Page 1


Department of Computer Science Aalborg University INF 3

TITLE:

User Interface Innovation - New Interaction Styles.

PROJECT PERIOD:

INF3 2nd. september - 19th. december, 2008

PROJECT GROUP: i301a

GROUP MEMBERS: Gunnar Konradsson Jonas Urth Olsen Michael Bønnerup Ole Risgaard Hansen Rahuvaran Pathmanathan Søren Hugger Møller Thulasika Rasenthiran

SUPERVISOR:

Gitte Tjørnehøj

NUMBER OF COPIES: 10 REPORT - PAGES: 57 APPENDIX - PAGES: 54 TOTAL - PAGES: 111

Synopsis: This project deals with idea generation methods for working alternative interactions forms. The purpose of the project is to study which options there are to get away from the ubiquitous WIMP interaction form that is predominant today, even though it is more than 20 years old. Throughout the project, dierent methods have been used to study how it is possible to use alternative interaction forms. Additionally the project focuses on interaction in an Immersive Virtual Environment, more specifically the Cave Automatic Virtual Environment. The result of these studies reects what we have learned to be important considerations in a radical innovative process.


Chapter 0

User interface innovation

Preface

This project was written during the autumn of 2008 by 5th semester informatics group i301a at the Department of Computer Science at Aalborg University. The project period began the 2nd September and the project report was completed and handled in the 19th December 2008. The semester subject was Innovation in system design with new interaction styles. On the basis of the subject, knowledge from the following courses was involved: • The User Innovation Management (UIM). • Design and Innovation Workshop (DIW).

We would like to thank Gitte Tjørnehøj for supervising us during the project period. We would also like to thank Mikael B. Skov for introducing us to the Design and Innovation Workshop. The middle front page picture, is owned by VR Media Lab1 . Aalborg University, 19th December 2008

1 www.vrmedialab.dk/pr/imgfaciliteter/cave_stor.jpg - The picture on the front page is edited by us, and therefore it diers from the link-picture.

2


Reading manual

The report is divided into several chapters, the following will describe each chapter.

Chapter 1 is the introducing chapter for the whole project, and starts with dening the main topic for this project. What is innovation and what process is needed for an innovative result. Furthermore this chapter describes the relation between searching for ideas and creativity. Chapter 2 describes what interaction is and furthermore we introduce the WIMP interacting form2 and alternative interaction forms.

Chapter 3 outlines the problem statement in the light of the opening chapters. Chapter 4 describes the research method, how we involved theory and structured our research.

Chapter 5 introduces the technology behind VR and CAVEs3 and arguments

why these are used in the research project. The chapter also outlines the innovation process with focus on how to generate ideas in the specic context.

Chapter 6 describes the dierent idea generating methods and assesses them for further involvement in the research. Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10 describe the selected idea generating methods further and how we evaluate them. Chapter 11 is the nal discussion on idea generation methods for alternative user interfaces in general.

Chapter 12 deals with the conclusion of our research and innovation process.

General information

The report contains both references and footnotes. References will in the text be noted as [reference number ] and gure references will be written as gure gure number. The reference list of literature can be found at the end of the report under Bibliography. The footnotes include a more descriptive text or information about the topic, and will be available on the bottom on the page. Footnotes will be represented by numbers. Source references to appendix will be represented with letters and numbers.

2 Short for Window, Icon, Menu, Pointer. 3 Immersive virtual reality environment

A paradigm for developing user interfaces.


Contents Contents

4

1 Innovation

2

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

The approach to innovation . . . Process for innovation . . . . . . Creativity - a part of innovation The innovation pyramid . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

2 Alternative interaction

2 3 5 6 8

9

2.1 Interaction forms versus interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 Alternative interaction forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3 Problem statement

12

4 Research method 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Our research method . . . . . . Research procedure . . . . . . . Data collection and processing Data analysis . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

5 Immersive virtual reality

13

13 14 14 15 16

17

5.1 Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2 The case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6 Idea generation methods 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

Brainstorming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bodystorming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . User Innovation Management . . . . . Ethnographic studies . . . . . . . . . . Picture Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . Design and Innovation Workshop . . . The methods in an innovation process Searching for new ideas . . . . . . . . Structuring the process . . . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

22

22 23 23 24 25 25 26 27 28


7 Brainstorm 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

Purpose . . . . Focus . . . . . Participants . . Theory . . . . . Process . . . . Product . . . . Conclusion . . Lessons learned

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

8 Ethnographic Studies 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8

Purpose . . . . Focus . . . . . Participants . . Theory . . . . . Process . . . . Product . . . . Conclusion . . Lessons learned

9 Picture Scenarios 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8

Purpose . . . . Focus . . . . . Participants . . Theory . . . . . Process . . . . Product . . . . Conclusion . . Lessons learned

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

10 Design and Innovation Workshop 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8

Purpose . . . . Focus . . . . . Participants . . Theory . . . . . Process . . . . Product . . . . Conclusion . . Lessons learned

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

Brainstorming . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge and idea generation New technology - old ideas . . . The boundaries of creativity . . Modelling interaction problem . The oddness factor . . . . . . . Materials . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

11 Discussion 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7

12 Conclusion

29 29 29 29 29 30 30 31 31

32

32 32 32 32 36 36 36 37

38

38 38 38 39 40 40 40 41

42

42 42 42 42 44 45 45 46

47

47 47 48 49 51 51 52

54 5


A Brainstorm

56

B Case proposal

58

C Ethnographic Study

61

D Picture Scenarios

66

A.1 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 A.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 B.1 GPS game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 B.2 Head up display in a 3D interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 B.3 Datamining in a CAVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 C.1 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 C.2 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 C.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 D.1 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 D.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 D.3 Storybords & picture scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

E Design and Innovation workshop E.1 E.2 E.3 E.4 E.5

Learning workshop Pre-sketching . . . Sketching . . . . . Mock-up . . . . . . Prototyping . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Bibliography

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

76

76 78 81 96 103

110

6


User interface innovation

Chapter 0

1


Chapter 1

Innovation Innovation is a popular topic in the world today. It is part of dierent types of products, processes and work methods etc., but how can we dene innovation, and why is it that important? The denition of innovation is "successful exploitation of new ideas"[5]. This means that it is not just the invention of new ideas we have an interest in, but also how it is put into practice, used and brought to the market. Furthermore, how new ideas are leading to new products, processes, systems or any kind of services which improve something or add some sort of value. There is no doubt that innovation is an important part of developing and processing ideas in today's market. But what does the expression "innovation" cover? In the following pages we will explore what innovation is and how the innovation process is structured. As such a process is rather comprehensive we will limit the process to the activity of generating new ideas and not how to produce and bring them to market.

1.1 The approach to innovation The extent of a specic innovation process may rely on how many resources and time have been reserved for completing it. Innovation processes with high novelty tend to involve high risk as they contain several unknown factors, such as the eectiveness and outcome of involved developing methods. The amount of eort put in to the process is often reected in the importance of the result, but this is not a one-to-one relation. Great achievements are sometime conceived with very small funds, and vice versa. Furthermore, it is possible for small scale innovations to grow big over time[15]. Figure1.1 classies dierent types of innovation in a framework used in product development. As the gure1.1 shows there are two approaches when talking about innovation: 2


User interface innovation

Chapter 1

Figure 1.1: Adopted from Vadim Kotelnikov composition of Radical versus Incremental innovation • Incremental innovation is when an existing product is modied with known

methods or a new product is developed with known methods.

• Radical innovation is when new ideas arise and is developed further with

experiential methods or when existing products are modied with experiential methods.

As gure 1.1 also illustrates, radical innovation involves a much higher risk than incremental innovation, primarily because of the uncertainties that are involved. Therefore many of the innovation processes seen today are incremental.

1.2 Process for innovation The innovation process is generally about getting from an idea to a successful product. This idea can be either about creating something new or changing something existing. The process consists of several activities that are necessary for obtaining development and structure. The understanding of the innovation process is constantly improved as a lot of research is being done in this scientic area. The description of the innovation process we will be exploring, is based on Frank Gertsen's denition of an innovation process[16],[15].

3


Chapter 1

User interface innovation

1.2.1 Triggering factors The necessity of an innovation process emerges when needs for changes in the environment arise or when assuming the need for changes. This need can typically be categorised in some external factor. These factors serve for triggering ideas and will depend on the situation for the particular stakeholder. Figure 1.2 shows some of these externally factors. An example of an extreme externally factor could be, when the unthinkable happened in 2004 and the tsunami destroyed thousands of homes in Southeast Asia. This caused an instant need for help both in form of medical supplies and new habitats. This led to the creating of a lot of both radical and incremental ideas on how to help the ones aected by this catastrophe in the best way. Other factors could be when new markets and new technology arise, and thereby create problems for the stakeholders. This will again lead to a lot of ideas on solving these problems.

Figure 1.2: Adopted from Frank Gertsen's process for innovation The innovation process is divided into three activities: Search, selection and implementation.

1.2.2 Search When a triggering factor occurs the aected stakeholder's motivation for coming up with new ideas or solutions for solving these newly discovered problems, increases. The rst activity in the innovation process is all about searching and nding these ideas. A fact to remember here, is that the rst idea which springs to mind, will not necessarily be the best, and therefore this activity is meant to generate as many ideas as possible [16].

4


User interface innovation

Chapter 1

1.2.3 Selection In the next activity the focus will be on organizing and selecting the best ideas. This is done by clarifying what a good solution is in the given context and then elaborate on how to select the best ideas. Piet Hein1 a Danish scientist, mathematician, inventor, author and poet, wrote a poem in his early inventor years, which is included here: Kunsten er ikke at fĂĽ en ide, enhver kan med lethed fĂĽ to. Kunsten er den mellem to eller ere ganske almindelige hverdagsideer, at se hvilken der er go?

Translated into English, this means that it is not hard to get one idea and everyone can even get two. The hardest thing is to see through the dierent ideas, and pick the good one. Based on this poem by Piet Hein, Gertsen[16] lists three key questions to follow, for balancing the selection of ideas. • Strategic analysis: What is realistic to create of the selected ideas? • Strategic choice: What do we do, and do we use our resources or not? • Strategic monitoring: Are the selected ideas, what we really want?

By using these questions to analyse the listed ideas, it is easier to decide which ideas to select for further development.

1.2.4 Implementation After having selected the ideas or the idea, it is possible for the developers to begin implementing the ideas or the idea. This can be done by dierent types of product development methods. The last but most essential part of this activity, is to nd out what eect the solution will have on the previously discovered need for changes in the environment. Here it is necessary for the solution to have a successful impact, for the innovation process and solution to be characterised as innovative.

1.3 Creativity - a part of innovation In any innovation process one of the primary stages is to search for one or more ideas. This phase of idea generation is, as described earlier, inuenced by several external triggering factors. But besides these factors, what is important when searching for new ideas? One required property is creativity. Innovation is strongly connected with creativity[1]. If the solution for a desired product shall be dened as creative, it has to be new and thereby not seen before. Furthermore, it has to have a high usability and at last it must not be trivial. Thereby creativity can be dened as an ingredient of the innovative process. 1 Piet

Hein - Danish rational idealist 16.12.1905 - 17.04.1996

5


Chapter 1

User interface innovation

Figure 1.3: The three characteristic for creativity Figure 1.3 shows that creativity depend on three human characteristics. For creativity to exist all three characteristics have to be present. These characteristics can be described as follows: • Expertise which is achieved throughout knowledge and intellectuality. • Creative thinking skills help to generate ideas through the process by a

exible, imaginative, and methodical approach.

• Intrinsic motivation is more eective than extrinsic because of the personal

interest and self-motivation.

If creativity is a qualication for being innovative, it is essential to understand these characteristics and thereby give developers a better chance of generating ideas for the innovation process. Developing a product can be an individual process, but it is also frequently seen being done in groups of people, who may take on dierent aspects of the process. This way they are able to play their individual strengths, knowledge and roles in an organization.

1.4 The innovation pyramid The innovation pyramid is a tool for structuring and prioritising innovation projects, thereby balancing the developer's investments and providing a better overview. The innovation pyramid, shown gure 1.4, works in three levels. The topmost level includes a few big bets for clearing the directions for the future. The second level is a portfolio of promising mid-range ideas driven by designated teams. At the bottom of the pyramid are early-stage ideas or incremental innovations that permit continuous improvement [27].

6


User interface innovation

Chapter 1

Figure 1.4: Rosabeth M. Kanters innovation pyramid Typically the inuence ows from top to bottom. The big bets encourage the smaller ideas in the layers beneath and thereby focus the direction. When looking a little closer on each level in the pyramid, gure 1.5, it is possible to see the dierent goals of each layer, and furthermore the risks that are involved in an innovation process.

Figure 1.5: Levels of innovation Small developing groups or companies that want to be innovative, tend to allocate more resources to projects with higher innovation novelty and risk. This is because they plan more new products and have fewer existing products that can be incrementally improved, than larger and more established companies or groups. Therefore, if a group reduces their resources allocate to innovation and thereby the risk of loss of these resources, they raise the risk of being surpassed by more innovative groups or companies. A group should therefore allocate its resources to innovation levels in a ratio

7


Chapter 1

User interface innovation

that matches its corporate objectives, risk tolerance and management motivation. Therefore it is very important before starting an innovation process, that each developer related to the process discusses the ratio and the ambitiousness of the project.

1.5 Summary The approach for involving innovation in the development of a product can be radical or incremental depending on how novel the outcome should be. Furthermore, getting from emerging needs for changes in a specic environment to an idea to a successful product can be dened in an innovation process. This process consists of several activities where the searching activity depends on how creative the involved stakeholders are. Creativity is an attribute that is important to understand, as it involves several characteristics which are all necessary for creativity itself to exist. When working with innovation projects, the innovation pyramid can be a tool for getting a better overview and understanding of how major objectives can consist of several minor innovation processes, and how resources are split between them. Some of the challenges involved in being innovative, is how to get the right idea. What can be done for generating as many ideas in a searching activity as possible? Surely creativity plays a key role. But is it possible to control the characteristics in creativity, so that the searching activity in an innovation process is enhanced?

8


Chapter 2

Alternative interaction When objects are aecting each other, that event is referred to as interaction. Interaction can for instance occur between a human being and an IT system. Regardless of the type of system that is under development, it cannot be avoided taking interaction into account to some degree, although one may not be aware of that fact. For example when developing classic software applications for a typical graphical user interface, the design is oftentimes based on some already dened guidelines, although perhaps unconsciously.

2.1 Interaction forms versus interfaces

original Macintosh

iMac 20"

comparison

date

January 1984

November 2003

+ 20 years

price

$2500

$2200

x 0.9

CPU

68000 Motorola 8 MHz 0.7 MIPS

G5 1.26 GHz 2250 MIPS

x 156 x 3124

256MB

x 2000

memory 128KB storage

400KB floppy drive 80GB hard drive x 200000

monitor 9" black & white 512 x 342 68 dpi

20" color 1680 x 1050 100 dpi

x 2.2 x 10 x 1.5

devices

mouse keyboard

mouse keyboard

same same

GUI

desktop WIMP

desktop WIMP

same

Figure 2.1: Comparing two personal computers 20 years apart[2] 9


Chapter 2

User interface innovation

2.2 Alternative interaction forms Form can be dened in various ways. The word refers to something that has a shape or a general structure. Since the early 1970's, there has been little evolution in user interfaces for the personal computer, compared to the evolution in other elds, like the rate of which hardware has evolved, an example of this can be seen in gure 2.1. Michel Beaudouin-Lafon[2] has pointed out, that the modern computer has been using the WIMP interaction form, along with a mouse and a keyboard as input devices, since early in 1984, when the original Apple Macintosh was released. Figure 2.2 shows an example of interfaces using WIMP.

Figure 2.2: The WIMP interaction form in use in Mac OS (1984) (top) and Mac OS X (2008) (bottom)

2.2.1 Reality-Based Interaction A dierent approach to interaction is Reality-Based Interaction (RBI), which is dened by Robert J. K. Jacob[13] and focuses on interaction in virtual environments. The idea behind RBI is to include some elements from the real world in the way people interact with interfaces. The way this is accomplished, is by identifying criteria for how people interact with their real world environment and each other. Jacob et al. set up four of these criteria, which are as follows: • Naïve Physics: People have common sense about the physical world

10


User interface innovation

Chapter 2

• Body Awareness and Skills: People have an awareness of their own physical

body and can control and coordinate it.

• Environment Awareness and Skills: People have a sense of their surround-

ings and can function within their environment.

• Social Awareness and Skills: People are generally aware of other people in

their environment and can interact with them. This for instance includes the ability to collaborate on a task and the ability to communicate.

So RBI is about making the interaction in Virtual Worlds well-known for the user by making it close to how the real world works. But Jacob et al. also points out that it is important not to focus too much on mimicking the real world. Sometimes it is necessary to trade some of the RBI principles against other considerations. Among these tradeos that need consideration, is Practicality, because it is important, that the system is practical to develop. This e.g. involves technical limitations. Another tradeo is Versatility, which refer to the degree to which a single GUI can be used to perform multiple tasks. So the major point of RBI is to create a tting mix between making the system function in a way close to the real world and using some computer specic means to enhance the experience. Jacobs et al. makes an analogy to Superman, he is a human-being and as such function as everyone else in the real world, but he also has some "unreal" features, such as the ability to y, which enhances the way he function.

11


Chapter 3

Problem statement This chapter, describes our problem statement after we had an understanding of innovation and interaction. When talking about human computer interacting (HCI), the WIMP paradigm is hard to avoid. Today most user interfaces are based on this paradigm which can be dated to the early 1980's although the computer industry has been subjected to extensive development. Thereby the WIMP paradigm has become a de facto standard on how to develop a user interface for IT-systems. In the light of this, most research today is done on this basis, consequently this only provides minor incremental innovation in this specic area of knowledge. For getting past the boundaries of the WIMP paradigm, we believe a more radical innovative approach is needed. However as the research in this area is minimal, it is essential throughout experimental research to involve existing theory about acquiring knowledge on interaction forms and evaluate them for our purpose. This evaluation is possible through comparison or by performing experiments. Furthermore, our case for studying alternative interacting forms will be an immersive virtual reality environment which is a relative new interaction and display system. Based on these considerations we want to answer the following problem statement:

Is it possible to use methods, which are primarily used for traditional innovative development, for developing a more radical innovative and alternative interaction form?

12


Chapter 4

Research method In this chapter we will describe our approach to develop and structure our research, inspired from information systems research theory. We present the criteria, which form the basis for the decisions for selecting idea generating methods and dictate how to evaluate these. Furthermore we describe how we handle the collecting and processing of data from experiments.

4.1 Theory Our approach to develop and structure our research method is inspired by Information Systems Research,[17] where the goal is to produce and develop knowledge that enables development of IT. There are two approaches to acquiring such knowledge, behavioral science and design science. As it is design science that we nd useful, we will not look further into behavioral science. The design science research seeks to create innovative artifacts, that solve one or more problems/challenges for which existing design knowledge is inadequate. Inspired by the framework of information systems research[17], we created our own research method. The design science research enables the creation of an innovative, purposeful artifact. Since we want to acquire knowledge of idea generating methods in the context of alternative user interfaces, these methods will be our artifacts. The wanted knowledge for the specied problem domain, which was described in chapter 3, and will be acquired by doing innovative experiments with exiting idea generation methods. The way we have structured our research method is illustrated in gure 4.1. The gure indicates the problem area contains the WIMP problematic, which are dened in chapter 2. The way we address the problem is by utilizing existing theory about idea generating methods. This is done to evaluate their potential for solving such problem. 13


Chapter 4

User interface innovation

Figure 4.1: Adopted from Information systems research

4.2 Our research method Our criteria for selecting the possible methods to involve in our research were that the methods' main purposes are to generate ideas. Our knowledge of available methods consisted of accumulated knowledge from courses in which we participated 1 . Furthermore we supplement this knowledge by exploration of other possible methods from scientic articles. A list of all, to us, known possible idea generation methods is listed in chapter 6, where we also argue for why we did and did not choose the specic available methods. Besides from the brainstorm method all our selected methods were chosen because they met the following criteria: • Purpose of generating ideas on a specic context. • Flexible for adjustment. • Possible to acquire knowledge on interaction forms.

4.3 Research procedure The chosen methods are as follows: • Brainstorming • Ethnographic Study 1 Software

Innovation by Jeremy Rose and Ivan Aaen, VIT by Janne Jul Jensen, UIM by Anne Marie Kanstrup and Janne Jul Jensen, Design and Innovation Workshop by Mikael B. Skov.

14


User interface innovation

Chapter 4

• Picture Scenarios • Design and Innovation Workshop (Design and Innovation Workshop)

Since three of the methods were new to us, our approach to conduct and evaluate them was emergent. Furthermore, it is relevant to notice that the involved experiments were carried out independent of each other, though they might be based some similar subjects. Aside from Brainstorming, the experiments were not done in a particular order. In fact the Design and Innovation Workshop experiment was broken into several parts, and some of the other experiments were conducted between these parts. The Brainstorming method was utilized to developing potential cases for the innovation process. This process is described in appendix, A. The Design and Innovation Workshop were split in several phases namely presketching, sketching, mock-up, and prototyping. These phases were not conducted continuously, as we did not want to rush the process. Furthermore, this did also help the processing of obtained data. A full description of the Design and Innovation Workshop, and results are available in chapter 10. Ethnographic studies and Picture Scenarios were conducted between the some of the Design and Innovation Workshop phases. The Ethnographic Study was done in a CAVE with some users. The purpose with this method was to observe how the user interacts in the eld, and from, this deduct what is needed to innovatively solve problem that occurred. Chapters 8 and 9 further describe how we used this method. For Picture Scenarios the pictures shot in the Ethnographic Study experiement were used to construct scenarios. These scenarios were the pivot of the discussion and helped us to get a better understanding of the context during idea generation activities.

4.4 Data collection and processing Our way of collecting data was the same for all methods except Brainstorming. In Brainstorming data was collected by using only a blackboard and a computer. A camera was used to supplement documentation of the remaining experiments. It was used to document how the process went, and as output for the individual experiments. These pictures were used in the following discussion in the group, where the achieved results were listed for further processing of the data. Following, one or two persons with hands-on experience from the experiment got the responsibility to begin writing the collected data in a form where the results and process were separated and described. When done, other group members went over the data and added they own experiences, to ensure a broad perspective of the experience. An instance were after a Design and Innovation Workshop experiment, since the group were divided into two subgroups with their own area within the case, each subgroup had the responsibility to write

15


Chapter 4

User interface innovation

out the results from their area but the whole group was involved in the discussion of the output of the experiment.

4.5 Data analysis Our analyses were done in our group room with the participation of all group members. The procedure for the analysed data after each experiment, was by reecting upon it. This reection where among other things done by comparing the achieved results with the prepared assumptions on the result, which was based on theory, thereby vindicating the outcome of the experiment. The conclusions are justied by reference to our research, the acquired data, and knowledge from the experiments. We also draw conclusion in proportion to whether the data from each conducted experiment contribute with new knowledge to general development of new interaction forms. From the conclusion and the observations from the conducted experiments, factors to be aware of when doing any kind of eld work in the future, are lined up in a lesson learned list for each method.

16


Chapter 5

Immersive virtual reality In this chapter we will describe the technology we will use as the case in evaluating the idea generation methods. We will describe the technology and argue why it is suitable for our project. The technology is immersive virtual reality[33]. This type of technology is available to us through VR Media Lab (VMRL) at Aalborg University whom has a CAVE[31].

5.1 Technology We will introduce, what it means when technology actually displays the third dimension. The way the brain perceives three dimensions has a lot of inuence on how it is usually simulated. The brain does this by comparing the two dierent views from each eye. The way it often is simulated is by forcing the eyes to see a pair of dierent images. This has been done for a fairly long time.

Figure 5.1: An early edition of a stereoskope 17


Chapter 5

User interface innovation

In the past it has been done with the stereoscope as seen in gure 5.1. Today it is done in a lot of dierent ways, to name a few: 1. CAVE (Cave Automatic Virtual Environment) - The VR environment a person actual steps into. This is the VR environment used in this research project and will be described in further detail later 2. HMD (Head Mounted Display) - These are goggles with two miniature displays, one for each eye. There is in addition to the goggles often some kind of tracking device to track the movement of the head. 3. 3D Cinema - a cinema with a projector that displays two images onto the same screen, whilst the audience has been given glasses that will separate the images. So each eye only sees one. 4. BOOM - much like the HMD only this one is mounted on a special arm that tracks the position of the goggles.

CAVE (Cave Automatic Virtual Environment) The CAVE at VRML, is a cube consisting of four walls a oor and a top all made of canvas functioning as screens. All these screens have a projector aimed at them from behind, this rear projection makes it possible to give a person standing in the cube a view from all angles. Each projector projects two different images, the user wears shutter glasses which separate these images and thereby fool the brain into thinking the person is looking at a three dimensional object. The CAVE is equipped with a position tracker that allows tracking

Figure 5.2: Two users interacting with a virtual object in a CAVE

18


User interface innovation

Chapter 5

of, for instance the shutter glasses. Doing so make it possible to track where the user is moving to and adjust what she sees accordingly. A CAVE more often than not is also equipped with an 8-channel sound system, which help to enhance the experience. Available interaction equipment in a CAVE: 1. Motion tracking can be used to give the coordinates of a tracked-object, one could for instance track a whole arm by placing such trackers on three key location on a suit (shoulder, elbow and wrist). Such motion tracking can be done with magnetism which is why most CAVEs are build on a skeleton of non magnetic steel or wood. Alternatively the tracking can be done by infrared cameras but this introduces the risk of user or other equipment to block the visibility the tracked objects. 2. A second tool often used and associated with a CAVE is the wand this is a device is basically a tracked remote control. A user could for instance simply click a button on a wand whilst pointing in a direction to move in that direction. The wand has a way of communicating the position and direction to the program in use. 3. The Pinch glove is another piece of hardware that has some advantages when working in a CAVE. these are gloves that has a number of combinations of "pinches" which is a gesture done by putting the tip of the thumb to the tip of another nger. While wearing the gloves, the user still has his hands free and therefore still maintains the freedom to interact with other objects. 4. Beside these two special interaction tools almost anything can be used in a connection with a kind of motion tracking. For instance a pencil, a pool cue, or a bow. All these things from the real world might help the user to get a more intuitive interaction with an immersive virtual reality environment.

5.2 The case 5.2.1 Why use VR? VR environment is a good place for working with alternative interfaces, as it is much dierent from a traditional computer interface used on a PC or mobile phone. There is nothing preventing developers from just creating a WIMP application for a CAVE, but is of course something that needs to be prevented when you want to break free from exactly those traditions, which is the purpose of our research project.

5.2.2 VR versus traditional interfaces A VR environment diers in many ways from a traditional computer interfaces, these dierences will be described here.

The extra dimension A VR environment adds an extra visual dimensions, that is not uncommon for computer applications, for instance in applications like games and 3D modeling

19


Chapter 5

User interface innovation

tools. What makes VR dierent from those is the added eect of stereo sight, a feeling of depth, which cannot be experienced on a normal screen. In traditional computer applications the extra depth is mostly used for objects with a simulated physically representation, like models in productivity apps and monsters and weapons in games, not so much for things like menus and windows.

Interface details Most common interfaces are xed to a position, like the keys on your phone, or the image on your computer screen. That is not the case in a VR environment, and especially in a CAVE. You have images all around you. That also makes it possible to have objects which appear a lot bigger than object in a traditional interface. Objects in the CAVE at VRML, are normally larger, because of the low resolution of the display system, each screens resolution is 1024x1024 pixels, and this makes the pixels rather large because of the physical size of the screens which is 2.5x2.5 meters.

Input devices Input devices for VR do not have to be dierent, but they normally are. In a CAVE it is unpractical to use the traditional keyboard and mouse setup, because you do not sit at a table and you are in a three dimensional space. So an input device for 3 dimensions is more suitable. A lot of dierent devices are available. However, studies show these devices are not always at rst try used to their full potential, seeing as though a normal computer user is a lot more experienced with keyboard and mouse. [10].

Working in a CAVE Working in a CAVE can be a bit limiting. The administrators of the CAVE at VR Media Lab have examples of people getting physically ill. It is mostly when there is a lot of movement in the scene, and the frame rate in the scene is too low, also called lagging. The discomfort disappears as soon as the person gets out of the CAVE. Other problems noted at VRML, are people getting so aected by the simulation that they lose the sense of orientation. Examples of people falling down have been seen. Even when you are not subject to these problems, working long time in a CAVE can be tiring. All these factors are new to interface designers.

Home user A full CAVE installation a multi-million DKK project, so this is it not something we will see in private homes anytime soon. However it is possible to buy cheap VR equipment for your home PC 1 . These factors make this technology an unknown eld for most interface designers. This is one of the reasons why there is not a common paradigm for VR applications, like the WIMP for PC applications. Of course there is a lot of interaction methods, but they are not well organized nor well distributed. 1 3D

Stereo makes shutter glasses for 110$

20


User interface innovation

Chapter 5

5.2.3 Summary VR is a technology which posses a lot of opportunities and limitations for interface designers. It is a niche eld with the potential for doing research in innovative interface development.

21


Chapter 6

Idea generation methods In this chapter the methods that will be studied and evaluated are described. Selection of the methods is done by studying the literature in the HCI and innovation elds for methods that ts to create ideas for interaction forms. Some of these methods do not exactly t this description but can be adjusted for it. Other methods do not at all, they will inspite of this be discussed, and we will argue for not looking further into them. The arguments for choosing the methods will be presented in further detail in the following.

6.1 Brainstorming 6.1.1 Description Brainstorming[23] is perhaps the most well known method for idea generation. It is used in all kinds of areas. Brainstorming is a method often used in the start of a project, since it helps to free the participants from xed ideas and to think in broader perspectives. The setup for a Brainstorming is simple, almost no materials are used. Brainstorming can therefore be utilized without concern for needs of resources. Brainstorming is simple and easy to understand, as well as it is a cheap way of generating ideas. A worth to notice characteristic for Brainstorming is that its process ends before any assessments of the ideas' values take place.

6.1.2 Why evaluate We have a lot of experience with Brainstorming, and consider it a sort of basis for idea generation methods. So it is a method which cannot be overlooked when you want to evaluate idea generation methods. Chapter 7 describes the theory behind Brainstorming, the evaluation process and conclusion. 22


User interface innovation

Chapter 6

6.2 Bodystorming 6.2.1 Description Bodystorming[8] is a method extending Brainstorming, it is presented by Antti Oulasvirta, Esko Kurvinen and Tomi Kankainen, a research group from Helsinki Institute for Information Technology. It moves the Brainstorming closer to the location where the product is eventually to be developed. If a software developing team is to develop an IT system for shopping in a mall, they are to go to a mall to form their ideas. Another aspect of bodystorming is the concept of getting the idea tested early in the software development process. The Helsinki research group did that by creating a mock-up of the idea right away when the bodystorming participants got the idea. The mock-up was used in a usability-like test, instantly after creating it. The last apect of bodystorming is getting the participants closer to the mindset of the user. This is done by letting the participants act as the user during the bodystorming session. The Helsinki research group conducted four experiments testing bodystorming. Each of the experiments combined the three aspects in dierent ways.

6.2.2 Why not evaluate The reason we did not choose to test and evaluate bodystorming was the Helsinki research group's own conclusion on their research. Bodystorming did not generate more ideas than a normal Brainstorming session. What the Helsinki research group concluded was that bodystorming gave the participating developers more ownership over their ideas, and likewise a better feel of the area in which they developed the product. These feelings helps further development of the product. But in our research project the focus is on the idea generation process, so that advantage will not be noticed.

6.3 User Innovation Management 6.3.1 Description User Innovation Management (UIM) is a method for IT-innovation developed by Anne Marie Kanstrup[18]. UIM is, as implied by the name, a method concerning the involvement of users in an innovative design process. More specically the purpose is to create a theoretical framework for user driven IT-innovation, and to provide a methodical process for the central themes and techniques with regards to creating cooperation, contextual knowledge, and conceptualization of user driven innovation[18]. The motivation for UIM is the importance of user innovation according to Kanstrup[20]. We have to move from just knowing about users' needs to knowing about future practices. Besides knowing the users' needs, it is important to get innovation by the users to ensure that we can create products that will fulll the users' needs. This is due to globalisation and new economy.

23


Chapter 6

User interface innovation

Kanstrup denes management in the context of UIM as the acknowledgement of user innovation as a discipline rather than as a craft. UIM was presented to us in a course.

6.3.2 Why not evaluate We chose not to use evaluate UIM. This was because we felt that several of the techniques involved in UIM, overlapped with techniques used in the Design and Innovation Workshop (see chapter 10). An example of this overlapping is the tune-in part of UIM and the Pre-sketching phase of the workshop. These two both covered the process of getting the developers minds focused on the tasks ahead. Because of this we decided that UIM would not add enough value to the project compared to the time it would consume, if we chose to use it.

6.4 Ethnographic studies 6.4.1 Description Ethnography is known as a general research method. This research method is originally adapted from sociology and anthropology, where it is a method of observing human interactions in social settings and activities. It can also be described as the observation of people in their cultural context. Massey[21] denes culture as being "made up certain values, practices, relationships and identications". People also describe a workplace as a culture, lled with work standards, business practices, and relationships between co-workers and between workers and managers. Ethnographic studies is an important tool for interface-designers, because it deals with the users culture, and it is a powerful way to assess users' needs.

6.4.2 Why evaluate We chose ethnographic studies because we found it interesting to observe the users in the eld, where our product in the end would end up. We already have experience with dierent type of observations (usability tests) and interviews from other projects, so we found it easy to acquaint ourselves with ethnographic studies. Another purpose with the ethnographic studies is also to nd out if this method is useable in making innovation to new interaction styles. Chapter 8 describes the theory behind ethnographic studies, the evaluation process and conclusion.

24


User interface innovation

Chapter 6

6.5 Picture Scenarios 6.5.1 Description Picture Scenarios[24] is a method to capture some situations in which humancomputer interaction is present. The materials used in Picture Scenarios are a series of comic strip like photos showing the users in use case situations. These are used as an inspiration for the participants in the Picture Scenarios session. Picture Scenarios are useful in order help get a better understanding and to negotiate the use of context during design activities.

6.5.2 Why evaluate We had an assumption, that Picture Scenarios could be useful to our project as an idea generating method. We had no experience with the method, judged by its purpose we found the guidelines and description of the method were an interesting way to reach a solution. In our case, it was useful to take the observation results from the ethnographic studies and use them in making the materials in our Picture Scenarios experiment. Chapter 9 describes the theory behind Picture Scenarios, the evaluation process, and conclusion.

6.6 Design and Innovation Workshop 6.6.1 Description The Design and Innovation Workshop 1 is a method developed by Jesper Kjeldskov[28]. It is a method for generating ideas and materialises them with mock-ups and prototypes and nally testing them in a usability-like test. In DIW the participants work with sketches, mock-ups, and prototypes made from cardboard, foam, paper, etc. DIW is a sequential process where ideas evolve from participants' notions to one or two physical prototypes which are build and tested by a group. DIW will give the participants a closer insight into how their ideas would look and function as opposed to just reecting over these. This is useful as the ideas are competently evaluated shortly after the ideas arise, we say competently due to the building and testing.

6.6.2 Why evaluate We chose the Design and Innovation Workshop because we felt it could help us in evolving our ideas into something useful, for one thing because the purpose of the workshop is to go pretty far with the product produced, i.e. produce a paper prototype [28]. Chapter 10 describes the theory behind Design and Innovation Workshop, the evaluation process and conclusion. 1 DIW

25


Chapter 6

User interface innovation

6.6.3 Overview over methods To better get an overview over the methods we chose to evaluate, we have listed them all in table 6.1. Table 6.1: Overview over methods Purpose Focus Participants Process Product

Brainstorming

Ethnography

Picture Scenarios

DIW

Creation of new ideas. Higher level of creativity in teamwork. Developers.

Understanding the users needs. Interaction of the users in the eld

Visualizing user context Understanding the context.

Creation of new interaction forms Creation and testing of new ideas

Two ext. users and three developers. Field study with the users in 3 dierent tasks. Pictures and documentation of the process.

Developers

Developers.

Constructing scenarios and shooting pictures.

Sketching, mockup, prototype, testing.

Documentation of the process.

New interaction forms.

Random listing of ideas, which afterwards were ranked. Three dierent creative ideas.

6.7 The methods in an innovation process This chapter will describe how the idea generating methods are used within the innovation process.

6.7.1 Narrowing down the triggering factor The rst major step was to identify the main case, thereby narrowing down the triggering factors for a later innovation process to a more concrete problem. As gure 6.1 shows, this was done by using the Brainstorm method, which was used to generate a lot of ideas in this specic topic2 . Some of these ideas were selected and developed further by using the tool W5H23 . The result can be seen in the three case proposals in appendix B. After proceeding with a specic case, it became a necessity to circumscribe our focus a bit more, as we were forced to take time and resources into consideration. Therefore, the main problem in this case was rewritten to our current problem statement, which allows us to concentrate on more specic parts of the case. Furthermore, as we wanted to study how a human and a system can interact within the CAVE we needed a tangible object to focus on. We decided to involve something simple, the Lego concept. One of the reasons for this is the fact that it is a well known product and it is easy to handle. 2 Our subject was dened by the study regulation which species the requirements for gained experience within a specic education. 3 W5H2 is a method designed to help identifying the structure of a problem based on several points of view.

26


User interface innovation

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1: The process for developing case proposals

6.8 Searching for new ideas The approach to involve dierent idea generating methods in the innovation process has, as mentioned in chapter 4, been on an experimental basis. This approach allows us to experiment with the dierent methods and collect results. Furthermore, it allows us to compare the potential of the dierent methods in this specic context.

Figure 6.2: Focus on the idea developing process As gure 6.2 illustrates, the triggering factors for generating ideas, are now narrowed down to interaction, CAVE technology, and the Lego concept. When looking closer at the innovation process the next step, after dening these triggering factors, is searching for ideas, see chapter 1.2.2. This process is about nding new ideas for later selection and implementation. As gure 6.2 also shows, the searching activity entails studying and involving

27


Chapter 6

User interface innovation

dierent methods for generating ideas in this innovation process.

6.9 Structuring the process The innovation pyramid is a tool for getting a better overview of the innovation process. Figure 6.3 illustrates, how the innovation process is structured in the current case. The levels in our innovation pyramid can be dened as follows: • The big bet for our innovation process, is the development of a new suc-

cessful interaction form for IT systems.

• The mid-range idea consists of the development of a system for data mining

in a CAVE.

• The bottom consists of several minor ideas, such as a 3D menu system

and object manipulation.

Figure 6.3: The innovation pyramid

28


Chapter 7

Brainstorm This chapter describes our use of Brainstorming, along with general Brainstorming theory.

7.1 Purpose In our case, the purpose of this method is to develop new creative ideas for innovation or improvement. Brainstorming can be an ecient way to generate a number of ideas on a specic issue, and then to determine which idea is the best solution. Brainstorming is motivating as well, since it involves all the participants, and encourages teamwork.

7.2 Focus The focus is on the generation of creative ideas, and the propagation of those between the participants.

7.3 Participants The participants were seven group members. One of them was playing the role of facilitator.

7.4 Theory There are few basic rules to follow in Brainstorming[12]: • Focus on quantity. • Unusual ideas are welcome. • No criticism. • Combine and improve ideas.

29


Chapter 7

User interface innovation

Brainstorming prioritizes quantity over quality, a greater variety of ideas is more important than having few ideas with a greater depth. The participants have to generate a large number of ideas. To achieve this, even unusual ideas, that are not always usable alternatives, are welcome because this may encourage a dierent way of thinking. It can also lead to new and innovative ideas rather than ordinary ideas[12]. No matter how impossible or how silly an idea seems to be, it must not be criticized because it hinders free thinking. Instead the participant should be encouraged to think broad and come up with as many creative ideas as possible, and the group must list all ideas without applying any restrictions and without worrying about the implementation. After the idea generating process, group members attempt to combine and modify the generated ideas, the merged ideas might lead to better and more innovative ideas. Once the ideas are captured the group can begin to assess, evaluate and analyze the eects and validity of the ideas. The ideas can be developed and prioritized into a more complete list of options[11]. In Brainstorming, a facilitator is optional. The role of a facilitator is to guide the Brainstorming process and encourage participation while writing down the ideas as the participants shout them out.

7.5 Process At rst we spent some time thinking of ideas, mainly to get in the creative mood for the Brainstorming process. Additionally, we decided to choose a facilitator. During the process he had the responsibility to document all the ideas on the blackboard and guide the process. We had a open Brainstorming session where all the participants were allowed to throw their ideas at will. In order to evaluate the potential in each idea, every idea was given a rank, based on general acceptance. Because of some disagreement we created a document containing all the ideas and a short explanation of the core intent for each idea. This document can be seen in appendix B. The purpose of this document was to let every participant to select three ideas which they preferred more than other. Then give the three selected ideas a score of one, two, or three points. This procedure allowed us to see which ideas were of particular interest to the participants.

7.6 Product The outcome of the Brainstorming was three proposals, mainly based on the selected ideas. The proposals are as follows, and in-depth explanations are given in appendix B:

30


User interface innovation

Chapter 7

1. GPS game. 2. Head-up display in a 3D interface. 3. Datamining in a CAVE. After a discussion, Datamining in a CAVE was chosen.

7.7 Conclusion The evaluation of Brainstorming was located a bit earlier in the idea process compared to the other idea generation methods. We used Brainstorming for coming up with projects proposals for the case we would use to study alternative user interfaces. So the Brainstorming was not limited to interfaces in a CAVE, but alternative interfaces in general. The process and the results are described in appendix A. Brainstorming is well known to us from previous projects. The Brainstorming session went as planned, and we did not notice a lot dierences between working with UI innovation and our past experiences with Brainstorming. The eld of knowledge was where a dierence was mostly noticed. The output was inuenced by both knowledge about technology and currents trends in software. One case was based on the idea of location based computing (GPS game). Location based computing is a hot topic right now, as more and more devices move closer towards a general computing platform, and are equipped with positioning technology like GPS and cellular triangulation. Examples of such products are the Apple iPhone and media players with built-in GPS. We, as a pretty technology savvy group, were inuenced by that. The two other cases were based on a technology, we had available; the CAVE immersive 3D environment. The cases were 'Datamining in a CAVE' and 'Head-up display in a 3D interface'.

7.8 Lessons learned Based on the experience gained through Brainstorming, some signicant observations are listed: • Before starting a brainstorm process, it is benecial for the participants

to have time to generate ideas and to become tuned into innovative mood.

• Brainstorm is very useful for generating lots of ideas, but it is optimal

limit the process time and avoid extending it.

• Knowledge is an important factor in Brainstorming because it may have

inuence on the output.

• Having a facilitator during the process is an advantage and makes the

process ow.

31


Chapter 8

Ethnographic Studies This chapter describes our use of ethnographic studies, and the general theory there behind.

8.1 Purpose The purpose of the Ethnographic Study, was to get an insight into the users' interaction in the eld and an understanding of the subject. Furthermore, we wanted to get the users' needs, which we could use for further development in our project.

8.2 Focus The focus in this method was on the users; how they interacted in the eld, and how they solved the given tasks in the observation-session.

8.3 Participants In our eld study, we used two users; a girl and a boy. The observation of the two users was done by three ethnographers. One main ethnographer which controlled the session, from helping the users with the tasks and navigate another ethnographer who was taking pictures. A third ethnographer wrote down notes of the users' actions and comments throughout the session.

8.4 Theory Ethnography is certainly important for interface designers which we are, because we are concerned of the users' culture. There are several reasons why Ethnographic studies are of vital importance to interface design. An Ethnographic Study is a powerful assessment of users' needs: 32


User interface innovation

Chapter 8

• A crucial goal of ethnographic studies is to gain capability to view a system

through the eyes of the user. This is especially useful in creating user interfaces and menus to t the needs of the end-user.

It uncovers the true nature of the system user's job: • A goal of an Ethnographic Study is to uncover all tasks and relationships

that combines to form a user's job. Often a user performs a task and communicates in ways that are outside of their ocial job description.

We as ethnographers can play the role of the end-user: • The high level of user understanding that we as ethnographers can gain

through eld work can be a useful bonus. For instance, when the ethnographers act as end-users in participatory design.

8.4.1 Methods There are various methods by which ethnography can be incorporated into user interface design. The main approaches in use today are listed below[14]. • Concurrent ethnographiy • Evaluative ethnography • Quick and dirty ethnography • Rapid ethnography

Concurrent ethnography Concurrent ethnography is the most famous method of ethnography, and is used especially in HCI research. It is also known as ethnomethodology. The method implies that it is being utilised in support of, and at the same time, as the design of a new system. Usually a system prototype is developed and rened, based upon the result of the study. The advantage of this method is that it ensures focus upon the user through all stages of the development of a new system. The disadvantage is, if we compare it to the other ethnographic method, that this method requires the largest amount of cooperation, coordination, and time.

Evaluative ethnography The goal of this method is to evaluate a new design model. Ethnographic research is performed within a narrow context, which is aimed to focus on the aspects of work, which would be aected by the new design model. The advantage is that it is useful in helping to prove or disprove a new design model or theory. The restricted domain allows an evaluative Ethnographic Study to be performed within a relatively short time frame. The disadvantage is that there is a tight focus which can blind the ethnographer from noticing the important information that is outside the domain of the study.

33


Chapter 8

User interface innovation

Quick and dirty ethnography The quick and dirty method is often used as a predecessor to other ethnographic research methods. It can be useful in increasing awareness of large-scale usability and acceptability issues, which are important in the design of a new system. However, it is frequently the only form of ethnography practiced due to imposing time and/or budget constraints[14]. The advantage is that it can yield valuable knowledge of the social organization within a work setting in a short amount of time, relative to the size of the project[14]. The disadvantage is that the results are limited to a general understanding of a work culture. It is possible that a quick and dirty Ethnographic Study can lead to a false sense of understanding for a working culture.

Rapid ethnography This is the most recent one of the ethnographic methods in practice. It uses "a collection of eld methods intended to provide a reasonable understanding of users and their activities given signicant time pressures and limited time in the eld"[22]. Some of the key principles of this practice are to use a constrained focus, key informants, and multiple ethnographic observers. The advantage is that this method uses a short time frame on par with the quick and dirty method. However, this method is more rigorous and formalized than the quick and dirty method. The disadvantage of the method is the process is still undergoing renement.

8.4.2 General process The process of the ethnographic methods can dier from each specic eld study, but the most general denition of the process, is based on four ethnographic principles [19]: •

Planning - The purpose of the eld study is found. A strategy is cre-

•

Selection of users - Which type of and how many users are selected.

•

Field approach - Permission to the eld and dealing with the owners.

•

Methods and techniques - Observations, interviews, self-reporting, and

ated and selections of the specic ethnographic methods or techniques are chosen.

other observations.

8.4.3 Guidelines for ethnographic studies In order to facilitate the generation of useful data, the ethnographer should understand the basic steps that are used to conduct an Ethnographic Study. The following guidelines are recommended as a general framework for an Ethnographic Study[7].

34


User interface innovation

Chapter 8

Preparation • Understand organization policies and work culture. • Familiarize yourself with the system and its history. • Set initial goals and prepare questions. • Gain access and permission to observe/interview.

Field Study • Establish rapport with managers and users. • Observe/interview users in their workplace and collect subjective/objective

quantitative/qualitative data.

• Follow any leads that emerge from the visits. • Record your visits.

Analysis • Compile the collected data in numerical, textual, and multimedia databases. • Quantify data and compile statistics. • Reduce and interpret the data. • Rene the goals and the process used.

Reporting • Consider multiple audiences and goals. • Prepare a report and present the ndings.

Ethnographic Study guidelines in system development Burk and Kirk[3] made some recommendations if you plan to work with ethnographic studies in system development, which are listed underneath: •

Use ethnographic methods early in the design process: The high

Have a well-dened scope The open-ended nature of ethnography can

Choose a proper level of Ethnographic Study: Time frame and

Make use of previous ethnographic studies: This should be a precursor to any eld study as it requires the least amount of resource expenditure.

risk of designing a system for an unknown or misunderstood user warrants the time investment in ethnographic methods.

be a weakness as well as strength. It is important to stay focused and to recognize what users are necessary to include in an Ethnographic Study. budget constraints will often dictate what level and type of ethnographic methods should be used.

35


Chapter 8 •

User interface innovation

Wear one hat at a time : Trying to play the role of the role of the ethnographer and the designer at the same time can be hazardous. Make sure to understand the user within the context of the current system before attempting to make design changes.

8.4.4 Drawbacks No matter which method is chosen, there will be some disadvantages. Below we have listed the drawbacks in ethnographic studies[14]:

Time requirements: The results of an Ethnographic Study are directly related to the time investment. While external constraints often limit eld studies to a few days, even hours, formal ethnographic studies are known to take weeks or even months.

Presentation results: Sometimes the qualitative nature of results can make them dicult to present in a manner that is usable by designers.

Scale: Most ethnographic studies use a small number of participants and a small-scale environment. When you try to increase the scale it can be extremely dicult as it imposes as greater amount of cost, communication and eort.

8.5 Process The process of the ethnographic studies started with a planning session, where three ethnographers were involved. After the planning session, we introduced the session to the users, and presented the three tasks for them. The topics of the three sessions are listed below: • Interaction with Lego. • Interaction with boxes. • Control by gestures.

After the session, the three ethnographers evaluated the observation and wrote down notes about the users' interactions which could be used in further development.

8.6 Product The product we had, after our Ethnographic Study, was a number of pictures depicting the users' interaction.Beside the pictures, we had some notes of the users' actions in the tasks we gave the users while we observed them.

8.7 Conclusion The ethnography study was done in combination with Picture Scenarios, this meant that we could not make a precise step by step direction for the session, and therefore had a session that was more like a quick and dirty version of the

36


User interface innovation

Chapter 8

ethnographic studies. The process and the results are described in appendix C. Another thing we discovered was the importance of the dialog between the users, while performing their task. This communication was key to the teamwork. We also discovered the importance of the ethnographer and users communication i.e. the introduction to the tasks. The reason is that every time the user starts to question the task description, he becomes noticeably unsure. As he communicates with the ethnographer, two things happen. Firstly, the user gets his question claried and can relax and focus on rest of the instructions. Secondly, the ethnographer can adjust his way of giving instructions, so that the user is less likely to raise further questions. The bottom line is that it is important that the user is not left with questions about the task at hand, as he starts his construction. We noticed the users had problems to understand the rst task, although it was the task we considered to be among the easier ones. The problem was that the users were expecting a more dicult task, and they just could not believe how simple the task was. Here it is important that the ethnographer can calm the users down, and clarify the misunderstanding. Disturbance to the users was another factor we needed to take into consideration during the Ethnographic Study. The whole idea is to observe the users in their context, and they should therefore not be disturbed. We experienced that there should not be more than one ethnographer in the CAVE along with the users. And other helpers should stay on the outside. During the session, speech should be limited to the users and the ethnographer, since we have noticed that the outside noises were disturbing and caused the users to lose focus. Our users expressed that they found it uncomfortable to sit on the oor while performing the tasks. Therefore, location and comfort was also a factor we experienced that played a role in the CAVE.

8.8 Lessons learned Of the observations we had in our Ethnographic Study, we have considered things to be aware of, for future sessions or any kind of eld work. Below we have listed the conclusions as lessons learned, for convenience and future reference, when planning an Ethnographic Study: • Comfort and location shall be discussed and planned before the session. • Give the users full freedom to move and choose location within their con-

text.

• Explain the task clearly to the users. Communicate with them to conrm

their understanding before their task begins.

• Only allow users and ethnographers on the location, and prevent inter-

ruptions from happening.

37


Chapter 9

Picture Scenarios This chapter describes our use of Picture Scenarios, and the general theory behind.

9.1 Purpose Our purpose with Picture Scenarios is to acquaint the developers with the users' context, and what is going on in this context. Thereby giving the developers a better understanding of the project and a goal for the future development.

9.2 Focus The focus of this method is on dynamic use of context. This means that the context changes in dierent situations where the user interacts with the applications. It is eective, when developing for users, to know how they function, and observing them in their own context gives a clear picture of how dierent situations requires dierent interaction forms.[24].

9.3 Participants The participants in the session are; one facilitator and ve participants. A picture of the process is shown on gure 9.1.

38


User interface innovation

Chapter 9

Figure 9.1: Picture Scenario participants

9.4 Theory The fundamental idea of Picture Scenarios is to capture some planned situations in pictures, which describe the users' interaction with a mobile device. These pictures will be combined with text to form what we call a picture scenario, which narrates and describes a context, in a richer form than just a simple verbal description or the likes. Picture Scenarios have a layout which reminds of sequential comic series, they have the essence of classic textual scenarios, and some of the concepts of personas and ethnographic studies[25]. When planning the picture scenario rstly it is necessary to create a short story from a textual scenario. This is done to ensure the capture of the context. Second you need a cast list of actors in the scenario. Third is splitting the story to scenes and lastly making a storyboard with locations. An essential part during the photo session is to take a lot of pictures, amongst many pictures there are more likely to be usable ones. Likewise whilst taking a greater number of pictures these are more likely to not look set-up. Non-set up pictures does a better job of catching the situations as they occur in the context. The way Picture Scenarios has become a point of interest, is by the fact that it focuses on the context for researching interaction forms. The process of Picture Scenarios starts with an introduction from the facilitator, in which he introduces the participants to Picture Scenarios as a method. After the participants have read the Picture Scenarios the facilitator starts a discussion, by asking the participants what they think of the dierent stories. This is a teaser for a longer discussion with dierent topics, where the goal is to focus the participants' thoughts on generating ideas for new solutions to problems previously unknown. Also how they should precede their development of prior ideas.

39


Chapter 9

User interface innovation

Figure 9.2: An example of a picture scenario

9.5 Process Our process followed the description from the theory without any deviations.

9.6 Product The session yielded no physical product as a result, but a list of questions of how the users would interact in the context. These questions could be a stepping stone for further development for a prototype session or the likes.

9.7 Conclusion The results we got from the session were nothing new compared to what the participants already knew. Each participant already had a good understanding of the topic. From this we deduct that Picture Scenarios have less of an impact on a group who already have a good understanding of the subject. Furthermore, our experience was that the last of the three Picture Scenarios was almost useless. This was due to the fact that the concept behind it was to communicate via gesturing and sign language. This is almost impossible to portray in a clear manner in pictures, even with the use of text. A possible solution to this, could be to try a variation of Picture Scenarios and make "video scenarios" instead. Additionally, we took advantage the possibility of combining this method with ethnographic studies. This provided a lot of feedback in two dierent areas with a minimal amount of eort.

40


User interface innovation

Chapter 9

Our experience is that for this method to work at full capacity, it is important for the developers to have little or no knowledge about the subject, but a good understanding of the method. Furthermore, the ones whose responsibility it is to construct the scenarios, needs a good imagination and to have a clear image of the context. Furthermore, it is important for the developers to be motivated and thereby also able to motivate involved participants, if any, in the construction of the Picture Scenarios. The construction of the concrete scenario, was developed with little knowledge about the CAVE and how to interact in it. Here the developers were motivated and used their imagination a lot, when creating the tasks. Of course the lack of knowledge could be the reason for some small missteps within the tasks, but the larger opportunity for being creative easily makes up for this. When performing the picture scenario session, it is our experience that the outcome of this process depends a lot on participants' background and thereby their prerequisite for being creative, as the article also points out [25]. Some knowledge about the topic is essential for a positive outcome. But too much knowledge will also kill the imagination and thereby the creativity in the process. When performing the picture scenario session, it is our experience that the outcome of this process depends a lot on contestants' background and thereby their prerequisite for being creative, also as the article points out [25]. Some knowledge about the topic is essential for a positive outcome. But too much knowledge will also kill the imagination and thereby the creativity in the process.

9.8 Lessons learned The experience we achieved throughout studying and working with Picture Scenarios can be listed as: • Picture Scenarios give a good opportunity for catching and propagating

the user context.

• The designing and construction of the scenarios should be planed carefully. • Picture Scenarios is useful for focusing the concept behind an idea, but is

important to be aware of the background of involved participants. Because these participants experience' can inuence the development of ideas in dierent directions.

• When involving Picture Scenarios in a process for developing ideas, it

should be utilized early in the development process, when the developers are still acquiring their knowledge about the subject.

41


Chapter 10

Design and Innovation Workshop This chapter describes our use of Design and Innovation Workshop, and the general theory there behind.

10.1 Purpose The purpose of the Design and Innovation Workshop (DIW) is to create an environment where ideas can ow, grow, and materialise to prototypes.

10.2 Focus The focus of DIW is to give the designers an environment for generating ideas, and to test the ideas in a simple usability-like test.

10.3 Participants The workshop was done by a group six participants, later on divided in two subgroups.

10.4 Theory The general idea of a workshop is a tool for motivation and to create a platform for building teams. The construction of the workshop is then dependent on the goal; it can be performance, creation of initiatives, plans, process, etc. DIW is a workshop constructed by Jesper Kjeldskov[28]. It focused on Design and Innovation and was presented in the course "Design and Innovation workshop"[28]. The workshop consists of four activities, of which the rst one (Pre-sketching) is a tune-in for the rest of the workshop. Originally Kjeldskov designed it to be a short learning workshop in innovation, while we chose to use it directly as a tool in our research. 42


User interface innovation

Chapter 10

DIW consist of the following phases. • Pre-sketching • Sketching • Mock-up • Prototyping

The next sections, will describe theses phases more specically.

10.4.1 Pre-sketching Pre-sketching gives the workshop a soft start, its purpose is twofold; rstly, it is a tool for the developers to tune in on the subject area. Secondly, it is used to bounce the ideas between the participants in order to create common ground for their ideas, and open for the possibility of letting ideas evolve, whilst bounced back and forth. The only guideline introduced to the participants, is to write a list of whatever ideas and associations that spring to mind while considering the context. Afterwards, the group discusses and each member presents his/her ideas to the others.

10.4.2 Sketching Sketching is a technique borrowed from architecture and industrial design. It makes it possible for the designers to materialise their ideas quickly. Sketches are usually done with just pen and paper. It ts in the beginning of the workshop where most of the ideas will be generated. As Bill Buxton describes[4], sketches are not a tool for prototyping, but for exploring, suggesting, and provoking design ideas. The designers are not required to be great illustrators. This is because the sketches are done individually, and presented to the rest of the group afterwards, so the developers can verbally compensate for a hard-to-understand sketch. Before the mock-up phase, each group member needs to have some common idea of what he or she would like to produce in this phase. All of the developers have a group discussion to see if they can agree on one or two ideas.

10.4.3 Mock-up The mock-up process is, in contrast to the previous exercises, entirely carried out in the group, and the group works only on one or two ideas. The mock-up is a general presentation of the idea and is often physical and made from paper, cardboard, foam or otherwise low-delity materials. Mock-ups turn attention away from details of the graphic design and focus on content and functionality. So they are useful to visualise ideas early in the design phase and to bring the designer beyond current technical possibilities[28]. The guidelines for what the mock-up should reect are the following: 1. The dierent components of the system. 2. What the system and its components physically look like.

43


Chapter 10

User interface innovation

3. What the system and each components do. 4. How the user physically interact with the system. 5. How the system and the user interact with the environment. After each group have produced one or more mock-ups, they present these to the other groups.

10.4.4 Prototyping The product idea needs to be tested, that is what the prototype phase is for. Usability testing is a well known method for nding usability problems in software. It is typically used on software prototypes, but it is possible to use it on paper prototypes as well. Snyder[29] denes a usability test on paper prototypes like this: "Paper prototyping is a variation of usability testing where representative users perform realistic tasks by interacting with a paper version of the interface that is manipulated by a person 'playing computer', who does not explain how the interface is intended to work".

The goal for the paper prototype is that this can be accomplished. So not only the physical artefact has to be created, but also a use case for the user to walk through during the test. The prototyping session is done in an iterative manner. During the testing, the user or the design team can suggest changes. These changes are made to the prototype, and the test is run again.

10.5 Process As part of the introduction to the workshop, and to give the design team a good understanding of the method, we went through a workshop unrelated to this project. This is furthermore described in appendix E.1.8. The general guidelines for the Design and Innovation Workshop were followed, starting with a pre-sketching process, where each participant wrote down a list of ideas and topics, related to the problem area. Afterwards these topics and ideas where discussed in the group, for creating a consensus about the main focus of for the workshop, idea exchange. Next stage was the sketching part, where each participant individually created paper sketches, which again were presented individually, and then discussed within the group. In the Mock-up part, the ideas were split up into two dierent topics of focus areas. Menu System and Object Manipulation topics. Thereafter the group was split up into two subgroups accordingly. Again ideas were discussed and presented for the group. The products from this part were physical artefacts built with easy-to-form materials, like paper, polystyrene and pieces of cardboard. The nal part was the prototype session, where the two groups again used physical artefacts, to create a new mock-up on a larger scale. The resulting products from the two subgroups were now presented in a session inspired by a usability test, with the opposing group members playing the role of the user. After this session, further discussion about the results took place,

44


User interface innovation

Chapter 10

involving all participants from both subgroups. A more detailed description of the process can be found in appendix E.2.2.

10.6 Product The products we ended up with in our workshop, were prototypes and mockups, which could be used for further development. Beside the dierent types of physical artefacts, we also ended up with some discussions about them, which gave us some conclusions about the nal result of our development of new interaction forms. A more detailed description of the process can be found in appendix E.2.2.

10.7 Conclusion When developing for an alternative setting, like an immersive virtual environment, it is useful to have some knowledge about the technology that is available. Both more specic as well as general knowledge is useful. This can be exemplied by our knowledge about Lego which helped us a great deal in dening our product, during the pre-sketching and sketching processes. Likewise, the knowledge we had about the CAVE, the available technology and ways to interact, helped us in in creating our sketches and developing the prototypes. Developing to a virtual environment has some impact on the way the Design and Innovation Workshop is carried out. As an example we can look at the mock-up process. The mock-up can very easily exceed the boundaries which it was meant to be limited by, and oat towards the prototype process. Paper prototyping is meant to be a cheap and quick way of developing prototypes. When the mock-ups exceed the limits of such it is important to be aware of how to compensate. We cannot claim to have found the best way of doing this yet, but we nd that verbal explanations unied with the mock-ups compensate a great deal. Another way might be to build mock-ups in dierent scales. Additionally, it can be dicult to create a full size paper prototype of a realistic scenario with moving elements, and this can inuence the progress of the test. This is because the subject is to create an immersive virtual environment, and the credibility is reduced, as the simulation of the moving elements e.g. requires extra persons within the test eld, operating these elements. An example of this is the virtual rack menu system, where one person was needed for each rack section. This might not necessarily be causing problems, but it is something to be aware of. We feel that the workshop is innovative because it in our case, was an ecient way of ensuring that our dierent ideas were debated, which then led to improvements of the current ideas or the generation of new and better ideas. Furthermore, the way the process of the workshop was put together, the sequence in which the sub processes were ordered, helped support and evolve our ideas.

45


Chapter 10

User interface innovation

10.8 Lessons learned The experience we achieved throughout working with the Design and Innovation Workshop can be listed as lessons learned: • Avoid giving negative comments or kill the ideas during the session. • The extent of the work with paper prototyping, may exceed being cheap

and quick.

• Consensus and a clear picture of where to start the innovation is valuable. • Mock-up is useful for demonstrating the interaction and is not very de-

manding.

• In the prototype session you can end up without any physical product. • The dierence between the mock-up and prototyping phases, may become

unclear.

46


Chapter 11

Discussion In this chapter problems and challenges with idea generation methods for alternative user interfaces, will be discussed and generalised. Brainstorming has a chapter of its own, because it was treated a bit dierent in the evaluation, and some discussions are only relevant for this method. The remaining discussions are relevant to several idea generation methods.

11.1 Brainstorming Brainstorming is a well-reputed method for idea generation in a lot of industries, not just software development. Brainstorming does not require a lot of resources neither in form of expertise nor physical resources. This makes it easily adaptable to all kinds of elds, and user interface innovation is one of them. We did not nd a lot limiting factors when working with brainstorming. One factor that had a lot of inuence on the ideas created in the brainstorming process was knowledge and current trends in software. This aected the ideas in both positive and negative ways. Positively by the fact that we generated ideas for new technology that was not possible just a few years ago, so that satises the new technology factor for innovation. Negatively by the fact that we limited ourselves to technology currently available. All tree case proposals were inspired by our knowledge about our surroundings: CAVE and location based computing. This makes it quite clear that knowledge is a big factor.

11.2 Knowledge and idea generation Knowledge as we have experiment has a big inuence on idea generation processes. What makes knowledge a bit special in idea generation for alternative interfaces is that it possible to control the knowledge better then when working with traditional interface development. Alternative interfaces are by denition a lesser known subject to most UI developers. When developers start working in the eld for a specic alternative interface, they need to acquire knowledge of that specic eld, as opposed to traditional interface design, where the developers have a basic knowledge about such interfaces. This forms a unique 47


Chapter 11

User interface innovation

opportunity to control how much expertise the developers acquire in order not to harm their innovative process. It is quite tricky to gure out how much expertise the developers should acquire. We have not tested any solutions for this, but a proposal for controlling knowledge in the process is listed in the following section.

11.2.1 Stop and learn This suggested idea is to basically stop the idea generation process when expertise is needed. In many cases ideas will pop up, that the developers do not have enough knowledge about they are suitable for implementation. In such cases the process is stopped, and the group splits out to acquire the information needed to investigate further options of the idea. When this expertise is acquired the group steps back into the idea generation process. An example where this suggestion would have been usable is in the mock-up process in DIW. One idea that popped up was using sound to make it easier to locate the position of the menu rack (see appendix E.40) the idea was not carried out because we did not know enough about how sound feedback worked on people. If we had stopped the process and acquired this expertise about sound feedback, we might have ended with an idea for implementing sound feedback in a VR application. Of course there are some factors that might cause problems in an approach like Stop and Learn. If an idea process is stopped it might harm the idea ow, and when started again, the group might have trouble getting in to "idea generation mode" again. The other factor is time. A Stop and learn solution takes more time, and as already discussed, time is critical in a radical innovative process. You might end with ideas that are unusable, so by making the process longer you might waste even more time.

11.3 New technology - old ideas Working with our chosen idea generation methods in combination with new technology, we noted that a lot of the ideas generated were moving existing ideas or concepts in this new technology. Several examples show this: • The menus system in the CAVE as described in appendix E.4.6 build

upon a rack which is a physical piece of furniture moved into the VR environment as a new menu system. The CAVE gave us a lot of new possibilities and we came up with an idea based on a known concept.

• The case proposal GPS game described in appendix B.1, is another exam-

ple of new technology. In this case GPS was used to bring new life into old ideas. The idea was to bring existing game concepts outside to a more participating game experience.

11.3.1 New concepts The idea generation process did not generate a lot of idea which could be characterised as new concepts. New concepts are not something that pops up often

48


User interface innovation

Chapter 11

in the IT industry. An example of a new concept is a spreadsheet application. This is not a concept that was possible before we had computers. Why idea generation with alternative interfaces dose not seems to bring new concepts to table is a question that is hard to answer. But we have a few theories: • Coming up with new concepts is hard. This can be seen through the

history of the computers, not many concepts were new concepts when they were brought to the world. This includes WIMP which is built on the oce/desk concept with folders, desktop and windows. New innovative idea generation methods cannot change that.

• To much is "new". When working with new technology, which might be

hard to grasp, existing concepts is tempting to use for participants. In the idea generation process these known concept supply a certain feel of secure familiarity.

The question is: "Are known concepts bad from a UI innovation perspective?" As described in chapter 2.2.1, UI built on concepts from the real world, gives a familiar feeling to the user, which makes the user interface easier to use, So in the context new concepts are bad from a UI perspective. But if all UI innovation is based on known concepts, we might never see "the spreadsheet" of user interfaces. Our experience shows, our chosen idea generation methods do not help in the search for new concepts, and neither does new technology. But that's not necessary a bad thing. But something that needs to be noted. So if the goal is a new UI concept, these methods do not have any special strength in archiving that.

11.4 The boundaries of creativity When searching for new ideas in an innovation process, creativity plays a big role. But as we have learned creativity consist of several characteristics, see chapter 1.3, these characteristics are as follows: • Expertise which is achieved throughout knowledge and intellectuality. • Creative thinking skills help to generate ideas through the process by a

exible, imaginative, and methodical approach.

• Intrinsic motivation which is more eective than extrinsic because of the

personal interest and self-motivation.

11.4.1 Expertise versus creative thinking skills Especially expertise is important, as we have experienced that knowledge can be characterised further in two types that each is essential for generating new ideas. First of all it a necessary to have some knowledge about the specic area in which the idea generation is occurring. This we will hence forth be referred to as pointer knowledge. Secondly it is necessary to have a broader knowledge

49


Chapter 11

User interface innovation

about other topics; this can be dened as life experience and varies for all individuals. The pointer knowledge will serve to direct the idea generating activity. The life experience will serve as inspiration source for generating the ideas through creative thinking skills such as imagination. As we learned throughout the involved experiments, the idea generation becomes harder for the specic case as the pointer knowledge is increased; thereby this pointer knowledge actually becomes an obstacle for the ow of ideas.

Why is this? Continuously as the pointer knowledge is increased for the individual, the idea generation retains a dependencies of how good the individual is to disregard this knowledge and thereby give room for being more creative, and using his or hers imagination by relating to life experience. Therefore an innovation process is not for everyone, as the generation of new ideas depends on creativity and creativity depends on the individual's ability to disregard knowledge about the area of development and, to be imaginative.

11.4.2 Intrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation is another characteristic under creativity also plays a key role during a creative idea generation activity. As we experienced during the dierent experiments the motivation factor was dierent for each participant, even through their focus on the task was the same.

Why is this? Consequently an individual's motivation depends on dierent factors and one of these factors is knowledge. In light of this it would be easy to motivate a single participant. But when assembling a team the motivation factor for each participant is hard to full and even though the focus for the team is the same, their individual knowledge is not. This is a dilemma because this previously noted facts suggest that a team assembled by participants with both the same focus and the same knowledge, functions optimally. We are not sure that such a team has the same capacity for generating radical innovative ideas. When assembling a team for innovation, the individuals' knowledge should be taken in to consideration. One way motivating a team for further progression is by adding some elements that could aect the motivation factor. One of the elements we experienced,

50


User interface innovation

Chapter 11

is the element of competition. When adding this element to the idea generation process it could actually aect some participant to be more motivated and thereby creative.

11.5 Modelling interaction problem In two of the idea generation methods, limitations were discovered when working with interaction forms. The methods were Picture Scenarios, described in chapter 9, and the Design and Innovation Workshop, described in chapter 10. We discovered that interaction is hard to modulate. In the picture scenarios we had trouble showing how users interacted in the pictures, and in the workshop, mock-ups and prototypes were representing the objects in the application, rather than how we interacted with the objects. This is kind of obvious, but as the main purpose from our evaluation of the methods was how they performed in UI innovation where interaction plays a big role, it was a problem in our context. In Picture Scenarios the modelling interaction problem, almost meant that the work with the method was wasted. The pictures with still photos did not make it possible for the participants to understand how the users interacted with the bricks. Some explaining from the facilitator solved part of the problem. In the workshop the modelling interaction problem was not quite as obvious as in Picture Scenarios, as the mock-up/prototype was only one part of how the idea was presented and worked on. The participants were free to verbally and physically, via body language, show interactions. But the problem with the workshop, was that the dominating focus became how you model the physical artefact, and in the search for new interaction forms that is not that important. The important thing is how you interact with the artefact. For example the group working with interaction with bricks, spend quite some time on creating the brick model, and less time on describing how you interact with the brick. Their presentation could have worked ne with a less perfect brick.

What does this mean to developers of alternative interaction forms and user interfaces ? When choosing a method for idea generation, it is important to look at how the method makes it possible, for the developer to express and work with interaction forms. Choosing a method that makes that easy will most likely generate the smallest amount of problems regarding interaction. When working with methods that might cause problems (like the Design and Innovation Workshop), making sure to focus on the important part of the idea solves the problem.

11.6 The oddness factor Working with alternative user interfaces brings a new factor to the table: oddness. In both Ethnographic studies and the Design and Innovation Workshop we experienced that. The oddness factor is the feeling of working with something that is odd, funny, and out of place. In Ethnographic studies it was the

51


Chapter 11

User interface innovation

users who had that feeling. They had a hard time understanding what they were supposed to do, and were feeling discomfort in the setup. This is not an unknown problem when dealing with users. An example could be the situation in a usability test. What made the situation more uncomfortable for the users was that nothing felt familiar to them, as they were in a new situation and they were to use unknown technology and input systems, as opposed to usability tests on traditional software applications, where only the situation is new. The application is unknown in functionality, not in the UI concept it builds on. This leads to the conclusion, that with idea generation methods involving users, extra energy and time must be used in order to make the users feels more comfortable. As investing a lot of time in radical innovation is already risky (see chapter 1.1), extending the time used on idea generation methods with users might cause problems. The time might be better spent using methods without users. The oddness factor for developers was felt during the workshop, in working with mock-ups and prototypes that felt unfamiliar to us as developers as opposed to a paper prototype on traditional desktop applications, in which we had experience with. The developer oddness does not have the same importance, as the oddness factor for users. Working in this unknown eld, led to laughter and amusement among the developers. That of course could have the consequences. Consequences as, the development group could have problems with taking the process serious, we did not, however, experience this, but this were something that needs to be considered when forming groups for this kind of idea generation.

11.7 Materials We experienced, that physical materials contributed to creativity, and played a considerable role when the participants needed to communicate about their ideas. For instance, in the Design and Innovation Workshop, these materials were the paper and cardboard sheets used to make mock-ups. In Picture Scenarios it was in the form of the presented pictures. In another session, it might be something completely dierent. Without having these materials, the communication of ideas would have been dicult. The materials gave us the ability to build mock-ups, which combined with explanations and discussions created a basis for processing the ideas. We discovered as well, that these same materials can be obstacles in the mind of the developer, when it comes to the generation of ideas. Take a photo for an example, it can be quiet inspiring, informative, and a base for discussions, while at the same time, it is restricting the participants from thinking of what is absent, a movement, for an example, as the developers are stuck focusing on the stationary motive. We found as well, that when you have to physically build a model of your idea, it is in itself restricting the potential pool of ideas that one could otherwise generate, as there are things that is impossible to build in the real world. As the participant is aware of the fact that he eventually will have built a physical construction of his idea, he might unconsciously reject the idea himself prematurely. An example of such a phenomena, is that it is hard to imagine, that ideas like 'forever-ascending

52


User interface innovation

Chapter 11

Figure 11.1: A forever falling waterfall stairs' or the forever-falling waterfall, illustrated in gure 11.1 would emerge, if the participant was beforehand required to build it. The bottom line is, that while materials play a very important role as a communicative medium in an innovate process, the imagination is limited by these same materials.

53


Chapter 12

Conclusion During this semester we have been introduced to various methods supporting innovation, we have experimented by involving these in a more radical approach for research on our objective, development of a new interaction form. The rst step of this innovation process was narrowing the main objective down to more palpable challenges. This left us with a simple concept to deal with, namely Lego. This concept served as a triggering factor, for all the methods in our research. The methods we explored during our research process were Brainstorming, Design and Innovation Workshop, Picture Scenarios, and Ethnographic studies. As our research process was on an experimental level and the involvement of methods, e.g. to conduct and to evaluate, was on an emergent basis, the research progress evolved as we involved more and more theory and knowledge to the process, thereby giving us a better chance for learning by doing. As we were in a radical innovation process, we experienced that some resources became rather fragile issues, due to the fact that even with a clear vision of the main objective, the way to get there were very ambiguous. This fragility is illustrated in gure 1.1, in this framework the process is located in the upper left quadrant, this indicates that the process has a high novelty, while unfortunately there are high uncertainties, and thereby a risk of missteps. This means that a radical innovation process has a very complicated structure and furthermore allocating of resources to the concrete process can be dicult. To answer our main problem statement, we can say that we indeed use traditional innovative methods for radical innovation, and the feedback produced from these methods, is indeed useful. However, we experienced that it is not the methods themselves that contribute the radical part of the results, but the developers behind them. The fact is that the methods themselves do not specify which people it is developed for. In fact, when involving methods for idea generation, assembling the team based on each member characteristics within creativity is essential. Whilst being innovative, we learned that knowledge is an important characteristic for creativity rst of all knowledge about a topic serves as a focus point 54


User interface innovation

Chapter

for the idea generation process. Dierent types of general knowledge inspire the imagination and thereby inuence the output of ideas. Nevertheless, we experienced a decrease in the ow of ideas, when we increased our knowledge on the topic. This fact suggests that excessive knowledge about a topic will limit the innovation process itself. Thereby the ability to be creative and moreover innovative depends on the developer's skill to disregard his knowledge on the research topic. Another obstacle in an innovation process, is the sudden lack of knowledge while conducting a methodical process. If the developers don't have the knowledge about a related topic, that potentially could be benecial under this process, we experienced a tendency to skip the topic, and dropping ideas altogether. Another fact that we learned throughout the experiments, was that the involvement of dierent materials to support the idea generation turned out to have both positive and negative inuence. Positive by giving the developers an option to express themselves by more means than just a verbal expression, negative in the way that static materials, like pictures, can be limiting for the ow of creativity. Furthermore, the process of radical innovation can at times be a very inexplicable, and thereby it becomes hard to involve external developers in the research or at times even for the researching developers itself to maintain overview. At the end of the day, a radical innovation process is all about the developers making the right choice at the right time, and while not knowing how and when to do so, these uncertainties and risks become the price to pay for novelty.

55


Appendix A

Brainstorm A.1 Process On the basis of our semester theme we wanted to have a broad Brainstorming process about everything that had potential to be innovative and could be exciting to see implemented. We carried out our brainstorm process in the group room, where all the participants were sitting opposite of each other around the tables. The process was as following; at rst we spent some time thinking of ideas, mainly to get in the creative mood for the Brainstorming process. Additionally we decided to choose a facilitator and during the process he had the responsibility to document all the ideas on the blackboard and guide the process. The reason why we chose to make use of a blackboard instead of a computer or a dierent writing tool was because it is simple. Moreover we wanted everyone to be able to follow what was being written. We had a free Brainstorming session where everyone was on all the time and the participants could suggest ideas at random (i.e. not by turn). Some were more active than others, and they were able to come up with new ideas. Furthermore, in concordance with the Brainstorming rules we did not discuss, criticize or question the ideas that were written on the blackboard during the process and this lead to positive ideas which created a good and creative atmosphere in the room. Half an hour after the process started we were running out of ideas and instead of ending the Brainstorming, we took a little break to freshen up our minds in order to nd new ideas. After the generating process we evaluated the ideas through discussion. On the blackboard we rst ranked them after a general approbation in order to see how potential they were. Because of some disagreements we created a document with all the ideas and a short explanation of the core intent for each idea. This document can be seen in appendix B. The purpose of this document was that every group member should select three ideas which they preferred more than other ideas and give these three selected ideas a score of either one, two or three points. This was done to nd the idea which they wanted to work with the most. When the scores were added up, we selected those three ideas with the highest score to build on. This procedure allowed us to see which ideas were of 56


User interface innovation

Chapter A

particular interest among the group.

A.2 Results The outcomes of the Brainstorming were three visions we had mainly based on the selected ideas. And as a result of our discussions, focus was primarily on an area that covered possibilities of GPS and 3D interfaces and how to interact three-dimensionally, which we felt was something new and had the potential to turn out innovative. The visions are as follows, and in-depth explanations of these are given/concretised in appendix B: 1. GPS game. 2. Head up display in a 3D interface. 3. Datamining in a CAVE. Two of the visions are as the chosen ideas but one had turned out quite dierent through discussion, inspiration and by combining ideas. When reaching our common goal, we had to put factors such as time and the resources we had in disposal in to consideration. It had to be innovative or at least have potential to be. Finally, the interaction possibilities in a CAVE were chosen.

57


Appendix B

Case proposal B.1 GPS game B.1.1 Idé Et udendørs computerspil, som benytter sig af spillernes position. Hvordan spillet skal spilles er (endnu) ikke deneret. Man kunne overføre et kendt computerspil til konceptet. Hvis man tager det populære platformspil Pacman som eksempel, så bliver GPS-spillet et udendørs multiplayer-spil hvor en af deltagerne har rollen som Pacman og de andre agerer som spøgelser. I dette eksempel benyttes spillernes indbyrdes position til at stikke af fra spøgelserne eller fange Pacman. Ude i naturen kan der på forhånd eller under spillet blive gemt godter/point, som Pacman skal 'spise'. Inden for de seneste år har computerspil udviklet sig til at have et mere og mere realistisk udtryk - senest med Nintendo Wii - hvor spil kan udvikles til at benytte input-metoder som ligner virkeligheden. F.eks. tennis hvor man slår til bolden, som når man spiller tennis i virkeligheden. Denne tendens kunne være interessant at trække endnu et skridt videre, hvor computeren bliver et værktøj for at få et spil til at virke, og ikke til at afvikle spillet selv. Vi vil med dette udendørs koncept prøve at fremme den sociale interaktion blandt folk, ved at de er ude i det fri sammen om et spil, i stedet for at de hver især sidder foran computeren og spiller. På den måde får de også rørt sig i en tid hvor en stor del af Danmarks befolkning er overvægtige. Vi mener herved ikke at dette spil kan trylle fedmeepidemi væk (hvilket heller ikke er vores formål), men det skulle gerne få folk op fra stolen og gøre dem fysisk og socialt aktiverede. Hvad der gør dette spil spændende, vil være den nye og anderledes form for interaktion mellem spillerne.

B.1.2 Teknik Hver enkelt deltager har en mobiltelefon med GPS modtager. 58


User interface innovation

Chapter B

B.2 Head up display in a 3D interface Hvordan kan et tredimensionalt alternativ til et klassisk 2D head up display se ud og fungere? Oplevelsen i et 3D miljø som f.eks. en CAVE er i sig selv spændende, men i mange tilfælde begrænset til få bevægelser og funktioner. Hvorimod mulighederne for input ved en todimensional skærm ved hjælp af mus, keyboard og lignende er meget stor. Ved hjælp af få 3D trackede sensorer bør det dog være muligt at skabe en masse forskellige udtryk. Spørgsmålet er hvilke af disse giver intuitivt mening for brugeren, og hvilke kan med fornuft blive vane, så de kan oversættes til brugbare funktioner. Mulige funktioner: • "Zoom" • Skift af miljø • Multiple interaktionsmuligheder med samme objekt • "Højreklik"

Noget så basalt som at gå på internettet eller tjekke sin mail bliver i første omgang væsentligt mere vanskeligt uden et keyboard og mus. Det interessante ville være at se om disse input devices ikke kan erstattes af andre 3D devices som i samarbejde med den tredje visuelle dimension giver en alternativ oplevelse af informations søgning. Studiet her kunne starte med at se hvordan man ville søge information uden et keyboard, ved hjælp af blot mus eller videre med brug af touch screens og deslige, og drage nytte af sådanne undersøgelser i forsøg med CAVE eller deslige. Et andet eksempel hvor sådanne funktioner ville være interessante at studere, kunne være et RPG (Role Playing Game) spil. I disse bevæger spilleren sig netop rundt i et 3D miljø, og har en lang række funktioner til rådighed, oftest tilgået ved hjælp af en lige så lang række af genvejtaster. En "god" spiller er i stand til at sætte disse funktioner sammen i rigtig rækkefølge i forhold til sine omgivelser og dermed yde bedre. Et interessant studie kunne være at kigge på at erstatte sådanne genvejtaster med reelle bevægelser og se hvad dette ville gøre ved spiloplevelsen.

B.3 Datamining in a CAVE Hvordan kan man udnytte de egenskaber som CAVE'en tilbyder, til at eksplorere sit data? Der er voksende behov for nye metoder til søgning efter mønstre og strukturer i et voksende mængde data, som er ikke til at nde rundt i. Datamining (DM) er princippet om at nde relevant information gennem sortering af store datamængder. Datamining bruges normalt af store virksomheders

59


Chapter B

User interface innovation

efterretningsorganisationer, nansanalytikere, men bruges også i videnskaberne til at udtrække præcis information ud fra de enorme datasæt, som dannes ved brug af moderne eksperimentelle og observationsorienterede metoder. DM er blevet beskrevet[32] som "ikke-trivielt udtræk fra implicit, førhen ukendt og potentielt nyttig information af data og videnskaben om at udtrække nyttig information fra store datasæt eller store databaser". Hvor man med den traditionelle statistiske metode søger at slutte fra enkeltobservationer til udsagn om hele populationen, bruges datamining til gennem sammenstilling af egenskaber om det enkelte individ eller det enkelte objekt. Det immersive 3D miljø, som CAVE'en giver mulighed for at udvikle, har potentiale til at vise mønstre i datasæt, som ikke er mulige at opdage i de eksisterende systemer. Projektet vil udforske interaktionsmulighederne i sådanne datasæt. Interaktionsformerne i CAVE installationen er bl.a. et såkaldt wand, som er et slags 3D joystik. Desuden er display systemerne i CAVE'en i stereo (via 3D briller). Dette betyder at man ikke bare kan tage de traditionelle interaktionsformer og overføre dem til CAVE'en.

60


Appendix C

Ethnographic Study C.1 Planning Our approach deviates from this method in the way that we will get two results instead of one. Normally, picture scenarios is a tool that can lay the base for a discussion between dierent people of interest for the project, and thereby function as a tool for combining or developing ideas further[24]. Additionally we will use the photo session to gather information, because it provides an opportunity to study the interacting process as it takes place in an ethnographical way. This becomes an option because the session is continuously shot on the site and therefore is not interrupted by breaks for shifting locations, what is more is that this approach will not let us focus on particular planned pictures but rather on the total run of the scenario. From earlier studies on user interaction within a CAVE we learned the importance of HCI[30]. Even the smallest decision on how the user should interact with the interface can has signicant impact on how the user experiences it, and thereby on the results when using it[6]. Therefore our goal was to get a better understanding of how the participant interacted with the chosen related products. We decided to compose three scenarios in which we wanted to study the interaction on two dierent products, namely Lego and cardboard boxes. As mentioned earlier, rst of all you need to plan a short story for the scenario. It will also serve as a base in the crafting of the storyboard. The three stories for our scenarios were: Lego in a CAVE, boxes in a CAVE and controls by hands. Central for all three scenarios was the location. We decided the Picture Session should take place in the CAVE, with the assumption that it was important for the research to get a better understanding of the dimensions that the CAVE oered throughout these scenarios. In all three scenarios the concept was to let the users build a tower, rst with Lego and then with cardboard boxes. During the rst two scenarios the users were allowed to talk and help each other while constructing the towers, during the third they were not, here the idea was that one of the users guided the other to build the tower through gesticulating. 61


Chapter C

User interface innovation

Figure C.1: Storyboards for Picture Scenarios All of the storyboards can be found in appendix D.3

C.2 Process According to our project we have used ethnographic studies by involving users to an observation in the CAVE. Our object, which the users had to be concerned about during the observation, was Lego, which is popular and well known in Denmark. The ethnographic method we used to the observation of the users in the CAVE, was a so called mix between the Quick and dirty method and the Rapid ethnography. The Quick and dirty method was chosen because of the low budget of time, and the observation should be a precursor to another method 9. Because of the time pressure and there was a limited time in the CAVE, this method is also sort of "rapid ethnography". The observation tools, was an ethnographer making notes of the actions and conversations the users had during the tasks in the observation, and on the same time we had another ethnographer, who had the responsibility to take pictures of the users in the CAVE. The third ethnographer was helping the users going through the dierent types of tasks during the observation. The users were between 18-20 years old and both were interested in IT system, so we considered them useful for our observation. Because of their understand-

62


User interface innovation

Chapter C

ing in the task, we expected them to become helpful, by describing problems for us as these appeared, as it are mentioned in rapid ethnography. The rst thing we did was to introduce the users to our project, and made them understand the main topic with our observation, which was to nd out how the users interact with the Lego. After explaining the concept and rules for the users we conducted the tasks, which is described in the next section.

C.2.1 Interacting with Lego The rst step in our observation was building with Lego, this also worked as a warm-up for the users to gain better understanding of the topic. We started by asking them about their knowledge of Lego, and their previous experiences with Lego. Afterwards, we followed up by moving the topic from Lego, to new interaction forms and new technologies, where we wanted them to think in the context of new technologies and how it is used, then we asked them about their own experience with some of them. The next event was the building and their interaction with Lego itself.

C.2.2 Interacting with boxes After the rst task was in place, we took the observation a step further. We replaced the box of Lego with dierent sizes of cardboard boxes, a stick made of wood, tape, scissors and a knife, and told the users to build a new tower of these materials.

Figure C.2: Materials for interacting with boxes

63


Chapter C

User interface innovation

C.2.3 Control with gestures In the last task of the observation, we delegated two roles to the users; one would be the navigator and guide the other to build a tower of cardboard boxes by using only hand-gestures. The other role was to function as a builder and react on the navigator's gestures. They were not allowed to talk during this task. At the end of the observation we took some pictures of the users for the cast list we used in the next method, Picture Scenarios.

C.3 Results C.3.1 Interacting with Lego The users found the rst task in the observation very easy and there was a good communication from the start, the task was simple and the interaction between product and user was good. As one would possibly expect, the whole observation was marked by the earlier experience of the users with Lego. One thing that frustrated the users was the confusion regarding what solution there was the correct one for the building, in a way they expected we would give them the instruction booklet for this building and for that reason they felt unsure about what they were doing. During this task we observed the users interacting with the product; Lego. How they turn the bricks around with their hands, to t them together, and how they use their head to look around to get a better overview.

C.3.2 Interacting with boxes After a short introduction to the second task the users easily involved themselves in the task. They started to discuss some dierent solutions in building the tower by cardboard boxes, and they came up with quite acceptable and solid results. They used the dierent tools supplied by us and thereby interacted with both them and the materials. As in the rst task, we saw that the users became comfortable with objects, as they progressed with manipulating them; again we saw the necessity to turn the materials around, in order to get a better overview of the construction.

C.3.3 Control with gestures The third and last task was dicult to understand for the users, a short presentation of a little example helped to get them ready. They started building the tower but apparently they had diculties in nding the right gestures and to understand them. The navigator was signalling the builder, and was using several gestures, which some of, seemed straight forward and common to us. Right hand was used for up and down movements of the object, and both hands

64


User interface innovation

Chapter C

Figure C.3: Users interacting with boxes for the left or right movements. To pick up an object, both hands were used. Frequently one hand was used to navigate around with the objects.

65


Appendix D

Picture Scenarios D.1 Process After completing the Picture Scenarios, the idea was to use them as a base for starting a discussion within the study group with the primary goal, to focus the group thoughts on how we should precede our development of a prototype, furthermore the Picture Scenarios should also provide a chance to discover previously missed HCI problems.

Figure D.1: Picture Scenarios All of the Picture Scenarios can be found in appendix D.3

The session took place in our group room located at Cassiopeia, where the group went through the Picture Scenarios, discussing them one by one. 66


User interface innovation

Chapter D

D.2 Results The discussing of each picture scenario resulted in some questions on the user interaction. • When interacting with small objects like Lego, the users used the oor

a lot, either sitting down or using it as a base for modifying their main objects. The fact is that we have not given this much thought in our development process, maybe the reason is that the users needed a working table and since there were none in the CAVE, they used the oor, another answer could be when interacting with Lego you do it by by experience from childhood while sitting down.

• Another thing that came to our attention was the fact that Lego is a very

small object to interact with and this causes the users to move in closer to their main object during constructing it. This means that we have to be aware of the relation between the size of the objects and the user of the application while the interaction takes place.

• We also observed that the users were interacting with each other while

interacting with the objects. This is another thing we have not discussed, which possibilities do we have on more than one user interacting with the application at once? Lego is a toy which it is much more fun to play with when you play along with someone else.

• In the last picture scenario we had a lot of trouble getting the scenario

messages. The fact is that trying to show gesture and movement in a picture scenario is rather dicult, an idea could be making a video scenario instead.

When we look back upon our process and how we have used the method, it is clear that our short stories could have been stronger and thereby making the process of making the Picture Scenarios more structured. Furthermore the preparations to the dierent sessions in the process could have been better, since some of the decisions were taken in last minutes, and a better organized approach could have prevented some of the smaller problems. • For an example, we could have done for the cardboard boxes to look more

like Lego.

• The fact that we gave the user a wooden stick helped them constructing

a stronger building out of the boxes and thereby emulating the binding feature that Lego have, but in contrary this might have moved the focus away from the primary idea of users interacting with big boxes.

67


Chapter D

User interface innovation

D.3 Storybords & picture scenarios

Figure D.2: Storybord for interacting with Lego

Figure D.3: Storybord for interacting with boxes

68


User interface innovation

Chapter D

Figure D.4: Storybord for control with gestures

69


Chapter D

User interface innovation

Figure D.5: Castlist

70


User interface innovation

Chapter D

Figure D.6: Picture scenario 1

71


Chapter D

User interface innovation

Figure D.7: Picture scenario 2-1

72


User interface innovation

Chapter D

Figure D.8: Picture scenario 2-2

73


Chapter D

User interface innovation

Figure D.9: Picture scenario 3-1

74


User interface innovation

Chapter D

Figure D.10: Picture scenario 3-2

75


Appendix E

Design and Innovation workshop E.1 Learning workshop E.1.1 Purpose Group members have no experience within this workshop area, so a training workshop is deemed necessary in order to workout misunderstandings and obtain some level of experience within the eld. The experience in this learning workshop will get the designers a familiar understanding of the workshop. So the scaled up project workshop will be running more smoothly. The earned experience from this learning workshop is intended to familiarise the designers with the workshop procedure. After an evaluation of this rst attempt, the results will be used to make a list of suggested improvements before repeating the workshop for the project.

E.1.2 Planning and preparation Mikael B. Skov came by the group room and provided presentation slides. Then he introduced each phase of the workshop as the workshop progressed; He explained some of the basic ideas behind sketching, potential problems which should be avoided, then he left, while the group proceeded. He then repeated the procedure, as he came back later and explained the mock-up phase, and nally he did the same for the prototyping phase.

E.1.3 Place setup The sketching session took place in the group room. The mock-up session took place in the Usability Laboratory in the Cassiopeia building.

E.1.4 Materials Cardboard boxes, scissors, glue, tape, paper etc. was made available. 76


User interface innovation

Chapter E

E.1.5 Process The participants were divided into two groups of three members each, and there was one facilitator during the mock-up and prototype phases.

E.1.6 The task The workshop task description was the following: Try to imagine, that the Danish Supermarket or Coop have asked you to design their new innovative and interactive shopping trolley. The new trolley shall support the task of daily shopping in a supermarket, but otherwise you are allowed to expand yourself.

E.1.7 Results Both groups ended up designing a box, attached to the shopping trolley with a built-in display and some buttons. Both had a number of features in common, such as touch display, GPS technology, maps, online access or communication ability with the store, etc.

The lowest common denominator problem As each member's collection of ideas is large in the sketching phase, the mockup phase requires a reduction or assembly of ideas, cut down to one or two mock-up models. When the group is forced to make a decision, the democratic way is to nd something that the majority nds either acceptable or worse, something that is common in the majority of member collection of ideas. It can be argued that this works very well in some contexts, as it can eectively lter out some unpractical ideas and other nonsense. Recalling that the goal here is to collect innovative ideas, it shows that this might give problems by ltering the innovative and unique ideas away, thus leaving the group with the lowest common denominator.

Tendency to normalize This problem is related to the lowest common denominator, it has to do with the members being reluctant to conicts, and therefore strive to atten out the idea until everyone accepts it, in order to avoid arguments. In a creative process like this workshop, one should strive to present and argue for ones ideas, and still be willing to take a solution in a totally dierent direction.

Homogeneous groups This sort of problem arises when a group is so homogeneous that all members think in a similar way. There is limited variety in the ideas, and the group does not need much time to come up with a solution. The decision making does not require much discussions or argumentation between the members. This is not exactly a problem but might limit the creativity as the discussions often help to inspire new solutions.

Lessons learned 77


Chapter E

User interface innovation

In this session, the group: • Sharpened the collective picture of what innovation is, and what it is not. • Found out that the most common ideas among group members are distant

from innovation.

• An agreeableness in the group does not contribute to innovation, it may

do the opposite.

E.1.8 Evaluation and Conclusion The conclusion from this session contains a few suggestion to be taken into account in the planning for next session: • Disagreements is good, they trigger discussion and forces the participants

to articulate their ideas which may trigger the generation of new ideas.

• Freedom of expression is important, negative comments can drive the in-

novation away and shut down the idea generation.

• In order to facilitate, nd some way to reward all innovative ideas as soon

as these arrive.

E.2 Pre-sketching E.2.1 Process The pre-sketching process is actually part of the sketching process, but we chose to separate it as a single process to make it an even more ecient way to get our minds focused on our subject - Lego. We felt that this would help prepare us for the sketching process which was next. The way the pre-sketching was carried out, involved the group members individually writing down what words and phases they associated with Lego and the experience of building with Lego - as many as possible. This individual process lasted for about half an hour. The important thing about this initial part of the sketching process was that each group member got an even chance to formulate their own thoughts. This meant that it was very important that no one talked during this process, to ensure that nobody got distracted or inuenced by other members of the group. When everyone had nished writing down their initial thoughts, we did a round table presentation in which each group member presented what they had written. All these notes were combined into a single document, which meant that we ended up with a pretty long list of things that characterises Lego and things that people associate with Lego. To avoid duplicates we continuously combined overlapping words and phrases. We also tried to articulate cues into sentences,

78


User interface innovation

Chapter E

to get a more precise formulation of the ideas. As already mentioned, each group member presented his or her ideas, and if one or more thoughts matched those on the combined list, they were not added again. In several cases similar thoughts were combined into new thoughts.

E.2.2 Results List of characteristics of Lego 1. Primært konstruktionsleg. 2. Kræver fantasi. En computer kan fx ikke bygge en Lego-model. 3. Grænseløst - fantasi, antal klodser, budget. 4. Kan kræve teknisk viden/forståelse/erfaring. Hvis man har en ide om hvad man vil bygge, kan det være svært at vide hvor man skal begynde. 5. Kan kræve forståelse af fysikkens "regler" (fx tyngdekraft). 6. Kræver inspiration. Man kan blive inspireret af klodserne. Rod kan give inspiration. 7. Lego er en hands-on-experience. Noget man kan have mellem hænderne man bruger sin følesans i stor grad. 8. Nogle Lego-elementer har en top og en bund. 9. Lego er et "prototypeværktøj". Man får aldrig bygget noget "færdigt" eller "rigtigt". Man kan altid fortsætte. I modsætning til fx en racerbane som bare er én ting. 10. Lego er godt når man er ere. Samarbejdsstimulerende. Hvis man har bygget noget hver især kan man lege sammen. Man kan få inspiration fra hinandens modeller. 11. Lego er godt når man er alene. Hvis man er ere kræver det at man bliver enige - hvis man bygger den samme ting. Man skal deles om klodserne hvis man bygger forskellige ting. 12. Lego er et globalt "sprog". Alle kender Lego og ved hvordan det bruges. 13. Lego er sejt/genialt/dansk. 14. Antal klodser. For mange kan skabe forvirring og irritation (fx når man følger en vejledning og har brugt en forkert klods). For få kan skabe irritation, men også tvinge én til at tænke kreativt. 15. Modellens størrelse bestemmer hvilke klodser man skal bruge. 16. Det er svært at lave en vejledning til en model. 17. Man kommer ofte til at bygge noget ere gange. Hvis der f.eks skal bruges en ting til hver. 18. Man kan lave noget unikt.

79


Chapter E

User interface innovation

19. Flow - succesoplevelser. 20. Med Mindstorms og Technic får man mere ud af legeprocessen, når man er færdig med at bygge. Modellerne er mere avancerede og kan ere ting. 21. Det er en oplevelse at "gå på opdagelse" i Lego og opdage nye klodser. Det kan give nye ideer at man nder ukendte klodser. 22. Ofte udstillingsmodeller. Holdbarheden er ikke altid så god. 23. Det kan være svært at lave helt om på modeller hvis man pludselig får en ny ide. Man er ofte nødt til at starte forfra. 24. Lego kan blandes med andre ting. 25. Det kan være sjovt at smadre modeller. Fordelen ved at det kan være skrøbeligt. 26. Klodserne er begrænsede. De skal passe sammen. Skal overholde nogle guidelines. 27. Man kan have for fede ngre til at skille noget af eller samle det. Man skal have noget værktøj til det. 28. Man kan sætte Lego så hårdt sammen at det næsten ikke er til at skille af. 29. Når andre ser ens model, kan de komme med helt andre og bedre metoder til at bygge noget på. 30. Det er nemt at hjælpe hinanden i byggeprocessen. 31. Der er utrolig mange slags kloder, som man som bygger ikke kan have det fulde overblik over. Dette betyder at man ikke rigtig formår at bruge dem i ens byggeprojekt. 32. Hvis man bygger noget, som man ikke er tilfreds med skal det skilles af igen, før man kan gå igang med et nyt projekt. 33. Nutidens modeller kan mere end i gamle dage, f.eks. biler kan køre med elektromotorer.

E.2.3 Reection and conclusion The process of creating the combined list, helped us to get our minds focused on Lego even further than us making our own individual lists. Presenting and discussing our individual ideas helped generating even more ideas, because people got inspired by other people's ideas, and similar thoughts could be combined into new more expressive points. The individual part was very crucial too. It helped kick start the discussion and ensured that everybody got a chance to formulate their thoughts. In our pre-sketching phase we set no limit on how much time we had to come up with association for each person's list, this resulted in some of the group members nishing considerably earlier than the rest. This might seem like the

80


User interface innovation

Chapter E

intuitive solution seeing as though being interrupted and/or stopped in the process might kill some of the creative ow. However, if the group were "on the clock" one might argue that the association's emerging after for instance 15 minutes are not considered to be "rst to mind" and might therefore not be as relevant. As already mentioned our primary intention with the pre-sketching process was to help us get focused on Lego and thus help us in the following parts of the Design and Innovation Workshop (DIW). We found that the pre-sketching was successful in doing that. The fact that we had done the pre-sketching helped us to an easier and quicker start of the sketching process. Furthermore the pre-sketching was a valuable tool in preparing us for the other subsequent parts of the Design and Innovation Workshop. It also proved very useful to be able to revisit the list that we made during the pre-sketching, especially because we had to take a break from the workshop, and needed to get our minds back on track when being able to continue the DIW. Hence, the presketching process is a useful tool if you are forced to have breaks during the entire DIW process. A point that is important to remember if you know that you will have to divide the process into parts.

E.3 Sketching E.3.1 Process The process of sketching was done as described in the theory, with all members of the group skeetching for themselves. When the process of sketching was done, the group presented their sketced ideas to each other. The way this was done was by a member presenting a single idea without receiving any criticism, then the next group member would present an idea from his or her sketchings reminding him or her mostly of the idea presented by the previously group member. This continuing until no group member had any ideas left. After this each member expressed what new ideas had inspired them. This was done to ensure the ideas was covered in themes rather than just in a random order. To start the mock-up session, the group decided to split into two, from one group of six to two groups of three. This was done by each member saying what idea of the others they found interesting, so they would not just all pick one of their own, they where more interested in further developing. This gave a pretty clear picture of what people wanted to work with and a way of ensuring that people from the start had a pretty clear picture of what their group most likely would start out with.

E.3.2 Results Descriptions of the sketches #1 1. Adjusting the size of a brick by pulling its ends. Limited by the available

81


Chapter E

User interface innovation

bricks - it is not possible to resize to a non-existing brick (this is primarily veried by the number of studs on the brick). 2. Zooming with two hands. Pulling your hands apart zooms in and pushing them apart zooms out. 3. Rotate a brick with one hand. Holding a hand below the brick and twisting your wrist. 4. Remote controlling of bricks. Each hand is mapped to a brick a hands movement is reected on the brick.

#2

Generally, these sketches are based on mass manipulation. The user control is a Gun-like weapon, rather large with some buttons, and the user points the gun and basically shoots, in order to throw Lego bricks at whatever he is building. The bricks are self-tuning, and adjust and add themselves to the construction. 1. Here the User is building a brick wall, from a distance of a few meters, and the wall building process is semi-automatic, since the user does not have to be very precise on details like how the bricks are attached to each other, but in an intuitive way, the environment "knows" what he want to build, and assists him accordingly. 2. This sketch is about making a challenge out of the task of selecting a brick. The user is at a Tivoli-like shoot-out desk, where he has to do some sharp shooting, and actually hit the particular brick he wants to use. 3. The idea here is that the the user can grab a "roll" of ammunition, which is a kind of random brick supply, but still with themes. An example: The user just built a house, and now he needs to decorate the garden. If owers are something for his likings, he takes a roll with some random owers in dierent colors, and tada... he just "sprays" or the brick owers over the garden, giving an even spreading and smooth variety, without much eort. The argumentation is that this process would otherwise become tiresome and repetitive. 4. This sketch is simply about the color of the brick construction, if the user changes his mind about the colors he originally chose, he can use his gun to simply repaint the construction, in a spraying like movement, rather that changing the bricks out for ones with dierent color. 5. This is a menu system idea, it is inspired from the movie Matrix, where the warehouse kind of comes to the user... here the user can either select a dierent type of "weapon" or grab some Lego bricks. 6. This one addresses the question about how one disassembles his Lego construction, and specially the case of an user who likes to destroy his construction afterwards. In such a case, the user can nd an arsenal from hand grenades and small bombs, up to weapons of mass destruction. The idea is that the user can then enjoy to watch his construction being blown into the air (luckily there is no need of a cleanup afterwards).

82


User interface innovation

Chapter E

#3

The sketches are 1. Block cloud. When the user need inspiration on selecting the next brick for what she is building. She can get an "cloud" of random bricks, this is done to simulate the feeling of digging through a pile of bricks. This also shows the menu system generally used in the rest of the sketches. It is a oating window looking like a window i a WIMP interface. The window is connected to the cloud with a line. The user select items from the menu, with her pointer, which is the is a line, sort of like a laser, pointing out of the wand. 2. Morph menu. On every brick there are morph options, like changing color and size and so on. This is an connected window menu as in sketch 1. This makes it easy for the user to change the bricks after they are selected from the brick placeholder, so she is not forced to select new bricks. 3. Block snapping. Then bricks are put together they are drawn to each other, even then they not touching, and then they are snapping together they make a sound. This lowers precision needed for navigation in the 3D space. 4. Chopstick handling. This sketch show how to handle a brick or model. The best way to describe is imagine that there are a chopstick between the model a each wand. The chopstick is connected to the model and the wand by a hinge. When the user moves the wands indepently the the mode is moved the same way. Then the wands are moved away from each other in the horizontal axis, the model or brick are changing size. 5. Exploding/imploding model. To make it possible to change one or bricks in a model, the user has the option of a controlled explosion of her model, in such a way that bricks are moved slightly away from each other. Then she is done, the model can be imploded back together. 6. Model cloud. The user can save her models, ad build on them later. The model can be selected from a cloud of models. 7. Un-Lego. It is possible to Un-Lego an model, which basically means remove the characteristic of a Lego model. That is the lines between each bricks, and buds on top the brick. This is done to make the model more "real" like a 3D model from a 3D animation program like 3D Studio Max. 8. World rotation. Then the user has a lot of objects in the 3D space, like models, bricks and menus. It should be possible to rotate the world around her. So all spaces, both space around her, plus the oor and ceiling can be utilized for objects. So to interact with the object under the oor, the world can be rotated, so the objects are in front of her and thereby more easily accessed.

#4 83


Chapter E

User interface innovation

1. Build-and-Paint-concept to develop artistic creativity. The user can build whatever he likes of bricks and paint the surface after his behavior or he can select a miniature gure which he can build after. The user can easily extend or reduce bricks by selecting them and pushing/pulling the hands apart. 2. The Labyrinth. The main idea behind this is to overcome obstacles and navigate a brick through a labyrinth. You can control the brick by hand movements which is reected on the brick - fx. by rotating a brick with a hand and place it in a specied location the other hand.

#5 We have to be aware of when interacting with Lego the user relays much on the feedback he receives through touch when interacting with it. Is it possible to copy some of the movements from building Lego in the RW to VR? The approach to interacting is that it should be as simple as possible, so the user can adapt to this environment easy and quickly, this can again be done with using a mapping close to 1:1. • Use some physical object to emulate the virtual objects in the CAVE

during interacting.

• Use a VR-glove and a tracker combination for gaining this interacting.

The sketches

Figure E.1: Sketches #1 -1

Figure E.2: Sketches #1 -2

84


User interface innovation

Chapter E

Figure E.3: Sketches #1 -3

Figure E.4: Sketches #1 -4

Figure E.5: Sketches #1 - 5

85


Chapter E

User interface innovation

Figure E.6: Sketches #1 - 6

Figure E.7: Sketches #2 -1

Figure E.8: Sketches #2 -2

Figure E.9: Sketches #2 -3

86


User interface innovation

Chapter E

Figure E.10: Sketches #2 -4

Figure E.11: Sketches #2 -5

Figure E.12: Sketches #2 -6

87


Chapter E

User interface innovation

Figure E.13: Sketches #2 -7

Figure E.14: Sketches #2 -8

88


User interface innovation

Chapter E

Figure E.15: Sketches #3 -1

Figure E.16: Sketches #3 -2

Figure E.17: Sketches #3 -3

89


Chapter E

User interface innovation

Figure E.18: Sketches #4 -1

Figure E.19: Sketches #4 -2

Figure E.20: Sketches #4 -3

90


User interface innovation

Chapter E

Figure E.21: Sketches #4 -4

Figure E.22: Sketches #5 -1

Figure E.23: Sketches #5 -2

91


Chapter E

User interface innovation

Figure E.24: Sketches #5 -3

Figure E.25: Sketches #5 -4

Figure E.26: Sketches #5 -5

Figure E.27: Sketches #5 -6

92


User interface innovation

Chapter E

Figure E.28: Sketches #5 -7

Figure E.29: Sketches #5 -8

Figure E.30: Sketches #5 -9

93


Chapter E

User interface innovation

Figure E.31: Sketches #5 -10

Figure E.32: Sketches #6 -1

94


User interface innovation

Chapter E

Figure E.33: Sketches #6 -2

Figure E.34: Sketches #6 -3

E.3.3 Reection and conclusion Our rst impression of the sketching phase is that it clearly does help creating a lot of ideas. People have dierent ways in expressing their meanings, and therefore the results of the sketches will therefore also dier and none of them might be the same type of sketches. The process of expressing ideas by drawing them is a concept everybody can comprehend, further more when discussing afterwards no one felt the need to exceed the twodimensional space of the pen and paper to express ideas that were to be implemented in three. A thing to be noted is also the concept of quantities versus qualities. The details and functions of each idea/drawing may vary a lot, so producing a lot of drawings is not necessarily more creative than just producing a few.

95


Chapter E

User interface innovation

Figure E.35: Sketches #6 -4

E.4 Mock-up E.4.1 Establishing the subgroups There were two subgroups created for the mock-up phase, and in order to minimise potential conicts, there was an agreement on that the groups should be self-established. This was conducted by scheduling a 15 minutes discussion session, where the groups were to discuss the emerged ideas from the sketching phase, and thereafter give statements about these ideas with argumentations about what they liked, and what not. Then the subgroups where established, based on what ideas the individuals desired to work on. This resulted in the two subgroups; one group which would focus how an interactive menu should work in an immersive 3D environment, and the other group which would focus on how to interact with objects and how to manipulating them in this environment. The mock-up session took place in the Usability Laboratory in the Cassiopeia building.

E.4.2 Process (Menu system group) The group work started with discussion and negotiations about which of the ideas from the sketching phase should be carried on into the mock-up phase. Eventually there was decided to merge two main ideas into one. A whiteboard was used for writing down some headwords, as well as drawing sketches to coordinate the idea generation. Additionally there were the sketch sheets from the sketching phase for further details and explanations. Early in the process, a decision was taken not to let limitations, such as the available materials to build from, aect the level of creativity. Soon, a clear common understanding became presented in a sketch of the mock-

96


User interface innovation

Chapter E

up on the whiteboard and the mock-up realisation could begin. It soon became

Figure E.36: Mock-up session: Real size interactive menu clear that the group was facing some serious limitations. The idea of a menu system for the immersive 3D environment required the mock-up to be two meters high, and it proved unpractical and dicult to build from the materials available. There was decided to skip some important details from the mock-up, like the ability to duck down and see what is in a drawer. These details were chosen based on how easily they could be explained in words, since the goal was to become able to present the idea behind the mock-up to others. The end product required a signicant number of resources (ve or six people) to hold it in place.

E.4.3 Reection and conclusion (Menu system group) Although mock-up is meant to be quick, cheap and easy, we experienced difculties. We accepted the limitations of the materials at hand, and used the whiteboard combined with gestures and discussions to create a common vision of the physical appearance and basic functionality of the design. This worked well, and it proved sucient to have a simple cardboard and paper mock-ups, in order to support discussions and explanations, and thereby create consensus about the design between the group members.

E.4.4 Process (Object manipulation group) After being split into two teams the one concerning themselves with directly manipulating bricks started their process by discussing whether or not to use

97


Chapter E

User interface innovation

the standard equipment available in the CAVE. The choose to use the equipment because the concensus was that they could achieve all they wanted with the so called wandsE.5.6. The team only created very simple mock-ups E.4.5, because they were not developing a new psysical object but an interaction method. When faced with a relative large portion of time, the team used their time to make up an process how the simple mock-ups would work, by doing so, they crossed over to what essentially should be the prototyping session. The group questioned every idea in a way so all details were rmly explained and all shortages were located. Throughout the process there were made an eort to keep the focus on developing for a 3D enviroment.

E.4.5 Results (Object manipulation group) In the mock-up session our project team was split in two, with one group looking at how an interactive menu should work in an immersive 3D environment, the other group would look at how to interact with object and how to modulate them in this environment.

Garry's Mod Under our mock-up process we were inspired by an modication to a well-known computer 3D game called Half-life, this modication "Garry's Mod" oers mockup a highly developed tool to modulate the games environment with the interaction through use of mouse and keyboard.

Figure E.37: Garry's Mod: Manipulating an object in the environment The rst discussion was about whether or not to use the standard interaction

98


User interface innovation

Chapter E

equipment available in the CAVE. For stimulate our further progress in the session we created a big Lego brick, this Lego brick gave us more inspiration to how we would develop the manipulating device and how to interact with the virtual bricks.

Figure E.38: Mock-up session: One big red Lego brick

The approach to taking the decision was done by focusing one more concrete problem in our project namely how to build with Lego in an immersive 3D environment, one of the problems with this idea is the fact that Lego is a product that relies much on the physical contact that it oers the user, as we also saw in the picture scenario session9. The ability to touch, turn and interact with the dierent objects in Lego is crucial, therefore is necessary to develop an interacting device that can compensate the user for this losses. As we have learned that the physical contact to a physical object can be emulated through a tool[9], so the user do not feel compelled to interact directly with the emulated object, the users senses will be satised by the feedback he receives through vision alone. For this to work there is some rules for the environment that you will have to take in consideration, both gravitation and solid mass are important for how the object will behave and how the user will perceive it. With this in mind the further work was done with the focus on emulating moves from the real world thereby creating a 1:1 mapping, as the session proceeded it become clear that in this case was done by using two trackers. With the interaction device in place the attention again turned to how one should manipulate the actual object in the environment with the two trackers. The idea is that you can interact with the application through these trackers with one in each hand, not only by pressing the buttons, but also simply by moving them around because of an build in tracking sensor.

99


Chapter E

User interface innovation

Figure E.39: Mock-up session: Interacting with an object

List of functions for the trackers: H1

While pointing at an object it is possible to re a beam by pushing H1, while holding down H1 it is possible to move the object.

V1

By pushing and holding V1 and then move the control closer to your body, the object will be moving closer towards you. By moving the control away from your body the object will be moved away from you current position. The faster you move the control the faster you move the object.

V2

By pushing and holding V2 and then tilting the left control it is possible to tilt the object, here we have a direct mapping from the control stick in your hand to the chosen object.

V3

By pushing V3 the object will change color, by pushing it again the color will change again. Therefore it is possible to cycle through all the base colours. When an object has been moved, it is also selected when you let go of H1, the object stay highlighted and the modication dots appear on the object.

H1

By moving the right control inside one of these modication dots and pushing and holding H1, it is possible to alter the object size at one of the three axis. By moving the control into another dot it is possible to alter the object at the new selected axis.

100


User interface innovation

Chapter E

When an object has been placed onto another object, these objects form a group. It is possible to eect a group of objects, in the same way as a single object, in the way of moving as described above. If you move the right control close to a sub-object in a group of objects it is highlighted, and thereby it can be removed from the grouping, if it obey some construction rules.

H2 and V2

Zoom function can be invoked by pushing and holding H2 plus V2 and moving the controls against each other.

H3

By pushing and holding H3 at the same time, you will be drawing a circle in the air with the right control. This enables you to mark some of the sub-objects in a specied object. All the sub-objects you see through the circle when doing this gesture will be marked.

V4

By pushing V4 you will select the current highlighted object for multiplication.

H1

By pushing H1 you will create a new object.

H2

By pushing H2 or H3 you will deselect the option for multiplication.

H4

By pushing H4 you will enter the upper menu.

E.4.6 Results (Menu system group) This chapter describes the ideas regarding a menu system in a 3D environment. It was based on ideas from the sketching phase, along with other inspiration and knowledge. Some of the knowledge was gathered from articles[9]. One inspiration was a gun shelf rack in The Matrix1 . The problem with that type of rack is that not all of the space is used around the user, and in order to access more items on the rack, the user has to move, which is dicult in the CAVE as it has a 2.5x.2.5 m oor. The idea of the rotating world which is seen on E.40, solved that problem, but Doug A. Bowman et al.[10] conducted some experiments showing that jumping, the act of teleporting the user to an other place in the 3D space, is bad for spatial awareness. The user needs to gure out where he is, just after all of the surroundings has changed. So a menu that pops in and surrounds the user, might be an bad idea. Another problem was that the user has objects outside his visual eld, that might be of interest. 1 In

the movie "The Matrix", where the hero needs guns in a training session in the virtual world, a shelf rack is called upon, rolles in behind and in front of the hero, and is lled with guns

101


Chapter E

User interface innovation

To solve these problem the "snake like" surrounding menu was suggested. The rst sketches drawn on a whiteboard can be seen at gure E.40.

Figure E.40: Mock-up session: Surround menusystem

102


User interface innovation

Chapter E

E.4.7 Reection and conclusion (Object manipulation group) Our experience has shown us that the mock-up and prototype sessions are very closely related to each other. It was very clearly seen during the mock-up process for the object manipulation group which, as mentioned earlier, ended up overlapping the prototype session. This is not specic to mock-ups in virtual environment, but it is probably more distinct in the case of a virtual environment. At least that is our experience. It was challenging to create mock-ups of how to interact in a three-dimensional environment. The fact that the mock-up and prototype processes overlapped like they did was not a bad thing. In a way it glued the two parts of the Design and Innovation Workshop together to one larger part, but we still felt that this one part served a purpose and we did not feel that it was any barrier in completing the workshop as a whole. Trying to enforce a greater distance between these two parts of the DIW might have made the process more time consuming and more dicult for us, because we had to have very strict boundaries on our mock-ups. Hence, we might have used more time ensuring that we in fact did not do any prototyping during the mock-up process.

E.5 Prototyping E.5.1 Process (Menu system group) The session started with discussions, there were mainly two issues discussed. Details of the interactions with the system:

There was an agreement on to keep the interactions simple, and it was easy for the group members to plan the interface for the menu system. The size of the prototype:

There was some confusion in the group about how to plan the prototyping session, as the problem with the size emerged again, the main problem was how to give the tester a realistic experience during the prototyping, as the size of the rack was about two meters high while its length about ve meters. This problem was discussed back and forth. Everyone agreed upon that the prototyping should be focussed on the rack, since it was the most unique experience, and this part of the system was the one considered to be the most interesting one for a usability experiment. Eventually we agreed upon conducting the usability experiment, solving the size problem by borrowing extra people from the other group, so that we would have the required ve participants to operate the prototype. Usability experiment:

103


Chapter E

User interface innovation

The last part of the session was a usability experiment. Since the physical prototype lacked so many of it details and functions, and the fact that we needed some extra personnel from the other group, we decided to start the experiment session by doing a presentation for the other group, to both explain our ideas for them, and prepare them for playing their roles in the model representation. Then we invited one of the other team to play the role of a user, testing the system. First, the controls were explained for her, and then she was given a specic task of nding a particular item in the rack system, and then retrieving that item, using the controls. At rst, the user unexpectedly started fooling around with the system, which was a quite humorous, as this required a bunch of people to be running around, back and forth, responding to the user input. It proved that this was seemingly a natural way for the user to get the feel of the controls. After a short period of time, she started on the actual exercise, having already gained a good sense of how to operate the controls, she executed the given task with ease.

E.5.2 Reection and conclusion (Menu system group) The usability experiment went surprisingly well. The user was able to fully grasp the idea, and seemed to be comfortable and relaxed while using the system, despite how limited the physical prototype of the rack system was. It was therefore concluded that the verbal explanations along with whiteboard sketches and presentations, did compensate for a simple prototype model. The fact that the user showed enjoyment and was playing with the system, conrms this and suggests as well, that the role of a game could be an important part when one is familiarizing with a prototype.

E.5.3 Process (Object manipulation group) The group started the prototype session with a discussion and negotiation about how the testing of the interaction should be held and which ideas from the mockup phase could be carried on to the prototype session. The conclussion of the discussion was that it would be useful for the group and helpful for the user if the test was a tutorial-like usability test of the interaction, with the option to get help from a gure depicting a Lego-man. The tutorial was mainly chosen because it could be dicult for a new user to nd out and keep track of the dierent functions the buttons on the mock-up model may have. For the usability test, some basic interaction ideas were selected from the mockup phase because it with these was possible to demonstrate the interaction by moving the Lego bricks. The interaction ideas were formed into tasks which the user had to accomplish. Four people were involved in the actual usability test. There was a user; a test

104


User interface innovation

Chapter E

leader who had the responsibility to give a simple introduction of what was going to be tested and to introduce the tasks one by one; a Lego-man whom as a part of the tutorial-like fashion had to come up with some information about how a task could be solved if needed; and a person who stayed in background and had the job to give the user the right interaction feedback during the test when the user pressed the buttons. Since there was no actual program, it was a bit dicult to stimulate the interaction output. In compliance with this problem, the user was asked to think out loud when clicking on the mock-up model, so the person could react and move the Lego brick after what was being pushed on the buttons. It should look like the hand movements was mapped to the brick, so the interaction was reected on the brick.

E.5.4 Reection and conclusion (Object manipulation group) We learned that trying to simulate a virtual environment in the real world is a pretty challenging task. We had a lot of ideas on how the prototype should function if it was implemented in the CAVE, and we tried to create some of these using humans for a lot of the tasks that would have been done by the computers - like moving the "virtual" Lego brick. This is not unique to prototypes in virtual environments. Creating e.g. a paper prototype of a piece of "classic" computer software will often also involve humans carrying out tasks of the computer, like switching what is on the screen. The extra people might be more visible in a virtual environment. In our case we had to use several persons to move our mock-up of a Lego brick when the user signalled to do so, and this of course led to these person being in the users eld of vision during much of the prototype session. One thing that is unique to, or at least more likely to have an inuence in, a virtual environment is the fact that the people performing the tasks of the computer are often times xed to their positions. Often times they can not just disappear, because of the nature of the 3D environment. So one might think that the fact that we had people wandering about in our "virtual" environment was a bad thing for our prototype session, but in our experience it was not. The users were not bothered by extra people present. A prototype is not a nal product, and hence it is not expected to function exactly like a nal product. In some cases it might not function at all, if it is merely a visual prototype. The point of the prototype is to improve the product before nalising it. Our prototype did function, not like a possible nal product would, but it functioned well enough for us to get some valuable results. Another fact that supports us in saying that the prototype session went well, was that we gained results from the experiment. Results of the kind that resembles of a more regular usability test.

105


Chapter E

User interface innovation

E.5.5 Why is the Design and Innovation Workshop innovative? As mentioned by Jeremy Rose in the SWI course on Aalborg University[26] there are dierent innovative development models. The workshop used by us in this project can be categorized as a mix of two of the models mentioned in the SWI course. These two models are the linear (light bulb) model and the network (or community) model. The linear model is described as a sequence of stages or phases, in a way like the waterfall model. This ts our workshop process because it consists of a number of subprocesses which we carried out one by one - one after each other. Each subprocess was dependent on the previous process(es) for it to be completed. The other model, the network model, involves "the conjunction of people, ideas and expertise" and "co-operation and competition". This also matches our workshop process. Most of the subprocesses of the workshop involved multiple people (the group members) working on and discussing the dierent matters of the dierent subprocesses. This automatically lead to sharing of ideas and also pushing boundaries in some ways. The pushing of boundaries mostly involved getting new ideas and discussing the dierent possibilities to solve the various tasks. With regards to "competition", it can be argued that we did some degree of competition during the mock-up and prototype subprocesses. We did not compete in the traditional sense. There would be no winner, and no team would be better than the other. But we did split into two separate teams which worked on separate projects simultaneously. Working in teams naturally also implies co-operation. The way in which our Design and Innovation Workshop diers from the network/community model, is that the network or community in our process was rather limited - i.e. it was the seven group members. Traditionally examples of the network model are open source communities, which are often times very large communities spread across the entire globe, and obviously involving more people who might come from a variety of backgroundscan help igniting the sharing of ideas and expertise.

106


User interface innovation

Chapter E

E.5.6 Manipulating a brick The prototype session provided us with some useful results. As mentioned we decided to carry out the prototype session in a tutorial-like fashion. This turned out to be a very useful approach. Because of the innovative nature of our interaction methods, it was very helpful for the user to be able to get precise instructions regarding the current task. The way the help was provided, i.e. the "Lego man" which was activated by the wands, was also successful, it blended well with the rest of the "virtual world". Also, the fact that the help was unitrusive, you had to activate it, proved very successful. All the members of the sub-group that worked with creating the brick manipulation prototype, were right-handed. Hence the interaction methods were all targeted towards right-handed users. The user, however, turned out to be lefthanded. This turned out to be a completely over-looked factor which actually meant that the interaction was hindered. Ways to interact which seemed natural to a right-handed person, were reversed for the left-handed user. This problem can rather easy be solved by allowing the wand mappings to be reversed, such that the left-hand wand will be the right-hand wand and vice versa. Another problem that was found was the logic between the dierent buttons and the dierent functions that were mapped to them. The user expressed confusion about the fact that some functions that were related in some way were mapped to dierent buttons. Specically it was mentioned by the user that the move and zoom functions with advantage could be using some of the same buttons.

E.5.7 Menu system The idea testet was the rack menus system, previously described. The usability test gave both new ideas and located some problems with the existing ones. Both during planning, testing and evaluation of the usability test. An idea that came up during planning of the test was an scaold menu system. Why limit the "menu" to a rack, with the in-build problems like not being able to see trough the parts of the rack (and the draws). A solution could be designing the rack like a scaold with skrewer where the blocks are placed. Durring the test the user pointed to a problem: You can not see the construction you are building when you reach for other blocks in rack. When you initiate the menu, the rack can stand in way of other objects like the model, you can move the rack, out of the way, or turn around, but you as a user has do something active to achieve that. Durring the test a few new ideas came up. The original idea for selecting blocks was to use "click and hold", but it was suggested to use "click to attatch" instead. When pointing to a block, click would attach the block to the pointer, no need to hold down the key, while the block is attatch. That would also give the possibility of using the button for other things while the block is attach to the pointer. E.g. releasing a copy of the block, to be used in the model. Another idea that surfaced, was for drawing the skrewer. When you "click and

107


Chapter E

User interface innovation

hold" to a block attached to a skrewer i the scaold, and pull you pull out the skrewer, making it posseble to see the other blocks attached to the skrewer. After the test an idea of "collision fadeout" was formed. To make it easy to see all block in the rack, you can put your head inside the rack, and there will be an invisible sphire around your head, in which objects will fade-out. In that way blocks close to you will disappear, so blocks further away will be visible.

Figure E.41: Prototyping session: Rack menusystem

108


Bibliography [1] Teresa Amabile. Creativity In Context. Westview Press, 1996, ISBN: 97808-1333-0341. [2] Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. Designing interaction, not interfaces. 2004. [3] Jason Burke. Ethnographic methods, 2001. [4] Bill Buxton. What sketches (and prototypes) are and are not. 2004. [5] Universities & Skills Department for Innovation. Innovation nation. March 2008. [6] Alistair Sutclie et al. Investigating interaction in cave virtual environments. 2003. [7] Anne Rose et al. engineering. 1995.

Using ethnographic methods in user interface re-

[8] Antti Oulasvirta et al. Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming. 2002. [9] Daniel F. Keefe et al. Cavepainting: A fully immersive 3d artistic medium and interactive experience. 2001. [10] Doug A. Bowman et al. Travel in immersive virtual environments: An evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques. 1997. [11] Dr. KRS Murthy et al. Brainstorming techniques. December 2008. [12] Paul A Mongeau et al. Brainstorming. Winter 1999. [13] Robert J.K. Jacob et al. Reality-based interaction: A framework for postwimp interfaces. 2008. [14] John Hughes et el. Moving out from the control room: Ethnography in system design. 1995. [15] Poul Kyvsgaard Hansen Frank Gertsen and Harry Boer. Innovationsledelse. 2006. [16] Frank Gertsen. Introduktion til innovationsledelse - set fra en virksomhedssynsvinkel, 2008. [17] Alan R. Hevner. The information system research cycle. 2003. 110


User interface innovation

Chapter

[18] Janne Jul Jensen and Anne Marie Kanstrup. Uim course website. http: //cs.aau.dk/~jjj/UIM/UIM.htm, 2008. [19] Anker Helms Jørgensen. Etnogra og interaktionsdesign, lektion 6a - interaktionsdesign. http://itu.dk/people/anker/IDF2008/ Lektion-6a-Etnografi.pdf, 2008. [20] Anne Marie Kanstrup. User innovation management chapter 1. http: //cs.aau.dk/~jjj/UIM/kap1.doc, 2008. [21] Alexander Massey. The way we do things around here': The culture of ethnography. http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/2961/waywedo.htm, 1998. [22] David Millen. Rapid ethnography: Time deepening strategies for hci eld research. 2000. [23] Alex F. Osborn. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving 3rd Edition. Creative Education Foundation, 1993, ISBN: 978-0-930222-73-4. [24] Sonja Pedell. Picture scenarios: An extended scenario-based method for mobile appliance design. 2004. [25] Sonja Pedell and Frank Vetere. Visualizing use context with picture scenarios in the design process. 2005. [26] Jeremy Rose.

Three models of software innovation. http: //cs.aau.dk/~jeremy/software_innovation/si_2008/resource% 20files/lectures/science%20of%20innovation.pdf, Spring 2008.

[27] Sean Silverthorne. Lessons not learned about innovation. 2006. [28] Mikael B. Skov. Design & innovation, inf3, slideshow. 2008. [29] Carolyn Snyder. Paper Prototyping. Morgan Kaufmann, 2003, ISBN: 1558608702. [30] Robert J. Teather and Wolfgang Stuerzlinger. Guidelines for 3d positioning techniques. 2007. [31] Wikipedia. Cave automatic virtual environment. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Cave_Automatic_Virtual_Environment, 2008. [32] Wikipedia. Data mining. http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining, 2008. [33] Wikipedia. Virtual reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_ reality, 2008.

111


User Innovation Interface  

Informatik - dec 2008 - Aalborg University

Advertisement