By taking this module and doing this project, I've learnt that the process of user experience design isn't easy. This could be due to my background: I'm a computing student and solves problem from top down approach. In the case of user design, it isn't the way. My group's first discussion takes place at Toa Payoh McDonald's. We had a couple of ideas, very creative ones. Some ideas include the ultimate "da bao" which is food wrapped using bun skin. This is environmentally friendly and we thought it could be a good experience for users. We also have the customizable pizza, which allow users to mix and match. However, all these ideas have already 'implemented' or suggested the functional aspect of the user's needs. This means that we've come out with the solution before identifying user's real needs; we're just marketing a new product for the sake of marketing. Designing for user's needs is a relatively tough process, you'll have to observe users in everyday life in order to identify the 'need'.
After weeks of discussion, we even have the food portal idea, which may not be feasible because of the failure of many such portal. Finally we have the GITA application, which we observe from some students having problems with module planning for their courses.
I've also learnt from the weeks of lecture that users may not be looking for functional specifications when choosing a product. Given the example in class of the Apple iPod and Creative Zen, Creative offers much more features than the iPod but iPod remains the dominant MP3 player in the world. This is because of the user experience that the product give users. The iPod interface is more user friendly than Zen. The features in the iPod are the essential (and probably more) ones that users usually use. Users begin to develop a sense of satisfaction and achievement while using the iPod and begin to develop trust in the product. A feature-packed device tend to be more complicated in terms of usage and that is the main reason iPod is the prefered device.
In conclusion, this module is an eye-opener for problem solver like me because what I've learnt in my years of course are not applicable in this module. This module designs products that take users into consideration, i.e. their experience in using the product. There are the emotional factors that we need to consider when they're using it. Enough said, products have to be what users desire and not one that the manufacturer/creator desires.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Final Project - GITA
Graduate-In-Time Application (GITA)
With reference to:
1. Admin page: http://www.jeremiahgoh.com/nm4210/gita/admin.php
2. Student page: http://www.jeremiahgoh.com/nm4210/gita/index.php
Graduate-In-Time Application is one that serves NUS student's needs by helping them plan the set of modules that could allow them to graduate in time. Before this system was borned, most students use MS Excel to tabulate the modules/CAP score, IVLE for module information, CORS for module offering and their respective faculty websites for course information. NUS Bulletin was used by some for the module information while some doesn't even know it existed. With the required information to plan modules distributed all over different websites, students have to do extra work, hence extra time, to source for these information to enable them to plan the module smoothly. There are times when wrong information (or outdated information) present in one website causes much confusion when the particular semester approaches. GITA solves much of these problems and provides an integrated web system to cater to student's needs for streamlined information.
We used card sorting to identify how users sort information. We've found out that while searching for modules to be shortlisted for planning, they go through such order:
1. Module type - which requirement the module fulfil for their course
2. Faculty
3. Department
4. Module Level
After they gotten the list of modules they would like to take, they would then slot it into the respective semesters. For modules that they didn't slot in, they still preserve the titles in case they can't get the planned module. Then as semesters gone by, some would update their CAP scores and input grades for next sem and calculate the 'targeted' CAP.
In this system, we try to map user's actions as closely to our designed system as possible so as to give them a familiar usage environment and minimize relearning. On top of that, we give them even more than what they expected, such as automatic calculation, persistent shortlist where they can just add and remove from the shortlist during every semester and checking of prerequisites/preclusions for them. I wished I have one of these systems online when I first entered NUS.
With reference to:
1. Admin page: http://www.jeremiahgoh.com/nm4210/gita/admin.php
2. Student page: http://www.jeremiahgoh.com/nm4210/gita/index.php
Graduate-In-Time Application is one that serves NUS student's needs by helping them plan the set of modules that could allow them to graduate in time. Before this system was borned, most students use MS Excel to tabulate the modules/CAP score, IVLE for module information, CORS for module offering and their respective faculty websites for course information. NUS Bulletin was used by some for the module information while some doesn't even know it existed. With the required information to plan modules distributed all over different websites, students have to do extra work, hence extra time, to source for these information to enable them to plan the module smoothly. There are times when wrong information (or outdated information) present in one website causes much confusion when the particular semester approaches. GITA solves much of these problems and provides an integrated web system to cater to student's needs for streamlined information.
We used card sorting to identify how users sort information. We've found out that while searching for modules to be shortlisted for planning, they go through such order:
1. Module type - which requirement the module fulfil for their course
2. Faculty
3. Department
4. Module Level
After they gotten the list of modules they would like to take, they would then slot it into the respective semesters. For modules that they didn't slot in, they still preserve the titles in case they can't get the planned module. Then as semesters gone by, some would update their CAP scores and input grades for next sem and calculate the 'targeted' CAP.
In this system, we try to map user's actions as closely to our designed system as possible so as to give them a familiar usage environment and minimize relearning. On top of that, we give them even more than what they expected, such as automatic calculation, persistent shortlist where they can just add and remove from the shortlist during every semester and checking of prerequisites/preclusions for them. I wished I have one of these systems online when I first entered NUS.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
User Research Smoke & Mirrors
With reference to http://www.graphpaper.com/2006/07-10_user-research-smoke-mirrors-part-1-design-vs-science
The article is mainly about how user research (scientific or non-scientific) affect design process and that the wrong approach of interpreting use research results may have reverse effects on the resulting design
Design Vs Science
Using scientific tools to measure or evaluate design effectiveness may not be accurate most of the times. Some tools may produce redundant results that we would have known by common sense while some results may have been misinterpreted. I would have to agree with that because there are some aspect of design that can't be measured. As pointed out in the article, one such aspect is the subjectivity of the design. Different users have different preferences and usage behaviour. Therefore, the aesthetics of a design is subjective in this case and therefore could not be measured.
Research as a Design Tool
User interface test tool such as eyetracking may provide insights for researchers to know which part of the screen/interface the users focuses most. However, the technique only reveal what they are looking at (location of the screen) and not what they're seeing (the content of that location or why they're looking there). Some of the results are rather obvious because the improved design simply added graphic improvements to attract attention. In conclusion, using research to determine whether a design need to be improved or scraped, depends on how the results are being interpreted and how the research tool is being used.
Research as a Political Tool
The article is mainly about how user research (scientific or non-scientific) affect design process and that the wrong approach of interpreting use research results may have reverse effects on the resulting design
Design Vs Science
Using scientific tools to measure or evaluate design effectiveness may not be accurate most of the times. Some tools may produce redundant results that we would have known by common sense while some results may have been misinterpreted. I would have to agree with that because there are some aspect of design that can't be measured. As pointed out in the article, one such aspect is the subjectivity of the design. Different users have different preferences and usage behaviour. Therefore, the aesthetics of a design is subjective in this case and therefore could not be measured.
Research as a Design Tool
User interface test tool such as eyetracking may provide insights for researchers to know which part of the screen/interface the users focuses most. However, the technique only reveal what they are looking at (location of the screen) and not what they're seeing (the content of that location or why they're looking there). Some of the results are rather obvious because the improved design simply added graphic improvements to attract attention. In conclusion, using research to determine whether a design need to be improved or scraped, depends on how the results are being interpreted and how the research tool is being used.
Research as a Political Tool
Research could be used as a tool to explain and justify to non-experts. While a designer may act on his own instincts while designing, his superior or clients who are non-designers may not agree with his design without any proof or justifications. Therefore, research could be used as a tool to justify (at least politically) to them.
Research as Bullshit
The author noted that research is conducted as an interestingly absurd environment (persona room). The room is modeled to resemble actual user's environment. However, it may not be feasible to build a room (in terms of budget) just to build user's personas. The cost of building one may not be worth. Some research represents subjective opinions in terms of numbers. These numbers may be used for objective interpretation. However, it is still subjective because there are missing some of the "reasons" or answers to the "objectives" of the survey. In conclusion, research results may be used by people (probably designers) to justify or prove their design works but it is purely unnecessary because good designers base on experience to design. Research should be done only when necessary.
Research isn't a Bad Thing
Research, when used and results interpreted correctly, is useful for the design team which can provide valuable insights. Research is important for designers to build on stronger ideas.
Conclusion
I feel that the author makes sense in the ideas presented in the article. It is true that designers require experience to justify their design. They usually act on instincts/experience to design and seldom require research-based justifications. Therefore, research results some times may not be accurate to prove a design (or rather research cannot prove a design). This is because design is a very subjective matter. You cant use objective methods to measure or quantify it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)