Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Usability with Project Lecture 10 – 09/10/09 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Usability with Project Lecture 10 – 09/10/09

Usability with Project Lecture 10 – 09/10/09

104 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Usability with Project Lecture 10 – 09/10/09

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Usability with ProjectLecture 10 – 09/10/09 Dr. Simeon Keates

  2. Exercise – part 1 • Consider sending an SMS or e-mail • Look at one of your mobile phones … • And a laptop • Also, look at one of the remote controls you will be loaned!!! • [Note – I need these back!!!] • Perform exclusion calculations on each product using the data on: • http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/inclusivedesign/

  3. Exercise – part 2 • Identify the common methods of interacting with the product • Identify which of the 7 DFS capability scales are involved in the interaction • Based on the DFS scales, estimate the limiting capability demand for each scale

  4. Exercise – part 3 • Report the number and %age of people excluded by each capability demand • For 16+ and 75+ • Report the total number and %age of people excluded by the product • For 16+ and 75+ • Prepare a 5 minute presentation to discuss: • Your exclusion calculation assumptions • Your exclusion calculation results • What were the principal causes of exclusion? • What do you think should be done to reduce the exclusion for each product?

  5. Implementing accessibility

  6. Existing “accessibility” standards • Buildings access • e.g. BS8300:2001 Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people • Assistive Technology • e.g. ISO 9999:2002 Technical aids for persons with disabilities – Classification and terminology • Anthropometrics • e.g. BS4467:1997 Guide to dimensions in designing for elderly people • Medical device standards • e.g. ISO 13485 / ISO 13488 – Quality systems for medical devices • Standards development • e.g. PD ISO/IEC Guide 71 Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities

  7. The BS7000 series – Guides to managing… • Part 1 – … innovation • Part 2 – … the design of manufactured products • Part 3 – … service design • Part 4 – … design in construction • Part 5 – … obsolescence • Part 6 – … inclusive design • Part 10 – Glossary of terms used in design management

  8. Inside BS7000-6 – the definition of inclusive design • [The] design of mainstream products … that are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible on a global basis, in a wide variety of situations and to the greatest extent possible without the need for special adaptation or specialized design.

  9. Inside BS7000-6 – product options • Complete integrated range without need for adaptive accessories • New models added to range, plus adaptive accessories for existing models • Complementary range, co-ordinated with existing range to some degree • Separate range, unconnected with mainstream offer Decreasing preference

  10. Key aspects of BS7000-6 • Role of inclusive design ‘champions’ formalised • Previously “unofficial” champions • Board-level responsibility enforced • Rigorous ‘gateways’ in design process • Independent of design methodology adopted • All user exclusions have to be explained… • … and ‘justified’ • Leads to paper trail • Potential basis for legal defence

  11. Implementing accessibility - Summary • Design for accessibility is important for industry • Adopting design for accessibility practices requires a plan. It does not just happen overnight; it needs a strategic approach • Design for accessibility affects all levels of the corporate hierarchy within a company

  12. The role of senior management

  13. Phase 1 – Scoping the business plan • Stage 1.1 – Assigning responsibility • Suggested outcome –a named top manager to champion and have explicit responsibility for design for accessibility. • Stage 1.2 – Acquiring basic knowledge • Suggested outcome – a common understanding of the basic aims and principles of design for accessibility. • Stage 1.3 – Understanding the current situation • Suggested outcome – a completed audit of the company’s entire or selected product lines. • Stage 1.4 – Formulating a plan of action • Suggested outcome– an initial plan of action for the implementation of design for accessibility.

  14. Phase 2 – Shaping the business plan • Stage 2.1 – Communicate design for accessibility intent • Suggested outcome – a mission statement that clearly communicates how important design for accessibility is for the company. • Stage 2.2 – Define corporate philosophy • Suggested outcome – a design for accessibility “bible” outlining corporate philosophy and preferred language. • Stage 2.3 – Identify specific objectives to be achieved • Suggested outcome – a master program of clearly stated initial corporate objectives with an identified time-line for completion. • Stage 2.4 – Promote design for accessibility across the company • Suggested outcome – a structured program for communicating the importance, benefits and opportunities of design for accessibility throughout the workforce.

  15. Phase 3 – Implementing the business plan • Stage 3.1 – Implement management structures for design for accessibility • Suggested outcome – a clearly defined management structure put in place. • Stage 3.2 – Perform pilot studies • Suggested outcome – analysed results from pilot studies that clearly identify successes and lessons to be learned. • Stage 3.3 – Recognize and enhance expertise • Suggested outcome – a corporate map of teams and individuals with design for accessibility expertise and a plan for increasing overall corporate expertise. • Stage 3.4 – Review progress • Suggested outcome – a review of progress made to date and recommendations for further improvements in the implementation of design for accessibility.

  16. Phase 4 – Selling accessibility • Stage 4.1 – Identify and leverage competitive advantages • Suggested outcome– a structured plan to transfer the successes in design for accessibility throughout the company products range and brands. • Stage 4.2 – Identify opportunities for improved corporate image • Suggested outcome– a structured marketing plan for communicating the new corporate and brand image.

  17. Phase 5 – Reviewing and refining business plan • Stage 5.1 – Recognize and reward successes • Suggested outcome – a reward program that recognizes and encourages innovation. • Stage 5.2 – Review and refine design for accessibility approach • Suggested outcome – a completely realized infrastructure for managing and implementing design for accessibility.

  18. The role of senior management - Summary • Top management plays a pivotal role in implementing design for accessibility practices and a continuing role in maintaining design for accessibility practices • Top management initiates and drives the initial adoption of design for accessibility and retains ultimate responsibility for the success of design for accessibility • Top management shapes the company’s design for accessibility philosophy and is responsible for communicating this throughout the company and ensuring that corporate targets for product accessibility are met.

  19. Project management

  20. Phase 1 – Define project • Stage 1.1 – Initial research • Suggested outcome – a description of the opportunity. • Stage 1.2 – Develop design brief • Suggested outcome – a design brief that states the general objectives and requirements of the project.

  21. Phase 2 – Design, detail and implement solution • Stage 2.1 – Generation of solution concepts • Suggested outcome – a range of potential alternative solutions that meet the design brief. • Stage 2.2 – Selection and refinement of most effective solution • Suggested outcome – a solution that meets the design brief most effectively. • Stage 2.3 – Detail design of solution • Suggested outcome – a detailed design of the chosen solution. • Stage 2.4 – Ready solution for production • Suggested outcome – a production-ready solution.

  22. Phase 3 – Go to market • Stage 3.1 – Launch of product in marketplace • Suggested outcome – a carefully planned and executed launch strategy. • Stage 3.2 – Evolution of product • Suggested outcome – a series of product updates and augmentations based on customer and market feedback. • Stage 3.3 – Extension of product range • Suggested outcome – a series of new or modified products to complement and build on the success of the original product.

  23. Phase 4 - Project closure • Stage 4.1 – Decommissioning of product • Suggested outcome – a carefully planned and executed market withdrawal strategy. • Stage 4.2 – Final review and lessons learned • Suggested outcome – a comprehensive final review of all aspects of the full life of the product with clearly identified successes and lessons to be learned.

  24. Project management - Summary • Project managers must embrace the concept of design for accessibility if it is to be implemented successfully within the company • Project managers are responsible for ensuring that the design team meets the design for accessibility targets set by senior management • Document everything. Written records of why particular decisions were taken are the basis of an invaluable knowledge resource

  25. What is “reasonable accommodation”?

  26. Defining “reasonable accommodation” • Must offer “reasonable accommodation” • BUT what is reasonable? • Not defined explicitly • Companies left guessing • Will be defined in courts • Major risk/headache for companies

  27. IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDE Attitudes to “reasonable accommodation” EQUITABLE ACCESS EQUITABLE ACCESS MINIMUM (compliance) Access to functionality MINIMUM (compliance) Access to functionality IDEAL Access to functionality in same time IDEAL Access to functionality in same time Pragmatists Idealists

  28. Interesting questions for companies • Is the equitable access ideal possible? • Is the equitable access minimum possible? • “ Equal, but different ” problem • Users with functional impairments => longer times • Can technology always make up the difference in user capabilities? 3 case studies…

  29. Case study 1: The personal information point

  30. The information point accessibility assessment Sensory assessment: • Screen too high and not adjustable • Audio output not duplicated • Visual output not duplicated Motor assessment: • Need to stand • Reaching and dexterity demands • 53%of target users excluded Is this “reasonable”?

  31. Case study 2 – Cursor assistance for motor-impaired users Symptoms that can affect cursor control: • Tremor • Spasm • Restricted motion • Reduced strength • Poor co-ordination

  32. User group behaviours Peak velocities Target activation times No. of incorrect clicks

  33. Summarising the differences • Younger adults (IBM interns) • Shortest (1), fastest (1), more errors (3) - slapdash • “I can fix it” • Games culture? • Adults (IBM regulars) • Shorter (2), faster (2), fewest errors (1) • Best compromise between speed and accuracy? • Parkinson’s users • Longer (3), slowest (4), fewer errors (2) • Slow, but sure • Older adults • Longest (4), slower (3), most errors (4) • Vision difficulties? • Lack of experience

  34. A method of cursor assistance • Haptic gravity wells: Gravity well Attractive force Target

  35. Experimental set-up

  36. The effect of gravity wells Target

  37. Motor impairment in practice…

  38. Results - Throughput

  39. Case study 2 summary • Haptic gravity wells are clearly very helpful • MI users “with” on similar level to AB users “without” BUT: • AB users also improve “with” • Is this “equal” time? • Is this “reasonable”???

  40. Case study 3 – Paperless office • AN Other wants to move to a paperless office • Currently receives 3.5 million pages per day • Paper documents are stored as TIFFs • Section 508 accessibility requirements • Sight-impaired • Low vision • Current solution – employ readers • “ Equal, but different. ” • Is this reasonable?

  41. The study documents • Almost fully unconstrained • Content: • Unconstrained vocabulary • Text: • Typed • Handwritten • Annotated • Stamps • Graphical content: • Diagrams • Charts • Graphs

  42. Examples of the study documents

  43. Examples of the study documents (cont.)

  44. Examples of the study documents (cont.)

  45. Readability metrics (text) • Translation rates: • Character-by-character • Word-by-word • Number and %ages of errors: • Level 1 - Minor • Level 2 - Moderate • Level 3 - Serious

  46. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TIFF file OCR – The scanning process ............... ............... ....11111...... ...11...11..... ..11.....11.... ..11.....11.... .........11.... ......11111.... ....111..11.... ...11....11.... ..11.....11.... ..11.....11.... ..11....111.... ..111..1.11.1.. ...1111..111... ...............

  47. OCR – Possible sources of scanning errors Data LOSS NOISE

  48. OmniPage: “…*also *develop *the *skills *to *irxvert *containers *to *get *ob^ects *inside. *?e *should *begin *to *Znd *small *details *i? *a favorite *picture *baa? *?a *bird *in *a *true, *a *small *ash *in *the *ocean}. *his *understanding *of *familiar *ob^ects *should…” Recognita: “…*also *de???op *the *s?il?s *ta *ivart?an#ainer?to *e?ob??cts?n?id?. *?e *shau?ti *b?ta *Znd *srnali *details *i?a *favarita *picture *baa??bi?rd *in *a *tra?,a *srr?a????in *tk?e *o?ean}. *?is *und?rt?a?af *fa.?i?iar *ob?ects *hau?d *co??i?u?ta *de?eiap *d?i?houi d…” Comparing three OCR engines FineReader: “…also develop the skills to invert containers to get objects *inside. He should begin to find small details in a favorite picture book (a bird in a *tree, a small fish inthe *ocean). His understanding of familiar objects should…”

  49. OCR results – Calculating the error rates • Record the document properties • # of words, characters • Font types (e.g. typed, handwritten) and sizes • Count instances of error types • Redaction errors • Spaces +ed, -ed • Format errors (e.g. wrong case, incorrect text positioning) • Extraction errors (i.e. incorrect translation) • By character • By word • Classify severity • Level 1 – minor • Level 2 – moderate • Level 3 – severe • Calculate %age error rates Note: classification for sighted users

  50. OCR results – An example extracted document – 1 Original text: [Typed page document] Extracted text: *evaluators, shQWfag’an interest in imitating words *and sp *eech.^j^kd real words along^vith j argon to exjgpss. himself . *dflffVily indicated that they understand most of what tie *says.^H^^owedhisuse of two+ word phrases