6 - Brad Van Galen

The feature we redesign on YouTube was the Watch Later feature that allowed you to kind of archive a video so you could watch it later. The users mental model f the feature we focused on YouTube is being able to easily be able to remember the videos that they wanted to watch at one time or another.  I don't think the different mental models would differ too much.  I think that the implementation of this feature and the fact that they kept this particular feature speaks to that.  Since they put this feature in I believe that they wanted this to be able to remember user videos that they wanted to watch. 

6 - Chase Buckner

Our overall goal during project #3 was to clean up the main page and make it easy for people who are searching for videos, but don't know the exact video that they want to watch is, to find videos that may possibly appeal to them. We did this by switching how the categories were displayed. Our user's mental model for this part of the redesign would be similar to a user who just wants to browse videos without having any interference from the software that they are using, YouTube in this case.

This mental model contrasts with the implementation model of the programmers because in the implementation model there would be more technical interaction between the software and the user. In the mental model, the user recognizes familiar features that they have been seen before through previous experiences and is able to use the software without really even realizing that they are using it. In the mental model, the software is transparent for the user. In the implementation model, there would be technical messages that only a programmer would understand and would be confusing and meaningless to the everyday user.

6- Martin Johnson

 The feature we redesigned on YouTube was the display of the video player upon conclusion of a video. The screen shows 12 boxes with a screen shot and absolutely no other information. The mental model held by the user here is that these 12 boxes each represent a related YouTube video to play. It is that simple. We kept the same format of using the boxes (because they have this mental model), but we organized them on the side. We also had one box with a countdown. Almost everyone associates this with an automatic start made popular by video streaming sites and apps.

This mental model contrasts with the implementation model because the user doesn't have to think about any underlying issues. They see 12 relatable boxes and already know what they represent. This is because their mental model of a YouTube video lets them know that these are videos as well. If the implementation model had been used, there wouldn't have been much user-design at all. People would need to have an understanding of HTML and how to navigate for themselves. 

6- R Corr

The implementation model seems to be the most applicable to the YouTube site in its originality. The site seems to be focused on the developers ideas for how they might use the site. As my team made changes to the sites layout, based on our research of how users actually used the site, we simplified the layout in order to highlight the features most commonly used.

We used the home screen on YouTube and got rid of a lot of the "clutter" that may make sense to the people creating the site, but may not have much use to the typical user. Because we found users wanted to search and to find the most viewed videos, we highlighted these features in order to appeal to and reflect more accurately their mental model.  Additionally, we adjusted the left nav bar on the home screen by placing it horizontally below the search and YouTube emblem. This broadened the mental model and made more room for the most viewed recent videos, which replaced the "recommended" videos in the body of the home page.

6 - Kyle Hiller

For our project 3, we decided to change the layout of the default screen when a video is being played.  We moved the related video to a horizontal row on the bottom of the screen so that there are less distractions from the actual video playing.  The user's mental model towards this would definitely be slightly confused at first, because the layout of something they're so used to has changed to something more simple.  But then more clear once they realize that the only real thing to be looking at on the screen is the actual video playing and not the random distractions that are normally right on the side of the video player.

This mental model would contrast with the implementation model because the implementation model has no regards for the users.  It wouldn't have the concern of taking away distractions on the screen, it would simply do what was the most efficient way to put all the information on the screen.  

6 - Rachael Smith

For our project my partner and I chose to redo the homepage of Youtube. We were told and found that the homepage looked too cluttered and found that most of the items that were shown on that page people didn't use. Therefore, we decided to get rid of all the clutter and make it more pleasing to the eye of the user and more helpful. The book defines a mental model as, "... What we believe to be true, generally based on our experiences, and how we assimilate new things into our existing knowledge." (103) In this case the mental model would be that the user thinks that the website is cleaner and more helpful. Although it says that mental models aren't always the truth but in this case that is exactly what Youtube was trying to show to the user. They didn't have any other underlying motive such as, bringing you eye to an advertisement or making the page load faster.

In this case the implementation model isn't something different. The book defines it as something that, "... Is aimed to please the geeks" (103) meaning it really isn't there to help or please the user but something they just put in there. The only think I could think of for that is the moving search bar. We created a search bar that moved down the page with the user. This would be something fun that the programmers would add, but at the same time it is also helpful to the user.

6 - Alex Li

In project 3, our group wanted to add the actual home screen of YouTube as an option on the homepage. When you are signed in, YouTube wants to cater to their users so they show your subscriptions and not the actual YouTube homepage. The user’s mental model of features on YouTube is to go to a site that you can play video. Very basically. But for some people they want to see the homepage of YouTube but they have to sign out of their account in order to do that which we thought was a problem and could be redesigned. 

“Mental model is what people believe to be true based pretty much on their experiences and how it relates to our exciting knowledge. As for implementation model it is something that needs to be designed.”

So for programmers the implementation model would just be moving some functionality around. We would need to redesign the drop down menu. We would have the subscriptions, YouTube Homepage, and recommendations. This implementation would help people very easily navigate to the actual YouTube homepage as well as see their own personal subscriptions.  

6 - James Farley

In project 3 I rearranged the layout of the home screen, to expand the user's horizons past their filter bubble. I made other sections such as "popular on Youtube" seem more important than they did before. The user's mental model would probably not even notice there was a change, because it looks relatively similar, just with less recommended content, however they would be exposed to new kinds of videos that they were not previously.

Because this is not some sort of new feature, or something that only the programmers and their fellow colleagues would understand, I believe there is not a implementation model, as it is simply a rearrangement to allow the users to be more exposed to new content.

6 - Hyuk Beom Kwon

I added the feature that repeats the song automatically until I stop it and also repeats the part where I set the time for. I believed it was very accessible to users since I added the big button 'Repeat this!' that users can recognize easily. Users just need to click the button to enable this feature, which is not complex at all. Although there might be complicated process to design this feature, users do not care about the process. They only care about the product.

I doubt if it is possible to have an implementation model for this feature, because it only requires to open YouTube and click the button on the screen. It does not require any knowledge except clicking button and repeat function of music player.

6 - Michael Metzler

     The feature we added in project #3 was to enlarge the search bar and make it available even when scrolling. The user doesn't care how the feature works, he or she just wants it to work and be simple, and I believe our feature accomplishes that. The user completely understands a search bar because he or she has seen it a thousand times before.

     The mental model is much different from the implementation model because click and type only. No prior knowledge or any kind is needed to operate the site that an implementation model would require.

Week 06 Blog Assignment

For this week, we turn to Chapter 5, "Support the User's Mental Models."

As you think about your work on project #3, what is the user's mental model with respect to the feature in YouTube you are redesigning / designing? 

How might this mental model contrast with the implementation model of the programmers? (Don't get too involved with this one.) 

A short answer (a few sentences) for each question should suffice. (Obviously you can read the answers of other people and paraphrase what they wrote, but that doesn't help your understanding very much. TRY to answer these questions before looking at the responses of your peers.)

Also, since I'm posting this late, your answer won't be due until Wednesday evening at 11:59 PM (after the exam).

5 - Brad Van Galen

For my project we decided to focus on the "watch later" YouTube uses.  We though this feature was underutilized so we decided to change the look and how it operated.  If I had to drop some of the features the one I would most likely drop is the counter next to the watch later tab.  While it is a feature that would be nice to have, it is not essential to the final product or to the function of the watch later process it is just something that would be nice to have. 

5 - Chase Buckner

One of the ideas under "The Unnecessary Test" technique is looking at all of the features and recognizing if there are any redundant features, and by that I mean if there are two features that serve the same purpose. While scrutinizing my design of YouTube's homepage, I realized that one of the text boxes listed the most popular videos with a drop down menu to choose different time categories like "daily", "weekly", "monthly", etc. did the exact same thing that my larger, main, text box did at the bottom of the screen. After reading this chapter, I realize that I should get rid of the less purposeful text box so that the users can focus their attention on what is important and not get distracted by features that do the same thing. Aiming low and having a simpler design is much better than a design with all of the bells and whistles. Something else that I noticed that didn't "contribute directly to the completion of the task" of searching for a video is the little magnifying glass next to the search bar. I figured that this wasn't a necessary feature and wouldn't hurt the overall design if it was trimmed out because big search engines like Google don't have features like that. Big search engines assume that the user knows to press the enter button after they have inputted what they want to search. I think that these few changes would make for a much simpler overall design that would invite an easier way for users to navigate through the website.

5 - Martin Johnson

I believe it is really difficult to let go of features because you individually came up with them. I have a much more biased view then if I was critically examining a re-design of someone's I didn't know. Also, the fact that you made it yourself in that specific way, was your best effort put forth. This makes it very hard to think of a simpler design because you, in you mind, have already given it your best shot. 

One quote that spoke to me from the text was right away in the beginning. I felt it spoke for the whole chapter, "An obvious interface is one that is focused on what's most important and leaves out the things that are simply nice to have." One has to be willing to get rid of the clutter and make the design so obvious that the user isn't thinking about the software. It's like when in class we discussed how no one is thinking about the Microsoft Word software until they have to make a table or some other odd feature not normally performed. 

Features I would be willing to drop from our project 3 design are are the ability for the user to scroll and find recommended videos. This complicates the task and you can see why I am happy to drop this from the results of the questions below. 

Unnecessary Test:
1. Is there more than one way to complete the task this feature suppports?
Yes, I feel there are multiple ways, especially simpler than the ones we provided. 
2. Does this feature  contribute directly to the completion of the task?
Yes, it is designed to give choices to the user in a condensed and quickly understandable format.
3. Is the task this feature supports vital to the activity this application supports?
No. It in fact makes the menu after a video finishes a little more complicated. 

1. What are the circumstances of the situation my applicaton is meant to support?
An easier to navigate menu screen after a YouTube video has concluded. Either the next video will automatically play or you can quickly choice a choice. I now see that giving so many options (more than a 2-3) creates to much confusion and time lost.

2. If this application didn't exist, what would I want from the situation if I could wave a magic wand
The video you want to see most next plays right away. Simple and nothing you have to do or screens to decipher. 
3. How long will it take to rebuild my application to make it do what's stated above?
Too long. It is impossible right now. However, I think keeping the automatic play is still great. Removing a multitude of choices though to maybe 2-3 without a scroll bar would make our design much better.

5-Taylor Payne

For project three, my "team" created a new version of YouTube's homepage. In our design, there was a "Sign In" button at the top right of the page. This button would allow the user to sign into their YouTube account. Using the Unnecessary Test on page 112, this feature qualifies as being unnecessary. There is not more than one way to log into the account. Other than this button, the user cannot log in anywhere else. This button could be replaced with a feature that allows more tasks to be completed. For example, it could allow users to sign in and/or sign up. This gives the button more than one purpose. 

5- Rob Corr

Throughout assignment three, while my team was considering the different uses and users of YouTube, it came to our attention that the websites homepage was too much. It was too busy and it was overwhelming to the user, especially for the typical uses of the site.

 The "aim low" principle discussed on page 92 of the text would be a helpful tool in order to simplify YouTube for its users. This principle makes it easier to cut out the unnecessary features by understanding that 80% of the sites usefulness comes from 20% of its features. With this in mind YouTube could benefit from tapping into resources including persona's and usability tests in order to better understand what their users want/use. With this said, and given the information my team gathered, we decided it would be beneficial to drop the Recommendation tab on the home screen in order to make room for the search function, as well as, the most viewed videos on YouTube for the day, week, month, year, and of all-time. The users we talked to preferred, or consistently used these features far more then the Recommended videos, which happens to take up most of the main page. Seeing how most of its users use the search and most viewed sections, YouTube's design could benefit from highlighting these commonly used features on their home page.

5 - Kyle Hiller

When working on project 3 we were working on redesigning YouTube to how we (as a team) thought it would work/be designed better.  This is, at first, a difficult task to do to something that most people are so used to the design and format the way it is simply due to the fact that most people are constantly using YouTube.  However, when stepping back and thinking outside the box it was clear that there were definitely aspects to the design that could be changed.  This brought up the question of what was necessary and what was not.  This relates directly to "The Unnecessary Test" from the textbook where it lays out the steps to go through when determining what exactly is needed in the design of something, and what might not actually need to be included.  After completing project 3 and thinking of our final redesign, but now going back and thinking about it with the question of "Does this feature contribute directly to the completion of the task?" I have realized that there could be a couple more changes to our design.  The final design has a row of videos on the bottom of the screen for the "Related videos" section that is see through, and becomes fully visibly and colorful when the cursor is moved/hovered over any of the videos.  Our original thinking and reasoning behind this was to keep as many distractions to the user away from them giving all their focus to the video that was actually playing.  But after asking this question to myself I have realized that this feature does not directly contribute to the completion of the task of watching the video on the screen, it just pulls away the user's thoughts and attention if they begin to glance at the row on the bottom.  So, I would take this part away, and have just a tab labeled "Related videos" on the screen that would bring up those related videos.  But with this design, the user is only going to look at the related videos if he/she chooses to do so.  Otherwise, there wont be any distractions at all from the original video being played.  Less is better when it comes to many designs, and this case is no different.  This technique of making yourself ask and analyze what part(s) of your design are actually necessary and whether or not a specific feature contributes to the completion of the task is very helpful and allows for designs to become even better.

5 - James Farley

When I think about my revision to YouTube in project three I decided to use "The Unnecessary Test" in an attempt to figure out which feature(s) deem to be not essential. After asking myself these three questions I thought to myself what is the main goal YouTube is trying to accomplish? I would answer that question by saying "Allowing people to upload, watch, like, and dislike videos". In my redesign I kept the analytics feature that YouTube has to offer. This is an interesting feature, but not necessary at all, it allows the user to see their performance, how many things they have liked, commented on and many other irrelevant statistics. This feature specifically goes along with the third question "Is the task this feature supports vital to the activity this application supports?", as it clearly doesn't, it is just a bells and whistles feature.

5 - Kalvin Greer

When working with project three there were definitely times where I thought to myself, "is it really necessary to have that"? This chapter speaks to those thoughts exactly. If there was a feature that I would remove from YouTube it would have to be the My Subscriptions button on the top left pane. This is because there is already a Subscriptions pane dedicated to just that, subscriptions, so having another button to do the same thing is rather useless. This falls under one of the simple questions that one should ask themselves when designing an application, "Is there more than one way to complete the task this feature supports"? The answer is yes so therefore there is no point to have two buttons doing basically the same thing on the main screen. It simply clutters up the homepage and makes it seem harder to use than it needs to be. This can even fall back on the game of HCI as a whole. The idea is to give the user a nice, clean, and simple experience when they use your app. This is a prime example of when you could use a 60 second deadline to figure out that this might be just a little too much fluff.

5 - Alex Li

The book talked about drop nice-to-have features how you could achieve it through several different ways  like the unnecessary test, the 60-second deadline, aiming low, and interface surgery. So for project 3 we were to redesign YouTube. One technique that I would have used would be the 60-second deadline. It would strip YouTube down to the essentials. First is to list all the features on YouTube but there are a ton so I will list a few. The feature could be the "What to Watch," "My Subscriptions," "Social," "Playlist," "History" Video likes and dislikes, Number of views, sharing functionality, and so much more. The next step would be picking out just the essential. So we could have just made YouTube a simple site to upload videos and give them likes and dislikes. The nice-to-have would be all the bells and whistle like the statistics that YouTube has the sharing functions and the subscribing. So this is what we could have done to redesign YouTube which was to pull out all the bells and whistles of YouTube and leave it as a simple video sharing site.
In the whole game of HCI this step is to help make your product different from all the other companies because you are just focusing on the essential and making sure it does what it needs to do.        

5 - Hyuk Beom Kwon

For projet 3, I added the feature called "Repeat this!" button that video plays repetitively automatically. I asked myself a question from the textbook, "Is there more than one way to complete the task this feature supports?". My newly designed feature only supports repeat function, but nothing else. For more than one function, I can use a technique called Interface Surgery by Hoekman to redesign it. I can just easily add some new supportive features to the interface for my new feature to make it more helpful.    

5 - Michael Metzler

     During Project 3, we added a "nice to have" feature into our design. It was our "top 5 videos" posted under the search bar. It's intent was to just be a cool feature to add to the design, it was not necessary at all. Looking back now, I don't think we would have added that feature because it doesn't add much value to the design. It mainly does not answer the question, "Does this feature contribute directly to the completion of the task?" That task being searching for a specific video. This definitely does not match up with our task, so next time we will be more critical of our cool ideas.

Week 05 Blog Assignment

First, let me say that most of you responded with insight to Week 4's blog assignment. I appreciate that you took the assignment seriously! Well done!

For this week, we turn to Chapter 4: "Build Only What is Absolutely Necessary."

Starting with the section (p. 88), "Drop Nice-To-Have Features," various techniques are described to help you eliminate unnecessary features. It's difficult to "let go" of a feature that you've already designed, but smart designers do this frequently.

As you think about the revision to your project 3 design (YouTube), use one of the techniques described in the book and explain what feature(s) you would be willing to drop and why. (You don't need to do this for project 3, but use this prompt as a way to describe what you could have done.)

By the way, where do these techniques come into play in your "whole game of HCI Design" drawing? You don't need to answer this, but minimally think about it.

4 - Martin Johnson

Chapter 3 of Designing the Obvious may appear to be contradicting but I do not believe it is. I still believe that Hoekman wants one to pay attention to users needs. It's how one takes the data from the user and interprets it into important information or insights that is key. This is because one needs to understand that the individual user is not always right. So many issues come up when just looking at one user. They may be an outlier, be biased in some way, not be sensible/rational, not depict the target user well, or no know/lie about what they truly want or need. 

 

This is why designers cannot provide new features based on one or more users pushing for them. User centered focus is important but I believe Hoekman thinks to model user centered focus for the population over the ideas of a few individual users. This is where persona's come in handy. 

 

Having a persona helps battle the situations that there may be an unmet need. The user has no idea what it is or is unable to fathom what it could be realistically or make conjectures about this unmet need. Designing with a persona in mind will help make the final design more user friendly than just listening to one person who could be an outlier. This is done by personifying the voices of your real user voices through a fake persona. This can be problematic when dealing with large user bases or irrelevant persona information. However, Hoekman states that people are born liars and often don't express what they really mean or want. People don't make the right choice always, they make the comfortable safe choice which they already know. Having a persona helps combat this and assists the design in being effective for the general user population. 

 

Hoekman also states that as long as one knows the what to build and the why, this should guide one in the direction of benefiting users. In end design must be simple

 

Situations are made up of what, who, where, when, and why. The How is the application. Each circumstance revolves around every unique individual user. Designers in turn must understand all these circumstances and use this knowledge to affect the how, which is the one thing they control. People only remember one way to complete a task and don't try to advance their knowledge, especially towards what they won't use. 

 

A method we could have used to help our project two design would be to think in a more situational fashion. With a rowing machine, people are probably mostly using free row and interval row. With this in mind, we would want to test out this hypothesis, and then make as simple as possible changes accordingly. Because we control the how, we want to find out what situations people will most often be in, and design for these. It would be smart to have survey people and document them in action to see what they actually do. From here cut out all unnecessary functions which people won't/don't care to use or learn. The simpler and less unused parts of the design, the better. 

4 - Kyle Baker

In chapter 3 Hoekman talked about how not to always focus the design of a product or a website around the user as individuals, and rather to focus on the users as a whole. The company Basecamp itself told users that it designed its product to be used by themselves. However, this approach also prepared them to handle other peoples needs as well. They designed something for the field they were in. The book talks about if you're in the position that your product is designed, then  first-person design would be necessary.

 

In the context of Imgur, the creator was a user of Reddit. Since he was himself a user of Reddit and was creating a site for Reddit users he was able to create a design which could be centered around himself and yet still apply to his needs. He designs a product which meets his needs and also meets the needs of his destination users.

4 - Chase Buckner

    Is the user is always correct is a lot like the saying in retail, "The customer is always right!" Everyone in the retail industry knows that statement is most definitely not true all of the time. I think that there are many similarities between these two sayings. While one must always act in accordance to "The customer is always right" whenever they are dealing with a customer I think that Hoekman is trying to get the point across that you should act like the user is right even when you know what is best for them. For example, on page 44 when Hoekman teases, "You ready? People adapt to technology." He builds this idea up as if it is a revolutionary thought when in reality, everyone knows this simple fact. So no, I do not think that the user is always correct, but I do think that we should treat them as if they were. In response to the question, "Should the designer always provide new features because one or more of the users ask for them?" I would say no again, because ultimately, the designer has to do what is best for the sake of the design not for the one, two or ten people who want a specific function. Ultimately our purpose for the design should be to identify and correct the problem presented as well as satisfying as many people as possible throughout our implementation of the new design. We should take user's input to heart and make decisions based off of them while at the same time, doing what is best to fix the problem.
     By a situation-centric approach, Hoekman means that instead of solely focusing on what the users say they need and grouping the results according to common answers from the users, we need to look at the real thing that is bringing all of these people together, the situation. Designers need to look at why these users are using the website or app we are designing and from there, we can come to conclusions of what the users actually need. I suppose that if I were to critique the way that I conducted project 2, I would say that I should have definitely tested more users but also asked the user's different questions. I would've asked them why they worked out and how, in their mind, they envisioned themselves getting on the machine and exercising. I would've focused less on making it simpler for them to start their workout and instead made it quicker for them to get started with their workout, which is what they came to do in the first place. I would eliminate as many barriers as possible between the users and their goal of working out.

4- Rachael Smith

After reading chapter three my thoughts about user-centered design (UCD) are about the same. Being a web designer I have worked a lot with companies about what the marketing team has come up with in terms of research they have done of people interacting with the websites and what they think should be in it and what they don't like. I have found that some users aren't always right and that you can't make everyone happy. There isn't a perfect way to do anything and you will always make a product that will benefit certain groups more than others. Although I have never used persona Hoekman focuses a lot on them seeing as they are a major part of UCD. Persona are a profile of a person to try to focus on users rather than what you would want. They can be a huge asset but they can also leave people out, "... designing with a narrow set of persona descriptions in mind could actually prevent you from achieving the results you're after by alienating audiences not part of the persona pool." (41) By making specific persona you can leave out a whole group of users and your design might not be ideal for those users. Although persona can be a useful tool groups of people are always left out. However, you can't please everyone. Even if you made a persona description for every possible user you still wouldn't be able to make a product that everyone is happy with. There will always be someone it benefits more than others. So by leaving out an audience isn't much of a disadvantage since they would most likely not be the target market, wouldn't be perfectly happy with the product, and could potentially spread your idea too thin by trying to please everyone. I always think of it as a restaurant. Each restaurant specializes in one maybe two types of food. Not everyone will like that type of food so they market to those who will benefit most from their restaurant. That is what designers do from their persona, they think of a target market and someone that would benefit from their product and build it based off that. Just because some audiences would be left out doesn't necessary make it a bad idea process.

Hoekman also discuses the situation-centric approach. This puts a user in a specific situation and designs for that situation. He uses the iPod as an example of how the situation-centric appraoch can be a bad approach, "The iPod is not a success because it does a better job of supporting the activity of listening to music on the go..." (49) When Apple was designing this product they made it "feature-light" to make it easier for users to use the product while exercising. They are able to quickly find what they want and use it without having to spend too much time playing with different preferences and screens. This made the iPod great for working out but was light on features for people that wanted to use it for more than just listening to music or wanted it more personalized. In my opinion there is a reason for target markets. When making a product you have a target market for a reason and that is what these companies are doing. There will always be a preferred method for each designer but they each have similar issues and they each have a target market and will leave certain audiences out. That is how design works and will always work. You can't make everyone happy.

4 - Brad Van Galen

So I think there are situations many situations where the user will always be correct.  There are also situations where they will always be wrong.  Whether or not they are right or wrong depends upon what they are talking about.  There are some aspects of any design where the user is right but that is mostly just they're opinion.  As seen in chapter 3, many times the user doesn't know what they really want or need or where the user can be mislead into thinking is wrong based on outside forces.  What the user says should always be taken into consideration but that does not mean you should implement everything that the user wants.  The user can't have everything, it just wouldn't work, and even if one user thinks they need it doesn't mean the majority of people do.  The design should always be focused on the user. 
Situation centric designs are exactly as they sound, situation centered.  These designs help situations be aided by software.  These designs also lead into self-design and immersing yourself in a specific situation to help design your product better.  To better my project two, if I would have had more time,  I could have observed more people and tried to figure out more about different users and how they used the machine. 

4-Taylor Payne

Individually, the user is always correct. However, in the world of design, it is better to design for the "average" person rather than a specific individual. On page 96 in the book Hoekman says to "design to support a situation, not a specific user base." This is great to keep in mind while making a design. Even if a couple users request a change, you shouldn't necessarily make the change, because that would be tailoring the design to specific users. This is what user-centric approaches are. 

A situation-centric approach focuses the design on a specific situation, rather than specific users. In project 2, the treadmill was designed for workouts centered around running/walking. I think that the design of the treadmill was appropriate, except for the small change that we made in the way you change speeds. 

4 - Michael Metzler

     Chapter 3 shows us that the user is not always correct. The user can be misleading with what they want due to biases. The designer should listen to the user's ideas for new features and consider why the user wants them. Is this something they actually need or is it something they think they need? After careful consideration, a designer may or may not elect to add such a feature. Chapter 3 is showing a new step in playing the whole game. I like to think of this part as "taking away the tee" from tee ball. The user wants something useful that is so simple he or she could do it in their sleep. However, users can adapt to the technology presented to them. It is ok to give them something more advanced if it accomplished the task at hand, and the user does not have to spend too much time to learn it. The focus of our designs should ultimately satisfy the task or problem needed to be solved, or ACD. Then the designer should test the design to the user and make adjustments at that point.

     Hoekman means by situation-centric approach is to test designs based on user actions. Most users only use or learn about 20% of a designs features or enough to get the task done. They use their own understanding about how the application works. As the designer, we know all their is to know about it, but the user has to learn them so our views can be biased. To test our designs, we must test the users in situation based ways to see how they will use the design and for what. This will give a better idea of how well the design is made if the users can get stuff done effectively. I would have used a test case to test project 2. I would have rounded up some users and ran them though a test case. 

4 - James Farley

After reading chapter three my view on the phrase "the user is always correct" has become a bit skewed. If you are designing software you'll never be able to impress everyone, as Donald Norman says "One concern is that the focus upon individual people (or groups) might improve things for them at the cost of making it worse for others. The more something is tailored for the particular likes, dislikes, skills, and needs of a particular target population, the less likely it will be appropriate for others" (page 45). If a designer were to add every feature that people request for, the design would quickly fail, as the interface would be too cluttered and would be too difficult to use. Hoakman goes on to talk about how UCD is too broad, and ACD is too narrow when finding a design approach that is successful. He also talks about a "self-design" approach where the designers simply design for themselves. This strategy is usually shot down, but has proven to be successful in the past.

After Hoakman says that he was wrong for being a strong believer in ACD, he goes on to introduce situation-centered design. This strategy looks at the users in whatever situation they are in, and designs for that specific context. Hoakman states "the iPod is not a success because it does a better job of supporting the activity of listening to music on the go, but because it does a better job of supporting the situations people are in when they use it" (page 49). This means that users of the iPod are often in a situation where they are on the go, and the simplistic design of the iPod works well for the users in that particular situation. I could have used this same method for project 2 when redesigning a workout machine. When people want to workout, they don't want to spend more than 20 seconds pressing buttons. For that reason I think I could have made less steps in order to start your workout, leaving the user with less time pressing buttons, and more time burning calories.

4 - Hyuk Beom Kwon

As Hoekman mentioned in page 48 in his book, "UCD include details that aren't actionable and can be a distraction. But the narrow focus of ACD swings the pendulum too far the other way by discounting the circumstances that comprise the user's need for your application, and your application's role in his life at the moment it comes into play." Just by focusing on user-centered design, it is hard to get results that satisfied enough for users. It means that user can't always be correct. Hoekman suggested that situation-centered is the one we should focus to get great application, which is comprised of who, what, when, where, why, and how. Hoekman mentioned that situation-centered idea leads to self-design, which targets yourself as an audience. Hoekman seems to have strong focus in situation-centered than other two, activity-centered and user-centered.

What Hoekman means by a situation-centric approach to research is that a designer makes a direct participation in his own research with imagining the certain situation. For project #2, I could have focused on machine with broader view. I only fixed on a small feature of digital panel, but it was very trivial problem for users. I could imagine more various situations for using this machine.

4 - Alex Li

User-centered design is where the designer aims to better understand the needs and wishes of the users so that the interactive system can better help them meet those goals (page 40). As Norman stated,” One concern is that the focus upon individual people (or groups) might improve things for them at the cost of making it worse for others. The more something is tailored for the particular likes, dislikes, skills and needs of a particular target population, the less likely it will be appropriate for others (page 45).” So user-centered design is great for designing applications to fit certain niches because you are designing for the user/group but the thing is People adapt to technology. An activity-centered design is where designers are constructing an application to support an activity. The reason that this design is more effective from the start is that you can look at the task at hand instead of people. At the bottom of page 47 Hoekman was very strongly for ACD, activity-centered computer, but he later talks about how UCD, user-centered design, and ACD have problems. For example UCD is too broad and looks too much at a person and ACD is too narrow and doesn’t look at the person enough.

For project, 2 we were to redesign a fitness machine and tell why we made the changes. So Hoekman talk about situation-centric approach, which is where designers’ design based on the situation. The book talks about the iPod and how it didn’t have all the amazing features that other music players had because of how simplistic it was. It turned out to be a major benefit because people when running or exercising wanted the least amount of buttons and options to push when exercising. A change that I would have done on the second project was to take out and extraneous features on an exercise machine and only included what a person truly needs when they exercise to make it simple and easy to use.

4 - Kalvin Greer

The idea of "The user is always right" can be a very dangerous thing. Just as it is stated by Donald Norman "The more something is tailored for the particular likes, dislikes, skills ad needs of a particular target population, the less likely it will be appropriate for others."(www.jnd.org/dn.mss/human-centered.html) One person might think that a certain button or feature is not working how they expect it to. However another user might feel perfectly content with how the application currently works. At times the old saying of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" comes to play. When deploying applications you have to understand what the user really needs and give it to them in the best way that you see with accommodate the largest group of users. Hoekman talks about this idea of "self-design" saying that in some cases who is better to design an app for than yourself. Even if you aren't part of the target group for your application you can always make yourself one to try and think like your audience. At times people don't even know what they want, in fact they want to be told what they want. This is when you (the designer) comes in. When it comes to the design or usage of certain things we are able to adapt. In todays society everything has moved to a general idea of how things are supposed to look and work. As long as the designs follow this general trend people are usually happy.

Looking back on project two, Hoekman was exactly on point when talking about designing for a situation not a single user. You cant make everyone happy and some peoples ideas are so far out there that there is no way that they could be feasible. However as I said before and has was stating in the book, people are able to adapt. If you can make a design straight forward enough where a general user is able to utilize your product, you've got something. I think that I could have inquired a tad more about what the overlaying problem was with my device rather than trying to just instantly fix the first thing my user had an issue with.

Week 04 Blog Assignment

Chapter 3 of Designing the Obvious may appear to be contradicting what we've been saying about users and paying attention to user needs. Is the user always correct? Should the designer always provide new features because one or more users ask for them? Is there a larger "user-centered" focus that Hoekman advocates? Address these questions in your own words. There are many good ways to address these questions.

Then think about Project #2. In this context, what does Hoekman mean by a situation-centric approach to research? What method could you have used for your project? Describe what you might have done.

3-Taylor Payne

This is google.com, which is a very common search engine.
The image above displays Google's homepage. As you can see, it is very plain and simple. I believe that this was done to help the users focus on their search. Google doesn't want the users to feel pressured or tricked into using their website through the use of fancy designs. Google doesn't need flashy designs to draw in customers, because their service is reason enough to use Google. This is why they have a simple design.  

3- Robbie Corr

Hello Group G,

  I am once again looking at Instagram as a platform to reflect upon from a design perspective. www.instagram.com

  This image shows the Instagram application in three different places nicely. Instagram allows users to post pictures to your account and add a caption. Other users can then like or comment on your picture and you can do the same to theirs. The interface in my opinion is one of the most fluid and enjoyable of any app. That is the what of Instagram. Why does Instagram exist as is? I believe that it was created in the hope to take, organize and aesthetically display your mobile pictures conveniently. As smartphones progressed, and Facebook and Twitter became cluttered with information rather than images, Instagram stepped in to provide a social space for just your pictures. This niche in the market proved to be worthwhile, and in hindsight I said "why did I not think of that".  The co-founders must have believed that a need for a simple photo sharing existed. The name Instagram comes from Instant Camera and telegram.

  

3 - Martin Johnson

Below is a picture of the Flipboard application I featured in my blog post from week two. Flipboard is an easier way to view the news and stories you are interested in, along with integrating your social media.

Flipboard must have a vision that allows them to do something innovative and different. This is because they excel above other competitors who had the same or better resources (according to Sinek). They realize what they do, how they do it, and why they do what they do. The purpose of existing for Flipboard is shown in their mission below:

Our mission is to let people discover and share content in beautiful, simple, and meaningful ways.

 

I think the "why" is very easily seen for Flipboard in terms of the HCI game. I believe the design team simply wanted to unlock the news for each individual. Make it feel natural, personal, and intuitive in terms of user experience and materials one wants to actually see/share. I feel confident in saying this because Hoekman says that the what you do shows the why you do it. Also the fact that you can't know what to build until why you want to build it. Flipboard was able to make something special because of their mission.

 

 

 

 Source Link: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/12/flipboard-iphone-app/

 

3 - Kyle Baker

"What is a thing. Why is a belief."

Website: Imgur

Imgur is the image hosting website that I covered  last week. I had my own reasons why this website was created. Then since I figured that the creator used Reddit, I figured I'd do  a search for an AMA, which is where people ask other (usually unique or famous) people. Turns out that i found one, this is what the creator Alan Schaff said about why he created Imgur:

I got fed up with all the other image hosts out there so I made my own. It doesn't force you to compress your images, and it has neat things like crop, resize, rotate, and compression from 10-100. It's my gift to you. Let's not see anymore imageshack/photobucket around here ;)

From what he says here, he just didn't like what the other image hosting sites had to offer. He listed various different reasons as to why he created the site. This was posted to Reddit in February of '09. Here's the link: http://redd.it/7zlyd.

Here is a link to His AMA: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/y81ju/i_created_imgur_ama.