At last we landed in the subject of design research and prototyping, a very diverse area with multiple ways to follow. As I previously wrote I had a bit of experience of this, this is part of what I want to work with in the future. My first "real" experience of this (real as in my first account with design research and prototyping in KTH) came when I started my bachelor in HCI and could dive into the world of user testing and design. It is fun and interesting to gain new knowledge about how people interact with each other and or with computers and different designs but it is never quite so simple as you would want it to be.
When I and my bachelor partner created the vocabulary exercise program for kids at age 10 we had a number of tests involved. First we had an idea we wanted to make real, when gathering research to do this we had to change the idea a bit. We put the idea and research together and brainstormed forth what kinds of functions and aspects we would include in our final prototype (because we wouldn't have time to do a full fledged program including all aspects of learning a language). We decided on vocabulary exercise and made a paper prototype to show the responsible teachers in our first focus group/interview. The told us about how they traditionally teach English and what kinds of functions they would want to include in a vocabulary exercise prototype. After this we showed them the paper prototype so they could try to interact with it and see the basic functions. The big win with using a paper prototype as a first step is that it is easy to make, you only concentrate on the basic functions rather than tiny detailed questions about the design. Often if you do a too elaborate prototype as a first the critics don't feel right to question the functionality as it seams so "finished".
Afterwards we did a new prototype with graphics and the functions available on the internet to test on three groups of children. We compared how they did at a test where they practised in the traditional way and one where they practised through our prototype. After this we had interviews with the teachers to gain the children's experience and so forth. All in all We used mixed methods when it came to evaluating the prototype. The important thing is that you consider the cons and pros of using different types of tests and research, what do you want to know? How can you best gain this information. Ok I didn't really have the space to write about this more thoroughly but I hope you all get some idea of that it is good to use an iterative design process sometimes and that paper prototypes are a great way to, from the start, get on the right track.
29.11.12
23.11.12
Theme 5
Hi there! Welcome to theme 5 - Design Research!
Some may ask, what is design research, well basically it is research conducted via development of a prototype or a certain technology and the evaluation of this specific thing. I have, in a number of courses, had the chance to develop and evaluate prototypes of varying degrees. My greatest experience of this comes from my bachelor thesis. In my bachelor thesis I and my bachelor-partner developed a vocabulary exercise program which used game theories to motivate the users (who in this case where children around the age of 10) to practice more. You can read more about that in the reflection coming up.
The characteristics of developing a prototype is almost always as following; You dig up the background and development of similar or aligning aspects of the prototype during the years before your own development, you analyze this and start with the different phases of developing the actual prototype and afterwards you do different user tests and evaluate it's performance.
A prototype can be anything ranging from an interface on paper (you draw the actual screen which will be interacted with and various ways to interact with it), an interface where the test participants click on the screen and you show the next interaction step by switching to the following picture or a high functioning prototype where the user interacts on her/his own getting feedback and appropriate malfunction messages when needed, this high functioning prototype often do not have all the functions it should have when being a real program. Limitations of prototypes is that it often has to be revised a number of times, because it often is a compromise of how the finished product actually will work and look like. This may generate a high cost when developing, but if you would ignore developing a prototype and you may get a program who does not work properly or who does not have the appropriate functions. In the worst case you can get a product who works perfectly but who nobody uses because it is not built for the right audience. One other thing is that you often have to produce different levels of functioning prototypes, i.e use iterating development of prototypes, which could take time but will be beneficial in the long run.
In conclusion you do get a lot of perks by using prototyping during a development, you can early on change aspects who does not work so well by just using a basic paper prototype.
The paper I have chosen this time is "Values at Play: Design Tradeoffs in Socially-Oriented Game Design" by M. Flanagan et. al., published 2005. It is about creating a networked game environment which will teach middle-school girls about programming. The study is conducted over three years with multiple people involved. The game play is in my opinion questionable about only attracting girls, but nevertheless it takes place in a world between two rivaling groups, who battles through dance routines. By using simple code to create the various routines the target group will learn about programming in the same time as seeing a cool result. Methods used in this paper is mainly design research methods (prototype) and literary research to develop this prototype in question. They used "throw-away" prototypes in which they developed a scenario in the game to test and in an iterative process build a high function prototype or product. To evaluate this they used user-tests. The iterative process is described quite good but the actual feedback is hard to find other than by reading between the lines of the iterative process. It is rather a question concerning the report but it is something that I think will be beneficial for researchers to think about, if you do not write out the feedback from the test participants in the report or paper, then you should submit it as a supplement.
Some may ask, what is design research, well basically it is research conducted via development of a prototype or a certain technology and the evaluation of this specific thing. I have, in a number of courses, had the chance to develop and evaluate prototypes of varying degrees. My greatest experience of this comes from my bachelor thesis. In my bachelor thesis I and my bachelor-partner developed a vocabulary exercise program which used game theories to motivate the users (who in this case where children around the age of 10) to practice more. You can read more about that in the reflection coming up.
The characteristics of developing a prototype is almost always as following; You dig up the background and development of similar or aligning aspects of the prototype during the years before your own development, you analyze this and start with the different phases of developing the actual prototype and afterwards you do different user tests and evaluate it's performance.
A prototype can be anything ranging from an interface on paper (you draw the actual screen which will be interacted with and various ways to interact with it), an interface where the test participants click on the screen and you show the next interaction step by switching to the following picture or a high functioning prototype where the user interacts on her/his own getting feedback and appropriate malfunction messages when needed, this high functioning prototype often do not have all the functions it should have when being a real program. Limitations of prototypes is that it often has to be revised a number of times, because it often is a compromise of how the finished product actually will work and look like. This may generate a high cost when developing, but if you would ignore developing a prototype and you may get a program who does not work properly or who does not have the appropriate functions. In the worst case you can get a product who works perfectly but who nobody uses because it is not built for the right audience. One other thing is that you often have to produce different levels of functioning prototypes, i.e use iterating development of prototypes, which could take time but will be beneficial in the long run.
In conclusion you do get a lot of perks by using prototyping during a development, you can early on change aspects who does not work so well by just using a basic paper prototype.
The paper I have chosen this time is "Values at Play: Design Tradeoffs in Socially-Oriented Game Design" by M. Flanagan et. al., published 2005. It is about creating a networked game environment which will teach middle-school girls about programming. The study is conducted over three years with multiple people involved. The game play is in my opinion questionable about only attracting girls, but nevertheless it takes place in a world between two rivaling groups, who battles through dance routines. By using simple code to create the various routines the target group will learn about programming in the same time as seeing a cool result. Methods used in this paper is mainly design research methods (prototype) and literary research to develop this prototype in question. They used "throw-away" prototypes in which they developed a scenario in the game to test and in an iterative process build a high function prototype or product. To evaluate this they used user-tests. The iterative process is described quite good but the actual feedback is hard to find other than by reading between the lines of the iterative process. It is rather a question concerning the report but it is something that I think will be beneficial for researchers to think about, if you do not write out the feedback from the test participants in the report or paper, then you should submit it as a supplement.
22.11.12
Week 4 - Reflection
Hello there people of the world! The theme this week has been qualitative methods, many of us may have learned new aspects about qualitative methods such as what it is, how it can be used, limitations and what kind of different opportunities it presents.
In the beginning of the week I thought that I wouldn't gain any new knowledge about this theme in this short period of time. I knew that there would be more information out there for me about the subject that is qualitative methods, but it wouldn't be as easy to obtain as the basic knowledge I already had stored. I already knew what qualitative methods where, I knew basic ways of how to use it. I did know much of the pros and cons of using it alone or combined with other qualitative and/or quantitative methods. So yes, my "picture" of it all wasn't complete (can it ever be? - I'm doubtful about that) but basic and useful enough.
After the seminar I gained more knowledge about qualitative methods, but not so much about the traditional methods such as interviews face-to-face or through telephone, focus groups, case studies etc. but of how to use a variation of them combined with today's technology. In my paper they used interviews through mail conversations and instant messaging conversations and as a positive effect they reached a large group of participants who had time to think about the semi-structured topics and questions before answering them which could give a better summation of the key points than if you would have done them in a much more limited time face-to-face or through telephone/Skype. Yes of course it has some negative effects, but not as tangible as the positives. In the study concerned it was a good option to use as they got a larger target group and did gain much information through each interview.
In conclusion, when you are going to use a method in a certain study (whether it's qualitative or quantitative - or BOTH!) do not only think of the traditional/regular ways of carrying them out, think outside the box and use the technology we do have available to carry out the study in an even better way! Think more freely and brainstorm the **** out of the traditional ways if it will benefit the study.
And the closure is dedicated to physical programming! Keep up the spirit and investigate further!
In the beginning of the week I thought that I wouldn't gain any new knowledge about this theme in this short period of time. I knew that there would be more information out there for me about the subject that is qualitative methods, but it wouldn't be as easy to obtain as the basic knowledge I already had stored. I already knew what qualitative methods where, I knew basic ways of how to use it. I did know much of the pros and cons of using it alone or combined with other qualitative and/or quantitative methods. So yes, my "picture" of it all wasn't complete (can it ever be? - I'm doubtful about that) but basic and useful enough.
After the seminar I gained more knowledge about qualitative methods, but not so much about the traditional methods such as interviews face-to-face or through telephone, focus groups, case studies etc. but of how to use a variation of them combined with today's technology. In my paper they used interviews through mail conversations and instant messaging conversations and as a positive effect they reached a large group of participants who had time to think about the semi-structured topics and questions before answering them which could give a better summation of the key points than if you would have done them in a much more limited time face-to-face or through telephone/Skype. Yes of course it has some negative effects, but not as tangible as the positives. In the study concerned it was a good option to use as they got a larger target group and did gain much information through each interview.
In conclusion, when you are going to use a method in a certain study (whether it's qualitative or quantitative - or BOTH!) do not only think of the traditional/regular ways of carrying them out, think outside the box and use the technology we do have available to carry out the study in an even better way! Think more freely and brainstorm the **** out of the traditional ways if it will benefit the study.
And the closure is dedicated to physical programming! Keep up the spirit and investigate further!
Prenumerera på:
Kommentarer (Atom)