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
The participants had access to the ec forum on the web throughout the test process. This
forum was used for asynchronous discussion of the various topics that were related to the
project. The discussion topic changed every two weeks. All the user had to do was point
his web-browser to the URL for the forum. He was then presented with a screen that was
divided into two parts. The lower part of the screen had a HTML form where he could enter his
name and his comments and/or suggestions on the current topic or react to what the
other users had said so far. The upper part of the screen displayed a list of messages from all
the users who had posted messages so far. Each of these messages had the name of the person
who posted the message, the date on which he posted it and also the exact time of the posting.
For messages that raised questions or issues, there would be clarifications posted by the
moderator/reasearcher (william paul) or there would be subsequent discussions by one or
more of the other users.
+ helped to clarify the "grey" areas for various aspects of the test through topics being discussed
and ideas brought up by the users/participants
+ helped people to get to know the views of other participants and hence their thoughts on the
test and various aspects of the tools that were to be used
+ helped to allay the fears of using such electronic tools
+ facilitated presentation of ideas and subsequent development of the same through discussions
between the designers and the other participants
- but may create notions in users' mind regarding some of the concepts of the process or tools
- but may encourage discussions that are not relevant to the current topic being discussed
- but may lead the users to believe some of the comments or suggestions as facts that may hinder
usage and interaction with the actual tools later
Each participant had to install and start up at least two applications and get some data to initialize the
collaborative sessions on the test day. The user starts the live event by double clicking the
little red tool box (DataBeam icon) on 95/98 main task bar! Then (s)he opens NetMeeting from the
task bar. (S)He uses the Speed Dial button for 128.173.206.68 address, selects the TCP/IP option
for "call using" option and then double clicks it in the main space. This pops up a prompt that
asks him/her to select a meeting. (S)He selects "electronic charrette" and then types in a password
for the conference server. (S)He then opens Chat under NetMeeting tools. (S)He thus has the two
applications (NetMeeting and DataBeam) open in two seperate application windows that (s)he has
learned to bounce back and forth between as the live event progresses. (S)He looks around the
NetMeeting application for the chat pane and sure enough (s)he finds a list of people who have
logged in and a pane where (s)he can talk. Next (s)he switches to the DataBeam application, and
there she finds an open Workbook with 3 tabbed pages with an image each, and a toolbar above
with some drawing and scribbling tools ....
+ easy to start up the application from the icon on the task bar
+ the process to get connected the first time is prompted by the system, and so is simple
for the user to follow and get online
+ the interfaces are visual and therefore the user feels comfortable and has a sense of confidence
that (s)he will be able to work with these tools
+ use of various metaphors from the real world (brush, paints, chat, pen etc.) as tools available
on the toolbar leverages on user's familiar knowledge
- but requires user to start two seperate applications
- but too many clicks and typing required
- but the interface is cluttered with lots of icons and toolbars and this may be intimidating
to the first time user
The DataBeam window has an open workbook with tabbed pages and one image on each page. The
user can switch images by simply placing his mouse pointer on the tab-page that (s)he wants to
view and then mark up that image with the various tools available. (S)He goes ahead and selects
a color, a font and a pen by respectively clicking on the related icon on the toolbar. Then (s)he
selects a part of the image and types out some comments on how that part of the design may
be improved. (S)He switches the tool by clicking on the free-hand sketch icon and then draws
stuff on parts of the image (for instance, (s)he draws new windows on a wall without any or marks up
the boundary of the building to indicate a fence etc.) to indicate his/her suggestions by visual
drawings on the actual object. Another user who is also online responds to this by commenting
in another color and then adding his/her own suggestions or modifying the suggestions of another
user by drawing over using another tool and color. Thus the session has users simultaneously
and synchronously trying to design from their perspective and also having a chance to comment
on other people's ideas, thoughts and perspectives which are available visually and in real time.
+ allows the user to work on impulse and explore the various options and tools
+ facilitates the design suggestions to be available as visuals on the actual artifact that is
being designed
+ permits people to synchronously work together as the work of each user is visible and available
as and when the user does it
+ various tools are available and this affords flexibility and variety
- but the artifact that is designed is an image and not the actual artifact
- but there are too many tools for the novice user
X and Y are online and working vigorously on the DataBeam workbooks. The process being discussed
is the ec process model and the image of the latter is open in the workbook page. X marks various
parts of the model on the image and poses questions for each of them. Y realizes that he could only
explain the issues being raised by talking to X, so he writes out a message on the image to return to
NetMeeting to chat. X and Y both switch to NetMeeting and leave the DataBeam window open in
the background. Back to NetMeeting, Y explains the various points raised by X and they have a good
interactive discussion for about 3-4 minutes. Then Y realizes that he could make some of the issues
clearer if he had a whiteboard to explain, so he returns to the DataBeam session. After a few seconds
he realizes that X is still in the NetMeeting window. So he returns to NetMeeting and asks X to switch.
They both now return to the image by simply clicking on the title bar of the DataBeam window that activates
that session and keeps NetMeeting in the background. Here Y elaborates some of his views by markng
up parts of the image and pointing to various topics in the NetMeeting discussion by using symbols
and abbreviations and the Freehand pencil and the Highlighter to focus on parts of the model. Though
X has slight problems with his freehand drawings as he is on a Notebook with a toucgpad, he learns
somehow. This continues for sometime and both are pleased at the progress they are making ....
+ availability of tools for both chatting and whiteboarding makes discussion richer by combining the
aspects of elaborate dialogue with visual manipulation of the artifact (the ec model diagram in this case)
+ easy accessibility of the two tools poses minimal overhead (just a mouse click) for users to switch
between the two
+ rich tools modeling the real world artifacts (Highlighter and Freehand pencil) encourage the users to
treat this online virtual session as more real and face-to-face
- but switching between two views too often may be frustrating for the users
- but lack of timely cues may lead to a user being in one of the tools and the other in the other tool and
this may cause a break in the thought process and flow of the discussion
- lack of appropriate real world artifacts (X was using a touchpad instead of a mouse) for the process may
be frustrating and inefficient
At a point of the collaborative session, X wanted to mark a part of an ariel view of an
image with a conspicuous color so that clicking on that would make it appear in a special
window with a larger view. To this, Y informs him that this may not be possible, but as an
alternative suggests that images could be picked up from other applications (Photoshop,
MS Paint or for that matter even from the web) and pasted onto the workbook image on the
DataBeam whiteboard. Y demonstrates this by picking up an image and placing it at the left,
top part of the workbook image and encourages X to try it out. X, a quick and eager participant,
downloads an image from the web, opens it in photoshop and copies a part of it and uses the
Ctl-V feature to paste it in DataBeam. He is pleased that this familiar command of cut-paste
works here too. X also wonders whether it was possible for participants to work on different
pages of a workbook simultaneously. But Y informs him that since the sessions were collaborations
in real time and shared, this was not possible and did not also make sense. But further
went on to suggest that X could always work offline on an image and then load that image
when he is involved in another collaborative session. Thus they continue for some more time
working with images on the workbooks before switching to NetMeeting ....
+ user is encouraged to try features that he has learned from his associations with other applications
(a hyperlink image-map concept in this case)
+ flexibility in terms of incorporating objects (images in this case) from other applications for use
as part of the whiteboard
+ allows user to get images from more than one application and thus supports different user types based
on the imaging applications that they are familiar with
+ leverages on user's prior knowledge by allowing him to use Ctl-C and Ctl-V for copying and pasting
images on the whiteboard
+ allows users to work offline on image workbooks and then load these during online, real time sessions
with others
- but may lead to a clutter of the workspace if user opens too many applications and windows simulataneously
- but does not permit different users to work on different images in the workbook
- but encourages user to use his knowledge from some situations that don't apply here and thus lead
to frustration
( 1) may need to support whiteboarding and chatting as part of a single application
( 2 ) whiteboard and chat may be part of a single window in different panes, but visible simultaneously
( 3 ) the ec-forum needs regular mediation to prevent users from straying from the discussion topic
( 4 ) the whiteboard and chat application should have fewer tools visible as icons based on frequent use or some
such observation to lower clutter and also increase tool visibility and efficiency of tool use
( 5 ) may want to support other artifacts besides images for the users to work with e.g., virtual worlds
( 6 ) sound and video for the online sessions may improve productivity and increase participation and it's
effectiveness
|