Jeremy Smith

2007-09-14T11:31:00.000+10:00

This blog has defiantly taken a back seat while I complete my thesis. There are some big things planned for it, so be ready when the time comes! In the mean time check out my mobile-blog at jeremysmith.tumblr.com . It contains photos uploaded live from my mobile when I’m out and about, and also some funny snippets from the web. It’s updated regularly (unlike this blog).

Cheers!

Jeremy

The History of Human Computer Interaction

2007-06-10T11:18:00.001+10:00

Computer scientists such as Douglas Engelbart, Ivan Sutherland and Vannevar Bush developed the first concepts that have underpinned and permanently shaped human-computer interaction and computing in general. These ubiquitous inventions such as the mouse, graphical user interfaces, icons, windows, graphical manipulation, hypertext and the internet, were all developed by individuals like these at the forefront of technology for their time and clearly had a phenomenal, albeit unintentional, influence on the future field of HCI.

More recently, and at the more theoretical end of the HCI spectrum are researchers such as Donald Norman, Jakob Neilson and Cathleen Wharton. These individuals have stood upon the shoulders of these aforementioned forefathers and constructed heuristics, methodologies and procedures that guide the design and assessment of systems to help transform the field of HCI it into a modern, commercially viable mature discipline that exists today. However, without the prior work of the earlier pioneers, tools such as cognitive walkthroughs, usability heuristics and web design would not be necessary, let alone exist.

Choosing individuals or groups that have had the most profound influence on HCI depends upon the angle of examination and the importance one places upon a pioneering or academic view. If one is considering the most influential HCI theory, then perhaps the more theoretical Norman’s and Nielson’s later in the century would more appropriate, however as their work is reliant upon the inventions and developments of earlier individuals it is more correct to examine the pioneering individuals for their profound influence on the field of HCI.

Listed below in order of influence are two individuals and one research team that I believe have influenced the field of HCI most profoundly; Douglas Engelbart, Ivan Sutherland and the team behind the Xerox Star.

Douglas Engelbart

"I don't know what Silicon Valley will do when it runs out of Doug's [Engelbart’s] ideas."

- Alan Kay

Douglas Engelbart is, in the author’s opinion, the single individual who has most profoundly influenced the field of Human Computer Interaction. He is credited with the invention of the computer mouse (which on its own is influential enough) (Engelbart, 1970), the On-Line System (NLS), the ARPANET (the precursor to the internet), several graphical user interface components and the first practical use of hypertext. Furthermore, according to Alan Key (1987) Engelbart was one of the first software engineers to actually study his users. Although a widely accepted as a critical HCI practice nowadays, this was not a common method at all in the 1960’s. While the end result of his user studies was the development of an ergonomic lap-board, consisting of a keyboard, mouse and chord keyboard, perhaps the most important outcome was the conception of a rudimentary user centered design process that paved the way for user-centered designers such as Donald Norman and his book, The Psychology of Everyday Things (1986). Below are two of Engelbart’s most influential inventions and the influence they have had upon the field of HCI.

The Mouse

Originally patented as an ‘X-Y Position Indicator for a Display’ (Engelbart, 1970) and later nicknamed the mouse, due to the rodent-like tail at the end (Voelcker & Perry, 1989), the computer mouse has become ubiquitous and inseparable to modern computer systems. After development of the mouse, several engineers on Engelbarts team left the group and began working at Xerox PARC, a private research facility in Palo Alto and took with them their ideas, which was later incorporated into the Xerox Star and consequently the Apple Lisa. Most major operating systems rely upon this input device to some extent and until recently has remained fairly similar to the original design. There is no way Engelbart could have realised the impact and ubiquity his invention of an ‘X-Y position indicator’ would have on the future of computing, or how it would shape all major graphical user interfaces such as Microsoft Windows, MacOS, KDE and Gnome Linux desktop environments, which all rely heavily upon the mouse.

On-Line System

Engelbart was the main driver behind the construction of the oN-Line System (NLS) at the Augmentation Research Center (ARC) at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) during the 1960s which was presented to an audience in San Francisco on December 9, 1968 (Stanford University, 2007). The NLS is considered to be the first practical use of hyper-text, the mouse and screen windowing (Myers, 1998). This demonstration has been informally referred to as ‘the mother of all demonstrations’ (Wikipedia Collaborators, 2007) because of the fact that it demonstrated so many pioneering and influential developments, and is widely viewed and circulated today on the internet. The NLS was jointly funded by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and the United States Air force. (Engelbart Video Demonstration, 1968)

Engelbart recognised that collaboration was a fundamental component of work, and incorporated certain remote collaboration tools into the prototype. Interestingly, in a recorded video lecture presented by Allan Kay in 1987 on the history of computing, Kay points out that that this idea of collaboration is still struggling to come to the vision that Engelbart demonstrated and envisioned in the 1960’s, Kay is obviously (and understandably) unaware of the looming Internet boom less than a decade away.

Although hypertext had already been developed in ARPANET project, the NLS was the first demonstration of the practical combination of hyper-text, mouse and screen, and is therefore considered the major precursor to the internet. The influence the Internet has had on the field of HCI is indisputable, and has formed a foundation of research for many HCI researchers such as Jakob Nielsen.

Criticisms of Engelbart

Clearly, Engelbart has played a profound role in influencing the field of HCI through the invention of the mouse, and components of the Internet. However, his career and research has not been without its setbacks and errors of judgments. Unfortunately and through no real fault of his own, the mouse was patented in 1970 (Engelbart, 1970) and expired before they became widely used on the Apple Lisa, denying any royalties he may have deserved.

Alan Kay, while having the upmost regard for Engelbarts work, points out a few flaws and inconsistencies within Engelbarts work in a recorded lecture presented in 1987. Most of the criticisms orientate around the fact that, while Englebart placed a large emphasis on minimizing the movement between the mouse and keyboard, certain aspects of the system required extended swapping between the two. For example, to move a word in Engelbarts text editor, one had to first select the action to would perform from the keyboard. They system would then wait for the mouse input to select the word then use the keyboard to press accept, then complete the actual movement. This four step process was quite inefficient, especially when Engelbart had put so much effort into minimizing keyboard/mouse inter-movement (Kay, 1987). However this is not a big criticism, and may have been a response to the inaccurate analogue mouse (Kay, 1987).

Some members of Engelbarts team became alienated and moved to Xerox PARC around 1976 (Voelcker & Perry, 1989), possibly due to disagreements about the future of computing. While Engelbart incorrectly believed the future of computing would be orientated around a two-tier client-server architecture, while the younger programmers believed in the future of the personal computer. It was at Xerox PARC, where the Xerox Star was developed (Miller & Johnson, 1995), which used many of Engelbarts ideas and was a revolution in HCI. This split potentially could have lessened the influence on HCI of Engelbart and his team, who may have instead continued on their pioneering pathway, developing other HCI components. Instead, over time Engelbart became relatively obscure while other individuals and teams, such as Xerox PARC became more influential.

Ivan Sutherland

As part of a PHD thesis, Ivan Sutherland created the first graphical image manipulation program, titled Sketchpad (Sutherland, 1963) which was operated through a lightpen[1]. Although there was little immediate fallout from the thesis, Sketchpad is now widely understood to be as the grandfather of CAD and the graphical user interface (Bissell, 1990). Sketchpad’s design has been a primary influence on an entire generation of research into user interfaces (Perry & Voelcker, 1989) and many components of the program, such as tiled windows, are still used in graphical user interfaces today.

Sketchpad pioneered the creation and manipulation of graphic images directly on a CRT, rather than through the input of codes and algorithms, as previously required with existing software (Kay, 1987). The program enabled the user to draw lines, points and circular arcs, input constraints, zoom, and store primitive shapes. The program also pioneered the use of ‘objects’ and ‘instances’. An instance was a copy of the master object, which if updated would be reflected upon all instances (Miller & Johnson, 1996). This idea is widely used today in mainstream programs such as Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Flash (Moock, 2003). Furthermore, Sketchpad was the first program to use an object oriented software system and non procedural programming language (Kay, 1987), in itself an important development.

The Xerox P.A.R.C team behind the Xerox Star

Built with the ideology that users are interested in getting their work done and not about how the computer works, the Xerox Star was unfortunately not as successful as it was influential (Johnson Roberts Verplank Smith Irby Beard & Mackey, 1989). And although it has become relatively obscure over the years, concepts such as the desktop metaphor and icons have transcended into HCI and computers today, originating from when Apple borrowed many ideas from The Star to produce their Lisa model (Johnson, Roberts Verplank, Smith, Irby, Beard & Mackey, 1989)

One of the reasons the Xerox Star was so profoundly influential within the discipline of HCI was the fact that it was the first computer constructed based upon close examination the user interface, where paramount importance was placed upon the users conceptual model of the system, designing the interface even before the functionality of the system was fully decided (Smith, et. al., 1982). This was demonstrated in the fact that the team dedicated about 30 work years to it over the Star’s development life cycle (Smith et. al., 1982).

The Xerox Star, which went on sale in 1981, consisted of a bitmapped display, desktop metaphor, graphical controls, WYSIWYG[2] applications, multiple application windows and a mouse pointer (courtesy of Engelbart) (Miller & Johnson, 1996) that were all unique in the marketplace at the time (Johnston et al, 1989). Although The Star was not an overwhelming commercial success, the success of the graphical user interface components is reflected in the fact that they are now de facto standard in most graphical user interfaces today.

Both Engelbart and Sutherland’s work had a profound influence on the development of the Xerox Star in several ways. Firstly, Sutherland’s earlier Sketchpad system heavily influenced the Star’s user interface, such as through the use of tiled windows, as well as its graphics applications (Miller & Johnson, 1996), while the NLS, developed by Engelbart provided ideas such as interactivity, full-screen, CRT display, and the use of a mouse (Miller & Johnson, 1996).

It is a very hard task deciding upon an individual or team that has had the most profound influence on the field of HCI. Although there is no definitive answer, one can be certain that the early pioneers, such as Engelbart and Sutherland, paved the way for others later on in the century, and without them the field of HCI would be profoundly different.

References

Bissell, D., (1990) The father of computer graphics, Byte 1990

Bootstrap Institute, Who We Are How We Think. What we do, Online at http://www.bootstrap.org, Accessed on 5 June 2007

Engelbart, D., (1988) Computer-supported cooperative work: a book of readings pp. 81 - 105

Engelbart D., (1962) Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. Summary Report AFOSR-3223 under Contract AF 49(638)-1024, SRI Project 3578 for Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Ca.,

Englebart, D. (1970). U.S. Patent No. 3.541.541. Palo Alto, California: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Engelbart's Unfinished Revolution , A Symposium at Stanford University December 9, 1998 online at http://unrev.stanford.edu/introduction/introduction.html Accessed on 5 June, 2007

Engelbart, D (1968), ‘The Demo’ From Stanford University Video Archive, online at http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/1968Demo.html accessed on 4 June 2007

Johnson, J., Roberts, T., Verplank, W., Smith, D., Irby, C., Beard, M., and Mackey K. (1989). The Xerox Star: A retrospective. IEEE Computer 22(9), 11-26

Kay, A (1987) Doing with Images Makes Symbols: Communicating With Computers Pt 1, University Video Communications.

MIT Inventor of the Week Series (2001) Online at http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/sutherland.html Accessed on 4 June, 2007.

Myers, B (1998) A Brief History of Human-Computer Interaction Technology,

Miller, L., Johnson, J., (1996) The Xerox Star: An Influential User Interface Design, Human Computer Interaction Interface Design, pp 70-100 Interactions March-April

Moock, C., (2003) ActionScript for Flash MX: The Definitive Guide O’Reilly

Nielsen, J., (1995) Multimedia and Hypertext: the Internet and Beyond. Academic Press Professional, Boston.

Norman, D., (1988) The psychology of everyday things, Basic Book

Perry, T., Voelcker, J., (1989) “Of mice and menus: Designing the user-friendly interface” , from IEEE Spectrum 1989 A history of early GUIs, full of interesting tidbits

Perry, T., and Voelcker, J. (1989) Of Mice and menus: Designing the user-friendly interface. IEEE Spectrum.

Redant, J., (2001) HCI review of the Xerox Star Online at: http://xeroxstar.tripod.com/ Accessed on 4 June 2007

Sutherland, I., (1963) Sketchpad, a man-machine graphical communication system, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The Mother of All Demos. (2007, May 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 00:34, June 6, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mother_of_All_Demos&oldid=12 7616555

Rudisill, M., Lewis, C., Polson, P., McKay, D., (1996) Human Computer Interaction Interface Design, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

Smith, D., Irby, C., Kimball, R., & Harslem, E., (1982) The Star user interface: an overview proceedings of AFIPS 1982

Stanford University, The Mouse Site, Douglas Engelbart 1968 Demo Online at http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/1968Demo.html, Accessed on 5 June, 2007

[1] Light pens are light sensitive pen like devices that are operated directly upon CRT screens.

[2] WYSIWYG is an acronym for What You See Is What You Get, and refers to the representation of text on-screen in a form corresponding to its printed form

Mobile Devices to Aid the Elderly

2007-04-29T13:31:00.000+10:00

As the population ages, especially in the western world, society is witnessing a rising proportion of elderly individuals (Jorge, 2001; Abascal & Civit, 2001). It has been estimated that by 2020, one in four Europeans will be over 60 years of age (Mikkonen, Vayrynen, Ikonen, & Heikkila, 2002) and the global rate of elderly individuals to be one billion in 2020 (Mikkonen et. al, 2002). These individuals are not, as often assumed, confined to their dwellings or nursing homes, but are in fact active social members of the community (Jorge, 2001), living healthy lives past the ages of 70 (Mikkonen et. al, 2002). Daily life however, is often a challenge for individuals with age induced problems such as motor, vision and auditory disabilities. Furthermore, as the proportion of elderly individuals increases, the rate of age induced cognitive disabilities such as Alzheimer's disease are also rising (Jorge, 2001). Like other elderly citizens, these individuals have friends, hobbies, family and friends, travel around their community and carry out daily activities such as cooking and taking medication (Jorge, 2001). Unlike the rest of the population however, these people often require the support of a care giver.

Technological development is already being shaped to accommodate elderly users’ special requirements, and many devices and services are on offer to help them cope with everyday activities (Mikkonen et. al, 2002) generally within the home. However, as technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, the idea of mobile services to support the elderly in a wide variety of situations is becoming more feasible and attractive as a tool to increase the autonomy of elderly people (Abascal & Civit, 2001)

Both mobile devices and elderly individuals pose very interesting and challenging interaction-design issues that need to be carefully understood for widespread adoption, acceptance and use. This literature review will examine three research papers in depth with the goal of developing a wider understanding of mobile devices, what they have to offer elderly people, and the associated challenges with this technology and this particular user demographic.

Three papers have been carefully selected, not only for their varying methodologies and angles, but for their similarities, which are manifested in a variety of different ways, some intentional and some not. Jorge (2001) focuses upon the issues and methodologies required in the development of situation aware mobile devices for elderly citizens. He argues that due to varying illnesses, disabilities and personality traits, it is almost impossible to design for each individuals unique needs. The solution, according to Jorge (2001), is the use of adaptive social assistants that change intelligently to the needs of elder users based upon information such as context and location. Abascal and Civit (2001) examine five self-described contexts that form the basis of a requirements analysis and subsequent discussion. Finally, Mikkonen, Väyrynen, Ikonen & Heikkilä (2002) conduct a participative two part study and determine four concepts that are analyzed in a participative manner by elderly citizens.

User centered design and participative design research methodologies were widely used and discussed in all three papers. It seems that Abascal & Civit's (2001) primary objective was almost to urge the “incorporation of older people’s needs to the design process”. They argue that the technology will only be successful if older people’s opinions are taken into consideration throughout the whole design process. They propose five situations in which to examine in order to identify elderly users requirements for mobile telecommunication. It is unclear as to how Abascal & Civit determine these five situations, and the article would be far more polished if the logic behind this was described. While in agreement with Abascal & Civit (2001), Mikkonen et. al. (2002) go one step further, by actually conducting an participatory ideation session with an elderly study group. The study consisted of five predefined phases based upon the OPERA framework: Own Suggestions, Pairs suggestions, Explanation, Ranking and Arranging. This resulted in the construction of four user produced technological concepts which were in turn evaluated on various levels by another elderly cohort. This was self titled a “User and Usages Study”. Although the Jorge (2001) article focused more closely upon the technical design aspects of mobile devices and elderly individuals, he too states that one needs to build on user centered design methodologies that combine task analysis with participatory design. He further states that careful studies of how the target population actually lives is critical in the success of this technology.

Surprisingly, as each paper was partly selected for its different angle, there were some very similar themes evident in the findings and discussions throughout all three papers. Of the four concepts produced and examined by Mikkonen et. al. (2002), a reminder device, that kept track of bills, medication and other information was the most technically feasible and received strong support from the elderly respondents. This is in line with Jorge (2001) who found that a key function a mobile assistant should perform would be to support daily routines that may suffer as a symptom of short term memory loss. Titled 'Memory Prosthesis', this hypothetical device would use location aware contextual information to provide unobtrusive reminders common to specific situations, reminiscent of the device elderly users outlined in the Mikkonen et. al. (2002) study.

The most popular, although currently unfeasible, device constructed by the participants in the Mikkonen et. al. (2002) study was a location aware Bluetooth-enabled security bracelet, titled “Mobile Wrist Care”. The device, already used within the home from a base station, would work through the mobile network and consequently outside the home. A panic button on the bracelet would connect through a Bluetooth connection to a larger device carried on the person or in the handbag. In the event of an emergency and the press of the panic button, coordinates of the individuals location, obtained from GPS positioning would be sent. Abascal & Civit (2001) discuss a very similar device with an inbuilt panic button, yet delve deeper and examine the situation in which the individual is too incapacitated to physically press the panic button. They outline a hypothetical device that could monitor vital health statistics such as heart rate, blood pressure and breathing rate, with the ability of notifying authorities if certain statistics reach a particular level.

Although phrased differently throughout each paper, way-finding was another finding that consistently echoed throughout the papers. Jorge (2001) outlined the case of how a blind individual could benefit from an adaptive tracking device. Although essentially based upon a standard GPS system, the adaptive social assistant would not only direct individuals, but it would use intelligent data to alert a caregiver if an individual strayed off a predefined route. The author also describes a particular case of boarding the correct bus and leaving it at the correct time. This directly aligns to the Mikkonen et. al. (2002) participative user study which results in the construction of a hypothetical service concept that enables elderly individuals to travel more independently on public transport. They describe a location aware portable terminal that informs the user when the correct bus arrives at the bus stop, even when the user cannot read the bus number. During the journey the mobile device informs the driver of the particular stop the passenger wishes to leave.

The prevalent theme throughout all the articles was one of aiding individual autonomy for as long as possible in an individual’s life. Each paper, with its different methods, goals and motives seemed to be touching upon this overall goal. While this is more obvious in some papers, such as the Abascal & Civit (2001) article titled “Universal Access to Mobile Telephone as a Way to Enhance the Autonomy of Elderly People” the other two papers suggested that having a society in which elderly individuals remain autonomous for as long as possible, it is not only better for the individual it is also better for the community.

Another theme of the papers was one of optimism of the future. Each paper was very optimistic of the role mobile technology will play in the future support of elderly individuals. The Mikkonen (2002) study, for example develops four different hypothetical technologies, of which three are currently technically infeasible. The Jorge (2001) paper revolves around the central idea that current static technologies are not suitable enough for the wide variety of elderly users and their particular uses. He proposes that “we should look to a not-so-distant future in which a variety of devices, such as wearable computers, intelligent environments and robots, monitor our medical status” and that an adaptive social assistant, currently not developed, could fill this user-service void. The Abascal & Civit (2001) paper also outlines several 'mixed technologies for future wireless telecommunications' such as a Mobile Text Telephony – a form of mobile Instant Message chat and Light Terminals – A mobile device capable of accessing the Internet. The article, currently 6 years old, is clearly showing its age with the current environment of relatively fast 3G mobile bandwidth. Nevertheless, the idea of widespread mobile Internet use by the elderly remains as futuristic as ever.

This brief literature synthesis, consisting of only three articles, just scrapes the surface as to the current state of research into mobile devices to aid the elderly, yet reflects the reoccurring themes that seem to resonate throughout most of the current research within this area. Some themes discussed and highlighted within this three paper literature review were:

User centered design to understand the very complex user base.
Aiding memory and supporting daily routines
Contributing to personal security inside and outside the home
Way-finding
Autonomy for the elderly
Looking towards the future.

Clearly, the potential benefits of mobile technology for the elderly are very high. However we are yet to see widespread adoption, use or even development of these aforementioned devices within the community. It is both heartening for the author to see the potential of future technology to help the elderly, yet somewhat disheartening to know that many of these individuals will not be around to take advantage of these devices in the future when they eventually become widely used.

References

Abascal, J., & Civit, A., 2001 Universal access to mobile telephony as a way to enhance the autonomy of elderly people, Proceedings of the 2001 EC/NSF workshop on Universal accessibility of ubiquitous computing: providing for the elderly pp 93-993

Jorge, J., 2001 Adaptive tools for the elderly: new devices to cope with age-induced cognitive disabilities Proceedings of the 2001 EC/NSF workshop on Universal accessibility of ubiquitous computing: providing for the elderly pp 66-70

Mikkonen, M., Vayrynen, S., Ikonen, V., and Heikkila, M. O., 2002 User and Concept Studies as Tools in Developing Mobile Communication Services for the Elderly Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 6:113-124

Usability in New Contexts: The Case of a Museum

2007-04-27T15:00:00.000+10:00

The study of human computer interaction is ultimately a goal driven discipline. This is understandable, as most traditional human computer interactions involve the achievement of a goal or task. However, in the case of a museum visit, the goals of users are marginalized as pleasure and experience often outweigh the completion of a task. Furthermore, the users are far from the traditional workers that HCI often assumes. This presents an interesting situation whereby traditional HCI breaks down and consequently new methods of analysis must be found. This paper discusses the reasons behind the limitations of traditional HCI in a museum situation and briefly discusses the potential for future work.

Introduction

A new wave of museums

When one thinks of a museum, the Louvre in Paris, the National Gallery in London or the Metropolitan in New York are common institutions that come to mind (Ginsburgh & Mairesse 1997). Increasingly, however the idea of a museum is shifting away from this more conservative view to one of interaction and experience. The traditional boundaries of ‘art’ and ‘history’ are blurred to include exhibits that include but are not limited to technology, arboreta, planetariums, science and technology centers. There has been some debate within the museum community as to a strict definition of a museum, however some key similarities have been drawn together to define a museum as an institution that is involved in three fundamental areas: Conservation, Research, and Communication (Ginsburgh & Mairesse 1997). One such institution, located in Melbourne, Australia, is a prime example of this new wave of museums with its technology, arboreta and science exhibits which fits neatly into these three categories as outlined by Ginsburgh & Mairesse (1997).

This modern breed of museum is very receptive to the idea of using technology as a tool to make the visitor experience more fulfilling and rewarding. Several interesting studies have been conducted to determine the role technology can play in this environment and some prototypes produced (Grinter, Aoki, Szymanski, Thornton, Woodruff, & Hurst, 2002; Hsi, 2002). However there are unique challenges associated with applying traditional Human Computer Interaction theories to this novel environment and user base that need to be thoroughly examined before any solid conclusions are drawn regarding the role of technology in a museum.

Museums in general and The Melbourne Museum[1] in particular attracts a wide and diverse range of visitors of all abilities and skills such as tourists, children, families, school groups, students and the elderly that are a far cry from the traditional worker. Essentially, anyone interested in conservation or research on any level is a potential visitor to the museum. Furthermore, unlike traditional goal oriented workers, museum visitors are not usually directed by a clearly defined goal. This poses an interesting and challenging situation when designing technology to serve such unclear or nonexistent goals.

Challenge 1: Designing for a broad user base with blurred user goals

Broad user base

Initial research through group discussions and brainstorming has identified several user groups with special needs and design considerations. These groups need to be carefully considered and understood when designing technology for a Museum.

Blind Individuals

Cannot utilize visual displays.

Partially blind individuals may require large font.

· Investigate the use of brail.

· May enjoy exhibits and technology that provide tactile feedback.

· Investigate technology and exhibits that provide auditory information.

Deaf Individuals

Can-not use information presented in audio format.

· May need to rely on visual and tactile senses as a basis for information.

· Requirement for visual notes to read about exhibits

· Visually attractive and informative devices will support this group

Mobility impaired / Very Elderly

Low reaching height

Can only use devices that are very ergonomic

Arthritic limbs and hands

· Any technology will have to be low for wheelchair access and to avoid reaching.

· Exhibits and technology will need to be at eye level to avoid unnecessary strain

· Any input will need to have simple input and uncomplicated interaction.

· Small buttons may pose a challenge to use

Children of all ages

No reading/writing skills yet

Limited attention

Physically short

· Prefer technology and exhibits that present information in pictorial and exciting format.

· Will enjoy exciting and intriguing exhibits and technology.

· Will require exhibits that are low to the ground and technology that is simple and accessible.

Mentally handicapped

Lower concentration span

· May need the exhibits and technology to be fun and simple to understand.

Non-English Speaking Tourists

Cannot understand auditory or visual information presented in English

· May require notes about each exhibit to explain what they are about.

· Investigate translation, multi language support.

· Investigate presenting information in a universal diagrammatic form.

· Remain unaware of certain cultural conventions of Australian signs and diagrams.

Table 1: Special user requirements, potential issues and possible solutions

Variable and wide ranging goals

Just as the definition of a museum is hard to define (Ginsburgh & Mairesse 1997) so is the overall goal of a users particular visit. Some individuals may visit a museum for purely social engagement with the community, others may be there for the purposes of research, and others may fall in the middle. Individuals, who visit one particular week for research purposes, may even visit the next week with social intentions. Regardless, any technologies that will be developed will need to take into consideration and overcome this challenge to define a user’s goal and motive, if the technology will be a success.

Technologies have already been incorporated into museums to further enhance user’s visits for some time now (E.g. Grinter, Aoki, Hurst, Szymanski, Thornton, & Woodruff, 2002; Fleck Frid, Kindberg, O'brien-StrainRajani & Spasojevic, 2002; Bederson, 1995). The implementation of electronic devices such as guidebooks, portable computers and Personal Digital Assistants although often viewed as isolating devices, can also be used for social interaction amongst the visitors. For example: shared listening, following a leader and checking in on different individuals (Grinter, Aoki, Hurst, Szymanski, Thornton, and Woodruff, 2002) are all technologies that enable social interaction through a seemingly antisocial personal digital assistant.

This social use of technology such as shared listening would most likely involve audio being emitted from the device, which may be disruptive to other members of the museum. The obvious solution, a pair of headphones, would have negative influence on social interaction as individuals would not be able to hear each other and therefore converse. Therefore, the only feasible use of audio emitting devices would be in place where additional noise would not be a problem (Grinter, Aoki, Hurst, Szymanski, Thornton, and Woodruff, 2002) which is often hard to find in a museum.

The use of devices with audio, such as those mentioned above may also pose other challenges centered around users abilities and disabilities as mentioned in the previous section. Visitors who are auditory disabled may either not be able to hear the audio from the device, or the device may not be compatible with their hearing-aid. A replacement text based device should be made available for individuals with these disabilities. This however, raises another challenge, that the display on these devices may be too small and many of the fine visual details and text many may be rendered unusable by individuals with visual deficiencies. (Reeves, Benford, O’Malley, Fraser, 2005)

Individuals with differing goals will require differing technologies to alter their experience. For example, a social group may be more interested in ‘fun facts’ about exhibits they may use as talking points, while a student may desire hard facts and information to form the basis of a report. One possible solution to this could be through different settings on the technology to present advanced or basic information.

Challenge 2: Evaluating the technological prototype using traditional Human Computer Interaction techniques.

Although it is impossible to tie to a particular date, the field of HCI has been around in some way for at least 25 years (i.e. Shneiderman 1980). During these past two decades, technology and its users have evolved very rapidly (Carroll, 1997). The traditional opinion of technology, as a tool for productivity, work efficiency and strategic advantage has also shifted dramatically over the past years. The idea of a computer as solely a Business Machine, such as an IBM (International Business Machine) almost seems farcical in today’s age of personal computing, mobile computing and user produced content. This shift, partly attributable to the drop in technology cost and decreased software complexity, has allowed home users and small organisations to access almost the same standard of computing available to large corporations with the ability to afford previously expensive infrastructure and training costs.

Along with the shift from the traditional workplace role of technology, a swing in the typical user base has also occurred. The typical user is no longer an employee of an organisation working a 40 hour week to achieve a set goal. A typical user could be a young child researching for a school project at home, an elderly woman emailing her daughter at the local library, a child exploring a museum using a touch-screen, or the typical middle aged able bodied worker we are all so familiar with. It is undeniable that these individuals are all users, yet they have very different goals, motives and abilities.

This convolution of the technology user base has brought with it a shift in many technology related disciplines. Software engineers are no longer solely designing outcome based strategic software, computer manufacturers are no longer only producing beige-boxes or unsightly network routers and mobile phones are no longer exclusively marketed as business tools. However, technological research disciplines such as the field of Human Computer Interaction has been fairly slow to include and produce new methodologies to meet these new users and uses for technology.

Museums in general and The Melbourne Museum in particular attracts a wide and diverse range of visitors of all abilities and skills such as tourists, children, families, school groups, students and the elderly that are a far cry from the traditional worker. Essentially, anyone interested in conservation or research on any level is a potential visitor to the museum. Furthermore, unlike traditional goal oriented workers, museum visitors are not usually directed by a clearly defined goal.

These fundamental differences pose an interesting and challenging problem to curators and designers of museum technology who are required to design exhibits and technologies for this very wide visitor base with often ill-defined goals. The traditional HCI tools and methodologies, usually centered individuals around goals and motives of a worker, break down and produce meaningless results. For example, methodologies such as, Hick’s law (Hick, 1952) and Fitts’ (Fitts, 1954) law; frameworks for predicting interface speed, are no longer relevant to the majority of these non-working museum visitors users, as their motives are not governed by speed and productivity. GOMS model (Card, Moran & Newell, 1983), a methodology that reduces the user's interactions with a computer to its elementary actions, is based upon the premise that the user has a goal, and is repeating the task, which is not relevant in the museum situation.

The Cognitive Walkthrough, a widely used usability inspection method also has limited application in an environment whereby the user is not interested in seeking a predefined goal, such as in a museum. Task analysis, the backbone of a Cognitive Walkthrough (Wharton, 1994), centers around the idea that one can define the tasks of the user and evaluate them according to how they walk through the steps to get to the desired goal. If there is no goal, there can be no task analysis and therefore no cognitive walkthrough.

Any individual, seeking to design a technology to aid the museum experience will therefore have a great deal of trouble applying existing Human Computer Interaction theories to their device. Clearly, an existing methodology needs to modified, or a new one produced.

Design Proposal and future work

The main focus for future work stems from the fact that it is very hard to apply existing goal oriented human computer interaction theories to non goal oriented work. We therefore suggest that a new evaluation method is produced that does not solely rely upon achievement of a predefined goal, but more upon how a user goes about achieving the goal, in effect focusing upon the journey and not the destination.

This could take the form of a modified cognitive walkthrough, with increased focus upon the walking and not the cognition. One such example could be titled the ‘pleasure walkthrough’ and would revolve around the users affective response and pleasure, while placing limited weighting on the outcome.

Conclusion

Environments whereby users are non goal directed and diverse are fairly common and not limited solely to a museum. Amusement Parks, Zoos, Galleries and Shopping centers are also situations in which goal oriented behavior is often second to experience. Traditional HCI theories and methodologies are somewhat challenged in these situations and perhaps need to be modified if they are to remain relevant to these unique and complex environments. Further research should be conducted to find a new angle in which to understand user interaction and experience with technology when there is limited goal oriented behavior and a diverse user base.

REFERENCES

Bederson, B., 1995, ‘Audio Augmented Reality: A
Prototype Automated Tour Guide’, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Card, S., Moran, T., & Newell, A., 1983, ‘The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction’, Published 1983 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Carrol J.M. 1997, ‘Human-Computer Interaction: Psychology as a Science of Design Annual Review of Psychology’, Vol. 48, 1997

Falk, H., & Dierking.. D., 1992, ‘The Museum Experience’, Howells House.

Fitts P 1954, ‘The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 47, no.6, pp.381-391.

Fleck, M., Frid, M., Kindberg, T., O'brien-Strain, E., Rajani, R., & Spasojevic, M. 2002, ‘Remember: A Tool For Capturing Museum Visits’, Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 2498/2002, Pp. 48-55

Ginsburgh, V., & Mairesse, F., 1997, ‘Defining a Museum - Suggestions for an alternative approach Museum’ Management and Curatorship’ 16 pp. 15-33

Grinter, E., Aoki, M., Hurst, A., Szymanski, H., Thornton, D. & Woodruff, A., 2002, ‘Revisiting the Visit: Understanding How Technology Can Shape the Museum’, Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work pp.146-155

Hick E., 1952, ‘On the rate of gain of information’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 4 pp.11-26,

Hsi, S., 2002, ‘The Electronic Guidebook: A study of user experiences using mobile web content in a museum setting’ Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education’, Proceedings IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education.

Melbourne Museum Website, From the World Wide Web at ‘http://melbourne.museum.vic.gov.au/’

Neilson, J., 1994‘Usability inspection methods’ New York : Wiley,.

Reeves, S., Benford, S., O'malley, C. & Fraser, M., 2005, ‘Designing The Spectator Experience’, Proceedings Of The Sigchi Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems

Shneiderman B, 1980, ‘Software psychology: Human factors in computer and information systems’ Winthrop Publishers

Human Computer Interaction special investigation

2007-03-30T12:35:00.000+10:00

The traditional idea of technology, as a tool for productivity and work efficiency has shifted dramatically over the past years. The idea of a computer as solely a Business Machine, such as an IBM (International Business Machine) almost seems farcical in today’s age of personal computing, mobile computing and user produced content. This shift, that can be partly associated to the drop in technology and decreased software complexity, has allowed home users and small organisations to access the same standard of computing available to large corporations with the ability to afford previously expensive infrastructure and training costs.

Along with the shift from the traditional workplace role of technology, a swing in the typical user base has also occurred. The typical user is no longer an employee of an organisation working a 40 hour week to achieve a set goal. A typical user could be a young child researching for a school project, an old lady emailing her daughter, a teenager discussing the latest fashion craze on MSN or the typical middle aged able bodied worker we are all so familiar with. It is undeniable that these individuals are all users, yet they have different goals, motives and abilities.

This convolution of the technology user base has created a shift in all computer related disciplines. Software engineers are no longer solely designing outcome based strategic software, computer manufacturers are no longer producing beige-boxes indicative of the pre-2000 corporatization of technology, and HCI methodologies are shifting to include users that are non workers, in non work situations.

While still relevant in the traditional workplace, methodologies such as GOMS model, Hick’s law and Fitts’ law; frameworks for predicting interface speed, are no longer relevant to the majority of personal users, as their motives are not governed by speed and productivity.

In the coming weeks, this Human Computer Interaction blog special will focus on the challenges HCI now faces as the traditional idea of computing changes.

-Jeremy Smith

Install a virtual OS in 10 very easy steps

2007-03-16T19:41:00.000+11:00

While using VMware the other day to try out the new version of Sabayon Linux, I had a fantastic idea. Why not use VMware running a Linux distribution as a secure section of my computer to do my internet banking and any other sensitive transactions. This way, I can be certain that my totally insecure Windows XP riddled with questionable software will not spy on any of my sensitive keystrokes or data.

If you have heard the hype and been contemplating trying out Linux, a virtual operating system is a perfect step to trying it out completely risk free. I recommend using Ubuntu operating system on VMware (the virtual operating system emulator). I have very briefly outlined the steps to get this going below.

1. Download VMware from http://www.vmware.com/products/player/

If you can afford it, buy the full version, its well worth it!

2. Download the latest Ubuntu distribution from http://www.ubuntu.com/

3. Install VMware

This is where it gets a little complicated (but still very easy!)

4. Make a new Virtual Machine from the File Menu.

5. Settings: Typical then select Linux and name it anything you like, I simply called it ‘Ubuntu’.

On your new virtual machine:

6. Use VMware to enable the virtual CD drive

7. Menu > VM > Settings > Hardware > CD Rom > Use ISO Image

8. Then navigate to your downloaded Ubuntu file

9. Restart your new VM, the Ubuntu installation should automatically start because you are emulating a installation CD.

10. Install Ubuntu following the simple instructions.

VMware should look after all your internet settings and drivers, so there isn’t any configuring that needs to be done!

Now you have your secure Linux distribution from which you can do your banking etc in a safe environment.

Don’t worry, you can’t make mistake. The worst you can do is start this tutorial again, there is no risk to your computer whatsoever.

While writing this brief article, I had an even better idea! Why not install all your questionable software IN a Virtual operating system, leaving your full installation of XP free of any software of dubious origins. Limewire, Kazaa, eMule, etc can all be installed in the virtual OS leaving your fast and trouble free.

To do this, just follow the same steps above, but install a windows OS.

Im hanging for the day we can do this with MacOS!!

2007-03-11T13:07:00.000+11:00

I know a bargain when I see one!

2007-03-09T21:24:00.000+11:00

Just stumbled across a great offer for all you University students out there in Australia. You can buy the new version of MS Office Ultimate for only 75bucks! That’s 95% off the retail price. Its totally legal and a big big saving, so if you are considering swapping from the crusty old Office 2000, now’s the time to do it.

Check it out www.itsnotcheating.com.au

Sorry, couldnt help myself!

2007-02-28T15:21:00.000+11:00

Some Of My Favourite Open Source Applications

2007-02-27T16:41:00.000+11:00

In case you are unfamiliar with the term Open Source, it means that the source code of the software is open and not hidden or protected. Individuals are free to edit the code, modify it and use it for whatever reason they choose. However, they must not use the program for direct financial gain i.e. by selling it.

There are two primary benefits associated with open source to the average consumer:
Firstly, as the code is open, coders from all around the world are working to continuously improve and advance the program. These results in a far lower number of bugs and software errors that has resulting security benefits and system stability. If I a bug is found, it is quickly and easily patched and users can continue to use to software securely. This is contrasted from large companies with complex bureaucracies that may take a long time to issue an update patch, giving malicious individuals time to perform their dirty work. This is one of the reasons there are no viruses for the Linux operating system.
Oh, and forget about Adware and Spyware, they don’t exist in Open Source software!

The second reason, although less importantly, is that as individuals are barred from profiting by the sale of any Open Source Software, the software is always provided free of charge. This is fantastic, especially in the world of excessively high software prices.

I am not trying to sell you this software, as it’s totally free (as in Free Beer and as in free source code) my sole goal is to share the information I have gathered over time as to my favorite Open Source applications, so you too can give them a try.

My favorite Open Source Applications

Mozilla Firefox
If you haven’t heard of this Open Source web browser then you either have been living under a rock or somewhere without electricity. This program tops the list of many peoples favorite Open Source programs, and is often an individuals first step into the world of open source software.

Cost: Free
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/

Democracy Player
A relatively new player in the media scene, this open source video player plays almost all types of video format and even include bitTorrent to quickly download your latest content.

Cost: Free
http://www.getdemocracy.com/

Mozilla Thunderbird
My favorite email client that replaces Outlook or Eudora mail clients. Fully customizable and skin-able, this is one slick piece of software that everyone should have.

Cost: Free
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/

Azureus

If you are into Bit Torrent file sharing, Azureus is a very comprehensive application that can be as complex or as simple as you require. All you need for bitTorrent downloading.

Cost: Free
http://azureus.sourceforge.net/

Open Office
The Open Source alternative to Microsoft Office. I am yet to come across any function that software suite is missing that Microsoft Office has. Not only is this a big saving in cost to yourself or your company, there are extra functions that are not available on Microsoft Office such as PDF support and open standards support.

Cost: Free
http://www.openoffice.org/

The GIMP

If you are into Photoshop but cant afford the $1000 licensing cost, then give the GIMP a shot. I am not too familiar with Photoshop, but have been told from many reliable sources that this program has almost everything Photoshop has, and defiantly has everything an advanced amateur would need to edit their digital photographs.

Cost: Free
http://www.gimp.org/

Filezilla
This is an easy description: Filezilla is a simple, free, secure open source FTP client that does everything you want.

Cost: Free
http://filezilla.sourceforge.net/

AMSN
If you are sick of those MSN advertisements, want more customization, plugin and skin support then give aMSN a try
.
Cost: Free
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=54091

Celestia
If you have read my Astronomy section you will probably want to get your hands on some astronomy software. Celestia, although not particularly helpful for star gazing (use Stellarium for that) allows you to travel through the Universe, visit planets and tour the galaxy in first person view. A fantastic program that will defenatly make you feel insignificant down here on earth.
Cost: Free
http://sourceforge.net/projects/celestia/

Stellarium

A great looking very functional astronomy package that shows all the heavenly bodies in real time, just as you would from your location. There are too many features to name here, all I can say is that if you are interested in astronomy, get this program.

Cost: Free
http://www.stellarium.org/

When I find some more applications, I will be sure to share them with you!