In this book chapter, Volk & Wang discuss four commonly used qualitative methods for what they call "requirements-gathering activities based on user characteristics, goals, and tasks" in technology design: focus groups, interviews, surveys, and contextual observations (p. 303), to provide a practical approach to user research in the early stage of the product development. The authors stress the importance of setting research goals, and categorize these goals according to the information of different aspects in the user's interaction with technology: tasks, users, environments, satisfaction, delights, and artifacts (TUESDAy). The authors then offer detailed discussions on important issues entailed in research using each of the four methods, including what research goals can these methods help to achieve, types of each method, their design, execution and data analysis, and finally, deliverables. The author conclude the chapter iterating the importance of user research in UCD.
This chapter is published in a human factor handbook, but the methods it discuss can be applied to technical communication research. In fact, these qualitative methods are very widely used in our field, and this is a practical guide to using these methods specifically to understand users. Since qualitative methods are especially useful to collect contextual data, these methods are particularly useful for projects that look at the cultural factors and usability.
Showing posts with label UCD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UCD. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
BIB_08: Bowie, J. L. (2009). Beyond the universal: the universe of users approach to user-centered design. In S. K. Miller-Cochran & R. L. Rodrigo (Eds.), Rhetorically rethinking usability : theories, practices, and methodologies (pp. 135-163). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Shot through a feminist lens, J. L. Bowie’s discussion of user challenges the conventional notion of the “universal user” in usability studies. Informed by postmodern feminism, Bowie emphasizes on the differences among users, and complicates the theory, methods, and practice of universalization in technology design and development process. She offers an extensive literature review in user-centered design (UCD) and usability studies that concern the understanding of the user, the propose a "the universe of users" approach to user-centered design. and uses a study on the gender differences in Web navigation to demonstrate how contextualized consideration of user differences can benefit technology design and advocate for equality among users.
The challenge to the notion of "universal user" in this book chapter echoes many others such as Krug and Cooper, but unlike these two who holds an engineering perspective and aims to design usable technology that meet most users' needs in spite of their differences, Bowie, from a rhetorical perspective, embraces the differences and concerns herself with designing for not only the majority of users, but particularly for minorities or the unprivileged such as women or people with disability. This difference echoes the differences between rhetoric studies and HCI that Skeen has observed in his chapter in Rhetorically Rethinking Usability.
The challenge to the notion of "universal user" in this book chapter echoes many others such as Krug and Cooper, but unlike these two who holds an engineering perspective and aims to design usable technology that meet most users' needs in spite of their differences, Bowie, from a rhetorical perspective, embraces the differences and concerns herself with designing for not only the majority of users, but particularly for minorities or the unprivileged such as women or people with disability. This difference echoes the differences between rhetoric studies and HCI that Skeen has observed in his chapter in Rhetorically Rethinking Usability.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
BIB_07: Johnson, R. R., Salvo, M. J., & Zoetewey, M. W. (2007). User-centered technology in participatory culture: two decades 'beyond a narrow conception of usability testing'. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 50(4), 320-332.
In this article, three of Patricia Sullivan's students reflect on the history and recent trend of usability research in technical communication in response to Sullivan's 1989 article "Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing." They argue that usability is not only a legitimate research area in technical communication but is enriched by the rhetorical perspective that technical communicators bring in. Interrogating recent literature on usability, the authors points out the limitations of understanding usability research as "science," and, following Sullivan, argue that rhetoric bridges the gap between the two cultures--science and culture--and emphasizes on application, which coincides with the nature of engineering.
The brief history of usability research in technical communication offered by the authors lays out concisely a background, which is useful in understanding usability as a research area in the field. The discussion of usability in the context of the debate of science, culture, and rhetoric provides a context for discussion of methodology in usability study projects. The authors' view that an aspect of usability is rhetoric supports the use of non-scientific methods in usability research. The section that discussion the difference between user-centered design and usability is interesting (UCD maintains boundaries between products and users, and usability breaks the boundaries more radically), although I do not completely agree with the authors.
The brief history of usability research in technical communication offered by the authors lays out concisely a background, which is useful in understanding usability as a research area in the field. The discussion of usability in the context of the debate of science, culture, and rhetoric provides a context for discussion of methodology in usability study projects. The authors' view that an aspect of usability is rhetoric supports the use of non-scientific methods in usability research. The section that discussion the difference between user-centered design and usability is interesting (UCD maintains boundaries between products and users, and usability breaks the boundaries more radically), although I do not completely agree with the authors.
RR_07: usability & participatory design
The readings this week present some of the fundamental issues in usability research and practice. The authors offer their different perspectives on the nature of usability research and methodologies developed from various intellectual traditions. While Gillan and Bias (2001) argue for a view of usability as a science, others challenge the “Big Science” approach (Coppola, 2005). Technical communicators who have a firm grip on rhetoric argue for a rhetorical approach to usability that contextualize research and practice in complex ways (Salvo, 2001; Johnson et. al., 2007; Skeen, 2009).
In these readings usability is often understood as a mode of research to understand users and their interaction with technology. As Michael Salvo (2001) has noted, usability is “a critical research practice as well as a design mechanism” (p. 280). According to P. Sullivan (1989), “[t]he subject matter of usability research can be usefully described as the studies of users learning to use and using various computer products, in the design and evaluation phases of development, for the purposes of learning more about how people use machines and of improving the machines and educational materials” (p. 256-57). In other words, usability is a mode of inquiry with the objective to understand users and their interaction with technology.
The understandings of usability as a mode of research among researchers are by no means without contradiction and contention. The divergence very often resides between the scientific and the non-scientific approaches to usability. According to Johnson et al. (2007), historically, usability has been considered a “scientific activity—an activity guided by strategic methods and often quantitative measurement systems—that attempts to create verifiable and replicable results” (p. 323). One example from the scientific camp is Gillan and Bias's (2001) notion of “usability science.” The authors state that a “new applied scientific discipline, usability science” has emerged to bridge “the conceptual area between the basic cognitive and behavioral sciences (primarily cognitive and perceptual psychology) and usability engineering” (p. 352).
However, Johnson et al. (2007) critique Gillan and Bias's “usability science” by pointing out that their confinement of usability to a few disciplines in psychology and engineering results in a “narrow range of inquiry” (p. 323). Johnson et al. argue that technical communicators' interest and work in usability studies have brought “something of a disruption of the dominance of usability as science” in the field of usability studies, and usability has thus also been recognized as “a rhetorical art” (p. 323). Gillan and Bias's notion of “usability science,” according to Johnson et al., only “seeks to sever communication between the art and their proposed science of usability” (p. 323). Based on their critique of Gillan and Bias's “usability science” and drawing on rhetorical traditions, Johnson et al. define usability in terms of rhetoric, paying close attention to context, and in so doing “seek to return this discussion of usability to the application and use of scientific findings rather than displacing science or emplacing science in application” (p. 327). In other words, to Johnson et al., the inquiry of usability must consist of both “scientific and replicable” and “nonscientific” research (p. 327).
Johnson et al.'s effort to break the boundaries between scientific and non-scientific natures of usability was expressed by Sullivan (1989), who has pointed out that the multidisciplinary and multidimensional nature of usability research. She argues that a broad understanding of usability research will include “the work of people who design systems, test them, develop educational materials, and study users” (p. 256). This view broadens the scope of usability research beyond cognitive and behavioral sciences and engineering to include the work of technical communicators.
The tension between the scientific and the broader understanding of usability as research can be seen as part of the tension between the Big Science and the bricolage in technical and professional communication (Coppola, 2005). In response to the prevailing presence of Big Science in the field, Coppola emphasizes the importance of importance of the attention to context and individual experience in research, an approach in line with bricolage in Lévi-Strauss's term. Coppola points out a certain bias in the field against bricolage approach in favor of the Big Science:
To Spinuzzi, a goal of participatory design is precisely to “preserve” the user's knowledge to illuminate the design of technology that can “fit into the existing web of tacit knowledge, workflow, and work tools, rather than doing away with them” (ibid). Here, Spinuzzi's approach can be seen as a bricoleur's approach in Coppola's terms for it contrasts the “rationalist studies that assume workers' tasks can be broken down into their components, formalized, and made more efficient” (ibid)—i.e., a Big Science approach. It is in this sense that Spinuzzi contends that participatory design takes a “constructive” paradigm, which “assumes that tacit knowledge cannot be completely formalized” as apposed to the “task-and-efficiency orientation typical in many user-centered design methods” including usability testing (ibid).
The readings in this section can serve very well to support a broader approach to research in web usability in addition to lab usability testing.
In these readings usability is often understood as a mode of research to understand users and their interaction with technology. As Michael Salvo (2001) has noted, usability is “a critical research practice as well as a design mechanism” (p. 280). According to P. Sullivan (1989), “[t]he subject matter of usability research can be usefully described as the studies of users learning to use and using various computer products, in the design and evaluation phases of development, for the purposes of learning more about how people use machines and of improving the machines and educational materials” (p. 256-57). In other words, usability is a mode of inquiry with the objective to understand users and their interaction with technology.
The understandings of usability as a mode of research among researchers are by no means without contradiction and contention. The divergence very often resides between the scientific and the non-scientific approaches to usability. According to Johnson et al. (2007), historically, usability has been considered a “scientific activity—an activity guided by strategic methods and often quantitative measurement systems—that attempts to create verifiable and replicable results” (p. 323). One example from the scientific camp is Gillan and Bias's (2001) notion of “usability science.” The authors state that a “new applied scientific discipline, usability science” has emerged to bridge “the conceptual area between the basic cognitive and behavioral sciences (primarily cognitive and perceptual psychology) and usability engineering” (p. 352).
However, Johnson et al. (2007) critique Gillan and Bias's “usability science” by pointing out that their confinement of usability to a few disciplines in psychology and engineering results in a “narrow range of inquiry” (p. 323). Johnson et al. argue that technical communicators' interest and work in usability studies have brought “something of a disruption of the dominance of usability as science” in the field of usability studies, and usability has thus also been recognized as “a rhetorical art” (p. 323). Gillan and Bias's notion of “usability science,” according to Johnson et al., only “seeks to sever communication between the art and their proposed science of usability” (p. 323). Based on their critique of Gillan and Bias's “usability science” and drawing on rhetorical traditions, Johnson et al. define usability in terms of rhetoric, paying close attention to context, and in so doing “seek to return this discussion of usability to the application and use of scientific findings rather than displacing science or emplacing science in application” (p. 327). In other words, to Johnson et al., the inquiry of usability must consist of both “scientific and replicable” and “nonscientific” research (p. 327).
Johnson et al.'s effort to break the boundaries between scientific and non-scientific natures of usability was expressed by Sullivan (1989), who has pointed out that the multidisciplinary and multidimensional nature of usability research. She argues that a broad understanding of usability research will include “the work of people who design systems, test them, develop educational materials, and study users” (p. 256). This view broadens the scope of usability research beyond cognitive and behavioral sciences and engineering to include the work of technical communicators.
The tension between the scientific and the broader understanding of usability as research can be seen as part of the tension between the Big Science and the bricolage in technical and professional communication (Coppola, 2005). In response to the prevailing presence of Big Science in the field, Coppola emphasizes the importance of importance of the attention to context and individual experience in research, an approach in line with bricolage in Lévi-Strauss's term. Coppola points out a certain bias in the field against bricolage approach in favor of the Big Science:
Big Science has become identified with funded research, the seemingly best way to create meaningful investigations of the physical world; bricolage has become associated with close reading, a lesser way to create meaningful interpretations of the human world. From the beginning, both were scientific, unafraid to shed myths in favor of methodological scrutiny. Both were unafraid to take things apart. Both endured. Only one, however, prevailed. (p. 262)The theme of bricolage is also present in Spinuzzi's (2005) discussion about participatory design as research. As C. Spinuzzi (2005) points out, “participatory design has its own highly articulated methodological orientation, methods, and techniques, just as does participatory action research, the approach on which it is based” and thus” (p. 163). He concludes therefore that “[p]articipotory design is research” (ibid). Historically, according to Spinuzzi, participatory design is associated with “action research,” an activity “alternating alternating between practical work to support changes (such as design activities) on one hand, and systematic data collection and analysis on the other hand,” and ethnographic methods (p. 164). Understanding participatory design as research is to recognize the user's knowledge, i.e., “tacit or craft knowledge” linked to metis, “cunning intelligence,” which has been invisible in many other research approaches (p. 166).
To Spinuzzi, a goal of participatory design is precisely to “preserve” the user's knowledge to illuminate the design of technology that can “fit into the existing web of tacit knowledge, workflow, and work tools, rather than doing away with them” (ibid). Here, Spinuzzi's approach can be seen as a bricoleur's approach in Coppola's terms for it contrasts the “rationalist studies that assume workers' tasks can be broken down into their components, formalized, and made more efficient” (ibid)—i.e., a Big Science approach. It is in this sense that Spinuzzi contends that participatory design takes a “constructive” paradigm, which “assumes that tacit knowledge cannot be completely formalized” as apposed to the “task-and-efficiency orientation typical in many user-centered design methods” including usability testing (ibid).
The readings in this section can serve very well to support a broader approach to research in web usability in addition to lab usability testing.
BIB_07: Massanari, A. L. (2010). Designing for imaginary friends: Information architecture, personas and the politics of user-centered design. New Media & Society, 12(3), 401-416.
In this article, Massanari interrogates the notion of "user" in HCI and UCD discourse and three tropes commonly used: the "stupid user," the "user as victim," and the "user as co-creator" (p. 404). He associates the three tropes of the "user" with three approaches to design; the "stupid user" is an assumption of system-centered design, the "user as victim" is associated with user-centered design, and the "user as co-creator" is associated with participatory and activity-centered design. In response to the idea and practice of using personas to understand users, Massanari argues that personas are hegemonic and often reductive in nature. He also points out other researchers' work that indicates that personas cannot always effectively solve the problems of "the elastic user," "self-referential design," and "design edge cases" in the design process in practice (p. 409). In addition, the perceived non-scientific nature of personas in an organization makes it difficult to convince everyone to take them seriously. However, Massanari seems to agree that personas can serve as effective communication tools. Drawing on cultural rhetorical theory, specifically, the Marxian concept of "interpolation" and postmodern idea of "simulation," Massanari argues that personas interpolate the users into what the designers want them to be, and since the personas are simulacra of the real users, they tend to blur the distinction and create an illusion for the designers that they are designing for the real users but actually they are designing for their simulacra. In the conclusion, Massanari points out that the advance of technology and its increasing integration in our life "will likely require new approaches to user research" p. 412).
Massanari's view on personas is challenges the practice increasingly accepted and employed in the IA and technology design industry, partly as established experts such as Alan Cooper's promotion. Using personas in the design process is almost inevitably hegemonic and reductive, yet it is well received in the industry as Cooper indicates in the foreword on his book The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. There certainly connects to what Coppola (2005) has pointed out "a universal drive for utility [that] underlies technical communication research" (p. 263) and beyond. Massanari has briefly touched the topic of Web 2.0 technology in this article, but has not further elaborated on the idea. Nevertheless, the insight this piece offers is still valuable in the context of Web 2.0.
Massanari's view on personas is challenges the practice increasingly accepted and employed in the IA and technology design industry, partly as established experts such as Alan Cooper's promotion. Using personas in the design process is almost inevitably hegemonic and reductive, yet it is well received in the industry as Cooper indicates in the foreword on his book The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. There certainly connects to what Coppola (2005) has pointed out "a universal drive for utility [that] underlies technical communication research" (p. 263) and beyond. Massanari has briefly touched the topic of Web 2.0 technology in this article, but has not further elaborated on the idea. Nevertheless, the insight this piece offers is still valuable in the context of Web 2.0.
BIB_07: Salvo, M. (2001). Ethics of engagement: User-centered design and rhetorical methodology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10, 273-290.
In this article, Salvo argues that the shift from observing the users to inviting users to participate in the design process poses new ethical demands to technical communicators. Salvo invokes dialogic ethics in rhetoric theory, in which the self is understood to be constructed through dialogue, or its interaction with others, and argues that dialogic ethics can inform the development of user-centered and user-participatory methods. Salvo uses three examples of user-centered design practice to illustrate that these methods, as dialogical interactions, can best help designers design technology that serves the users' needs. These examples are Pelle Ehn's participatory design, or Scandinavian Design, Roger Whitehouse's description of designing directional signs for blind users in "The Uniqueness of Individual Perception," and the design of a Web-based first-year composition system.
Salve seems to distinguish "user-centered" methods from "user-participatory" methods, although sometimes this distinction is not very obvious. Salve argues that user-participatory methods have grown from user-centered methods, and dialogic ethics in rhetoric provides a lens that informs the development of user-participatory design (p. 287). Since dialogic interaction is highly contextual, i.e., that it responds to specific situations, the theoretical lens is particularly valuable in cultural usability research. The "respect for local conditions" (p. 282) that required by dialogic interaction is also a principle in cultural usability research.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
RR_06: Johnson, R. R. (1998). User-centered technology: a rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. Albany, NY: State University of New York at Albany.
Johnson's book provide a rhetorical theoretical view of the user-centered approach to technology. The points well articulated in the book abound, and I want to discuss a few of them that are particularly pertaining to my project.
First of all, Johnson offers a succinct description of what the user-centered approach to technology is and seeks to achieve compared to the system-centered approach:
First, in a user-centered approach to technology, users' active participation is an important part in the life cycle of technology, from the stage of design, through development and implementation, to maintenance. This is in contrast to some system-centered approach that involves the user only in some stages such as perhaps towards the completion of technology development for user testing, or as what Johnson calls treating users a kind of “token members” (p. 32). One example he points out is the user involvement in interface design: “The interface is crucial to the user of the technology, but more often than not this intimate connecting point between the technology and the user is relegated to the end of the development cycle—at a point where there is often little that can be done to solve any problems the user may have while operating the technology” (pp. 27-28). As the intermediate between the user and the system, the interface perhaps is the foremost familiar if not important part of the system to the user, and thus its development is more likely to involve the user than any other part. Relegating it to the end of the development cycle often means that users get involved in the development process only up to this point, which to Johnson is a serious problem.
Second, rather than the “dominant” agent in the process, the user takes part in the negotiation of the technology design, development, and use. In other words, the user is only one stakeholder in the process, who is allowed to voice her/his opinion and contribute her/his knowledge to the process. Johnson makes this point clear so that the user's knowledge from use will claim a valued position in a way that does not oppress others. From this point, we can also see the egalitarian view that guides the user-centered approach. By encouraging users claiming the “power that historically has been concentrated solely in the province of the designers of technology” (p. 32), the user-centered approach aims to decenter the power. It is in this sense that user-centered design should not only be conceived in an engineering perspective, but in a sociopolitical perspective.
Without being too reductive, one could argue that taking a rhetorical position, Johnson's description of user-centered approach to technology falls into the humanist camp of usability studies, which values complexity over reduction and which has strong political and emancipatory concerns.
Perhaps the biggest contribution of Johnson in this book is the user-centered rhetorical complex of technology he developed that can be used as a framework to analyze technology that centers on the user and the contextualized use. Borrowing I. A. Richard and James Kinneavy's rhetorical triangle metaphor, Johnson develops a triangle depicting a user-centered rhetoric (see figure below).
The triangle depicts an technological environment that consists of the user, the artisan/designer, the artifact/system, and user tasks/system actions with the user situated in the center. The elements in environment are essential for the interaction between the user and the system. Based on this triangle, Johnson further complicates the situation by surrounding it with three layers of context, or “pressures and constraints” in the surrounding contexts or situations, forming what he calls a user-centered rhetorical complex. The first layer consists of the user activities of “learning, doing, and producing” (p. 38). The second layer consists of “constraints that larger human networks place upon technological use,” which Johnson depicts as “disciplines, institutions, and communities” (ibid). Finally, the outer layer consists of “the factors of culture and history” (p. 39).
In relation to the user-centered rhetorical complex is another concept developed by Johnson, the user's situation. Johnson defines the user's situation as the activity “the user is engaged in and, in some cases, the moment in which this engagement occurs” (p. 31). Although he points out that the activities can be described specifically as learning, doing, and producing, the notion of user's situation should be understood in a broader sense. In other words, the user's situation is affected by all the elements in the user-centered rhetorical complex. For instance, when Johnson discusses the importance of localizing the user's situation in a specific context, he notes that it is important to understand the user's role in an organization. In the case of documentation, “[t]he specific nature of users' work, then, drives documentation that is customized to the context of use instead of generically explained to a universal user who is the construct of a writer's imagination” (pp. 129-130). In this case, Johnson is pointing out the importance of considering the second layer of the context of use in the user-centered rhetorical complex, namely institution and discipline and the user's relationship with them, when we trying to understand the user's situation.
The user-centered rhetorical complex is a very useful framework when we consider cultural usability of technology. Note here the complex and sometime confusing use of the term “culture,” which has multiple meanings depending on the specific context of use. Here in the user-centered rhetorical complex, Johnson seems to use the term “culture” in a narrow sense to denote the higher level of human actions and meanings as a society. However, later in the book, when he discuss computer user documentation, Johnson uses “culture” in a broad sense “to mean any community that might have common bonds due to context or practice: that is, workplace cultures, classroom cultures, and even electronic cultures such as those emerging from the use of the Internet or other computer networked arrangements” (121). The reason for Johnson to use a narrow meaning of culture in his discussion of the user-centered rhetorical complex is because used in broader sense, culture can include all the elements in the three layers (rings) of context. Therefore, using the term broadly cannot achieve any meaningful objective here. However, when speaking of cultural usability and cultural localization, we should not understand culture only in the narrow sense in terms of national cultures or other higher level cultures, but also consider the local cultures that the user resides.
Finally, it will interesting to compare Johnson's model to Sun's (2004) framework of cultural usability (see figure below) (p. 59). I will return to this topic in the future post on Sun.
Reference
Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
First of all, Johnson offers a succinct description of what the user-centered approach to technology is and seeks to achieve compared to the system-centered approach:
In a user-centered approach to technology, users are active participants in the design, development, implementation, and maintenance of the technology. This is not meant to imply that users are the sole or dominant forces in technology development. Rather, they are allowed to take part in a negotiated process of technology design, development, and use that has only rarely been practiced. Users are encouraged and invited to "have a say," in other words, and thus they are physically or discursively present in the decision-making processes of technological development. Invited to become actively involved with the technology in a greater, more integrated fashion, users become members of a team, but not just token members as they are in many usability approaches that merely invite users in at the end of the development cycle to validate a product. Because the users are involved with decision making in the user-centered model, they have power that historically has been concentrated solely in the province of the designers of technology (or in the province of the technological artifact itself, if you adhere to a strong determinist stance). (p. 32)This definition of the user-centered approach to technology touches on a couple of important points:
First, in a user-centered approach to technology, users' active participation is an important part in the life cycle of technology, from the stage of design, through development and implementation, to maintenance. This is in contrast to some system-centered approach that involves the user only in some stages such as perhaps towards the completion of technology development for user testing, or as what Johnson calls treating users a kind of “token members” (p. 32). One example he points out is the user involvement in interface design: “The interface is crucial to the user of the technology, but more often than not this intimate connecting point between the technology and the user is relegated to the end of the development cycle—at a point where there is often little that can be done to solve any problems the user may have while operating the technology” (pp. 27-28). As the intermediate between the user and the system, the interface perhaps is the foremost familiar if not important part of the system to the user, and thus its development is more likely to involve the user than any other part. Relegating it to the end of the development cycle often means that users get involved in the development process only up to this point, which to Johnson is a serious problem.
Second, rather than the “dominant” agent in the process, the user takes part in the negotiation of the technology design, development, and use. In other words, the user is only one stakeholder in the process, who is allowed to voice her/his opinion and contribute her/his knowledge to the process. Johnson makes this point clear so that the user's knowledge from use will claim a valued position in a way that does not oppress others. From this point, we can also see the egalitarian view that guides the user-centered approach. By encouraging users claiming the “power that historically has been concentrated solely in the province of the designers of technology” (p. 32), the user-centered approach aims to decenter the power. It is in this sense that user-centered design should not only be conceived in an engineering perspective, but in a sociopolitical perspective.
Without being too reductive, one could argue that taking a rhetorical position, Johnson's description of user-centered approach to technology falls into the humanist camp of usability studies, which values complexity over reduction and which has strong political and emancipatory concerns.
Perhaps the biggest contribution of Johnson in this book is the user-centered rhetorical complex of technology he developed that can be used as a framework to analyze technology that centers on the user and the contextualized use. Borrowing I. A. Richard and James Kinneavy's rhetorical triangle metaphor, Johnson develops a triangle depicting a user-centered rhetoric (see figure below).
The triangle depicts an technological environment that consists of the user, the artisan/designer, the artifact/system, and user tasks/system actions with the user situated in the center. The elements in environment are essential for the interaction between the user and the system. Based on this triangle, Johnson further complicates the situation by surrounding it with three layers of context, or “pressures and constraints” in the surrounding contexts or situations, forming what he calls a user-centered rhetorical complex. The first layer consists of the user activities of “learning, doing, and producing” (p. 38). The second layer consists of “constraints that larger human networks place upon technological use,” which Johnson depicts as “disciplines, institutions, and communities” (ibid). Finally, the outer layer consists of “the factors of culture and history” (p. 39).
In relation to the user-centered rhetorical complex is another concept developed by Johnson, the user's situation. Johnson defines the user's situation as the activity “the user is engaged in and, in some cases, the moment in which this engagement occurs” (p. 31). Although he points out that the activities can be described specifically as learning, doing, and producing, the notion of user's situation should be understood in a broader sense. In other words, the user's situation is affected by all the elements in the user-centered rhetorical complex. For instance, when Johnson discusses the importance of localizing the user's situation in a specific context, he notes that it is important to understand the user's role in an organization. In the case of documentation, “[t]he specific nature of users' work, then, drives documentation that is customized to the context of use instead of generically explained to a universal user who is the construct of a writer's imagination” (pp. 129-130). In this case, Johnson is pointing out the importance of considering the second layer of the context of use in the user-centered rhetorical complex, namely institution and discipline and the user's relationship with them, when we trying to understand the user's situation.
The user-centered rhetorical complex is a very useful framework when we consider cultural usability of technology. Note here the complex and sometime confusing use of the term “culture,” which has multiple meanings depending on the specific context of use. Here in the user-centered rhetorical complex, Johnson seems to use the term “culture” in a narrow sense to denote the higher level of human actions and meanings as a society. However, later in the book, when he discuss computer user documentation, Johnson uses “culture” in a broad sense “to mean any community that might have common bonds due to context or practice: that is, workplace cultures, classroom cultures, and even electronic cultures such as those emerging from the use of the Internet or other computer networked arrangements” (121). The reason for Johnson to use a narrow meaning of culture in his discussion of the user-centered rhetorical complex is because used in broader sense, culture can include all the elements in the three layers (rings) of context. Therefore, using the term broadly cannot achieve any meaningful objective here. However, when speaking of cultural usability and cultural localization, we should not understand culture only in the narrow sense in terms of national cultures or other higher level cultures, but also consider the local cultures that the user resides.
Finally, it will interesting to compare Johnson's model to Sun's (2004) framework of cultural usability (see figure below) (p. 59). I will return to this topic in the future post on Sun.
Reference
Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
BIB_03: Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things (1st Basic paperback. ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Informed by psychology and industrial design, Norman's book explains the user's psychology when she/he uses everyday things from tea kettles to computers, and proposes user-centered design guidelines that can improve the product's usability and enhance user experience. Norman starts the book with an analysis of the psychology of everyday actions, and proposes a analytical model the "Seven Stages of Action" to explain how people do things. He points out that problems of use (usability issues) rise when the gulfs of execution and evaluation occur. Norman further explains how people learn about the world and how memory works. Based on these understandings, Norman uses the notion of "conceptual model" and related dimensions of "affordance," "mapping" and "constraint" to argue for a usability guideline that focuses on designing the correct conceptual model and attends to visibility. In the section that follows, Norman discusses the reasons for errors and how sensible design can reduce errors. Norman wraps the book up with a summary of the guidelines for good design.
Norman's book is very readable with ample examples. Although these examples are quite old--the book first published in 1988--they still are able to illustrate the intended points well. Norman's insightful understanding of design makes his theory applicable to a wide range of products. Precisely because of the very basic and fundamental understanding of design and usability, Norman's frameworks and models are still useful in the new technological context we are in today. I found the framework of the seven stages of action, the conceptual model, and especially the dimensions of affordance, mapping, and constraint productive frameworks for my research on Web 2.0 and cultural usability.
Norman's book is very readable with ample examples. Although these examples are quite old--the book first published in 1988--they still are able to illustrate the intended points well. Norman's insightful understanding of design makes his theory applicable to a wide range of products. Precisely because of the very basic and fundamental understanding of design and usability, Norman's frameworks and models are still useful in the new technological context we are in today. I found the framework of the seven stages of action, the conceptual model, and especially the dimensions of affordance, mapping, and constraint productive frameworks for my research on Web 2.0 and cultural usability.
Monday, August 30, 2010
BIB_01: Barnum, C. M. (2002). Usability testing and research. New York: Longman.
Barnum's textbook offers an overview of usability and user-centered design. Citing extensively the research in usability at the time of publishing and reporting her first-hand research projects, Barnum attends to both theory and practical application of usability testing. In the first chapter Barnum defines key concepts of usability, user-centered design, and usability testing, and discusses basic issues including test models and the cost of usability testing. The second chapter is an overview of other methods used in usability studies other than testing. Chapter three through chapter eight elaborate the process of usability testing and tackle important issues such as audience and iterative testing. Chapter nine is specially devoted to Web usability. The book includes great examples of documents in usability testing such as audience analysis, the plan and report of testing. The appendix also offers tips of successful teamwork.
Although a bit outdated, the book is a great starting point for usability students. I found the first chapter a very nice overview of usability and user-centered design. The chapters elaborating usability testing process are great practical guide for anyone new to usability testing. Barnum projects an ethos that is authoritative yet approachable. Her style is assuring and encouraging, which is also very helpful for usability novice. The Web usability chapter, however, is not very satisfying. Barnum apparently appreciates Nielsen's work greatly, whom she cites extensively. However, perhaps because the Web has evolved at a speed that is incomparable to many other technologies, this chapter seems especially outdated. The lack of visual examples makes it even less appealing and useful.
Although a bit outdated, the book is a great starting point for usability students. I found the first chapter a very nice overview of usability and user-centered design. The chapters elaborating usability testing process are great practical guide for anyone new to usability testing. Barnum projects an ethos that is authoritative yet approachable. Her style is assuring and encouraging, which is also very helpful for usability novice. The Web usability chapter, however, is not very satisfying. Barnum apparently appreciates Nielsen's work greatly, whom she cites extensively. However, perhaps because the Web has evolved at a speed that is incomparable to many other technologies, this chapter seems especially outdated. The lack of visual examples makes it even less appealing and useful.
Monday, August 23, 2010
RR_01: Barnum, C. M. (2002). Usability testing and research. New York: Longman.
Barnum's text book, although maybe a bit dated, is a great start for usability students. It is both a theory book that maps out the theory and key issues of usability research and user-centered design (UCD), and a how-to book that meticulously explains how to conduct usability testing and create documents for the testing. I'll discuss a few issues that interest me or relate to my dissertation project below.
First of all, Barnum summarizes nicely the definition of usability and UCD. She draws on the definitions of usability by key sources/writers/researchers such as the Internationalization Organization for Standardization, Nielsen, and Dumas and Redish, all widely cited in usability studies literature, and points out that the focus of usability studies is the user. To make her point, she defines usability negatively, as not (p. 6):
Pointing out that “[t]hese terms reflect issues related to the product itself, not to the interaction of a person with the product” (p. 6), she draws attention to the distinction between product quality and usability. She further explains that usability has two requirements, “usefulness” and “satisfaction,” and contends that usability is determined by the user's perception of the quality of the product (p. 6-7). Two points are worth discussing here. First, her notion of usefulness is a key concept when we consider the split between task-oriented and goal-oriented usability studies. While task-oriented usability focuses on designing usable products, the goal-oriented usability focuses on designing useful products.
Although the terms “task” and “goal” are often used interchangeably by some authors, and the distinction between these two is not always clear in a lot of literature, this split can been seen among usability researchers and practitioners such as Nielsen, Cooper, and Krug. Barnum seems to agree with Cooper's view that we should design for the user's goals instead of tasks. When later on discussing task analysis, Barnum lists the goals of task analysis as (p. 88):
This list shows the distinction between goals and tasks. The goals are what users want to achieve in their life, such as succeeding a course. The tasks are more specific than goals. They are the means to goal, i.e., what the user needs to do to achieve her/his goals. In the example of the user's goal being succeeding a course, one of the tasks will be buying textbooks online. The users have multilevel goals, so the task of buying textbooks online are also means to achieve other goals such as saving money, and saving gas going to a bookstore and time browsing there. Understanding these goals, articulated most eloquently in Cooper's The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, is essential in designing useful and usable products for the users. The goal-oriented approach is useful in cultural usability research for it can yield rich data about users due to its focus on their goals that are necessarily formed in their specific context of use.
Second, Barnum's argument of perception can be controversial. Although this book focuses on usability testing, Barnum's approach to usability research is inclusive in terms of methods. She talks about different methods in UCD in which the researcher or designer interact with users in different ways. These methods include focus group, prototyping, interviews, survey, etc. These methods are designed to get feedback from users. In other words, they are designed to obtain data about the user's perception of the product's usability. However, some hardliner usability testing proponents such as Nielsen and Krug will argue that using these “soft” methods, usability issues or usability breakdowns cannot be revealed accurately or adequately. They argue that empirical usability testing is the only way to know if a product works for the user. The tension between these two views is not surprising if we take the researchers' backgrounds into account. Barnum is a technical communication scholar who has a background in humanities (rhetoric). Nielsen and Krug both have engineering background on their resume. I will argue that methods that originated in humanities and those in sciences can help us obtain different data to understand the user and her/his interaction with technologies from different angles. Especially in today's complex technological environment where technologies are so profoundly entrenched on everyone's life, pure empirical methods may not be adequate to collect rich and nuance data about users.
The last thing I want to discuss about this book is its chapter on Web usability (chapter 9). To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed with this chapter. Not only the material is dated (which however is understandable because of its subject matter), but it seems that the whole chapter is pretty much a rip off of Nielsen's work. Also, Barnum does not seem to have carefully thought through Web usability issues. For instance, when she talks about understanding the real users' needs, she summarizes the users' reasons to use the Web into three groups, “information (content), sales (commerce), and interaction (communication with other people)” (p. 365). The grouping is not only crude but also leaves out many other reasons (goals) for users to use the Web, such as entertainment, (personal, political...) expression, advocacy and mobilization, etc. These groups are so broad that I suspect that they are actually of any productive value. She may argue that reasons such as expression and advocacy can be grouped under interaction. If that's the case, I will argue that everything can be grouped under information, because ultimately the Web is information. Barnum here is a bit self-contradictory—as an advocate of designing for users' goals, and the individual needs of users, her crude grouping does seem a bit careless.
First of all, Barnum summarizes nicely the definition of usability and UCD. She draws on the definitions of usability by key sources/writers/researchers such as the Internationalization Organization for Standardization, Nielsen, and Dumas and Redish, all widely cited in usability studies literature, and points out that the focus of usability studies is the user. To make her point, she defines usability negatively, as not (p. 6):
- Quality assurance
- Zero defects
- Utility of design features
- Intrinsic in products
Pointing out that “[t]hese terms reflect issues related to the product itself, not to the interaction of a person with the product” (p. 6), she draws attention to the distinction between product quality and usability. She further explains that usability has two requirements, “usefulness” and “satisfaction,” and contends that usability is determined by the user's perception of the quality of the product (p. 6-7). Two points are worth discussing here. First, her notion of usefulness is a key concept when we consider the split between task-oriented and goal-oriented usability studies. While task-oriented usability focuses on designing usable products, the goal-oriented usability focuses on designing useful products.
Although the terms “task” and “goal” are often used interchangeably by some authors, and the distinction between these two is not always clear in a lot of literature, this split can been seen among usability researchers and practitioners such as Nielsen, Cooper, and Krug. Barnum seems to agree with Cooper's view that we should design for the user's goals instead of tasks. When later on discussing task analysis, Barnum lists the goals of task analysis as (p. 88):
- What users' goals are, not just the tasks they perform
- What processes they us to achieve their goals
- What characteristics shape the way they perform tasks and achieve goals (different groups of users may have different characteristics and goals)
- What previous experience shapes users' approaches to tasks
- What is most important to users or what is most helpful to them in performing tasks
- What impact the environment has on their ability to perform tasks
This list shows the distinction between goals and tasks. The goals are what users want to achieve in their life, such as succeeding a course. The tasks are more specific than goals. They are the means to goal, i.e., what the user needs to do to achieve her/his goals. In the example of the user's goal being succeeding a course, one of the tasks will be buying textbooks online. The users have multilevel goals, so the task of buying textbooks online are also means to achieve other goals such as saving money, and saving gas going to a bookstore and time browsing there. Understanding these goals, articulated most eloquently in Cooper's The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, is essential in designing useful and usable products for the users. The goal-oriented approach is useful in cultural usability research for it can yield rich data about users due to its focus on their goals that are necessarily formed in their specific context of use.
Second, Barnum's argument of perception can be controversial. Although this book focuses on usability testing, Barnum's approach to usability research is inclusive in terms of methods. She talks about different methods in UCD in which the researcher or designer interact with users in different ways. These methods include focus group, prototyping, interviews, survey, etc. These methods are designed to get feedback from users. In other words, they are designed to obtain data about the user's perception of the product's usability. However, some hardliner usability testing proponents such as Nielsen and Krug will argue that using these “soft” methods, usability issues or usability breakdowns cannot be revealed accurately or adequately. They argue that empirical usability testing is the only way to know if a product works for the user. The tension between these two views is not surprising if we take the researchers' backgrounds into account. Barnum is a technical communication scholar who has a background in humanities (rhetoric). Nielsen and Krug both have engineering background on their resume. I will argue that methods that originated in humanities and those in sciences can help us obtain different data to understand the user and her/his interaction with technologies from different angles. Especially in today's complex technological environment where technologies are so profoundly entrenched on everyone's life, pure empirical methods may not be adequate to collect rich and nuance data about users.
The last thing I want to discuss about this book is its chapter on Web usability (chapter 9). To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed with this chapter. Not only the material is dated (which however is understandable because of its subject matter), but it seems that the whole chapter is pretty much a rip off of Nielsen's work. Also, Barnum does not seem to have carefully thought through Web usability issues. For instance, when she talks about understanding the real users' needs, she summarizes the users' reasons to use the Web into three groups, “information (content), sales (commerce), and interaction (communication with other people)” (p. 365). The grouping is not only crude but also leaves out many other reasons (goals) for users to use the Web, such as entertainment, (personal, political...) expression, advocacy and mobilization, etc. These groups are so broad that I suspect that they are actually of any productive value. She may argue that reasons such as expression and advocacy can be grouped under interaction. If that's the case, I will argue that everything can be grouped under information, because ultimately the Web is information. Barnum here is a bit self-contradictory—as an advocate of designing for users' goals, and the individual needs of users, her crude grouping does seem a bit careless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)