.  Based on previous experience, best practices, experimental evidence, I can suggest a design solution which will likely optimize the interface between a certain technology and its users.  Performing usability tests allows me to validate my suggested interface and tweak the system, creating a predictably usable interface.  Simple, right?

Wrong.

What’s missing from this description is the artistic.  The fact of the matter is that human-computer interaction design can benefit substantially from a creative approach.  When our clients want systems which engage, attract and achieve a sense of flow, we need to move beyond the objective, incremental scientific process.  The artistic approach represents an increase in risk but also potential reward (especially in a growing, competitive industry).  By constantly evolving our art-form through our experience with innovative products on various projects in various contexts, we improve our ability to build designs which communicate with users; the deeper our insight into the human experience, the more depth we can provide in artful, “big picture,” interactive solutions.

So what’s the correct answer?  When should we trust the numbers, and when should we take creative risks?  While each project needs its own tailored approach, every designer must be aware that both methods are interrelated.  Their relationship is not simple, but I can certainly provide some insight directly from my experience researching, designing and testing human-computer interfaces.

SIX RULES TO BALANCE THE SCIENCE WITH THE ART

1.  A completely objective and numeric approach is a safe bet when time and budget are constrained.  In a quick project which doesn’t have time for abstract design methods and adequate user testing, a more objective approach is typically a good way to minimize risk and get a quick job done with minimal internal controversy.

2.  With a client who is willing to take risks for reward, a completely objective and numeric approach is a missed opportunity.  While interface usability can be improved with an objective scientific approach, the other elements of the user experience tend to be neglected.  Where possible, attempting to inject creative and innovative approaches where possible can help increase overall flow, mental modeling, engagement, hedonic factors (fun), and user satisfaction.  In a thriving industry, innovative solutions can be a major competitive edge.

3.  A completely improvised creative approach is never a good idea.  It may work occasionally for graphic and visual design, but principles and existing work in human psychology and industrial design allow us to avoid blindly hoping that our users will react well.  There is always a place for science, even in the most creative approaches.

4.  Facts not only predict user behaviour, but they also inspire creative design solutions.  Facts about how users interact with a system tend to logically suggest a solution.  For instance, the fact that “90% of users didn’t notice the button” would suggest that this button needs to be bigger and more prominent.  However, when taking all problems into account, it becomes clear that not everything on the screen can be prominent; we can’t simply enlarge every button.  A few behavioural facts may lead designers’ instincts to a deeper level.  It is here where the experienced designer’s creative approach can solve many problems at once with a more elegant design solution.

5.  The more testing you’ve planned, the more creative risk you can afford to take.  If your project has several iterative tests planned, you should inform your design team that innovation is expected.  Lateral and less-directed design methods like parallel prototyping and group workshops can lead to innovative and groundbreaking solutions which not only optimize the usability of the interface, but generate an engaging and attractive user experience which gets people talking.  Sure, there will be failed tests and wrong steps, but without experimenting, how can you possibly expect to innovate?

6.  Fix edge-cases when they don’t affect more common use cases.  When testing a design with many users, if a very small minority of users has trouble with a certain element, it may seem statistically irrelevant.  However, if such problems seem repairable without affecting other users, they’re still worth fixing.  Think about it, if only 1 out of 10 test participants have trouble with an element, the problem could either be negligible or it may translate to 10% of all your users, or maybe even more!  If you’ve identified a problem that’s easy to fix and doesn’t harm the experience of other users, why take the risk?

–

Hope this helps you walk the line!

It is often necessary to use fairly complex tools to perform usability tests on voice interfaces (cf. Nexus[1], Database Systems Corp.[2]). One of our projects involved a touch-activated automated telephone information system. We required a test solution that was flexible, easy to build, and which provided a relatively natural simulation of a telephone call that would allow us to capture the call and a certain number of events during said call. It also had to be easy to modify and not too expensive.

We therefore developed a simple flash utility that was adapted to simulate a user’s phone call into a voice interface. It had the following characteristics:

1. Easy to use interface;
2. Not demanding: running this kind of application only requires an Internet explorer and a FLASH player;
3. Simple to modify: tests were iterative, so changes were made to the application’s structure after each test (three in all);
4. Allows the user to manage streaming video and audio. Works with video and audio recording software;
5. Helps collect and analyze data: for every call, the tool allowed us to capture the type of button pressed, the steps taken through the voice interface, the amount of time spent listening to messages, etc…  All of these data are critical for performing an in-depth usability analysis of any voice interface.
6. Easy to transfer to other voice interface applications.
7. Not too expensive: a FLASH developer developed this tool for us in two weeks.

Tool Description (Front End)

A simple screen reproduces a virtual telephone, which only the moderator can see and operate. Participants hear the instructions and press the buttons on the external numeric keypad to move on to the following instructions. Voice prompts are played on the computer’s audio port.
The moderator can record the participant’s name and surname, as well as the type of scenario and persona. The moderator launches the application; stops it whenever the participants are finished with their tasks; can interrupt the process at any moment during playback; and can replay any section.

During the call, the buttons the participants touch appear on the screen one after the other. Thus, the moderator sees in real time what steps the participants took. It also helps avoid errors in note-taking and compile the interface’s critical points quickly between participants.
Logs are also available to retrace the in-session keypad interactions: number of times zero was pressed, time spent inactive, etc…

Control System (Back End)

The interface’s structure management application assigns a telephone keypad key to each menu option. This is how the voice application’s menu path, options, and messages are created, how mp3 audio files are associated to them, and how errors, inactivity, redirects and message interruptions are accounted for.

Example:

A menu is created from left to right (see the figure above).

1. Click on ¨+¨ to create a new thread. Click on ¨-¨ to delete one. A “thread” is a menu, a message, a choice of languages, etc.

2. Name it and assign it a type (menu, message, etc.) according to its internally-defined nomenclature. The mp3 audio file (recorded in English or French) should have the same name. Assign it a time. This is the time within which a user should react (like three seconds, as in our example).

3. In the right-hand section, each key on the keypad is assigned a function and a response is defined for inactivity or error (ex: what sound to play if no key has been pressed within three seconds).
As you can see, the structure can be modified very quickly.

Conclusion

The results showed that FLASH, which is most commonly used for graphic interfaces, can also be handy for prototyping voice interfaces.
It can be used to develop a flexible application quickly, when you need to replicate a telephone call and to easily record the user’s experience.

The system has the added advantage of being transposable to other voice applications. We see the potential to use it in remote usability tests in the future, since FLASH makes it possible to develop interactive multimedia tools online and in local environments.

Still, the tool needs to be improved by linking up with a real telephone. This would most resemble a real call made from home.

Webliographic References
[1] Franz Neeser. Testing IVR Systems, White paper. Nexus Telecom AG, Switzerland. May 2005.
http://www.nexus- ag.com/fileadmin/documents/Whitepaper/White_Paper_IVR_Testing_
Nexus8610_Ed_2.2.pdf

[2] Database Systems Corp.

Source image
Laptop computer image: openclipart.org/media/files/aurium/4163

So, where do I start?  If you’ve been following my Twitter @jayvidyarthi, you know that last week I experienced an overload of knowledge transfer at the annual CHI conference in Boston.  I wanted to write a blog updating all of you on some of the fantastic methodologies, processes and technologies on the fringe of our field.  First, let me tell you a little about my read on the main theme of the conference.

Tying directly into the Closing Plenary delivered by Kees Overbeeke from Eindhoven, I observed the underlying theme of HCI and design today as focusing on the humanization of technology.  Computer systems no longer have to be cold and digital.  Instead, they can behave more organically, installing themselves into our lives in a natural way.  Kees described how our relationships with technology can even go beyond such seamless integration.  He presented a lamp which gradually loses power.  As one pets the lamp, as if it were a cat or dog, it comes back to life.  This was an example of technology which can appeal to our emotions and connect with our users in a more profound way (while also being environmentally friendly!).  The tradeoffs between a practical and useful lamp and a “pet” lamp are still to be explored, but Kees’ point of view undoubtedly inspires questions about the future directions of human-computer interaction.

Although not every researcher is ‘dreaming of the impossible’ like Kees, a broad survey of projects from various angles at CHI 2009 show that seamless integration is the underlying theme of our technological future.  I decided to summarize a few interesting projects for you to check out, but by no means is this a comprehensive summary.  Check out the official CHI program summary to get many more descriptions and references on the fringe of HCI.

Some Highlights

• Eric Gilbert’s work on building a predictive model for social networks allowing a system such as Facebook to automatically distinguish your close friends from your distant acquaintances based on your behaviour with the system.  A short summary on Eric’s blog
• John Zimmerman is building a strong design philosophy centered around creating products which promote self-identity.  An application of product attachment theory to design specifically for role transition and self enhancement.  Really fantastic stuff for the creative theorist.  John’s Research Description
• Sunny Consolvo is working on the Ubifit Garden, a wallpaper for your mobile phone which measures how much time you spend sedentary, walking, running, biking, etc., and grows flowers and plants to indicate your physical exertion.  The system serves as a subtle ambient measure of your own exercise which creates a motivating factor within your cellphone.  A Poster Describing the Ubitfit Garden
• Tovi Grossman et. al. at Autodesk are designing and testing a new approach to measure the learnability of an interface: the Question-Suggestion model.  By having a coach directly interact with users, the method extracts specific problems and provides a more precise measure of interface learnability.  Extremely valuable for any kind of longitudinal usability testing of complex interfaces.  Description of the Paper @ ACM
• David Geerts from Leuven presented well-justified heuristics for the implementation of social functionality in interactive TV systems.  Hopefully I’ll hear more from David when I head to Euro ITV 2009 in Belgium to present Yu Centrik’s interactive TV research findings.  David’s Presentation Slides (jump to slide 33)
• Sarah Diefenbach and Mark Hassenzahl presented a thought-provoking piece on the interaction of Beauty and Usability on consumer product choice.  The paper served as a launching point for an intense panel discussion including a tirade on the definition of beauty from Bill Buxton.  Very engaging stuff.  Sarah and Mark’s Thought-Provoking Paper
• Leanne Hirshfield from Robert Jacob’s lab at Tufts University presented some early work on using fNIR brain imaging to get a read on human syntactic and semantic workload.  The eventual fruits of this work could lead to interfaces which can adapt to the users’ cognitive load by reading bloodflow in the brain.  If this project starts to fly, interfaces could get very interesting.  A Description of the Adaptive Interfaces using fNIR Project
• Alexander Hoffman is working on TypeRight, a keyboard which uses language dictionaries to adjust the resistance of keys on the keyboard based on the probability of each letter being pressed.  I tried using the keyboard and barring some minor technical issues, it seems to have potential to help us avoid type-os and increase our overall typing speed.  The TypeRight Project
• David Frolich presented a case study of StoryBank, a mobile-phone and touch-screen based system allowing children in rural India to develop narrated slideshow videos.  Being a kind of “local, embodied youtube”, the interfaces involved no language, enabling use by illiterate children in the village.  The findings were quite surprising, and the videos made were very powerful.  David was intent on stressing how our technology can help the developing world.  The StoryBankHomepage

Again, if you enjoy this type of work, check out the CHI program summary for more quick descriptions!  If you want details and have access to ACM’s digital library, check out the full proceedings.