Talk:Module 6-d: Interaction design and usability assessment
From DL Curriculum Project
Instructions
1. Click an 'edit' link to type in your comments. Your evaluation may cover general issues concerning the module or a section of it, or you may make more fine-grained comments (e.g., on a particular section by referring to the section number or on a particular point by referring to the page and line number).
2. Add four '~' (without quotations) at the end of each comment. Your id, date and time will show up later.
3. Click the 'Save page' button on the bottom of the 'edit' page.
Module Objectives: Are the objectives appropriate for the topic?
Are the objectives observable? Will students be able to achieve the objectives, given the content in the body of knowledge?
It is okay that you decide to let students exercise the technique of heuristic evaluation in this class. I think this exercise is manageable for this class. Jengj 08:00, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, the learning objectives are well defined and are measurable/observable and are obtainable.Caprar 15:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I agree with the other reviewers the objectives are appropriate. Druina 14:49, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Body of Knowledge: Does the module address all areas of the topic that need to be addressed?
Will the body of knowledge enable students to achieve the objectives? Are there any topics that you think are critical to add to the body of knowledge? Are there any topics on that you would remove from the body of knowledge?
It seems you have covered those critical concepts in your Section 9 Body of Knowledge. The section 9.5 Usability is also appropriate considering you will only have 3 hours for this topic. The commonly used usability evaluation techniques are introduced. Jengj 07:57, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
The objectives appear to be obtainable given the curriculum outlined in the module. The title of the module is “Interaction Design and Usability Assessment”, but the module focuses more heavily on usability evaluation than on interaction design. This may be okay given limitations in the amount of time to cover this topic, but it would be include a bit more on interaction design. I have found the examples at http://www.usability.gov to be especially good for classroom use, but there are many examples of good and bad interaction design on the web (I like to find local examples when possible). I'd also like to see a bit more in the module about types of prototyping and prototyping techniques (lo-fi, hi-fi, pen&paper&overlays, powerpoint, html, etc).Caprar 15:24, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
I also agree with Caprar's comment. The module is more focus on the interaction design process. It would be great to include examples of different interaction metaphors for DL, and let students compare the advantages and disadvantages. It is one way to pursue better interaction design for DL. Interaction design examples can include different physical interactions such as mouse interaction, pen-based interface, and touch screen. Also, visual interaction in software level interfaces. Kohe 18:55, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I too have to agree that the module is weighted much too heavily on usability. But I will be perhaps more forceful in my agreement-- because when instructors weight too heavily on the back-end processes and forget the front-end input, students get the wrong idea that design is all about fixing mistakes as opposed designing with a purpose. As Caprar suggested above-- moving to more information on low-tech prototyping, contextual design, and more would help students understand how to get started. I would also consider introducing notions of "Participatory Design" or "Co-Design" with users, so people can understand how users can play a role int he design of new technologies. Druina 14:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Readings: Are the readings the best and most appropriate for the topic?
Are there any readings that you think are critical to add to the list? Are there any readings on the list that you would remove?
I think the readings you suggest are good. Jengj 08:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
There are many papers/books/articles that could be assigned on these topics, including many “classic” papers. The current choice of readings appears to strike a good balance between papers that are geared specifically to digital libraries (e.g. Notess et al. 2005), and ones with a more general focus on usability/interaction (e.g. Hutchins, et al. 1986).Caprar 15:25, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
This is where I disagree with my collegues. The text that are suggested are weighted too heavily on "traditional" HCI and not enough on Interaction Design. For eample, many parts of the following book should be included:
Sharp, H. Rogers, Y. & Preece, J. (2007) Interaction Design: beyond human-computer interaction, (Ed.2nd). NY: Wiley.
In addition, papers that discuss the design process need to be included. At least a few of the following should also be included:
Brown, T. (June 2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 84-92.
Muller, M. J. 2001.Layered participatory analysis: New developments in the CARD technique. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '01 (Seattle), pp. 90-97. New York: ACM Press.
Beyer, H., and K. Holtzblatt. 1998. Contextual design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Huchinson, H., Druin, A , & Bederson, B. B., (2007). Supporting Elementary-Age Children’s Searching and Browsing: Design and Evaluation Using the International Children’s Digital Library. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technolog (JASIST), 58(11), 1618-1630.
Druin, A. (2005). What children can teach us: Developing digital libraries for children. Library Quarterly, 75(1), 20-41.
Druina 15:27, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Learning Activities: Are the activities appropriate for the topic?
Will students be able to accomplish the activities, given the content in the body of knowledge? Will the activities enable students to achieve the objectives? Can you think of any other class activities appropriate for this module?
It seems that the load is heavy considering this is a three-hour class. Students need to conduct two in-class exercises and a heuristic evaluation as the homework assignment, in addition to readings. Jengj 08:14, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I would like to see an interaction design activity included. For example, students could be given a partial DL interface along with descriptions of the target users, goals, etc. and then asked to design one or two interactions (e.g. an advanced search interface, an way to incorporate facets for search refinements, an interface for presenting the search results). This design could be done using pen-and-paper prototyping so that it could be achieved within a class period exercise.Caprar 15:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
More examples: I don't know if the module is being designed to include this or if this is left to the instructor, but it would be nice to have more examples in the module, especially in the following areas: personas, DL tasks, types of prototypes, heruistic evaluation, cognitive walkthrough, and claims analysis. In my experience, students really need to see a couple examples of these and then practice them before they really “get it”.Caprar 15:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, visual examples and video samples should be important for students to start with. They should see and interact first before they start design something for it. For example: "InfoGallery: informative art services for physical library spaces" http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1141753.1141757 Kohe 19:05, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I have to agree with Caprar above when it's suggested there is not enough design activities included. Asking the students to create a low-tech prototype. Asking students to work with a sample user on a design. To do any of this, some of what's suggested already needs to be cut down. Druina 15:30, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Level of Effort and Prerequisites: Is it feasible to teach the module as it is currently constructed?
Is the level of effort required in class appropriate to the scope of the body of knowledge? Is the level of effort required prior to class appropriate? Is the prerequisite knowledge required sufficient for students to comprehend the body of knowledge?
This class does not require any prerequisite. The level of effort for this class is demanding but students should obtain sufficient knowledge about the concept after the class. Jengj 08:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
As currently constructed, I would feel comfortable teaching it to students at or above junior-level undergraduates (including all levels of graduate students) in a Computer Science, Information Science, or Library Science program. However, the module does seem to cover a lot of material for only 3 hours of class time... I could probably cover most of the material in 3 hours if I had to, but I'd prefer to spend more time to insure that the learning objectives were met. Of course, all this would depend on the scope of the course and the number/extent of other modules included.Caprar 16:15, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
What's there seems reasonable in terms of the level of effort. Druina 15:31, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Overall Structure of the Module: Is the current module well structured?
Can the topics and their corresponding resources be easily divided? Is there a clear mapping between the objectives and the content of the body of knowledge section? If not, how could the objectives be mapped to the body of knowledge more clearly? [accidentally deleted this: Allenb 17:31, 30 December 2007 (EST) ]
The module is broken down into easy to manage topics.Caprar 16:16, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but the module needs to be changed to add in a better representative of Interaction Design. Druina 15:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Additional Comments
Page 2, lines 12-13: Very good to recommend teaching 6-a and 6-b before this module. Page 3, line 7: This would be a place to talk about various types of prototyping (as mentioned above) Page 3, lines 22-24: Highlight the differences between search expertise and domain expertise here. Page 4, line 4: need to elaborate on what is meant by “annotating user characteristics accroding to the categories” Page 4, lines 16-18: another challenge in designing effective tasks is how to motivate the users, how to 'get them into' the task – scenarios can help with this Page 5, line 6: design guidelines such as those at usability.gov might be helpful here Page 5, line 13: What is meant by “Computer's self-efficacy?” Should this be the user's self-efficacy? Page 5, lines 17-33: Cognative walkthrough and heuristic eval will sometimes use a structured forms to help guide the analysis.. You might include a link to an example form here. Page 6, lines 10-19: Should cite Carroll and Rosson 1992 here re scenarios and claims Page 9-10: I really like the In-class exercise I Page 10, lines 34-35: Need to clarify “purpose of the study” and “what to do in the context of”. Perhaps this exercise should be introduced as “you are desinging a study...”? Page 11, line 18: Great idea to pair up the groups to test the tasks. Pages 10-11: In-class exercise II is also very good. Page 11, lines 24-25: May not need to be an “under-construction” interface... there are plenty of “finished” interfaces with many usability problems out there. Page 12: Items 13, 14, 15 are not completedCaprar 16:16, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
