Design, Prototyping, and Evaluation in Developing Countries

1. Design, Prototyping, and Evaluation in Developing Countries Jen Mankoff, Assistant Professor EECS

2. What is human computer interaction about? • Creating applications that provide needed services to clients in acceptable ways • Supporting specific goals • Efficiency • Fun • … • A design process that leads to successful adoption of designs

3. Tasks Customers Technology Design Evaluation Prototyping What is human computer interaction about? • Understanding interaction of • Tasks • Customers • Technology • Environment • Techniques forcycle of • Design • Prototyping • Evaluation Environment

4. Case Study: Computers for Rural Healthcare • Handheld support for rural healthcare providers • Tasks supported • Rapid access to medical records • Addition of a new case • Specific modules for pregnant women, young children, etc. • Employed a user-centered methodology (includes customers/technology/Tasks/environment and iterative design)

5. Design • Norman • Value Sensitive • (informed by rural health example) Evaluation Prototyping

6. Design: Norman paper • Even designing for engineers from MIT is difficult to get right • Solution: Use a discoverable conceptual model • Familiar affordances • Visibility of functionality • Natural mappings • Include feedback • Avoid creeping featurism • Solution: Need to iterate on designs (6-8 times!)

7. What does Norman’s model leave out? • Differing context of developing countries • We don’t necessarily know what’s familiar • Conceptual Models may be different • Affordances differ • Natural mappings differ • Other thoughts?…. • Iteration even more key • Differing values in developing countries

8. Value Sensitive Design • Values “depend on the interests and desires of humans within a cultural milieu” • Explicitly considers both direct and indirect stakeholders (important for adoption) • Tripartite methodology -- shared with usability • Conceptual investigations • Empirical investigations • Technological investigations … all support design Design Evaluation Prototyping

9. Design Evaluation Prototyping

10. Prototyping • Rapid prototyping is crucial • Goal of prototyping is to support further evaluation and design (iteration)

11. Prototyping Techniques • Paper Prototyping • Build it • Wizard of Oz • None are perfect -- research lies in creating tools & techniques that will support rapid development and evaluation

12. Paper Prototyping • Sketch it out on paper • Fast, simple, effective • Simulate “computer”, get feedback about real use • Problems • Only really effective in well-constrained environments • Limited to desktop-like applications

13. Build it • “sketch” it out on a computer • Existing prototyping tools & UI builders • Easy to create familiar look and feel • Problems • Existing tools limited to the desktop • Lack support for small, mobile devices • Lack support for variety of input and output • Familiar look and feel limited to our culture

14. Wizard of Oz • Fake it • Only “prototype” the surface • Use a human “behind the curtain” to fake the rest • Particularly good for recognition • Problems • Easiest to do in a constrained environment • How does one “fake” rapid sensor input, etc? • Wizard must understand dialect, culture, etc.

15. Design • Conceptual • Empirical • Technological • (informed by rural health example) Evaluation Prototyping

16. Many Different Evaluation Technqies • Different strengths and weaknesses • Appropriate at different stages of iteration • Samples presented today categorized under tripartite methodology • Conceptual investigations • Empirical investigations • Technological investigations

17. Usability: Task analysis: What task? Who are the stakeholders? Where will it take place? (e.g. need for rugged design) When will it take place? Why is it being done? Values Value identification; Stakeholder analysis (who are they, benefits & harms for each group, connection to values); Informed comparison of fundamental issues (are there conflicts, etc) Conceptual Investigations

18. Empirical Investigations • Usability & Values both incorporate • Ethnographic inquiries • Surveys • Interviews However, the questions asked differ

19. Empirical Investigations: Questions to Ask • Usability • Who/Where/When/What/Why (task analysis) • What is the conceptual model work? • What are appropriate forms of feedback, mappings, etc? • Values • How are different values prioritized by stakeholders? • How does what is said differ from what is done? • What is the impact of larger structures such as organizations and governments on what is possible?

20. Technical Investigations • Usability & Values both incorporate: • Toolkits supporting good practice • “Probes” (technology, culture, value,…) • Experiments with prototypes • Field studies Again, the questions asked differ

21. Technical Investigations: Questions to Ask • Usability • Does a system meet specific goals (such as usability, learnability, fun, etc) • Does the conceptual model work? • Values • Does a given technology allow values to be expressed in certain ways? • Does a given technology imply values or impose values that were not the designer’s intent? • What benefits and harms does a technology imply? How does this map onto corresponding values?

22. As it happens… • Major research goal for me is developing tools and techniques for evaluation • Ubiquitous computing (mobile devices, unconstrained environments) • Universal access (disability, literacy, etc) • Applications in developing countries are a perfect testbed for these ideas

23. Contributions to date • Tools & Techniques for simulating different user experiences • Motor impairments • Visual impairments (relates to literacy) • Technique for handling different values (modified heuristic evaluation) • Comparison of field & lab techniques for dealing with a subset of ubicomp applications

24. Plans for the future • Tool for supporting combination of paper prototyping & Wizard of Oz in unconstrained, mobile applications • Modifications to Ubicomp prototyping tools specific to supporting different evaluation techniques • Additional modifications to evaluation techniques