SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

ISC 551 - Chapter Three Notes

blaine avatar
blaine
14 diapositives · 319 Views · May 21, 2012

ISC 551 - Chapter Three Notes. Managing Design Processes. Revisiting Grudin’s consistency arguments 3 Pillars Rapid prototyping Participatory design. LUCID. Summary. Revisiting Grudin-consistency. Consistency is not the most important goal of interface design Then, what is?

ISC 551 - Chapter Three Notes - slide 1
01 / 14ISC 551 - Chapter Three Notes
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

ISC 551 - Chapter Three Notes
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. ISC 551 - Chapter Three Notes Managing Design Processes

  2. Revisiting Grudin’s consistency arguments 3 Pillars Rapid prototyping Participatory design LUCID Summary Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  3. Revisiting Grudin-consistency • Consistency is not the most important goal of interface design • Then, what is? • The user performing a task, efficiently and error-free, learning, and retaining, being satisfied (the 5 goals) Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  4. But goals could be in conflict • Five goals may be in conflict with each other • Then, what? • Figure out which goal is more important for the user/task and emphasize that goal • or, try to achieve both goals simultaneously with creative interface design Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  5. What of consistency, then? • Only be consistent when being consistent achieves, or does not detract from, goals of interface design • When two consistencies are in conflict, what to do? • Select design that fits user/task in achieving five goals Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  6. 3.1 Introduction • Does introduction support or refute Grudin’s arguments? Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  7. Three pillars of design • Guidelines documents and processes • sounds like conformance and consistency again! • User interface software and tools • for (rapid) prototyping • Expert reviews and usability testing Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  8. Rapid prototyping • Interface does not need full functionality • Must know a lot to build • Wastes effort • But identifies problems earlier than written requirements Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  9. LUCID methodology • 6 sequential steps • an SDLC for interface design • what’s missing? • Non-interface-related activities Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  10. Participatory Design • If HCI is a user-oriented paradigm, • ...why does Shneiderman think participatory design is controversial? Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  11. User participation • Two voices of participation • instrumental voice • overall responsibility • hands-on activities • user-IS relationships • non-instrumental voice • benefits and listening Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  12. User participation • Hunton and Beeler (1997) found that: • instrumental participation leads to the highest levels of involvement • selling users on benefits and listening to their feedback produced higher levels of involvement than no participation Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  13. ACM and user participation • The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct states that computing professionals should: Ensure that users and those who will be affected by a system have their needs clearly articulated during the assessment and design of requirements. Later the system must be validated to meet requirements. Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.

  14. References • Grudin, Jonathan, “The Case Against User Interface Consistency,” Communications of the ACM (32:10), 1989, pp. 1164-1173 • Hunton, J.E., Beeler, J.D. "Effects of User Participation in Systems Development: A Longitudinal Field Experiment," MIS Quarterly (21:4), December 1997, pp. 359-388. • Shneiderman, Ben, and Plaisant, C. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 1998, Pearson/Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 2004 Jeffrey P. Landry, Ph. D.