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?
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar