The Project
Project Home
The Process
The Data
The Analysis
Forum Topic Scripts
Pre-Test Script
JW Data Archive
participation guide
Data Workbooks
Anne Giffen
Supawadee
Edward Davis
Shiv Pal
Selden Richardson
The Analysis
Scenarios/Claims
Metaphors
PD/Active Theory
|
CS 5724 Models and Theories of Human Computer Interaction Dr. Carroll
From Scandinavian industrial democracy projects, the key concept of work design is that it focuses on
both product and process design simultaneously. The process is the changing nature of work due to the
introduction of computer tools, which are the product. Activity theory is intended to establish commitments
and common understanding between users and designers since users are the experts on their work and
designers are experts on the system. This means it requires participation between users and designers.
The relationship between computer tools or product and participation involve whether and to what extent
products are developed through participation. Thus, it raises a question of how the use of computer tools
can increase the level of participation itself in production phase.
The aim of the electronic charrette project is to use the computer and Internet tools for communication
between community members, planners and designers in the participatory planning and design process.
The purpose of these tools is to make asynchronous and synchronous communication more effective.
In evaluating and using these tools, we considered the usability of the computer tools "as-is", as well
as using them for collaboration.
For the electronic charrette process, users or participants were encouraged to work with the system.
Two models of communication are supported: asynchronous and synchronous. Providing asynchronous
communication allows participants/users to participate in different-time-different-place situations with no problems
about conflict in schedules. The asynchronous tools were e-mail, ec-forum, and the web site. The participants
can locate archived information about the community to be used for the first test (which we are evaluating
here) through photographs, maps and site plans through the web site. In addition, they can download
the participation guide to learn about the tools; they can asynchronously communicate/participate
with other participants/users by using the e-mail or ec-forum. The synchronous model uses the
collaborative tools: NetMeeting and DataBeam; while the former supports online, real time chat between
users, the latter simultaneously permits them to share their workspace. The participants were also asked
to express their concerns and comments on various aspects of the ec process by e-mail or the ec-forum.
Designers or developers used participants' input to find more requirements and the effects of designers'
assumptions made in the design phase. It is obvious that we can use participatory tools not only
in design process but also in the assessment process.
Participant feedback and guidance through the ec-forum or e-mail for the various design/interaction
scenarios illustrated that the electronic charrette was useful in fostering interaction, encouraging and
supporting participation between users and designers. Further, it facilitated discussion on conflicting and
distinct views and provided a better understanding of the issues involved. Moreover, the presence of
a data archive allowed the participants to retrieve information relevant to their tasks and decisions and
supported fast introduction of new team members. In addition, the new members could work offline to
get up to speed with the progress of the rest of the team with little interference to the current work.
From the participatory design process of the electronic charrette, we see several aspects to consider.
Some of the major implications for design that we identified are:
*There may be many tools for the user to juggle and that diverts the focus from design to trying to
to master the tools. Using a custom software that does all the asks that are acheived here by
different tools may be an answer
* Two characteristic participant groups have been identified: homogeneous and heterogeneous.
Homogeneous groups have only designers while heterogeneous groups have a mixture of designers
and users. One approach may be to seperate and test the groups and then bring them together and test
them. This will allow results from both types of groups and thus may lead to richer information for design.
* Security of the DataBeam and Chat sessions has not been addressed here. This is an important issue
as the system/toolkit is used over the internet.
* All the tools were developed for persons familiar with the use of computers. So the system demands
a basic level of skill or proficiency in using computers from remote locations from its participants. Again, a
custom software with a friendly CH Interface may be a good solution
* A move to designing a good custom software may be by addressing the question of "How to identify
suitable tools and link them together to create a coherent system?"
*Since the design process involves participants with different levels of skills and experience, some
amount of background training for them may be enforced. The ec participation guide tries to acheive
that to some extent, but more specific training material may be provided and online sessions meant
specifically as a learning step may be conducted.
*May also want to look at the toolkit as a means for merging (to some extent) business and software
prototyping.
|