DESIGN LUI NT ETL UeEnglish edition First published in 2012 by Berg Editorial offices: 60 Bediord Square, London WC1B SDP, UK 175 Fith Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA © Steve Gamer and Chris Evans 2012 All ights reserved, No part ofthis publication may be reproduced in any form ‘or by any means without the written permission of Berg, Berg is an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Pec Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Design and designing: a cxtical introduction / exited by Steve Gamer and Chris Evans. ages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-84788-577-7 (hardback) — ISBN 978-1-84788-576-0 (paper) — ISBN 978-0-85785-220-5 () 1, Design. |. Garner, Steven W, (Steven William), editor of compiation. Il, Evans, Chris, 1947- editor of compilation. NK1810.04722 2012 745,4—de23 2012002799 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, ‘A catalogue record for this book is available trom the British Library ISBN 978 1 84788 577 7 (Cloth) 978 1 84788 576 0 (Paper) ‘Typeset by Apex CoVantage, LLC, Macison, WI, USA. Printed in the UK by the MPG Books Group www.bergpublishers.comchapter 2 design thinking maureen carrol, leticia bri possible things" had much practice, sometimes | beliov “One can't beleve er 1 daresay you haven't hra-an-hour a day: Why ‘ABOUT THIS CHAPTER Thisis a chapter about design port a way of thinking tat is Bot cre eeenzed in many diagrams of design. IS packwards and forwards between the pres of this chapter are some {good design thinkers. The chapter iS thinkers in design practice and design what is design thin! 1g? Why are some people able to beliove in what ‘seems unachievable? It once seemed impossible for a machine to fly through the sky, ‘but Leonardo da Vinci and the Wright brothers thought differ- ently. It once seemed impossible to breathe un- derwater until Jacques Cousteau invented the aqualung in 1943. Few imagined they would see the day that a man walked on the moon, and even fewer a generation ago envisaged the scale of to- day's Internet. A remarkable opportunity awaits you as you enter the field of design; you have the ‘opportunity to contribute to the changes you want + said the Queen. When | was your age | aia six impossible things before breakfast ative and analytical. Design is not linear in thew, ‘convoluted and complex, requiring designers, ent and past stages in cycles of iteration, at practical pointers and insightful observations on what fen supported with references to some of the leading education today. 19 Ses, itos cavagnaro and shelley goldman Sty, Lewis Carrol, Alice's Adventures in Wonder ‘ thinking. It describes both the process and the mindsets te to loop to 928 n the world, The problems we fase twenty-first century are increasingly complex zy nuanced. As a designer, you have a say in yng is possible. Perhaps taking Lewis Carols etic and practising believing the impossible for han hour a day might be a very sensible idea because design thinkers can make the seemingly impos. ble real. But as Nolan Bushnel, enteprenes ex founder of Atari Inc. noted, ‘Everyone whos eer taken a shower has had an idea, ts the psn who gets out of the shower, dries off and dos something about it who makes a difference." Design thinking is an orientation toward lea ing that encompasses active problem solving adwi st to bring about change that rain one's abil rs a sense of creative con- ei 21 ent and highly optimistic sxooutive and president of ne ancy IDEO, describes the 8 roach that uses NG eee iat eepity and methods for pr Ys needs in a techno- meet peo 9 ps commercially Mable Wan feasible thinking is human-centred you become a desin tinker You ow you see the world, Prob- bien ere opportunities, failure becomes jase gto learn and intitton becomes 2 san tM comparirent 10 analy eau inking starts with dvergence—the eS te 0 expand the range of options so row tem down. Two fundarental Jrennng coexist and often oligo in our cite recs ate wating a bance between them is ial De- pang toeiseson asking eight questions, ring assumptions, generating a range of pessbites an ean trough targeted stages eerie prtotypin. Using ethnographic too sed contextual Inquiry, design thinkers learn how fo uncover rel needs and empathic insights that lead to transformative and innovative solutions to cemiex problems. These problems might range “As you become a design thinker, you jubilantly reframe how you see the world. Problems become opportunities, failure becomes simply a means to learn and intuition becomes a beautiful accompaniment to analysis.” “Design thinking focuses on asking the right questions, challenging assumptions, generating a range of possibilities and learning through targeted Stages of iterative prototyping.” from how to create access to clean water, how {0 re-envision children's education, how to cree ate effective work life balances, how to make the ‘world a kinder place or how to motivate people to ‘exercise regularly In sum, the design thinking pro- cess provides a scaffold that can be used to solve ‘complex problems in robust, creative and holistic ‘ways. David Kelley, founder of IDEO and Stanford University’s Hasso Plattner Insitute of Design (the <.schoo)) sums up his mission thus: My contribution is to teach as many people as | can to use both sides of their brain, so that for every problem, every decision in their lives, they consider creative as well as ane- lytical solutions > the design thinking process ‘There is general agreement that design thinking ‘comprises both a process and a series of under- lying mindsets, but there are different opinions on this process and the precise number of stages it Involves. Dubberly’ describes an extensive col- lection of ways that design thinking may be con- cepluaized. IDEO envisages the design thinking process as inspiration, ideation and implemen: tation. At Stanford University’s Hasso Plattnertrinking Stanford stages inthe des" yo 21 Disgram of Figure 2 ratings Institute of 008i» process (as00 Pathe Unwvorsiy institute of Design, design thinking 'S described ‘as a sx-step process: understand, ODSeN9, fine point of vw, ideate, pcototype and test tis represented in Figure 2.1 and is examined under the following subheadings. Understand Understanding isthe frst stage of design think- ing. Time is spent gathering data through multiple ‘sources, such as taking to experts and conduct= ing research. The goals to develop a meaningful framework of background knowiedge about the problem you want to solve. Observe ‘The goal during the observation stage is to gen- crate deep insights in your framework of under- standing, You might, for example, uncover deep incights to the needs and wants of consumers or Users by observing and interviewing. In order to do 50, itis important to get out into the world and ‘engage with new ideas, become a keen people watcher and observe how people behave and in- leract in a variety of spaces and places. Define point of view in this stage the emphasis is on synthesis. Ong way to achieve clearer definition is to Create g point-of-view statement. This seeks to cons date and shape the ‘problem space’ that was formed in the earlior stages. For example it might capture vital user needs or novel insights tousebi ity issues from observing people. Try fing in the following template to construct your own pon. of-view statement (you will need to relate it toa particular design problem you have observed, (Your user) needs a way to {a verb) because he/she (your insights). The point-of-view statement is used as a sping board for ideation, the next stage of the design thinking process. Ideate Ideating is a critical component of design thinking The goal of ideation is to generate a large nu ber of alternative proposals and ideas withoutye or practical. No idea na po one's 03s a rejected. Cer fo suspend judgement. that can be par- be 8 eek a technique that Bit oe wok of lx Oso Here rd ee se ox rerang 2 success 2am ov! 00 0 Oe can bea sketch, a construction, a dig vaannl-ttoanevenbeas-ampiegs cardboard pox kisa means of enwsagnng an eS, away of an dea a tangible form. This has benefis texte rater who can assess and develop Fis OF revo, araitafows an idea to be communicated tooihers, which is essential. Prototyping can be @ rrugh and rapid act in the design thinking Pro- cess, rit ight be more precise—particularty iit tev pace later in the development process when the me and cost can be justified. Test Tesing is part of the iterative process that pro- vides feedback. The purpose of testing is to learn what works and what doesn't. Testing might take Pisce very early in a design task, pethaps to ex- ote the problem space defined earlier. It can ‘po take place much later, perhaps to evaluate a Models and Modeling Pe Motels wed hocety Desiring i an trate process tee bob te pcm and the Ideas for resolving the problem frequently eve tp- gether. Such a process depends on the integration of some mental cpa and some pyscal sa ently can bereled tas evel. The lam mudelercancases a ie argo ec tons. You maybe most aa th suse to deste evap, anew car the mst ent mad) or a5 2 nane forse men and women who dsl te ts fashion creations (fashion models). In design activity, the term model Can refer otee- dimensional anttns such as an architect's scale model ofa proposed building. The term can lore crvings ad kts ts case, hey ae singly to-dimersiorl made. (One thing Bese models nave conan at ey are simpleton of ety Te weather map we see night an ‘television is an example of helpful simply. This capacity for mots to smi ealty canbe very hen sn: ing, It can erable us to simply problems and ids so that ye cn Rein ork on tam ard cornice Wes. Some models have a primary function to communicate in- formation wile oer models ae used to expe, daelop | ot leot eas. a detailed design idea, Feedback leads to new un- derstanding, which in tun leads to new develon- ment. We refer to this cycing between stages as ‘iteration’, and it provides an effective means of improving ideas. improving your design thinking Following this six-stage model effectively requires some important design thinking skis. It requires ‘a mix of creative and analytical thinking. This sec- tion offers six key pointers for those who wish to combine design process with design thinkingprototyping playground, You pe in ‘bet. For example you yer wv you gat to WorK, HOW YOU Ar ote pw you Plan a Saturday night et a schedule anew project. You you es as prototypes, and You are rove the ways you live your ie tis beng @ sate of contrua crt can be a Posive and enpow- eo nproverent and faring. You rad exuberant learner, When you "you don't always Know exactly ar going or now yOu wil yOu get there, onfdent in your belle that you wil out 7 ere worth gong: AS the author War- 0 oe activities ing to imp ren Berger notes ay of seeing the world wilh an eye it To do that, you must be Design's aw towards changing ‘CHAPTER SUMMARY a to complex problems. 8 a design thinker, who will tel ‘AS You spproach the word there wil alvays be someone oe a ie the numbers don't add up, a and chang i just 0 risky, Portant, as the Queen in Lewis Carol's st Suggested, to believe in impossible things 2 yOu can amplify your inner voice to find the at equillrium between what is and what might be, «questioning the impossible is a vital foundation of design thinkin. 1 pesign thinking is an action approach to problem finding and problem solving. W's about doing as wel as thinking. Prototyping is core to doing. Design thinking is a process and a mindset. The skis of reframing problems and creatively generating and testing ideas underpin design thinking. Design thinking develops creative confidence. Design thinking is a way of addressing user needs, technological feast and commercial viability. + Design thinkers value ambiguity, assumptions, believe in the power of ‘embrace failure as a learning opportunity, challenge f empathy and prototype their ideas to test them,chapter 9 user-centred design barbara millet and patrick paterson ‘ABOUT THIS CHAPTER Products, whether in the home, at work or used on the go, have become increasingly complex. This complexity arises from significant advances in technological capabilities and from consumer ‘demands for richer feature sets along with higher expectations about product performance and usability. Consumers no longer accept struggiing to use a product. They protest, ‘This product just does not fee! right’, ‘I cannot remember all the steps needed to activate this function’, ‘The controls for this are awkward to use’ or ‘The newest update of my favourite software is confus- ing’. These types of statements suggest that design teams have failed to adequately consider the users during product development. This chapter explores usability and the user-centred design (UCD) process, providing examples of the techniques, investigations and evaluations needed to ensure better products. Various UCD methods will be outlined along with discussion of how to integrate findings into product design and development. usability As researchers, we seek to gather information that will support the creation of successful prod- Luts, such as vehicles, fonts, mobile devices, in- dustrial equipment, games or buildings. Usability “The benefits of developing usable products are increased user satisfaction, better performance and safety, fewer errors and training needs and, eventually, increased sales and corporate success.” is widely recognized as a critical ingredient for product success. The benefits of developing us- able products are increased user satisfaction, better performance and safety, fewer errors and training needs and, eventually, increased sales ‘and corporate success. So what is usability? Usability deals with maximizing user-product interaction by focusing on how well a product ‘matches user needs and expectations. itis a qual ity that makes a product effective, efficient and satisfying to use, Etfectiveness isthe accuracy and ‘completeness with which users achieve specific goals; efficiency is the conserving of resources needed to achieve those goals; and satisfaction Is comfort in, and positive attitudes towards, the Use of a product. The users of a product and their120 particular characterstics and the context of te tse (hati, the set of crourstances 9 which ect these three primary product is employed) a ements, You may hear he tn USE eXPOTENS applied to the development process. User experi- ce trequent refers tothe satstaction come went of usabity, encompassing quatiies Such AS enthtics and pleasure. In is chapter we tke ‘a vide view of usabity, incorporating User EXPT ‘ence as an important factor ‘The idea of usabilty is loosely based on able stating point for good design: the Principle avalu- cf Least Astonishment. Computer programmers “Te eld of agence koun as rua ase | neers) is the stemate sy of human capabiies, “miatons and requrements and the application of such oowiedge to desqn. The name comes fram the Greek ‘ergn easing werk, and noes, avs. Soi means, Het- ay the avs of work. This tile reflects the orgs of the arch, ich yin atapts oimproe te performance and otciency of industrial wrkers and mitary personel, throw ata, scenic inauty ito human neds and betaine ‘There are wo characters, reo, hat singuish ergonomics both rom ater professional design approaches and rom common sens. Fs, satsacton of rterant user requrements i the overidng criterion, and, second, the ‘aggroach i based on he aplication of scenic nul to {he problem of ascertaining human performance, abies and itatons Alot of ergonomics research is aimed at estabishing “ules, tarda oes ht can be apphed by desgn- “e3ina variety o tuations, Where this applies tothe physi se of pros, much of is based on measurements sites arabes The collection and apocaten of soon as, j design and designing and interface developers have used this tem fy many years. This principle stresses that the mo usable product is the one that suprises least often—that i, the design that is most oon, sistent with their expectations. However, iti, teresting to consider that features which users today might not astonish them in ten years ‘and those that do not astonish today may aston, ish in the future (one only has to Use @ product from the nineteenth century to See this at wo the user-centred design process “Today, developing better products requires wide- ranging information from people who use, or might use, the product and understanding the contets of use, UCD is @ muticiscipinary approach requ. ing expertise in a wide variety of areas. For some types of products, it can invoNe interaction de- sign, visual design, industrial design, human tec tors, hardware and software engineering, qulty assurance and marketing. Only by understanding the user and the context of use do we ensure thet characteristics of the product match the needs o the user. Achieving product usability necessarily requires a UCD approach The term user-centred design originated from seminal work by the leading cognitive scientist Donald Norman and. human-computer inerao: tion expert Stephen Draper in 1986.’ UCD is a9 known es human-centred design, customers trie design, and usability engineering. Regardless of its tile, the approach always reles cn user volvement during the design and develope have creuser-centred design teacing to a total user experience and which might incorporate anything the user interacts wth, The use ofthis process involves multiciscipinary fonts, As Vredenburg, sence and Righi put it 5] en approach to designing ease of use into the total user experience with products ‘and systems. It imoves. two fundamental ‘elements—mutidscipinary teamwork and a set of specialized methods of getting user input and ‘converting it into design * Many organizations now use UCD to create prod- ucts that better meet user expectations. The UCD process describes design and development in which end users influence the product design. It ensures that dasign and development etforts re- sult in usable products by focusing on usability ‘goals, product functions and user and environ- ‘mental characteristics ° ‘Traditional product design methods focus on technological capabilities, novel features and business goals. UCD focuses on satisfying user needs, overcoming the limits of traditional prod- uct design With UCD, users become central to product development, an involvement that nas led to more effective, eficient and safer products, ‘contributing to product acceptance and success. Table 9.1 highlights these differences between traditional and UCD product design approaches. Figure 9.1 shows the UCD model offered by the international Organization for Standardization (ISO 12407) The model consists of a fve-stage, systematic approach. The first stage involves Planning the process, stage two specifies the Context of use, stage three specifies user require- ‘ments, stage four produces design solutions and the final stage comprises evaluation, The model 131 encompasses the notion of iterative design. f the Product does not meet stated requirements, the Steps are repeated, starting at stage two. This enables designers and developers to incorporate user feedback, allowing them to incrementally re- fine the design until the product reaches an ac- Ceptable usability level. What is immediately clear fom the model is the user and the context of Product use are the major foci, ensuring delivery of usable products. Each stage in the UCD mode! ‘depends on properly selecting methods to gather Needed feedback from representative users. ‘Who Are the Users? As modem pos bere mare cote. wth ma no- fens aval heh the iteraca, many of her have Devore insasng conus to vers Carseqeny, a fence has gon oes hat he ds of roc nd ste ces re ver ceed But to athe wr? Tere are many diferent uses for every design. The Deon ho ty cars or comput cess eres, react Iwi sofware or vst exhibitors iter enamousy inte 92 alles and neds Then there arth pence who a> | | semble and mainiain desirs—they are users to, Many elder and dbl people carat cay cut—certany th [ies cy ge of ey ba fake for orate They ae faced o cone prods ma ited range that may ut tem and may hae oct hesehes to compensate for a produ ate deson to desta forthe ‘average use, we may oy ioty of he Ponda. fen mm ek: es forte exrene user example the lest or weakest. Designing to ele etesani UCD TO TRADITIONAL APPROACHES rane o1_COMP User-centred design ch @PProach eS ie Teetnoloy ven ‘component focus Limited mltisipinary cooperation Focus on intemal architecture No specalzatonn user experince Some competitive foeus Development before use evaluation Product defect ew of quality ited focus on user measurement Focus on cunt customers Solitons focus Multdiscipnary teamwork Focus on extemal designs Specialization in user experencg Focus on competion Develop ony use-alsted desig User view of quay Prime focus on user measurement Focus on curent and fture customer ‘Frank Vredenburg, nse, ard C Ah, Use cantre Desi An tegrated Acproach Prentice Hl, 2002) Stage 5. Evaluate designs, against requirements Meets requirements Figure 9.4 UCD model as detailed in iSO 13407, (Cooma ston, 340 Stage 3. Specify the user ‘and organisational requirements solutionsi" earcont ntred design methods yser-ce! it methods have proven useful in of the UCD process. These meth- be divided into two categories: design oe usability evaluation. In the follow- wa ae examine these two categories yy a the UCD methods frequently used = os ‘and in practice. UCD methods are used iteratively; they are not mutually ee can be adapted to accommodate rear goals. The methods presented re. and the development stages in see) are typically used, are presented in ae 92. wary each 1 gn research methods reer pra fred ns leading to concept exploration and ideation. The designreseerch stages stages 1 1 4 in Figure 9.1) gad to a better understanding of those who wall beusinga product and the context in which it wil be used. Design research requires effective data colection and can employ tracitional methods {e9. focus groups and interviews), ethnographic, 1898 allow the identilation of curent and ideal Dehavious which serve as inputs to the design, Ideation 1s fostered curing ths identitcation of ideal behaviours and the exploraton of design alternatives. Traditional design research methods These focus on what people say and thnk, cap- {ured through techniques such as interviews, focus groups and questionnaires. These meth. (00S provide insight into the ‘true user profie, usar ‘needs, and user preferences’. Below we intro- duce three tractional methods, 1. One-on-one user interviews pose ques- tions fo an indiiadual to find out what he (OF she thinks, feels, and expects. Inter: view sessions may be structured (tightly Guided), semistructured or unstructured (loosely outined). Sessions can range from fifteen minutes to an hour or more, Interviews are idea! for understanding Table 9.2 METHODS MAPPED TO UCD STAGES AND ACTIVITIES ‘Stages 1-3: Panning and requirements Stage 4: Design solutions ‘Stag 5: Evaluation eins Design research | Desig esearch and usbily eration _Usably eration evens v ¥ Feeus goups v 5 uestornares v Ethrograpry ” Panga v v : erg i134 What an individual thinks about 4 ‘PI without being influenced by others. 2. Focus groups are smal groups OY 1 formed people who are gathered 10 ad dress product research 's similar to a grou focus groups are orga! of up to twelve current oF fa structured discussion Traned prectiioner. These ess HP caly last one to two hous. Focus groups sre hell for gatherng muti POS of view na short period of.” 3. Questionnaires are instruments for collect ing daa by aking reprosertatve USES set of questions in & ‘spondents usually answer ontheir ow, ether online oF a paper for, Questionnares can Prove useful self-reported data, demographics ‘and information about ‘opinions and pref erences, The questions must be writen in a way to increase the reliability and va- lity of the findings. There are two types ‘of question formats: gen, when respon dents compose their own answers, and closed, when respondents select from. available responses. Questionnaires are usefi/ in collecting large amounts of data from @ trge popuation sample in a rela- tively short period of time. Ethnographic research This has its origins in anthropology but is now used extensively in product design initiatives. Eth- nographic research, also known as observational research, is the systematic study of behaviour, fo- cusing on what people do and how they behave sig ang Sa ™~ ‘environments Such as at hy work. Etnnographie research in desig, a yarn peal conducted gang Be Prgertend of tN2 ETS {3SKS ang vromttis used to define reqUTETERtS ang, Peagn ideas. EINTOGTADNC TESERIH i vay argons where TOSSES canna gat reat with end users—fOr &xample hte eechers ae attempting 10 Understand ip,” fenmation needs of ™ETGENCYOOM docigs rere ths teorique, the researcher dec drat observes U52°S 19 TNS error 4. does not necessarily interact with them, We Spservng the users, researchers make cag objective notes about what they see, tive to conduct observations Until they ha 3 good understanding of the focus areas. There are many variations of ethnographic. search, Three applied ethnographic approaces are outlined here intner nara 1, Feld ethnography. A person or group o people are observed by a researcher wt they go about their normal lives. The die: tion can range from one hour to seve! days or even weeks. Traditional field eh- nographies are ideal for use in the ety exploratory stages, when researchers at designers need to learn more about te people for whom they are designing 2. Video ethnography is the video recodra ‘of human behaviour. The video recors can be used to supplement field no or to record events without a research present. 3. Self-reporting technial direct observation fs not practical >= of cos, time or domain constraints. Moy ss ues are used Wluser-centred design self-reporting techniques exist, such as written dairies, visual storybooks and biogs.* In these approaches, the partic. pant engages in self-guided reporting. Participatory design This actively involves end users in the design pro- ‘cess to ensure the product designed meets their needs and is usable. in engaging in participatory design, designers and researchers value the in- | voliement of users, viewing them a5 co-creators | in the design process. Participatory design fo- ‘cuses on what people make * Below we introduce three participatory design tools, 1. Collage is a tool that allows users to com- municate experiences through sets of pictures and words, The researcher gives users the collage materials and a surface ‘on which to arrange them. Collage is ideal for giving nse to feelings and memories. 2. Card sorting (Plate 12) is a technique Used to understand how people organize information. It is conducted by present- ing participants with written or pictorial cards conveying product characteristics land then asking them to sort the cards in ‘a meaningful way. Card sorting allows re- ‘searchers to understand how users think about products. It can provide clues to how users perceive product features, en- abling designers to create better naviga- tion and operation. 3. Velero modeling (Figure 9.2) allows peo- ple to express their ideas through low- fidelity, three-dimensional constructions. ‘Such modeling enables users to cre- ate actual forms with simple modelling 195 Materials. This encourages creative ex- Pression solutions, Time must always be taken to learn about the intended user group. This often requires a Separate study to ensure your research design Matches human abilties and limits. Box 9.1 pro- vides an outine of how researchers set about ‘discovering and comparing characteristics of par- ticular user groups, in this case car drivers. Reflection on design research methods ‘The data colected through design research meth- ‘ods are frequently qualitative, Infact, withthe ex- ception of questionnaires, all the data collection ‘methods presented in this chapter are qualtatve. But no matter what type of data you create, its value depends on appropriate analysis, interpre tation and translation. Analysis of qualitative data usually entais examining, comparing and inter- preting patterns or themes. Data can be analysed and synthesized from muftiple angles, depending cn the particular research objectives. Transla~ tion is the merging of user insights and interac- tion principles into practical requirements that aid design. Translation tools promote the conversion of user data into insights and design criteria. The variety of design research methods are matched to diferent types of data that might be needed. However, all share several common characteris- tics and phases of data analysis, such as data reduction, data display, conclusion drawing and “No matter what type of data you create, its value depends on appropriate analysis, interpretation and translation.”138 verification. Regardless yethod used: fof the method Joss siting user datas 2 col STEP hat leads t0 ra design expiration. of desigr A key prince i tore designing a producti is rid to have ‘dear understanding of the target ety Pee research methods reveal USer needs ane nee roes though intrviows, user ODSErVUCTS AE creative activities that encourage users 10 expr ‘ thee movatons,fecings and undenVng SOF” cepts and beliefs | about the steps involved in procedures. The information gained with these methods then serves a5 input to the design. itis shiy with this understanding that prods can De designed to support user behaviours in a way that «will improve the user experience. Of course, not all design research methods are used in every de sign research initiative, but there are benefits from merging insights from multiple research meth- ‘ods,"° The relative importance of which design research methods to use will depend on specific design and product objectives. yy research is th Usability evaluation methods ‘Once design concepts materialize, researchers then focus on evaluating usability. Usability evalu- ations assess the degree to which users can op- erate a product, the efficiency of the product and ser satisfaction with the product. Usability evalu- ation methods (UEMSs) are the means for such as- sessments, making an important contribution in developing usable products. There are various UEMs available for evaluat- ing product usabilty. Some methods make use of data gathered from users, while others rely (on the judgements of usability experts. Different UEMs are applied, in an iterative fashion, through- Out the product development process, ranging ‘rom the frst low-fidelty design concepts through high-fidelity design prototypes. Testing through, cout the product development lite cycle that development teams achieve €25y-to-use, gg ficient, safe and effective products. Three of usabilty evaluation methods are Outineg inspection, inquiry and empirical testing, Inspection methods These are diagnostic techniques whereby use speciaits decte whether POSE JES dere, follow established usability standards ang In contrast to other UEMSs, inspection Stine conly on expert judgement. Inspecto ae used mainly during the prototype conse ‘objective of inspections is to find ae that need to be eliminated through redesign fe are three key inspection methods, 1. Guideline or standards reviews are evaluations of products to assess cory, ‘manos against a comprehensive soy ablity guidelines. Many detaied usa, guidelines exist in the fiterature,” Heuristic evaluation is used for findings ability problems in a product so they cn be addressed as part of aniteratve ssn Process. Heuristic evaluation invohes ing a small set of evaluators examin te user interface and judge its ‘compkanc: with recognized usability princjles (ie te heuristics). Heuristics have been est lished over many years of hunan-sjse interactive studies. For example lead'd Web usability consultant Jakob Nes ‘main heuristics include: © using simple and natural presets" © speaking the users language fal? than computer jargon)sercontred design «minimizing memory load on a user maintaining consistency within the design itself and with other similar applications «providing feedback to users’ actions «providing cleanly marked exits ‘© providing shortcuts for experienced users preventing errors «providing good error messages «providing adequate help and docu- mentation. 3. Expert review is similar to a heuristic evalu- ation, except that experienced. usability specialists conduct the review. These us- ablity experts may rely on explicit rules or ‘ot, and may be provided with usage sce- ratios. In this tachnique, the experts usu- aly work alone, although aggregating the problems identified across the evaluators Usually leads to @ higher proportion of us- abiliy problems detected." Inquiry methods Researchers gather information about user likes, dislikes, needs and understanding of the prod- ct by taking to them, observing them using the product or having them answer questions in wit- ten form or verbally. Inquiry methods include focus Groups, interviews, field observations and ques- tlonnaires. Because we have already introduced most of these methods in the preceding sections, here we focus on three representative question- rae often used in product development to. get {ualtatve and subjective feedback from users. 1. NASA Task Load index, developed by Hart and Staveland, ‘is a subjective workload 139 ‘assessment tool using six dimensions to ‘assess mental workload: mental demand, Physical demand, temporal demand, per- formance, effort and frustration. The ques- tionnaire uses twenty bipolar scales to ‘obtain ratings for each dimension. 2. Situational Awareness Rating Technique (SART), developed by Taylor, provides ‘an assessment of the situational aware- Ness provided by a product based on user pinion. The SART instrument has four- ‘een components. 3. Post-Study System Usability Question- naire (PSSUQ) is a sixteen-item standard- ized usability instrument, comprised of three subscales (aystem usefulness, infor- ‘mation quality and interface quaity), used ‘8 a product evaluation tool. The PSSUQ is typically used in combination with user testing and is administered at the end of the study. Empirical methods Empirical methods encompass observing and learning from users as they work with a product before, during and after the design and develop- ‘ment process. In this section, we examine two ‘empirical methods. 1. User testing is possibly the most important method for evaluating products and is consid- ered by many as the gold standard to which all other UEMs are compared. It is a research tool that originates from well-established experimen- tal methods, where the main objective in con- ducting @ user test was to discover whether the product elicits the necessary human perfor- ‘mance to meet the requirements established for it, When defects or problems are discovered,140 fine the design. User ted in a laboratory oF ctely. Ina typical lab-based user test {o0e Figure 9.4), an evaluator observes represen” form a series of tasks using an cation or prototype. The evaluator and one ‘opportunities arise t0 testing may be conduct done rem tative users por cor more observers in the same or adjacent room record the time It takes the users to complete each task, whether the users were successful ‘and any important comments or problems. This information is then used to develop a list of us- abllty problems in the application or prototype. Remote user testing techniques are also aval- able for extending user testing beyond the lab. Remote user testing techniques use the same basic methods as lab-based tests, but the test users are jn geographically diferent locations. Figure 9.4 En, i testing ina laborangn (Copyright autnon ‘The evaluator and observer(s) may or may ng, watch the tests in real time. There are two types of user tests: forma ‘and summative. In formative user tests, the go is to reveal any potential usability problems or detects) with the product before it gets release. These tests are conducted throughout the pes uct development cycle to guide design. Sunme tive tests focus on measuring and validating te usabilty of a product and are conducted at o near the end of product development. Sune tive tests can be used for hypothesis testing a single design or competitive testing between similar products, There are various types of user tests wise methods are similar, However, they each hae