Tag Archive: GUI


Last Wednesday most of our class had our mock exam. There we had to present our progress, stance and achievements in our project, both practical and theoretical. Making a presentation takes a lot of your time, so I spend most of it working towards my mock exam. In this post I will look at my results of the mock exam, but first I’m gonna look what I have done before it (I didn’t update my blog for two weeks I think). Below my chronological progress what I have done the past weeks.

Photo collages

I gathered all my research I did from the surveys and the photo documentation from the users television environment. I ‘documented’ the results in my sketchbook and in some folders in my laptop, but didn’t apply any decent structure in it. For the presentation (but also for myself), I’ve made a collage of pictures that explain the main conclusions of my field research. The goal of it was to apply this conclusions in my next step, building a testing environment and the object design.

resting positions remotes

resting positions remotes

Persona’s

During my progress I was figuring out how important persona’s are for my project. My target group could be everyone that uses the television (except of course far extremes like disabled people). In the end I thought it was better to make persona’s, just to understand the target group better. I based these persona’s on the people I visited during my field research. I’ve made one central one and two extremes (one technical user and one technophobe).

three persona's

three persona's

Testing room

A while ago I arranged a place to build my test room. During that time I gathered some second hand stuff for decoration, thought about how to do the video documentation and alternative set-ups for testing. With alternative set-ups I want to test how the setting has influence on the user experience, according to the embodied interaction theory. Thats why I want to use different seats, like a couch, fat-boy and crappy chair. I also did my first test, but I will come back to that later.

observation and testing room

observation and testing room

Research set-up

Before I wanted to test users and objects in the test room, I decided to put my observation goals on paper. That’s why I’ve set up an observation document. In this document I’ve thought about my goals, expected results and observation structure.

Sketches and low-fidelity prototypes

My goal was to start with very simple objects, only primary shapes and simple interactions with it. With each iteration I want to define the object(s) more in detail. I’ve started with sketching simple shapes. Secondary was the feedback within the object itself. I thought about simple feedback, like a weight that moves or the characteristics of an object (like softness, form, warm or cold). I bought some stuff from a toy store and DIY shop to make these objects. In the observation document I defined what the expected results would be of each object.
In the mock examination I got some comments on this process, which I will come back on later.

Low-fidelity prototypes

Low-fidelity prototypes

observation room first test

The next step was to test these objects with users and I started with fellow students. I did this through narration (an IDEO method card; a way of testing). This comes down to giving simple commands and let the user think out loud. My main goal was to find out if my set-up worked and some first comments on the objects itself. I was really happy how the testing went, so this is a good basis for future testing.

User testing low-fidelity prototypes

Supportive Narrative

Last but not least, I also worked hard to get a nice draft for the mock examination. I started with finding useful snippets from other papers and books to get a good basis. What also took a lot of time was the outline; structuring my paper relevant to my own project. Writing the first chapter in English was harder than I thought, but I think this will be manageable for the rest of my paper.

Mock exam and feedback

The mock presentation went well, but I went over the 10 minutes, so next time I have to shorten the presentation a lot. After a stressful period of waiting I got the result: a disappointing orange (you get red-orange-green as an indicator). In short, the comments where that I was on the right trajectory, but I have to adapt my end goal a bit and focus more on the object design. Although I wasn’t really happy with the result, they teachers told me I don’t have to worry to much because it are relatively small adjustments.

At the moment my process is mainly research: I want do define my object more in detail through each iteration. It’s a research driven progress. The comments where I have to be more of a designer, so I have to go deeper in the object design. That means defining the form, feeling and interaction more in detail before each iteration. Some examples are choice of materials, form and function. What is central is the interaction with the object itself, so the ‘feeling’ and expectations is most important for the device. I have to build a clear continuum of forms, material selection and feedback. I have to focus on tangibility of designed objects and tested experiences.

With this I have to go to workshops to get some inspiration or guidance. I have to improve my artistic standard, so I have to go more crazy with ideas. I have to apply the same form of research (and use of results) I did for my field research.

My original planning was to work towards a functioning prototype. I could get some help from Aduen, who is an expert on physical computing. The comments where that instead of working to a functioning prototype, I have to make a proof of concept video. This is because of the limited time, and I could focus more on applying the research and concept ideas.

So the first thing I have to do is adjust my end goal (through my planning) and beginning with detailed sketching of the remote object. I can get some help from people in my environment, who are more specialized on this area than me.

Work work!

Yesterday we all gave a small presentation of the progress of our projects. The supportive narrative (other word for the paper we have to write) was the core of the presentation. We started with showing the table of contents and a chapter where we had the most information of. At the end of the presentation we had to ask a question to the rest of the class. This question was about our stance within the supportive narrative, which subject was in our mind at the moment.

My paper is about embodied interaction; how human-computer interaction can be made more natural by using the body (working title!).

My question at the time was how far I should go with embodied interaction versus Graphical User Interfaces (GUI’s). The fact is that GUI’s use symbolics, metaphors and interactions based on our real life experiences, to make the interface intuitive and easier to understand (think about drag & drop, the recycle bin, the desktop, etc.). With this I want to say is that there is an extra barrier for the user; the user has to make a translation from real life to a graphical interface. A good interface does this translation well, but there are a lot of interfaces that don’t.

The first reaction on my question was that using the ‘versus’ stance is the wrong stating point. It is better to look at how GUI’s use real life metaphors and how they are applied in a system. With this, I can figure out which metaphors are the most widely used and understandable for users. I can use this as a way to reverse-engineer this back in the natural interface.

Another point of feedback was that I figure out how I can make a GUI easier to use by translocating functions to the input device (the natural interface) instead of showing it all on the GUI. Think about using a ‘pinch’ gesture to zoom in on a map or picture, instead of pressing a graphical ‘+’ or ‘-’ button on the interface.

Besides giving feedback on our papers, Irene also asked what our short-term plan was for the coming weeks. My plan is finishing my context research and document this in clear way.

  • Firstly, I’m visiting people at home, how they are watching television and what their relation is with the associated devices. I’m documenting this with photo’s. The core of it is that I experience the situation by myself.
  • Secondly, I’m working on a questionnaire how users themselves view their position of watching television. How they feel, physical position is, which functions they mainly use, their annoyances, and so on. I try to make this questionnaire a bit playful and visual. My interest is not cold hard data, but their user experiences. Feedback from Irene was to send this questionnaire to her and a teacher for feedback. I want to finish this questionnaire today.

Work work!

Feedback from Irene

Last week Irene van Peer gave the assignment to look at what I have, and figure out which medium I can focus on. I did gave a lot of feedback on my blog on the material I had, but I didn’t have an ‘eureka’ moment. I also made a list of subjects I could apply my theories in, but didn’t make a final choice yet.

This week I had a very useful meeting with Irene. She gave me some additional feedback on my process and tried to push me in the right direction. We went through the materials I gathered, and it became more clear to me indeed.

The conclusion was that I’m interested in making control over a system more physical, intuitive and natural by using haptic and gestural interaction. I decided that the system where I can apply this in would be the control over a multimedia system. I want to use the remote as a starting point, because it is a good example of a bad controller. It has been tried may times to improve this device, but old fashioned remotes are still common and the same problems subsist. I think this point of view will be ideal to experiment with. If I really can improve the remote on a practical level is still the question, but the goal is to broaden myself in gestural interaction with objects. I want to see what is possible and applicable in this area.

I will start with observing the environment, and look how I (and hopefully other people too) handle everyday things. Which actions are we used to? I also want to look at extremes. For example, situations that are not common; what people do when there is no better alternative available. I want to compare this with complex everyday systems, like computers and phones, that use Graphical User Interfaces (GUI).

I’ve read a lot about different user interfaces that define physical interfaces. Examples are Natural User Interfaces (NUI), Tangible User Interfaces (TUI) and a less common one, Sensor Network User Interface (SNUI) used in the siftables. These definitions have a lot in common, but are all interesting to look at. However, I have to make a selection in materials, so I won’t go to broad. I also have to apply this in the literature I’ve got. I also have to look back at the theory of embodied cognition (what was my starting point) and select which subjects are useful for this project.

Also, Irene had some personal feedback, which is good to keep in mind.

  • I have try not to have an early judgment. This is because sometimes I see the negative of something before analyzing it thoroughly.
  • I have to walk around with antenna’s during this period. Observe, write down, evaluate.
  • visit locations and observe people, instead of desktop research.
  • Keep the 5 main senses in mind. The user experience overall. What do people feel / associate with actions?

For a start, I will define my research questions for the coming time.

  • How can the functions in this system be easily represented through real life interactions?
  • How are multimedia systems used by common people at the moment?
  • How can be this interface be more natural, graspable and real?
  • How do we make decisions through tangible feedback?
  • Remote control of multimedia system; television stations, sound and movies. how can you control this easily, intuitive?
  • I want to look at everyday household devices;
  • What are we used to in the real world?
  • Look at recognizable needs in this area;
  • What could be an addition to the usual visual feedback, to relieve visual overload?

I have to refer my findings continually to the control of a multimedia device.

My next step in the process will be to write down keywords that define my area.  After that gather some additional information. I have to analyze the data thoroughly.

Some additional literature would be:

Dan Saffer - Gestural Interfaces
Dan Saffer - Silent Language Edward T.Hall - The Silent Language
Bill Gaver

GUI Mental Model

GUI Mental Model

Powered by WordPress. Theme: Motion by 85ideas. Adapted by N1kname.