Intro to HCI / Why is Design Hard?

Transcription

1 Intro to HCI / Why is Design Hard? September 12, 2016 Fall 2016 COMP

2 Announcements A02 notes: A01 notes: Fall 2016 COMP

3 Announcements Assignment 1 is posted Due Sept 23 by 5:00pm on UMLearn A1 is an individual assignment Please read through it and bring any questions to class on Wed Fall 2016 COMP

4 Fall 2016 COMP

5 Today Interfaces vs. Interactions Historical Overview Interaction Paradigms Visionaries Why is design hard? Fall 2016 COMP

6 What makes a good interface? Fall 2016 COMP

7 What makes a good experience? Fall 2016 COMP

8 What makes a good experience? Fall 2016 COMP

9 What makes a good experience? Fall 2016 COMP

10 Now you Tell me about something you ve used that provided you with a good experience. Why? Fall 2016 COMP

11 why are we now talking about experiences as opposed to just interfaces? Fall 2016 COMP

12 Terminology: Interaction What is the difference between an interface and interaction? Fall 2016 COMP

13 Interaction An interface refers to what is presented to the user Could be a visual, physical, or auditory presentation Includes what you can manipulate An interaction is the dialogue between the computer and the user The actions the user must invoke to perform a task and the corresponding responses The dialogue is ongoing Fall 2016 COMP

14 Interactive Cycle presentation Output observation (interpretation) Computer User performance (execution) Input articulation Reproduced from Dix, Finlay, Abowd, & Beale (2004) Fall 2016 COMP

15 Interactive Cycle Input/output channels constitute the interface presentation Output observation (interpretation) Allows the system and user to communicate Computer performance (execution) Input User articulation Interface Fall 2016 COMP

16 Interactive Cycle The conversation between the system and user constitutes the interaction presentation Output observation (interpretation) The interaction is the entire dynamic process. Computer performance (execution) Input User articulation Interface Fall 2016 COMP

17 Interactive Cycle: Steps 1. The user formulates a goal and plans a method to achieve the goal 2. The user translates the method into the system input language 3. The system executes the method instructions and updates its state presentation Computer performance (execution) Output Input Interface observation (interpretation) User articulation Fall 2016 COMP

18 Interactive Cycle: Steps 4. The system translates its state into its output language presentation Computer Output observation (interpretation) User 5. The user interprets the results, and repeats the cycle performance (execution) Input Interface articulation Fall 2016 COMP

19 Interactive Cycle The interactive cycle requires both the user and the system to make several translations: From user s intention to system input language From input language to core system language From core system language to output channel From output channel to user s interpretation of output If the interface isn t properly designed, these translations can result is two gulfs Fall 2016 COMP

20 Gulf of Execution (Don Norman) The manner in which the user must translate his/her plans into input the system can understand is not always natural or intuitive A gulf of execution arises when the user has difficulties providing instructions that are executable by the system Examples? Fall 2016 COMP

21 Gulf of Evaluation (Don Norman) A Gulf of Evaluation arises when the users has trouble interpreting system output in light of his/her goals Reflects the amount of effort the user has to exert to determine how well his/her expectations and intentions have been met Examples? Fall 2016 COMP

22 Gulf of Evaluation The gulf is small when the system provides information about its state in a form that is easy to get, is easy to interpret, and matches the way the person thinks of the system (Norman, Design of Everyday Things ) Fall 2016 COMP

23 Interface Impacts the User s Task The more translating the user has to do, the more difficult it is for the user to accomplish his/her task I/O channels affect what can and cannot be expressed Sometimes interaction language is far from how the user would naturally do a task (i.e., the domain language) Requires extra effort on behalf of user to translate back and forth Fall 2016 COMP

24 Evolution of Interaction Paradigms Over time, interaction paradigms have shifted focus from the machine to the user The focus has shifted from what is easiest and fastest for the computer to what interfaces and interactions naturally suit users tasks Fall 2016 COMP

25 Paradigms Overview of History of Interaction Paradigms Batch interfaces Conversational interfaces Graphical interfaces Ubicomp Visionaries Vannevar Bush, Douglas Engelbart, Mark Weiser Fall 2016 COMP

26 Batch Interfaces (~ ) The user provides the system with all instructions in a single batch job Instructions entered on punch cards, magnetic tape, paper tape No interactivity All system output presented to the user once the entire job was executed, often on a paper printout Users: high degree of training required System time was far more expensive than human time (e.g. $100s/hr vs. ~$10/hr) Fall 2016 COMP

27 Conversational Interfaces or Command-Line Interfaces Time Period: ~ Interaction style: User enters commands in text at the command-line System executes command Sometimes feedback is displayed System can request information from user during interaction Fall 2016 COMP

28 Conversational Interfaces Users: expert users Why? Advantages Highly flexible: by combining commands, many sophisticated operations are possible Disadvantages Requires recall rather than recognition During system execution, the user has little control Why can the above be causes for concern? Fall 2016 COMP

29 Vannevar Bush Head of the Office of Science and Research Development Involved in many WWII activities In 1945 he wrote the inspirational and forwardthinking article As We May Think Key idea: technology should support and augment human intelligence Fall 2016 COMP

30 Vannevar Bush The memex machine: A device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory. User can build associative trails User can annotate content His proposal for the physical instantiation of the memex sounds a lot like today s desktop computers Even suggested having multiple monitors Also proposed direct connection to nervous system for input Fall 2016 COMP

31 Douglas Englebart Also advocated the need for computers to augment human intellect Primarily known for inventing the mouse Demonstrated in a 1968 video known as The Mother of All Demos : Copy/Paste Hypertext Computer-supported collaborative work Fall 2016 COMP

32 Beyond the Knowledge Worker Ivan Sutherland s Sketchpad (1963): Input using a light pen Direct manipulation Early WYSIWYG Computers useful for artists, draftsmen, etc Interfaces closer to task domains Fall 2016 COMP

33 Graphical Interfaces Time period: Hardware advances High-resolution display, keyboard, mouse Typical style of GUI: WIMP Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers Fall 2016 COMP

34 First Commercial GUIs Xerox s 8010 Star Information System (1981) first commercial Followed by Apple s Macintosh First GUI desktop to be widely adopted Fall 2016 COMP

35 Users in control Graphical Interfaces: Interaction Style System waits for input, responds Recognition vs. recall Enables discovery and experimentation Most focus on direct manipulation Sense of directly manipulating objects of interest (Shneiderman, 1982) Simulated real-world metaphor What is it and why is this useful? Fall 2016 COMP

36 Graphical Interfaces Desktop metaphor Interaction language closer to user s own language and that of the task domain E.g., Users Files, folders, trash cans (now recycling bins) Broader audience But is training still required? Fall 2016 COMP

37 Interaction Styles Where are we heading? What other paradigms can we explore? Fall 2016 COMP

38 More Recent Interaction Paradigms Utilizing computational power should not always require sitting at a desk In the 1990 s two new visions: Virtual Reality Ubiquitous computing Fall 2016 COMP

39 Mark Weiser The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it. (Scientific American, 1991) Computing should fade into the environment Fall 2016 COMP

40 Ubicomp Ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) is currently an active research area Goal is to create language of interaction so close to task domain that the computer and its interface essentially become invisible Not conscious of the fact that we are interacting with a computer Fall 2016 COMP

41 Ubiquitous Computing Approaches Make greater use of context in interaction the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs In interaction design, examples of relevant context include: Details of the user s physical location The user s emotional state Information on others present Why is context important? Fall 2016 COMP

42 Ubiquitous Computing Approaches Increase the range of input and output devices Sensors (e.g., heat, light, sound, etc.) throughout the environment Artifacts in different sizes and form factors (e.g., palm pilots, smart phones, etc.) Computation embedded in situationally appropriate devices Fall 2016 COMP

43 Ubiquitous Computing Approaches Add computational intelligence Machine learning and other techniques from the field of Artificial Intelligence to: Make sense of all of the new input data Tailor the interface/interaction accordingly Goal is not necessarily to automate the users task Instead, computational intelligence can enable the device to: Act in a more situationally appropriate manner Help the user sort through data to find interesting data points Fall 2016 COMP

44 What is the Ultimate Goal? Interfaces should meet the tasks that users want to perform Users shouldn t have to adapt their behaviour or learn new interaction techniques Fall 2016 COMP

45 Inspirational Videos MIT s Counter-Intelligence (Bonanni et al., 2005) IO Brush (Ryokai et al. 2004) Fall 2016 COMP

46 Why is design hard? Fall 2016 COMP

47 The user is not like me Familiarity with the interface problems being solved Confidence Designer s setting vs. user s setting Designers have different skills (perceptual, cognitive, or domain) Fall 2016 COMP

48 appropriation Fall 2016 COMP

49 context: how are smartphones used? Fall 2016 COMP

50 Fall 2016 COMP

51 Designer s Fallacy: A designer can design into a technology, its purposes and uses. Reality: no control, hope for the best Strategy: try to understand people and how they already use the technology or similar technologies Fall 2016 COMP