Final prototype (combination of the app and the robot idea)

It was concluded to use the  app as a base, with some minor ideas from the robot prototype.

The app should have the following properties:

• Scan IR codes available at each exhibit that functions as a digital guide. More information can be obtained about each exhibit in that way.
• Show related exhibits and how they can be found.
• Google Maps street view should be used to be able to view some of the exhibits in directly in the phone (I think they have an SDK for that).
• It should keep track of what you have seen.
• In the end there should be a quiz on things that have been seen.
• Support for different languages should be available.

Possibly, the app could simulate a treasure hunt.

Emails for presentation editing

Write your emails in the comments if you want to edit the presentation. I think Arsalan and Artem has all the pictures, so you'll have to add that shit.

The group photo

Notes for seminar 2

As I was reading chapter 11, I wondered which of the four evaluation paradigms (quick and dirty, usability testing, field studies and predictive evaluation) would suit our project best.

Considering our resources, ethos and cumulative experience, I feel that usability testing is a no-go. I don't believe we could maintain the control that the author emphasizes. Setting up and maintaining "laboratory-like conditions" is probably beyond our reach and these "casual visitors" wouldn't respect/trust us, mere first year students at KTH, enough to let us strictly control them.

Our scenarios and personas would come in handy if we would like to use predictive evaluation. The question is if we trust our own analysis and knowledge of the users. Users are generally not involved in the process and if we base our product after false assumptions, the end user might be sorely dissapointed.

Quick and dirty and field studies appear to have alot in common, the major difference seems to be that quick and dirty lives up to its name, it's a much more fast and sloppy evaluation. I feel that we still need to learn more about our potential users. A lot of information can be gained by not only talking to the them, but also by observing how they use products and behave (something we haven't done). I think we should use one (or both?) of these two evaluations, since they wouldn't drain our nonexistant resources while also allowing us to get more interaction and thereby experience with the users. These evaluation paradigms simply seem to fit us and our project more than the other two.

So the questions I want to discuss are:

1. Which evaluation paradigm do you think suits our project the best?
2. Are there any differences between the last two evaluation paradigms that I've missed?

semrinar 2 dnotes martn niölsson

So we're learning a lot about prototyping and why prototyping is a good time. The course literature brings up two variants: high  and low fidelity. (Brought into the 2nd dimension with horizontal vs vertical prototyping.) Obviously for us right now the lower version is more relevant, but maybe later on we'll have to crank the fidelity, which is probably more fun. In a mid-to-low-sized group setting I feel like it's really easy for someone to get bogged down in overly-detailed sketches that are in a sense nothing but an early draft. I've probably never prototyped in my life, though, so who knows.

Then there's the DECIDE framework to tackle. Seems a little on the common sense side (I'd like to think I'd know to Explore the questions before Choosing the methods) but I do see the usefulness in having this static structure to lean on so as to relieve some of the stress of inexperience.

Last but not least, there's chapter 14, aka A Lot of Information About Evaluation Studies. A few terms are introduced, or more accurately, defined within the context of design, such as usability testing vs experiments vs field studies. The information here is solid, perhaps more so relative to the other chapters, but I think harder to really reflect on. The information is solid, though. Definitely a useful chapter to have if you're gonna evaluate. (Which you practically always are, I assume.)

As for the question: The whole high/low fidelity thing seems a bit of an arbitrary categorization, because I get the impression fidelity is, at least in theory, a gradual scale. Does the high--low division imply it's useless to prototype more than twice or is it just handy shorthand?

Seminar Notes 2 - Artem

Chapter 11: As many of the chapters we have read, chapter 11 stresses the importance of rapid feedback and iterative design. To our help, there are two main branches: conceptual design (which deals with the actual idea of how something is going to be used) and physical design (which focuses on details as screen layout and menu structure.) When the actual prototype is being designed, it can be grouped into low fidelity and high fidelity. For instance, the first one might be a paper-based prototype while the latter is software-based. The main advantage of low fidelity prototype is that it is quick and easy to produce (and modify, which is good at an early stage). During the construction, it is important to keep in mind metaphors and try to put unfamiliar things close to familiar ones (this is quite similar to when people listen to radio. Usually, you will hear that familiar and new songs are intertwined). The cognitive load at different stages should be considered. The values in different cultures should be kept in mind.

Chapter 12: This chapter introduces the DECIDE framework that has the aim to facilitate the planning of an evaluation. An interesting point brought up in the chapter is whether it is possible to study people without actually changing them (see the example with the tribe on p.490).

Chapter 14: Here we are introduced to different settings that where experiments can be performed. To sum up, a lab is contrasted with the “wild” (natural setting). It mentions the way participants should be selected, and how the data is to be analysed.

Question:

1. The ethical considerations are of great importance. During the museum visit, we observed the way people interacted with the different exhibits, which we later used as a part of our analysis. To what extend are we able to observe participants without telling them that we do so?
2. Once we have a prototype, we can set up an experiment to test it. Would it be better to test our prototype directly in the museum without notifying the users or invite them into a controlled lab setting. Moreover, would it be ethically correct to observe the users in the natural setting without telling them that they are a part of the experiment. 

                                          

Seminar 2 Notes

Chapter 11 discusses prototyping and its uses within the design process. I think it can be useful to invest time in prototyping because it can give a different insight as to how a product's interface functions. The book describes two different types of prototyping, low and high fidelity prototypes.  I think that is important to start off with using low fidelity prototypes out of cardboard and paper then move on to high fidelity prototypes using software. This is because designing the interface is an iterative process and low fidelity prototypes are easier to alter and improve upon. If we were to use a high fidelity prototype first, we would spend more time on coding the interface and debugging it rather than focusing on perfecting the interface's features to suit the user's  requirements.

Chapter 13 defines four evaluation paradigms, quick and dirty, usability testing, field studies and predictive evaluation. This chapter also provides the DECIDE framework. I think that this a useful guideline for people who are unsure where to begin when evaluating user needs. I noticed how the DECIDE framework has appeared during our museum visit. We have asked the museum visitors about practical problems as well as deciding how to deal with the ethics of anonymity. 

Questions to discuss:

Which evaluation paradigm is most suited to our project and is it feasible (in terms of the time it takes to perform the evaluations)?

seminar 2 notes

Chapter 11 discusses prototyping and mentions the two classes of prototypes, low-Fidelity and high-Fidelity prototyping and mentions several advantages and disadvantages with them. Obviously, low-Fidelity prototyping is much easier and faster and can demonstrate conceptual ideas without big problems. High-fidelity prototyping becomes only relevant when you’re in a stage where you want to test that the details are well-formed and integrated in the design.

The chapter also mentions scenarios and storyboards, which really are just detailed scenarios where the user’s interaction with the device is narrated. Although it’s good to imagine how the user may interact with the device in a given context, i feel like this technique suffers from the fact that the designers know everything about their design and may not easily comprehend what difficulties a real user may run into.

Question: What is actually a mood board??

In chapter 13 the authors present us with the evaluation framework DECIDE. Most of it are general instructions like “Determine the goals”, “Explore the questions” etc.

In chapter 14 the authors mention different types of evaluation studies, Usability testing and field studies. The difference between them is that the first one is conducted in a controlled lab environment while the second one is done in the wild.

Which one to choose depends on what the product is. For evaluating a new computer or mobile phone it makes sense to do it in a lab where you could for example extract information through eye tracking. But if you want to evaluate a product that is highly integrated in some outer environment, field studies should be conducted. Although it could be complemented with some usability tests too.

Prototypes

Below, a brief overview of our prototype session:

Brainstorming

Conventional Prototype

Non-Conventional Prototype

A robot that can be controlled through a user-friendly interface that allows operations to be ranked by votes.

Pesona 1 - Scenario 2

Young Kim saw a cool show about museums a couple of days ago. This made him do his own "research" about different musuems, by using his new laptop. He found out that the museum of technology currently has a exhibition dedicated to video games, something every real kid enjoys! His mother had been very busy with work and wasn't able to find the time to take him there. So Kim decided to ask his teacher, Mr. Nilsson, if the class could visit the musuem. He made an awesome presentation using programs on his computer, where he talked about the benefits of a visit. In the end, he managed to convince Mr. Nilson to schedule a trip the next month. Kim also showed him the museum's webpage, which helped in the planning of the trip.

The class took the tunnelbana into Central Station and then hopped on a bus that stopped just outside the museum, how convenient! Kim was very excited when they arrived, which the cashier noticed. Pleased by his endearing enthusiasm, she couldn't help but ask if he was excited about anything in particular. When he answered that he really wanted to see the cool video games, she was nice enough to give directions to the exhibition. She also recommended to take a small paper map in case he wanted to see different parts of the museum. Since the first hour of the visit was free roaming, Kim rushed to the video games, but Kim isn't very fast. The other kids in his class got there first and all the cool games were taken when he arrived. He had to make do with Tetris, but surely if he just waited a bit, it would be his turn to play? Alas, the selfish, greedy nature of man manifests early and Kim didn't get a chance to play any cool game before the hour was up.

The rest of the visit was spent in groups, to do different tasks and exercises they were assigned. Kim was moody and couldn't focus, not even his mom's pancakes could cheer him up, all he could think about was all the cool games he wanted to play. Such a cool exhibition took away any interest he could have had in other stuff there and he didn't learn anything about the different technologies during the visit.

The group had a hard time navigating the museum, even though Kim had picked up a map. The museum is probably not designed for kids to go alone. His group finished last and that caused them to just get a few short minutes of play time before they had to go home. Kim rushed to the video game section and managed to play minecraft for five minutes before his teacher rounded everyone up. As he stepped onto the bus and took a last look at the building, Kim promised himself that he would visit again and this time alone.

Persona 2: Unlikely Visitor

Persona 2: Unlikely Visitor

Name: Jennifer Rutherford
Age: 25
Profession: Actress

Characteristics:
Has a high school degree, unfamiliar with technology, doesn't believe in the theory of evolution and believes vaccines do more harm than good.

Scenario 1:

Jennifer is currently in Stockholm for a theatre performance. After one of her performances, she dozed off and had a dream about the future and the singularity, the moment when artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence. She decides to visit Tekniska Museet to learn more about the technology of the future.

She arrives there by taxi and she enters the museum. She decides to ask the information desk about any exhibits or information on the singularity. They tell her that there aren't any exhibits on that topic but she decides to go in anyway.

At the exhibits, she attempts to read the information given but has trouble understanding what they mean. Also, since she happens to be quite tall, she has to bend down to be able to read the information (most exhibits displayed their information at the bottom). She moves on to the upper floors but skips past all of the video game exhibitions as they do not interest her. She goes through the entire museum without finding any information about future technology. Unable to fulfil her goal, she leaves, disappointed.

Scenario 2:

Jennifer is visiting the museum with her boyfriend who happens to have a passion for technology while she on the other hand has little interest in it. Her boyfriend has lived in Stockholm for most of his life so they use the SL website to plan their route. While at the museum, she spends most of her time on her phone chatting to her friends. She decides to eat in the café while her boyfriend looks at the other exhibits. She orders some sandwiches and calls her friend afterwards. Her boyfriend meanwhile spends loads of time in the video game exhibit, mostly playing pacman as it brings back his childhoods memories. After talking to her friend, she brings up Netflix on her phone in order to watch some TV shows. However, her 4G internet limit has been reached and she can't find any wifi in the cafeteria. Bored, she tries to find her boyfriend who is playing Dance Dance Revolution. She goes to the information centre and gets a map to find the exhibit her boyfriend is at. She can't manage to navigate to the location using the map and she becomes pretty frustrated. Finally, she finds her boyfriend but he ends up spending more time at the exhibits so she  decides to leave.

List of Functions

state of the art analysis

My impression of the museum is that it is really easy to find things around the museum. There are many staff around the entry, and none of the persons we asked needed help from the staff after coming in.

I also noticed that most persons in the museum are children with adults, some come because the parents/grandparents/teachers wanted to show them the place, and some come because the children wanted to.

When it comes to interactivity, i noticed a lack in the museum. Sure, there are video games and such, but there is no interactivity with the traditional technology. For example if i wanted to know more about a technology, or see more Pictures/videos about it, then i have no way to do that (except for searching for the technology on ny own on the Internet)

Persona 1: Typical Visitor (scenario 1)

Name: Kim Johnsson
Age: 7 years old

Has a mother, Masha Johnsson who is single.

It is a Saturday morning and Kim and his mother decide to visit Tekniska museet. Kim heard about the museum from his a friend of his at school. He mentioned the amazing rockets they had at Tekniska and Kim was thrilled when he was allowed to go. His mother is the type of person who would put her child's happiness over her own.

His mother finds the directions to the museum and they take the bus there early in the morning (around 7:00). They arrived at the museum and Kim was so excited so he rushed through the entrance and in order to find the rocket exhibit. He is dissapointed that he cannot find it so he ask his mother who then asks a staff member. The helpful staff member directs Kim and his mother towards the rocket exhibit straight away.

Kim is exhilarated to see the rocket but as he looks at it, he desperately wants to methods of interacting with it, such as building his own and see it fly.

His mother then leads Kim to the next area within the museum to find some more interesting things to see. They go to an excavator which Kim himself could operate using the controls. However, he had difficulties with operating it. He then moves on to the play area and has a good time there.

Next, Kim and his mother are at the video game exhibition two floors above. His attention has been grabbed by Minecraft and spends a good amount of time on it. But his mother wants him to experience other things within the museum seeing as Kim can play Minecraft at home too. He reluctantly leaves the video game section and now the two of them feel hungry.

State of the art analysis

Tekniska museet were great at utilizing interactivity to immerse visitors and give them a better experience. Some information plaques had touch screens, which allowed for greater amounts of information to be stored in a small space (thanks to menus, scrolling, etc.). These plaques also give the option to vote for your favourite item in the "100 innovations" exhibition, the least popular get replaced after some time. This gives a sense of contribution and participation while also providing the musuem with simple, yet effective feedback.

Touch screens were also used in other intuitive ways, one display allowed you to examine the human body at different "levels" (eg blood vessels, musculature, bone, etc.). The multi touch function made it possible to rotate the body and create crossection for more thorough examination.

Navigating through the menus and voting seemed to be confusing for kids (even quite old ones, i.e. 8 year olds), but background information about the exhibit is probably targeted towards an older and more patient user group anyway.

The museum also incorporated different motion sensor techniques to let the visitor control robotarms and interact with digital shadowcreatures on a bigscreen. Children seemed to find these activities quite fascinating since their actions were given a reaction from "inanimate" objects.

There's a beloved "play area" at the back of the musuem. Kids can experiment with different physics phenomena disguised as toys and games. It's educational and fun.

State of the art analysis - Artem

Analysis of the organization inside the museum.

My general impression of the way different exhibitions are structured is positive. After all, this is a technical museum with great emphasis on future technology, so it would be strange if it would be otherwise.

Once we entered the museum, it was clear where to go (i.e. no need to ask staff members). There were maps as well that could be used to get a better picture of where to find different exhibitions (see below). It does not convey the entire truth (it’s simplified), but instead it servers the purpose of depicting all exhibitions and where these can be found. They were in four different languages: English, Swedish, Russian and Finnish. This is quite effective as they target a larger audience.

The exhibitions were structures in a circular way, in order to make sure that people don’t get lost. Each exhibition offered different kinds of interactivity. Some (as shown below), were using our touch senses, some were using the whole body sense (i.e. digital art, where the user was a part of the art and could influence the way it would turn out to be.), while some were quite informative.

Whole body

Touch sense

Digital art (whole body)

It can be argued that the informative exhibitions were not effective because the text was displayed at the bottom, although this is not true if we consider the way it was intended to be experienced. It is clear that the user should see the object and then, if desired, search for further information. This idea, on the other hand, is quite effective because it captures a larger spectrum of audiences. Children would still enjoy even if they cannot read, while those who can would do so if they want.

Informative exhibition

State of the art analysis - Arsalan Syed

Analysis of the museum and website:

The museum was great at providing information for visitors. They had an information center right at the entrance and they provided maps. The museum made use of a lot of technological devices for visitors to interact with. For example, they had digital touch screens with an interface where one could find more information about a specific exhibit.

An interactive touch screen displaying information about a certain invention

They also had a mechanical crane which they could interact with using joysticks and buttons. They presented the following diagram below.

Controls for the crane

An observation I made was that people would skip the instructions and start trying to operate it anyway.  They were a bit confused as to how high or low the crane could reach and were oblivious to the fact that the machine needed to rest for a minute before it could be used again. It would have been good if they had conveyed this information on the diagram in large, bold text because that seemed to be the main issues the user was having.

Each exhibit had the appropriate information and explained it in a way so that visitors of varying ages and backgrounds could understand it. One criticism I have though is the size of the text because it happened to be minuscule. On some exhibits, they would have large blank spaces while using small font size, making the use of space a bit inefficient.

The museum also had several electronically displayed games which would require physical interactivity. For example, they had a skiing game where you would stand on a platform and physical shift your body left and right in order to navigate the ski course in the game. Games like these are interesting because of how they can engage the user and make them utilise several parts of the body.

I think that the museum's website has done a good job in displaying all of the relevant information a visitor may need. It has a "recent events" section so that visitors can identify any interesting exhibits they would like to see. It provides the essential information such as the address, prices as opening times. It has easy to understand language so that anyone who is unfamiliar with technology and technical terms will have little trouble finding the information they want. In my opinion, the have made a good use of the layout and how they display their information. They also have a feature where a user can resize the website to fit their display appropriately.

It would be a good idea to interview people who have had little experience with the website and see if it improves their experience at the museum.

Tekniska Museet website

Artem's museum interview

These are the results from my interview with a child accompanied by his grandfather.

Is this your first time here? 
Grandpa: no.
The child: yes.

Have you asked the workers for help?
No. (both)

Have you had difficulties with navigating?
No, everything's easy. (both)

Impression?
The child: Some things here are weird.
(He didn't specify what)

Why did you come here? was there something special you wanted to see?
The child: I don't know.

Grandpa:  I took him here because we're a "technical friendly family" and I wanted to show him this place.

Observation:
The child had difficulties using the excavator, shown below:

The museum interview, translated to english

My interviewee was a woman who came to tekniska museet with her children, and this is the transcript:

Is this your first time here?
Yes

What made you come here?
The kid wanted to come here. He saw the museum on TV, on 'kändisbarnvakten'*. And we have a break now so we came here.

What's your general impression of the museum?
I don't know, we just came here.

Is there something special you want to see?
The kid: Films and video games.

End.

*note: 'kändisbarnvakten' is an svt show where some kids get into a museum during the night.

Interviews by Arsalan and Robin

Interviewed a woman in her 30's/40's, mother of 2/3 children.

Q: What is your impression of the museum ?
A: We like it a lot, it's great for the kids. We had heard of it and thought it would be was cool.

Q: Was it your first time here and whose idea was it to come here ?
A: Yes and it was my 10 year old son's idea to visit here.

Q: Was it difficult to navigate your way through the museum ?
A: The kids don't really care about maps or navigation. They will rush to anything they find interesting. However we did have trouble trying to find the lockers.

Interviewed a father of one.

Q: Is it your first time here and what is your general impression of the museum?
A: Yes it's our first time here and we have had a very good experience.

Q: Whose idea was it to come here?
A: It was mostly my idea (the dad) to come here.

Q: What was the main reason for coming here?
A: The main attraction we were interested was the 4d cinema.

Pictures from the museum

Seminar 1 - Group discussion

Question of  freedom with interface map example, resources should be taken into accou too.

 martin - book is outdated and mostly just recites common sense, not useful for our project. Article and its methods outdated.

Put user in front, adding many functions wont help if user doesnt want them. Trusts between user and product. Error handling. What gives app good UX, book ks guideli. Research the market

There are different things to keep in mind when observing. You should clearly know what you want to observe, what should we focus on? (This might cause a confirmation bias(?))

We should not focus on a single approach in case of errors and small sample sizes.

Observation might be better than interviews because the interviewee can lie or exaggerate, observations will see natural behaviour.

Repeated obervations => more nuanced conclusions

Information flow!

Activity theory -

Shud we evaluate in nartural env orn lab env. Ppl behave naturally in natural env. Lab env. Can produce diff results

SEMINAR 1 - MARTIN NILSSON

In the article, "Key principles for user-centred systems design", the authors voice early that one of their primary concerns lie in being able to define clearly the process of UCSD (user-centred system design). They state the term has no commonly agreed upon definition, and consequently is employed in different ways, leading to various difficulties: not only potentially posing problems for the design process itself, but also complicating any efforts of research it directly; we have, thus, given a desire to, say, optimize, or evaluate, UCSD, a problem.

Several times during the course of the article, however, UCSD is acknowledged as containing a myriad of out-dated principles, going so far as to slightly complicating their actual research into it, as several of their potential test groups had long since abandoned it.

Overall I think the articles presented present for our upcoming project very little actually relevant, usable data. There's a lot of old information regurgitated for the ostensible purpose of regurgitation, producing almost an air of obfuscated common sense. In a field as ever-changing as HCI I also question the overall relevancy of articles over 10 years old, but naturally I'll defer to expertise.

A question that interests me regards data collection methods. The seventh chapter of the course book brings up several options in this area, but after our group discussion I have become unsure whether we've actually chosen the optimal method; my question, therefore, is: might we benefit more from some other data collection method, other than the interviews, assuming we had the time and resources of a proper research group?

Seminar 1 - Robin Bråtfors

Chapter 2

The author introduces conceptual models, which is pretty much a conceptual description of the purpose, behaviour and design of the proposed system. These models are dependant on the activities of the user, the four most common types of activites are:

• Instructing
• Conversing
• Manipulating and navigating
• Exploring and browsing

A good grasp of the average user seems to be of great importance in the designing of a conceptual model. Not only to find out what the system should do, but also how it should do it. This will give us a better grasp of what, why and how we are going to design a solution to an eventual problem of the interviewees

I think the four mentioned categories are an important aspect of the user and are really good to have in mind during when constructing a system. The user will be granted varying degrees of independence depending on the activity they perform. For example when reading a map of the musuem, how interactive should that map be? Should the user bew able to input their own keywords or should it just be a plain map? Can it be bad to allow the user more freedom in the interaction with the system or should interaction be more restricted?

Seminar 1 - Artem

Already in the beginning of the book, the importance of user experience in any product that is being developed is emphasised. Therefore, the focus of the remaining chapters is to describe how this can be achieved.

In Chapter 2, we get an introduction to designs (in general) that will result in good user experience. It stresses the fact that change at an early stage is better in contrast to when some code (from CS perspective) has already been written. Before the design process starts, information about current experience and how it can be improved should be gathered (this is emphasised in chapter 10). It is suggested that teams should consist of people from different fields in order to get as many perspectives as possible, which helps to avoid errors. It is an advantage to design products that contain metaphors or analogies, in order to tell the user how to use the product. For example, it’s better to visualize the process of moving a file to another folder as to allow the user to relate to the physical action. Moreover, it’s crucial to be consistent and use repetition (all tasks should be executed in a similar way). Finally, tasks should be visualized as objects (eg. moving a file) rather than forcing to execute a command. Although commands give the user more power, it takes longer time to learn in contrast to visual actions that are intuitive.

Once there is a design team, data can be gathered that will be used to shape the new product. In chapter 7, three main techniques for data collection are presented: interviews, questionnaires and observations. There are three kinds of interviewing techniques: open, closed or semi-open. Each of them servers a particular purpose. Open interviews are good to get a general understanding the situation, and as a result, the responses will be unique (although it is possible to extract a common theme). Moreover, it will be much harder to analyse open interviews because of the nature of answers (qualitative data). Closed interviews, however, are easier to analyse because closed questions are used, thus they can be quantified. It is important to keep in mind that people might say one thing but in reality do something else (this was mentioned during a lecture also). In that case, it is better to use observations as tool to gain information. Robson’s framework illustrates things to consider during observation (see pp. 249-250).

Chapter 7 is concerned with interpretation of the gathered data. There are three main frameworks that can be used: Grounded Theory, Distributed Cognition and Activity Theory. Grounded theory emphasises the iterative aspect of the design process. First, data is collected, which is later used to establish categories. Then, based on this analysis, more data is gathered and so on. The loop continues until a theory is well defined. Distributed cognition seems to look at detailed steps of a process, considering many factors. Activity theory on the other hand, which is “a product of Soviet psychology”, focuses on the analysis of concepts of an activity. The “eating with a spoon” example on p. 309 shows how a basic action as holding a spoon turns into more simultaneous actions such as holding it horizontally that functions as one action.

In chapter 10, the important conclusion is to adjust the interface to the task. This can be achieved by for instance Persona driven development, use cases, scenarios, et cetera. There is a great emphasis on constructing requirements (from CS perspective, a UML diagram is one of them) and to do that, many information gathering techniques have to be used. Those described in chapter 7 (interview, questionnaires, observations) are just some of the examples. In addition, research of similar products and the study of documentation has to be performed. The main advantage of the latter is that they don’t require active participation of the stackeholders.

Preparation for the field study

Location: Tekniska museet.
Schedule

1. Meet up at T-Centralen 9:20
2. Get to Tekniska museet using buss 69, mot Blockhusudden.

During the interview

1. Present who you are and why you are doing this.Eg. KTH Students doing important research for the benefit of the society. Task: Future Museum. Don't mention that we are first year students unless they ask.
2. This is entirely anonymous.
3. Possible subgroup: retirees, school children and minority groups.
4. This won't take that long. Your contrition is important.

Tasks

1. Take pictures during the visit. How effective is it? Can it be improved?

Questions

• Is this your first time? If not, how many times have you visited the museum.
• What is your impression of the museum:
• did you need to ask staff for help? What kind of help?
• navigation
• info about exhibition
• Why are you here?
• Is there something special you want to see?

Notes on the field study tomorrow (4/2)

First of all, I would like to tell everyone that all of you should have access to the blog but one person (working on it.).

Secondly, considering the fact that we have not chosen a museum up to this point, or even if we've done that, I strongly suggest that we use the time tomorrow to go through important points, i.e.

• A clear set of questions (from Interaction Design) and whether we should have an open interview, a closed, or semi-open. Arsalan has a good post about it here.
• How we should split up the interviews (remember, all of us should interview at least once).
• Contact the museum staff to see if we can find a good time to interview them.
• Focus on a semi-structured interview (from Interaction Design): We could go there and ask open questions, but it would be to our advantage if we could brain storm on possible issues they might have. Once again, please see Arsalan's post about it.

Although we might already have everything we need to conduct a field study, another planning session would not hurt. Maybe, by visiting the seminar in two days, we will (hopefully) have read the required literature and thus have a framework to use.

I have already booked a room in the library, 10:00 to 12:00 in Teleskopet.

Seminar 1 - Arsalan's Notes

Chapter 2 points out that one should start the design process by focusing on the user's needs. One should check if a problem currently exists and if an improvement is necessary (improvement of the system may negatively affect the user experience). I agree with this as this saves a lot of work and time in the long run (avoid having to code a product nobody will use). For a designer, it's smart to state all assumptions about the user experience and verify if they're true (false assumptions can lead to problems later). A designer should be able to justify why their idea is useful and how it will support people in their activities. Text also discusses conceptual models for activities (instructing, conversing, manipulating + navigating, exploring and browsing). These summarize what a user is doing with some certain software. Finally, it goes over the usage of interface metaphors, their benefits and how to implement them in product. I agree that interface metaphors are useful for people unfamiliar with technology but cannot be applied unless it's to a new technology.

Chapter 7 goes over the methods of obtaining data (questionnaires, interviews, workshops, natural observation and studying documentation). Using the acquired data, we can describe how a user  interacts with a product by creating scenarios.

Question to discuss: Which form of data gathering is most applicable to our project?

My thoughts on this: Interviews are good to get in-depth analysis but finding willing participants may be difficult. We should still aim to get five of them done. Within our targeted subgroup, it would be interesting to see if their is a lot of variation in the data or if there is a strict common opinion shared. We could also do a questionnaire for short yes/no questions. A workshop might not be feasible with people we don't know. Natural observation may work, we can observe physical interaction within the museum (person interacting with a model/device). However the user's thought processes are harder to pinpoint with this technique.

Generally how the theory relates to our project:

The course literature is useful so far because the theory has provided guideline on how to undertake the project. It shows where to start and what methods to use. One method we could consider would be using hierarchical task analysis - a method to analyse all different tasks a user could do, it can show how complex certain interaction may be. 

Seminar 1 - MDI

In part 2.2 of the book the authors try to come up with a framework to aid the design process, in which the first step is to ask yourself what problems there are with already existing solutions. I guess that is a good starting point, but it assumes that the technology already exists. We cannot exclude the possibility that someone has to design an interface for a new technology. If we take for example the creation of mobile phones, it is true that telephones existed a long before that, but i claim that mobiles are so different that we could not draw conclusions as to how to design the interface of a mobile based on experience from the designs of telephones.

Question: In chapter 7 the authors mention informed consent forms, are these obligatory for interviews? If yes, how should they look like?

In part 8.6 of the book the authors describe three different theoretical frameworks for qualitative data analysis, grounded theory, distributed cognition and activity theory. I wonder if one of them is preferred for a certain kind of research, or if choosing a framework is a matter of personal taste.

In part 10.3 of the book the authors claim that there is a difference between objective measures of usability and user’s perception of the interaction. I wonder what that difference is. It seems to me that it is possible to measure the user’s perceptions objectively.

Possible Interview Questions

Here are some questions I came up with that we can use for the interview:

A possible subgroup of visitors we could target could be gymnasium/university students. We can relate to them, could make it easier for us to communicate with them.

Themes for interview: Navigation around museum, Methods of displaying information

//All questions should avoid yes/no answers

Navigation within the museum:

• How difficult do you find it to navigate through the museum? 
• Do you use an app or website to improve your experience at this museum?
• How well do the staff help out with helping you find your way?

Methods of displaying information:

Do you find the information displayed at exhibits:

• Easy to read (in terms of size, font used, spacing) ?
• Informative while being easy to comprehend? 

Did you spend any time on the museum's website before visiting to find out more about it?

(If museum uses interactive displays): What do you think about the usage of interactive displays in this museum ? Do you find them to be a useful tool for taking in information or comprehension

Other Questions:

What do you enjoy most about the museum?

Are you here for research or leisure?

Have you visited this museum before? 

Do you have a favourite exhibit?

Please leave any suggestions !