Designing for Humans

Design Research and Sustainable Design

Mark Vanderbeeken (Core77) reports on the Changing the Change conference, which focused "on the role and potential of design research in the transition towards sustainability".  Design research can mean a lot of things, and in fact there were 138 papers presented on related topics.  Speakers included arch-IDEOer Bill Moggridge, who provided an "explanation of the three types of design research: generative, evaluative (or formative) and predictive, and his description of the Designers Accord, which is a powerful sustainability initiative spearheaded by some people within IDEO."

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.

in the cards

You may already be familiar with IDEO's Method Cards, which succinctly show & tell 51 methods for conducting research and design.  The cards tend to emphasize ways of thinking like "Look" and "Try", rather than specific, concrete methods.

Enter design consulting firm nForm with their own set of "user experience trading cards".  These provide more tactical methods, apparently focused on UI design, with cards for "Ethnography" (pictured), "Taxonomy" and "Usability Capture Software".

The IDEO cards are probably more valuable due to the greater diversity of ideas presented (although they do overlap internally in some cases) and are more of a way to think about a problem; whereas the nForm cards are more of a primer to user-centered design methods.  And the IDEO cards are tangible in a more important way - you can order a set of actual cardsfor reference and sharing.

Bryce Rutter on The Soul of Ergonomics

Metaphase's Bryce Rutter, IDSA is prepping to deliver the next session of the Designer Spotlight series. His presentation, titled The Soul of Innovation will reveal how ergonomics can be made sexy. Join us for an online presentation on May 21 at 1 pm EST as he shares case studies and offers how-to tips. To register, call Donna at 703.707.6000 X 100 or visit: https://sslserver.com/idsa.org/absolutefp/designer_spotlight_2008.html

[From IDSA DesignBytes]

Technology Behind Livescribe Pulse

 
While I'm still waiting to receive my "pre-order" Livescribe pen, MIT Technology Review has a technical breakdownof the pen's hardware, as well as a video demo.

And here's some free space below to practice your penmanship...

Ergonomics, the Elderly and Elevators

A couple of interesting articles related to design and ergonomics in the past week:

-Businessweek had a blurb on Nissan's efforts to design cars for the elderly by wearing a restricting body suit (see image).  Although Bw was not the first one to report on this, and in fact other designers have previously developed similar simulation techniques, I really liked this illustration.  See, "How to Drive Like and Old Guy"  fourth image in slideshow. 

-In an unrelated piece, The New Yorker magazine featured an article "Up and Then Down: The lives of elevators",  While intrinsically interesting to anyone who rides elevators, ergonomists and designers will find the discussion of "proxemics" particularly fascinating from both psychological and anthropometric perspectives:

"Bodies need to fit. Designers of public spaces have devised a maximum average unit size—that is, they’ve figured out how much space a person takes up, and how little of it he or she can abide. The master fitter is John J. Fruin, the author of “Pedestrian Planning and Design,” which was published in 1971 and reprinted, in 1987, by Elevator World, the publisher of the leading industry magazine, Elevator World. (Its January issue came with 3-D glasses, for viewing its best-new-elevator-of-the-year layout, of the Dexia BIL Banking Center, in Luxembourg.) Fruin introduced the concept of the “body ellipse,” a bird’s-eye graphic representation of an individual’s personal space. It’s essentially a shoulder-width oval with a head in the middle. He employed a standard set of near-maximum human dimensions: twenty-four inches wide (at the shoulders) and eighteen inches deep. If you draw a tight oval around this figure, with a little bit of slack to account for body sway, clothing, and squeamishness, you get an area of 2.3 square feet, the body space that was used to determine the capacity of New York City subway cars and U.S. Army vehicles. Fruin defines an area of three square feet or less as the “touch zone”; seven square feet as the “no-touch zone”; and ten square feet as the “personal-comfort zone.” Edward Hall, who pioneered the study of proxemics, called the smallest range—less than eighteen inches between people—“intimate distance,” the point at which you can sense another person’s odor and temperature. As Fruin wrote, “Involuntary confrontation and contact at this distance is psychologically disturbing for many persons.”

Data Visualization of Qualitative User Research

While it is extremely important to gather qualitative data such as user interviews, it can be difficult to make sense of such ‘unstructured information’.   Often the biggest challenge is knowing just where to start.  For example consider trying to make sense of the transcriptions from several dozen user interviews - you might have a mix of positive and negative feedback, anecdotes, opinions and narratives.  You could painstakingly sift through all of the conversations, highlighting meaningful terms or search for keywords.  

But data visualization tools, typically thought of in terms of quantitative data, can also help to understand qualitative information.  Data visualization has been promoted as an effective means to present data, but its enormous value in analyzing data has been largely overlooked. 

One such example is IBM’s Many Eyes.  While this web application set is known to many for its beautiful graphing capabilities, I find the text visualization tools most valuable for analyzing qualitative data.  In particular, the Word Tree in Many Eyes “lets you pick a word or phrase and shows you all the different contexts in which it appears. The contexts are arranged in a tree-like branching structure to reveal recurrent themes and phrases.”

When applied to qualitative data (e.g. interview transcripts, free-text survey comments), the Word Tree allows a researcher to quickly scan through text-based content by searching via keyword or phrase.  For example to see what a group of users said about a particular product feature, the researcher can create a word tree around the feature (e.g. “portable” or “installation”) or around particular terms that are likely to indicate problems (e.g. “difficult to”, “but”).  

Visualizing the interviews around critical terms provides a starting point for reviewing and understanding qualitative data in an efficient manner.  It is not a substitute for thoughtful analysis, but a head-start. 

Note: One significant caveat in the case of Many Eyes is that all submitted data is publicly viewable, so it’s not always suitable for proprietary data analysis – but it is free.

"User Anthropologist" Article in NY Times

There's already a lot of buzz about the April 13th New York Times Magazine article that prominently features the role of field research to inform design.  Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty? follows Nokia researcher Jan Chipchase in Ghana.  While the article is great for introducing the benefits of corporate user research to a mass audience, it is also tactially valuable in describing some of the field research and design techniques employed by Nokia.

For example, even when apparently traveling light, Chipchase relies on high-end reliable equipment:  "Pretty much wherever he goes, he lugs a big-bodied digital Nikon camera with a couple of soup-can-size lenses so that he can take pictures of things that might be even remotely instructive back in Finland or at any of Nokia’s nine design studios around the world."

Nokia not only conducts field research for gathering information, but a form of user-driven field design:

"Nokia’s temporary design studio sat in a rented two-room concrete hut at the intersection of two busy dirt lanes, across from a woman selling chunks of watermelon and peeled lemons and next to a large water tank labeled “Church of God.” There was a sheet of fabric strung up in front, with neat painted lettering that read: “Your Dream Phone. Share it with the world.” It went on to describe how the community was invited to come share ideas and drawings for the ideal mobile phone. Prizes were offered. So far, 140 people had shown up to sketch their dream phone."

And on-the-fly feedback on product concepts: "Each time the group stopped to chat with someone, Burns pulled out several prototypes — or “physical sketches,” as he called them — for potential phones, handing them over one by one for examination."

Overall, the article validates that common user research techniques done in context, can provide revealing information to drive design.

Also, see Chipchase's blog, Future Perfect.

Recap: Design Research at IDSA Northeast District Conference

While design research wasn't the overall theme at this past weekend's northeast district conference, it was certainly a prominent part of it.  On Saturday, Marty Gage spoke about the how to better communicate design research findings to designers - focusing on the essential transition between research findings and design solutions.  And research was wide-awake on sleepy Sunday.  We had our two-parter (panel/portfolio review)focusing on design research:

During the morning panel discussion, Art Swanson discussed the value of data visualization as a way of presenting information to clients.  Visualization, as opposed to analysis, presents data in an unfiltered, interactive manner to allow people to draw their own conclusions.  He suggested wefeelfine.organd gapminder.org as a couple of interesting examples of data visualization.

Sunmee Kim spoke next, focusing on the various aspects of a design research project at Motorola.  She finished by discussing an internal tool used by all of the design researchers around the world at Motorola to document and share data.

And Marty Gage appeared again, combining clear tactical advice with humor in discussing what should go into a design research portfolio.  It should be an extension of your design portfolio (if you have one), but is about meaning, not sexy imagery.

Following some great Q&A with the speakers, we had the first design research portfolio review, which was combined with the overall portfolio review (see photo above, courtesy of Core 77, and some more photos from that session).

My initial feedback on participating in the research portfolio review was that while there weren't many examples of detailed research projects to review,  it was useful to have professional researchers giving input to design students.  I'd love to hear feedback from other reviewers/reviewees, so please feel free to add your comments.

NY Times Review of Casio High Speed Digital Camera

Following up from my preliminary posting on the Casio Exilim Pro Ex-F1 high speed digital camera.  Last week, New York Times technology writer David Pogue, wrote a detailed review of the unique camera, including pointing out some limitations and constraints (e.g. light sensitivity, focus speed).  But Pogue is clearly impressed, suggesting that "it does seem ungrateful to criticize such an astonishing camera; it’s like complaining that your 7-year-old violin virtuoso is lousy at sports."

Pogue's article indicates that the camera will be available by mid-April.  I impatiently ordered one from Japan, where it was released at the end of March.  I should have in hand in a few days, so stay tuned...

Sizing China

Following up from my posting on the Size China presentation at last year's Connecting '07 IDSA national conference, Metropolis magazine has a feature article on Roger Ball's research effort to create a digital database of head anthropometrics for the Asian market. Sizing China

 discusses the inspiration and rationale of the project, its technical challenges ("Aside from chasing chickens out of the scanning room, the Size China team had to battle with time"), and the surprising findiings:

Ball had initially assumed there would be a correlation between head sizes and eye, nose, mouth, and ear sizes, which would allow him to create a series of facially featured average Chinese heads. After scanning several thousand subjects he discovered that there is no correlation between the zones of the face at all: “You could have a very large head, very tiny eyes, and a medium mouth, or a tiny head, very big eyes, and an average mouth,” he says.

With great photos, anecdotes, and a clear articulation of the benefits of this project, Metropolis achieved the near-impossible - making an anthropometric study an interesting subject.

[Note - I am beta testing some new formatting options on TypePad, so things may be a little quirky, over the next few posts]

The Risks of Design Research Blogging

One of the positive side effects of blogging is that people contact me with various, relevant issues such as career advice, research questions and help with finding references.  I occasionally get very specific human factors questions as well.

But today I go the oddest question.  It was from a car dealer who I do not know.  I have removed the name and contact information for anonymity, but here is the word-for-word email:

im the Business Manager with the Local Ford Dealer.

My questions is...is there away to swap the position of the the brake and
accelator pedals in 2008 Ford Focus, we have a Tech, who's aunt wants a new
Focus and needs the pedals swapped!!

Im hoping you can help or point me in the right direction.

I responded that I did not think it was a good idea, and probably not legal to do so.  Anyone know otherwise?

From Here to There: Design Research Symposium

A little late notice here, but in a few weeks, Arizona State University is hosting a weekend symposium (April 11-13, 2008) on the state-of-the-art in design research:

"This event is initiated and organized by students from the Master of Science in Design and PhD in Environmental Design and Planning programs in an effort to facilitate learning about design research in the context of academic and professional practice. Crafted to maximize interaction, the symposium will include plenary sessions with ample time for conversation, as well as afternoon workshops to deepen understanding of specific methods and topics. The intended audience is anyone who is curious about the practice of research within the context of design."

Some of the more interesting sounding topics include:

• "Design Research Career Development" (Matthew Jordan)
• "A Day in the Life of a Design Researcher: Introspective Ethnography" (Matt Zabel)
• "Statistics, Sex, Dogs, v. Cats, and the Role of Design" (Dan Formosa).

The schedule and list of speakers from academia and industry is provided in the conference flier PDF.

Interactive Gestures: Designing Gestural Interfaces

While Dan Saffer's forthcoming book Interactive Gestures: Designing Gestural Interfaces is not out yet, you can download and read the first chapter.  Aptly titled "Introducing Interactive Gestures", Saffer covers the recent and formative histories of direct manipulation interfaces, as well as key definitions, and relevant usability/design issues in an approachable manner.

The chapter is readable, while still providing appropriate references to human factors principles and technologies.  If you're new to the world of gestural interfaces, this is a great place to get an overview of the field.  If you're already knowledgeable, this is a useful refresher, and you might learn some new terms like "iceberg tips" (touch points that are larger than they visually present).

I did spot one point of dispute.  In his explanation of affordances (p. 30), Saffer refers to James Gibson as a "cognitive psychologist".  While Gibson was a psychologist, his theories of perception were actually contrary to the cognitive movement - Gibson posited a theory of direct perception where information is perceived without the need for any intermediating mental interpretation (i.e., cognition).  A more accurate label would have been "ecological psychologist" - but since that's not a school of perception known by most people, simply "psychologist" would probably be best.

Forgive me for being academic.

Design Research Presentations & Portfolio Review @IDSA NED

Here's the full scoop on the Design Research focus at the upcoming IDSA Northeast district conference in  Philadelphia.  The district conference runs from April 4-6, and the two-part design research part will take place on the morning of Sunday, April 6th:

1. Presentations (around 9:30am):  Conducting design research is essential, but how do you "design" the results of research? We've assembled a panel of professionals from industry and consulting to present the latest techniques in communicating design research. Speakers including Marty Gage (Lextant), Sunmee Kim (Motorola), and Art Swanson (Misys) will share their ideas and examples, followed by a question and answer session moderated by Rob Tannen (Bresslergroup).
2. Design Research Portfolio Review (around 11:00am): For the first time, IDSA is holding a portfolio review session specifically focused on design research. This is open to students and professionals interested in getting feedback and guidance on their design research work. This can range from observational studies to usability testing or anything else that applies. You'll get expert advice from design research professionals in an open, collaborative forum - so nothing confidential please.  This will be a subsection of the general design portfolio review where, so you can get your work reviewed from both the design and research perspectives. 

If you have any questions, please contact me directly at robtannen@hotmail.com

Deconstructing Product Designs

Deconstructing Product Design: Exploring the Form, Function, and Usability of 100 Amazing Products is now available for pre-order.  William Lidwell's quasi-sequel to Universal Principles of Design (my all-time favorite design book), promises to be just as enjoyable and valuable with a balanced format of evidence-backed information and clear visual descriptions.  Looking forward to its near-term release (is it me or are lots of good things scheduled for a March launch)?

*Updated (3/17) - Author William Lidwell has informed me that the March publication date that Amazon has been listing may be premature.  I'll let you know when I know of a more accurate date.  But you can still pre-order.

State of the Art in Interface Design

Coming Soon: Nothing Between You and Your Machine (New York Times) discusses the recent trends in direct manipulation interfaces in consumer products. The popularity of the Nintendo Wii and the Apple iPhone are in large part due to their intuitive user interfaces that utilize physical manipulation to give users a more direct feeling of control.  The re-emergence of voice control as a potential interface medium is also discussed.  The overall shift away from the point and click paradigm may be finally happening:

“I’ve wondered for a long time why the computer interface hasn’t changed from 20 years ago,” said Austin Shoemaker, a former Apple Computer software engineer and now chief technology officer of Cooliris. “People should think of a computer interface less as a tool and more as a extension of themselves or as extension of their mind.”

User-Centered Product Design Award

Call for Entries and Judges

The Product Design Technical Group (PDTG) of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society is again sponsoring a competition for its User-Centered Product Design Award.  The award will emphasize both product design and methods used to specify and achieve the design.  Emphasis will be placed on innovative and user-centered approaches to Human Factors and Industrial Design. 

• Consideration is limited to products, software or systems that are purchased for use in the home, in the workplace, or while mobile. They include consumer, commercial, and medical products, but exclude military equipment or systems.
• The product or system being nominated must be operational and capable of being marketed with no more than minimal changes.
• Products already on the market for more than three years will not be considered.
• At least one team member who contributed significantly to the project must be a member of HFES.  Membership in the Product Design Technical Group is not required.

The nominations should be submitted in electronic form by a human factors professional.  Detailed submission requirements, including the submission format, are shown on the PDTG website at http://pdtg.hfes.org.  More information concerning PDTG and previous User-Centered Product Design Award winners appears at the PDTG website.

The deadline for submitting nominations is April 25th, 2008. Nominations should be submitted electronically to Dianne McMullin at Dianne.L.McMullin@boeing.com.

The winning product/system will be recognized at the 2008 HFES Annual Meeting in September, 2008 and the awardees will be asked to present a talk on the product and methodology.  The awardees will also be expected to submit a paper to “Ergonomics in Design” within two months of the meeting. 

An award selection committee consisting of a panel of judges drawn from the PDTG membership will evaluate the submissions.  Judges may award multiple winners or a combination of winners and honorable mentions.  Judging will be done by a predetermined systematic process and will take place in June.

For more information or to volunteer for the award selection committee, please contact Stan Caplan at scaplan@usabilityassociates.com.

Back to the Future of Ergonomics

The first issue for 2008's volume of the journal Ergonomics is focused on the future of the field.  While an academic or professional subscription is required to access the volume, the lead article, Bartlett and the future of ergonomics, is available for free online. 

The article takes a retrospective look at Sir Frederic Charles Bartlett's 40+ year old predictions on the future of ergonomics, which were surprisingly insightful and accurate:

"Bartlett predicted that developments in automation and communication technologies were likely to present a significant challenge for Ergonomics. Specific predictions he made seem to derive from overall anticipated changes in working activities, and research foci, as a result of the new technologies. These were:

1. greater physical isolation of individuals;
2. greater demands on technologically-mediated communication;
3. reductions in physical workload;
4. increases in mental workload;
5. combining of the work of several people into the work of one;
6. presentation of multi-modal stimuli;
7. greater emphasis placed upon decision making; and
8. shorter working hours and more leisure time."

The article closes with a look at more recent predictions made by ergonomists, as well as design research practitioners:

"Fulton Suri (2001) proposed the adding of 'empathy' to the armoury of the professional ergonomist. She saw challenges arising from an ever widening field for the application of ergonomics, from resolving conflict between the commercial goals of organisations and the societal goals of maintaining human values and from trying to influence how systems are designed and operated. Fulton Suri saw the role of the ergonomist as being one of a centrally positioned facilitator of effective solutions through being more empathetic to the needs of all concerned."

Beyond this lead article, the content of the special issue contains articles on future ergonomics trends taken from the present context, presented by a range of international experts.  If these experts are nearly as accurate as Bartlett was about the future, then this is clearly worthwhile reading.

On a related note, the Human Factor & Ergonomics Society recently published an article, On the future of ergonomics, based on a survey of their members.  It includes estimates of the ergonomics job market across a number of relevant fields and industries.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Ethnography

Exploring Ethnography for Design Research in the February issue of MD&DI is more than a follow-up to the classic article Ethnographic Methods for New Product Development. 

According to author Stephen Wilcox (Chair of IDSA Human Factors section), ethnographic research is now common in medical device development.  The majority of this research is of course, qualitative, and primarily focused on identifying opportunities:

"Much so-called ethnographic research—perhaps most of it—is designed simply to generate ideas, that is, to stimulate creativity. Inevitably, when members of device-design teams go into the field and see directly how their devices and other devices are used, it generates insight and stimulates new ideas."

But there is another type of ethnographic research that is as much about the validity of findings as it is about generating ideas (Sidebar: simply put, in research, validity refers to the degree that you are actually measuring what you are intending to measure).  Typically validity is associated with quantitative measurement based methods such as performance testing.  But Wilcox suggests several ways to increase validity in ethnographic research including careful sample selection, quantitative measurement and objective data recording.  This more robust approach to ethnographic research comes with a price:

"conducting such research is difficult, time-consuming, and, frankly, expensive, in comparison with the idea-generation type of ethnographic research."

It's unlikely that most organizations will be able to accommodate all of the steps necessary to conduct highly valid ethnographic research - especially since many are just getting into the practice of doing any field research regularly.  But Wilcox's recommendations should really be taken as best practices for conducting any type of user research effort (whether validity is an explicit intention or not).  For example, making sure that the  "sample accurately reflects the population of interest" is a fundamental research planning step.  The deeper challenge when addressing validity is knowing what you know - for example determining whether your sample is truly representative.

The February MD&DI issue also contains an article on considerations for designing medical devices for home use, and another article on integrating human factors into the medical device development process.

Finally, for a less technical, down to basics overview of ethnography, see Design Meets Research, from GAIN, AIGA's journal of business and design.

"If you don't get DesigningForHumans, you're making a mistake."

Actually, the quote I am making light of is:

"If you don't get the magazine from the Rotman School of Management, you're making a mistake."
-Bruce Nussbaum, Assistant Managing Editor, BusinessWeek

Nussbaum's admonition is used by the University of Toronto to promote its business school magazine, but strikes me as oddly worded, or faint praise.  As if reading the magazine was avoiding a mistake, but nothing beyond that (e.g. informative, stimulating, etc).  Which is too bad, because it's actually an interesting, well presented periodical, with an emphasis on design and its relationship with business.

The current issue, Winter 2008 (recent issues are available as PDFs), espeically, may interest design researchers and designers.  Of particular note, Jane Fulton Suri of IDEO authored Informing our Intuition - Design Research for Radical Innovation (p. 52 of the PDF/p. 54 of the print magazine).  Like many design research articles targeted at business readers, the content is heavy on definitions and clarifications of terms - for example the differentiation between quantitative and qualitative research:

"...effective research is not just about analysisof objective evidence – there isn’t any directly applicable data anyway; it’s also about the synthesis of evidence, recognition of emergent patterns, empathic connection to people’s motivations and behaviours, exploration of analogies and extreme cases, and intuitive interpretation of information and impressions from multiple sources. This type of approach is now often referred to as ‘design research’ to differentiate it from purely analytic methods."

The Winter issue also contains several articles related to applying 'design thinking' in the context of business.  And the Idea Exchange section consists of about a dozen, brief Q&As with thought leaders around the theme of thinking.  Ultimately the domain content only goes so far - an experienced design researcher is unlikely to learn much about his/her own field - but it's useful for understanding how to relate and communicate to the business world.

Rotman also walks the walk on design, with strong visual presentation and readability.  You could of course, read/print the PDF versions online for free, rather than paying the $99(Canadian) subscription fee, but given the elegance of the format and the relevance of the content, perhaps you'd be making a mistake.

Sketching:Designer :: ______:Researcher

If you've taken a standardized test you may recall analogy questions.  For example, if the problem posed was air:airplane :: _______:ship, a reasonable solution for the blank would be water (apparently this notation is called the Aristotelian format).

I started thinking about analogies after reading Carl Alviani's recent Coroflot posting - Questioning the Cult of the Sketch.  The article challenges the common view that strong sketching, or drawing skills, are critical for a designer, especially in the context of judging whether to hire a designer.  Alviani quotes a Creative Director at Nike: "A designer who can't sketch is like a journalist who can't write!".  Alviani's point is that sketching, which has traditionally been table stakes in the design industry, is now just one of many design-related skills - and arguably not one of the most important ones, compared to other forms of communication, management, etc.  A great designer need not be a great sketcher.

This got me thinking about the analogous skill to sketching in the design research field.  That is, what skill is considered so fundamental to conducting research that it would not only be possessed, but well-honed in experienced design researchers?  I made an initial, incomplete list:

• research planning
• observational aptitude
• note taking proficiency
• interviewing skills
• data capture competency (photo, video, audio)
• data synthesis and analysis

To narrow this down, I focused on those skills that had characteristics which were most analogous to sketching: early in the process, raw/unrefined, driven by personal interpretation and feel.  This led me to settle on a consolidated grouping of observing, interviewing and note-taking, that collectively we can call field research skills.

Now, turning back to Question the Cult of Sketch, can a great design researcher lack great field research skills?  I would think not - there is a critical distinction from sketching here - field research skills are intrinsically broader and multi-disciplinary relative to sketching.  One might be a weaker note-taker, for instance, but still excel with effective interview questions (and a good memory).

But perhaps Alviani and I are both asking the wrong questions because we are inwardly focused.  A more fitting question of the modern designer is - can you conduct research to inform your designing, and of the modern researcher - can you design to communicate your research results?  Otherwise expressed as research:designer :: design:researcher*.

*See Christopher Fahey's Design Research is a Design Process for an interesting perspective on these issues.

I.D. Magazine 2008 Annual Design Review Jury Experience

Last week I had the privilege of serving on the equipment category jury for the 2008 I.D. Magazine Annual Design Review (to be published this summer).  By way of background, I.D. has been conducting an annual review of the best designs for over 50 years.  This is something I had wanted to do since I read the magazine as a teenager (perhaps that says as much about my social life as my interest in design, but anyway).   Besides equipment, there are a range of categories including consumer products, interactive design, furniture, environment and graphics.  Consequently, the s