Designing for Humans

Certification in Human Factors & Ergonomics

I recently earned my credentials as a Certified Professional Ergonomist (CPE), and in the process learned that there's some lack of awareness and/or confusion regarding the certification options in the field of human factors and usability.

The CPE program is run by the independent Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics.  The certification covers a broad and deep range of topics including ergonomics, anthropometrics, interface design and human factors principles.  Some companies and organizations have utilized CPE expertise to evidence the effective research behind the design of their products.  For example, Microsoft advertises the role of certified professional ergonomists right on the packaging of the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000.

Without getting into a lot of detail, there are multiple levels of certification depending upon work and academic experience.  Feel free to contact me if you're interested in finding out more about it.

To take a step back, the term professional certification refers to  "a designation earned by a person to assure that he/she is qualified to perform a job or task" and "generally, need to be renewed periodically, or may be valid for a specific period of time (e.g. the life-time of the product upon which the individual is certified). As a part of a complete renewal of an individual's certification, it is common for the individual to show evidence of continual learning."   Common professional certifications include accounting and nursing.

Many people in the usability field (particularly as it relates to Web and software user interface design) may be familiar with the Certified Usability Analyst (CUA) program developed by Human Factors International (HFI).  Note that HFI is a company, not a professional organization, so the CUA certification is specific to HFI's practices and methods, rather than those agreed upon by an independent body (although HFI is considered an industry standard-bearer). 

Moreover, the CUA is a relatively focused, short-term certification process "aimed at designers and developers who want solid training for practical work in user-centered design."  In fact, HFI distinguishes between their program, referring to CUAs as "the certified paramedics of the field", in contrast with CPE credential's:  "The CPE/CHFP program is aimed at full time usability engineering professionals. These people must have advanced degrees and at least four years of professional experience in the field. They are the certified physicians of the field."

Alternative Digital Pens

While I've given a lot of recent attention to the Livescribe Pulse pen (in fact using it for recording during a usability test this week), I wanted to bring attention to a couple of other options.  But comparing Iogear's Mobile Digital Scribeor Dane-Elec's ZPen to the Pulse isn't really apples to apples.  While all three devices can digitally record your handwriting, only the Pulse synchs your notes with recorded audio.  This critical feature makes it extremely valuable for documenting and reviewing information.  On the other hand, the Pulse requires the use of special paper for tracking purposes.  So if you're just looking for a way to digitize and translate your handwriting to text, (albeit, poorly) these pens may be useful to you.

The New York Times' David Pogue has a written review (plus requisite cheesy video)  for the Mobile Digital Scribe and ZPen that can give you more information since I haven't had first-hand experience with either of those two devices.

Initial Results from User Research Tech Survey

Thanks to everyone (n=69) who participated in piloting and responding to this year's survey on technologies for user research, which is now closed.  You can now access the summary data.  This is a roll-up of the quantiatitve questions, but does not include open-ended responses.

I'll presnt a more substantative analysis during the Design Research Conference (September) and will post that presentation here following the conference.

User Research Technology Survey

Designing for Humans is conducting a survey on issues related to technology use for user research.  You can access the survey here http://tinyurl.com/3nen7e

The survey follows-up from the 2006 efforts to study user research technology, which also included a survey. 

Your input to the current survey is appreciated and results will be posted on this site, as well as discussed at the upcoming Design Research conference.

Planning and Conducting Design Research: A Primer

Sam Ladner has a pair of brief, but effective articles on her design research blog -

Design research, step by step, published last year, discusses the basics of planning a design research project.  Ladner's critical point is that even in broad, exploratory research, it is essential to define a set of reearch questions to guide your approach, and to let you know when you've found answers.  This sounds obvious, but is often assumed, overlooked, or realized with overly-vague research questions (e.g. how are people using our product?  what are new product opportunities?), rather than with more specific questions that lead to actionable findings.

Getting meaningful insights from qualitative research is this year's follow-up post focusing on they key activities for analyzing data.  I particularly agree with Ladner's recommendations to "summarize frequently":

"After each interview, take 20 minutes to write out a brief summary of what you remember being the most important points of the interview (note that this is not a substitute to taking notes during the interview). These notes are the first step toward analysis. You are reducing “clutter” and irrelevant information. You are also exploring connections with previous interviews."

and to "visualize the results":

"Many qualitative researchers make use of summary tables and diagrams to further summarize results. My favourite visualization method is the mental model, which can convey a huge amount of information in a synthetic way, quickly. Other tools include mind maps and even the simple bulleted list."

Both of these activites are important for efficient and proactive research analysis and communication.

Morae 3 Preview - Product Usability Testing Capabilities

Last week I attended a demo of the beta version of Techsmith's Morae 3 (hosted by PhillyCHI & UPA Delaware Valley) .  The latest version of the usability software product is expected to be launched  late summer/early fall this year.  Based on the demo, it looks like it's close to being operational, but there are still bugs to work out.

For those unfamiliar, Morae is a software-based usability testing tool that was launched in 2004.  It replaces traditional usability labs that relied on hardware video cameras, scan converters and video tape with web cams, screen capture software and basic digital video editing/presentation capabilities.  Morae 2 provided some improvements and feature enhancements.

While Morae/Morae 2 is excellent for software/web usability testing, it has limited applicability to 3D product testing.  While you could test on-screen simulations of products (especially interfaces) and capture off-screen action via a the web cam, off-screen video capture is not its strong suit.  For one notable, exception, I used the original version of Morae to conduct ride-along usability testing of an in-car GPS.

Morae 3 is a step in the direction of supporting product research.  Shane Lovellette's presentation highlighted features including:

• Support for simultaneous recording of up to two external digital video and/or web cameras - for example, one recording the user's face, the other focused on the hands.
• Ability to capture from multipe monitors simultaneously - for example to study a multi-screen financial workstation.
• Automatic task delivery to guide a user through a series of tasks without a moderator

The use of dual external video cameras will be most benefical for product research.  Video is saved in Morae at up to 720x440 resolution, fine for most situations, but not where detailed imagery is required.

On the anaysis and editing side, Morae 3 allows the facilitator to add comments and notations during the recording and review video at up to 4x speed.  It also has built-in integration with PowerPoint and Word for efficient output generation.

While the demo focused on mobile phone/pda usability testing, it may be useful for a wide range of product testing situations, as well as for field research where movement/portability is not a factor (e.g. observing from a stationery position), as your cameras will be tied to the laptop during recording.

Design Research Conference - September 2008

 

While the list of speakers and schedule is still being assembled, this year's IIT Design Research Conference is scheduled for September 19 - 20 at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago.  The lineup already features heavy-hitters Don Norman and Liz Sanders, and topics including mental models, sceanrios, field stories to research technology.  Registration will start at the end of May.

First Impressions of Livescribe Pulse Pen (finally!)

I've been suggesting the potential benefits of the Livescribe pulse pen to user researchers for months now, and now I finally have one (well, two actually).  After a few of days of use, I am positively impressed by the product, but it does have a significant design flaw.

On the positive side, the pen's ability to synchronize recorded audio with your handwriting and then review via "paper replay" works very well.  The unique user interface takes a bit of getting used to, but is relatively simple.  Since the pen only has a single button for power on/off, all interface commands are done through tapping on various symbols pre-printed on the notebook paper.  For example, to navigate the menu structure you use the pen to tap on the four points of a cross-hair printed at the bottom of Livescribe's notebook (see image below). 

The four points of the cross hair are equivalent to up, down previous and next.  But you can also simply draw your own cross-hair if you need to access the navigation  - this user-generated user interface capability is quite clever and worth considering in other product experiences.

The audio quality was as good as expected.  With the recording quality set on high, I was able to follow a small conference room conversation playback relatively clearly, even though I had been sitting next to a digital projector.  Although I would probably use headphones during playback for greater acuity.  The recording function has settings for different size recording environments, but I haven't tinkered with those yet.

From a physical perspective, the pen is as large as a fountain pen, but light and comfortable for my larger than average hand size.  I used the pen in a recent client meeting and no one seemed to notice - or at least I didn't see anyone staring at the pen or asking about it. 

But it was during this meeting that I realized a major problem with the pen design.  If you put it down, it tends to roll.  There's no clip or any other protrusion to prevent the cylindrical pen from drifting off the notebook, to the table, and possibly the floor.  I tried various orientations to minimize the chance of rolling - perpendicular versus parallel to the notebook, but that didn't seem to matter much.  What I did find was that the natural resting place of the pen is with the micrphones face down.  This means that putting the pen down impairs the audio quality (not to mention that a rolling pen is noisy). 

This lack of a clip is counter to one of the primary benefits of the pen - the ability to record when you're not writing.  A clip would provide a roll-stop, and also allow the researcher to more easily attach it to his or her clothing, backpack, etc. while participating hands free.  I'm planning to create my own solution to this design gap.

One other point - the provided desktop software provides little in the way of useful functionality beyond storing and transferring the writing/audio recordings.  But there are expectations of third-party software development that will exploit the pen's capabilities.

All of that said, the Livescribe Pulse definitiely delivers on its claims, with functional, easy to use software and recording capabilities.  I just wish they had considered hands-free operation.  Also, if you can stomach David Pogue's cheesiness, here's a video review from last Friday's New York Times.

IDSA Boston - Research in Focus, May 18

The IDSA Boston Chapter is holding it's second annual design research event on Thursday, May 15th:

"Please join us for our second annual design research event! This year, presenters will focus on how research, strategy, design, and business come together to produce results and create opportunities in the context of case studies. The topics will include how clients receive research, the integration of research in the product development process, and how people work with research as a team. We have a diverse panel of speakers each offering an exiting view of the latest in research results. The presentations will be followed by a question and answer session.

Our speakers include:
Heather Reavey: Senior Strategist, Continuum
Elizabeth Lewis: Director of Research and Strategy, Catapult Thinking
Mikey Siegel: Research Assistant at MIT Media Lab, Personal Robots Group"

You can RSVP via Evite.

IDEA 2008 Jury Experience

A couple of months ago I described my experience as a juror for the ID Magazine Annual Review. For the last couple of days I had the terrific opportunity to serve on the jury of the IDSA/Businessweek IDEAs (International Design Excellence Awards). 

While I am not able to discuss particulars of the entrants or awardees, I would like to share my observations on the experience.  In particular, I'd like to discuss my realization that the social aspects of judging designs is analogous to the social aspects of the design process itself.

What do I mean by social aspects?  Consider the various interpersonal interactions that occur during the design process - collaboration during concept generation, peer critique during refinement, and eventually, client feedback.  The value and outcomes of each of these situations greatly depend on the personalities and interpersonal dynamics of those involved.  This is a natural part of the design process, as it should be of most successful human endeavors.

Collaboration and iterative review were very much a part of this year's IDEA judging.  (For more information on the judging process, listen to jury chair Alistair Hamilton's podcast on the 2008 IDEAs.)  Much like the start of concept generation, the review process began with each of the 20 jurors working independently. During the first phase of judging, each juror independently reviewed all of the submitted documentation (forms, images, videos, etc)  entries within a a set of assigned subcategories. 

But this quickly became a collaborative effort as subcategories were assigned to two jurors.  Following their independent reviews, pairs would discuss their recommendations with each other.  When there was disagreement about particular entries, a juror had to convince his or her partner about whether or not to advance an entry to the finalist round.  Although jurors were not the creators of the designs (jurors were recused from entries that they had involvement with) this back and forth reminded me of the discussion that goes on when designers meet to discuss the relative merits of their concepts or sketches.

In the next round, each judging pair reviewed their selected finalists in person.  This year's IDEA awards judging was improved over previous year's, because for the first time (!), the jurors had access to most of the actual products for the design finalists.  Consequently, the discussions were more focused on issues such as details, comfort and finish - much like they would be in a design review of refined prototypes.  Again, each juror had to "make the case" to his or her partner for the designs that deserved merit.  As in the design process, some designs which sounded good on paper, fell short in person, while others exceeded expectations.

The iterative review process continued with a larger review cycle.  This time three or four pairs of jurors discussed the designs that they had selected.  Up until this point, jurors had only examined their assigned subcategories, so it was comparable to presenting a refined design to a larger group that had not been directly involved, such as a broader design or management team, or even a client.  During this cycle modifications were made based on constructive input and discussion within the working team.  At the conclusion of this phase, each of the award winners had been selected and agreed upon by the majority of each working group.

Finally, all of the designs (both award winners and finalists) were open for discussion to the entire group of 20 jurors.  In this last-check round, any juror could suggest raising or lowering the award recognition of any item, whether they had reviewed it previously or not.  This provided a valuable diversity of inputs and perspectives, but the decision was ultimately left up to the relevant working team because of their deeper knowledge of the particular subcategories.    

In retrospect, it was clear that jurying reflected the design process (arguably, as it should) in many essential ways: small-team collaboration, iterative review, and making the case in front of progressively larger stakeholder groups.  Ultimately, like design, it was a mix of creative, intellectual fun and time-constrained challenges. 

Last, but not least, a nod of recognition to all of the entrants, my peer jurors, and especially the IDSA staff for their excellent organization and support that made this process possible and succesful.