Generation Y Interactions

A graduation student is wanted from the DFI (designing for interaction) program to work at Exact.

2012-03-10T02:53:00.003+01:00

http://www.linkedin.com/share?viewLink=&sid=s951636998&url=http%3A%2F%2Flnkd%2Ein%2F_V8vxM&urlhash=5i5l&uid=5584062172121538560&trk=NUS_UNIU_SHARE-lnk

Title of the Graduation Project:

The “New” Bookkeeping: Applying Generation Y Interactions into an Office Context

Starting Date:

Beginning of April 2012

Introduction:

A new workforce named Generation Y (born between 1980-2000) is currently entering the job market. Being the first generation of digital natives, they grew up with highly interactive tools, applications and technologies, such as mobile phones, mp3 players and multi-touch tablets. This generation has grown accustomed to new, more expressive and natural ways of interacting with their tools (e.g. shake an iPhone to shuffle songs) in the private context of their home or friends. In the more public work context, however, the richer ways of interacting that these new technologies offer, do not seem to be supported yet. As a consequence, most of the interactions with office applications and tools are still done through the ubiquitous, almost 40-year old, set-up of keyboard, display and mouse. Therefore, a design challenge presents itself in bringing these new Generation Y type of interactions into the work context.

This project is affiliated with Wei Liu’s PhD project on “Supporting Generation Y Interactions in Office Work”, which is a collaboration between the ID-StudioLab and Exact. Exact (exact.com) is a business software developer located in Delft. Research done so far on interaction qualities and design guidelines will guide the student to start this graduation project.

Problem Definition:

In current office contexts, traditional ways of interacting with tools still dominate how Generation Y is conducting their work, i.e. calling a colleague urgently without knowing his/her availability at the moment. One of these contexts is bookkeeping in small and medium sized enterprises (SME), which are the target customers of Exact. In these SME’s, Exact Online, a web-based accounting application, is used to do bookkeeping in collaboration between entrepreneurs and their accountants. Usually one accountant provides service to multiple entrepreneurs, especially to the zzp’er (one man company). Opposite to the rich interactions that these entrepreneurs experience in the home context, the bookkeeping activity is often performed following the rigid structure of the traditional office tools. To improve this situation, novel, Generation Y interaction styles need to be introduced to the act of bookkeeping.

Assignment:

The goal of this project is to explore, design and integrate novel, Generation Y interaction styles within the context of bookkeeping for SME’s. The target users are entrepreneurs and their accountants. Research on the existing bookkeeping procedures and the roles of and communication between entrepreneur and accountants needs to be conducted to map the current context. Following this research, future scenarios of use will be developed, based on which design concepts will be generated. One concept will be worked out into a prototype or simulation.

Results:

A prototype or simulation
A final report
A1 poster
An oral presentation

Planning:

Note: The student should fill in this section.

Ten principles that contribute to a Googley user experience

2012-01-12T09:40:00.002+01:00

http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/ux.html

Focus on people–their lives, their work, their dreams.

The Google User Experience team works to discover people‘s actual needs, including needs they can‘t always articulate. Armed with that information, Google can create products that solve real-world problems and spark the creativity of all kinds of people. Improving people‘s lives, not just easing step-by-step tasks, is our goal.

Above all, a well-designed Google product is useful in daily life. It doesn‘t try to impress users with its whizbang technology or visual style – though it might have both. It doesn‘t strong-arm people to use features they don‘t want – but it does provide a natural growth path for those who are interested. It doesn‘t intrude on people‘s lives – but it does open doors for users who want to explore the world‘s information, work more quickly and creatively, and share ideas with their friends or the world.
Every millisecond counts.

Nothing is more valuable than people‘s time. Google pages load quickly, thanks to slim code and carefully selected image files. The most essential features and text are placed in the easiest-to-find locations. Unnecessary clicks, typing, steps, and other actions are eliminated. Google products ask for information only once and include smart defaults. Tasks are streamlined.

Speed is a boon to users. It is also a competitive advantage that Google doesn‘t sacrifice without good reason.
Simplicity is powerful.

Simplicity fuels many elements of good design, including ease of use, speed, visual appeal, and accessibility. But simplicity starts with the design of a product‘s fundamental functions. Google doesn‘t set out to create feature-rich products; our best designs include only the features that people need to accomplish their goals. Ideally, even products that require large feature sets and complex visual designs appear to be simple as well as powerful.

Google teams think twice before sacrificing simplicity in pursuit of a less important feature. Our hope is to evolve products in new directions instead of just adding more features.
Engage beginners and attract experts.

Designing for many people doesn‘t mean designing for the lowest common denominator. The best Google designs appear quite simple on the surface but include powerful features that are easily accessible to those users who want them. Our intent is to invite beginners with a great initial experience while also attracting power users whose excitement and expertise will draw others to the product.

A well-designed Google product lets new users jump in, offers help when necessary, and ensures that users can make simple and intuitive use of the product‘s most valuable features. Progressive disclosure of advanced features encourages people to expand their usage of the product. Whenever appropriate, Google offers smart features that entice people with complex online lives – for instance, people who share data across several devices and computers, work online and off, and crave storage space.
Dare to innovate.

Design consistency builds a trusted foundation for Google products, makes users comfortable, and speeds their work. But it is the element of imagination that transforms designs from ho-hum to delightful.

Google encourages innovative, risk-taking designs whenever they serve the needs of users. Our teams encourage new ideas to come out and play. Instead of just matching the features of existing products, Google wants to change the game.
Design for the world.

The World Wide Web has opened all the resources of the Internet to people everywhere. For example, many users are exploring Google products while strolling with a mobile device, not sitting at a desk with a personal computer. Our goal is to design products that are contextually relevant and available through the medium and methods that make sense to users. Google supports slower connections and older browsers when possible, and Google allows people to choose how they view information (screen size, font size) and how they enter information (smart query parsing). The User Experience team researches the fundamental differences in user experiences throughout the world and works to design the right products for each audience, device, and culture. Simple translation, or “graceful degradation” of a feature set, isn‘t sufficient to meet people‘s needs.

Google is also committed to improving the accessibility of its products. Our desire for simple and inclusive products, and Google‘s mission to make the world‘s information universally accessible, demand products that support assistive technologies and provide a useful and enjoyable experience for everyone, including those with physical and cognitive limitations.
Plan for today‘s and tomorrow‘s business.

Those Google products that make money strive to do so in a way that is helpful to users. To reach that lofty goal, designers work with product teams to ensure that business considerations integrate seamlessly with the goals of users. Teams work to make sure ads are relevant, useful, and clearly identifiable as ads. Google also takes care to protect the interests of advertisers and others who depend on Google for their livelihood.

Google never tries to increase revenue from a product if it would mean reducing the number of Google users in the future. If a profitable design doesn‘t please users, it‘s time to go back to the drawing board. Not every product has to make money, and none should be bad for business.
Delight the eye without distracting the mind.

If people looked at a Google product and said ”Wow, that‘s beautiful!” the User Experience team would cheer. A positive first impression makes users comfortable, assures them that the product is reliable and professional, and encourages people to make the product their own.

A minimalist aesthetic makes sense for most Google products because a clean, clutter-free design loads quickly and doesn‘t distract users from their goals. Visually appealing images, color, and fonts are balanced against the needs for speed, scannable text, and easy navigation. Still, ”simple elegance” is not the best fit for every product. Audience and cultural context matter. A Google product‘s visual design should please its users and improve usability for them.
Be worthy of people‘s trust.

Good design can go a long way to earn the trust of the people who use Google products. Establishing Google‘s reliability starts with the basics – for example, making sure the interface is efficient and professional, actions are easily reversed, ads are clearly identified, terminology is consistent, and users are never unhappily surprised. In addition, Google products open themselves to the world by including links to competitors and encouraging user contributions such as community maps or iGoogle gadgets.

A greater challenge is to make sure that Google demonstrates respect for users‘ right to control their own data. Google is transparent about how it uses information and how that information is shared with others (if at all), so that users can make informed choices. Our products warn users about such dangers as insecure connections, actions that may make users vulnerable to spam, or the possibility that data shared outside Google may be stored elsewhere. The larger Google becomes, the more essential it is to live up to our “Don‘t be evil” motto.
Add a human touch.

Google includes a wide range of personalities, and our designs have personality, too. Text and design elements are friendly, quirky, and smart – and not boring, close-minded, or arrogant. Google text talks directly to people and offers the same practical, informal assistance that anyone would offer to a neighbor who asked a question. And Google doesn‘t let fun or personality interfere with other elements of a design, especially when people‘s livelihood, or their ability to find vital information, is at stake.

Google doesn‘t know everything, and no design is perfect. Our products ask for feedback, and Google acts on that feedback. When practicing these design principles, the Google User Experience team seeks the best possible balance in the time available for each product. Then the cycle of iteration, innovation, and improvement continues.

Ranking of HCI conferences based on average citations per paper during the last 10 years.

2011-11-24T10:02:00.001+01:00

http://oulasvirta.posterous.com/81433178

Rank	Conference	Publications	Citations	Citations/paper
1	UIST - User Interface Software and Technology	390	8145	20.88461538
2	ECSCW - European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work	104	1892	18.19230769
3	UbiComp(HUC) - Ubiquitous Computing/Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing	408	7184	17.60784314
4	CSCW - Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work	475	6407	13.48842105
5	ISWC - International Symposium on Wearable Computers	260	2770	10.65384615
6	DIS - Designing Interactive Systems	289	2526	8.740484429
7	CHI - Computer Human Interaction	5224	43789	8.382274119
8	GROUP - International Conference on Supporting Group Work	309	2577	8.339805825
9	IUI - Intelligent User Interfaces	810	6609	8.159259259
10	IDC - Interaction Design And Children	114	909	7.973684211
11	ICMI - Int. Conf. on Multimodal Interfaces	515	3691	7.166990291
12	MLMI - Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction	175	1191	6.805714286
13	ICAD - International Conference on Auditory Display	239	1621	6.782426778
14	NIME - New Interfaces for Musical Expression	367	2351	6.40599455
15	UM - User Modeling	377	2375	6.299734748
16	AUIC - Australasian User Interface Conference	103	645	6.262135922
17	DSV-IS - Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems	144	856	5.944444444
18	AVI - Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces	410	2379	5.802439024
19	ETRA - Eye Tracking Research & Application	212	1211	5.712264151
20	GW - Gesture Workshop	194	903	4.654639175
21	ASSETS - ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies	450	2083	4.628888889
22	Mobile HCI - Mobile HCI	781	3564	4.563380282
23	NORDICHI - Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction	441	1960	4.444444444
24	RO-MAN - IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication	259	1076	4.154440154
25	ICCM - International Conference on Cognitive Modelling	130	538	4.138461538
26	TAMODIA - Task Models and Diagrams for User Interface Design	164	604	3.682926829
27	PDC - Participatory Design	185	680	3.675675676
28	INTERACT - IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction	772	2766	3.582901554
29	W4A - Workshop on Web Accessibility	191	670	3.507853403
30	DIGRA - Conference of the Digital Games Research Association	349	1153	3.303724928
31	ACII - Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction	225	736	3.271111111
32	Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems	862	2724	3.160092807
33	CISS - Conference on Information Sciences and Systems	905	2583	2.854143646
34	PERSUASIVE - Persuasive Technology	180	504	2.8
35	International conference on tangible and embedded interaction	366	948	2.590163934
36	SIGDOC - ACM Special Interest Group for Design of Communication	388	912	2.350515464
37	ACMACE - Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology	581	1314	2.2616179
38	CANDC - Creativity & Cognition	278	572	2.057553957
39	OZCHI - Australasian Computer-Human Interaction Conference	448	907	2.024553571
40	ICEC - International Workshop on Entertainment Computing	521	831	1.595009597
41	BCS HCI Conference	292	443	1.517123288
42	C5 - Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing	203	289	1.42364532
43	ICCHP - International Conference on Computers for Handicapped Persons	921	1285	1.395222584
44	APCHI - Asia-Pacific Computer and Human Interaction	135	176	1.303703704
45	USAB - Usability Symposium	189	220	1.164021164
46	HCI - Human-Computer Interaction	3462	4004	1.156556904
47	DIMEA - International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts	135	156	1.155555556
48	Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik	266	245	0.921052632
49	MVA - Machine Vision Applications	439	403	0.917995444
50	Mensch & Computer	338	304	0.899408284

My 2 ACM Papers

2011-11-21T14:26:00.002+01:00

Exhibition: Course Results of Interactive Technology Design

2011-06-15T09:10:00.000+02:00

Wednesday June 29th from 14:00-18:00, the Faculty of Industrial Design invites you to browse and interact with 19 interactive installations developed by students during the Interactive Technology Design course. The exhibition is setup in an open house style event so you can drop in any time between 14:00 and 18:00.

The students worked on seven design assignments:
o) Design a human powered environment sensor for Faculty Industrial Design
o) Happiness Machines – research project initiated by Pieter Desmet
o) Design an interactive device to support experience sampling – research project initiated by Natalia Romero Herrera and Martijn Vastenburg
o) Generation Y Interactions – research project initiated by Wei Liu
o) Design an interactive installation to improve safety of ATM machines for NCR
o) Interactive exercise machine – research project initiated by Daniel Saakes
o) Tools for designing interactive product concepts – research project initiated by Walter Aprile and Aadjan van der Helm

We will be delighted to see you in the Faculty of Industrial Design, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft

Interactive Technology Design (ITD) - The NutCracking Iteration

2011-05-12T15:35:00.000+02:00

The aim of this iteration is to further develop the concept to a mature level. Mentors and students evaluate the result of the standalone prototype (keep the good stuff) and incorporate the acquired insights from visiting the context (in the excursion). The experiential prototypes should show what the hardest technological problems will be and demonstrate students' skills to master that technology. We choose to crack the toughest nut first so that, later, students will be able to work on refining the interactions.

In the morning there were presentation rehearsals - students receive feedback on their movie/demonstration skills. At the end of the day the nutcracking presentations were staged.

Presentation Format (max 5 minutes):

o) students show videos (explain the concept, show bits of your process)

o) students demonstrate the concept with prototypes

o) students receive feedback from mentors and other student groups

Hermès - Group 1

This student group made a communicational tool for Generation Y. This tool allows Generation Y to physically send ‘cryptic’ messages to each other instead of always using their digital devices, and to forget their digital screens and play with information technology.

The tool enables colleagues to send each other a compliment. It is for colleagues to show appreciation to each other. By blowing against the product, the fan inside of the product starts inflating the tube and because the wind, a tube will rise out of this box. By blowing a longer time, you can increase the height of this tube. The higher the tube pops out, the bigger your compliment/appreciation toward the receiver is. By pushing the tube back into the box, the sender will send this compliment to his/her colleague. He or she will notice that out of his/her box a tube pops out and the compliment will be received. The receiver pushes the tube back in to the box after they received the message. The sender will receive a small notification by the tube gently pulsating up and down once the message has been received.

DropBall - Group 2

DropBall is an explorative concept for fun and easy file transfers. With these services becoming more and more common also the boringness of such actions increases. Dropball tries to implement positive generation Y interactions such as instant and playfulness into modern office environments.

With DropBall users can transfer files by throwing a physical and not unknown object: a stress ball. Colleagues are able to share digital files and links on this ball through an easy user interface. A squeeze in the ball triggers a desktop application to pop up and while squeezing the ball the user can drag and drop files and links into the digital representation of the ball. Now the fun starts. Pick out a colleague you would like to share it with, and throw the ball!

Once received, co-worker will only have to squeeze the ball to make the files instantly appear on screen and clear the ball of all data ready for next use.

Technology Description: The DropBall makes ingenious use of RFID technology to trigger the proximity reading of the ball. To keep the ball’s technology as passive and low powered as possible this relatively simple technology has been chosen to use; since it needs to be able to withstand some throwing around. The low powered circuit in the ball activates once the user is squeezing the ball by applying simple parallel switches conveniently located inside the ball, the ball’s RFID chip activates the circuit and makes sure its recognizable by the RFID reader next to the user’s computer. The user interface used in the prototype is made in max-msp, which is perfectly able to cope with graphical oriented user input. A file containing locations of the files and links shared is automatically generated when the user drags and drops them into the virtual ball. This executable file is automatically uploaded to a dedicated network storage point, from which the receiving user’s computer automatically executes the file’s launch sequence upon reading the ball.

Permission Lamp - Group 3

The concept is a Permission Lamp! It's basically a desk lamp that informs the user when someone is trying to alter a file that is created initially by the user (Dropbox, etc.). When this happens the light shines green-blueish in the face; interrupting him. The user can respond in three ways:

1. Postponing the interruption by pushing the shade of the lamp away; making the light dim less green-blueish. After a while the shade turns back to the user's face, saying that it still needs his attention. (Tilt switch that detects motion).

2. Rejecting the question by pushing the shade of the lamp down to the table; making the light turn red first then turns off. Returning after a while back to a neutral green-blueish colour in a neutral position. (LDR sensor to detect absence of light).

3. Accepting the question by stroking / petting the shade of the lamp; light turns green and drops the shade (head) submissively. Later turning back with a neutral green-blueish colour in a neutral position. (Flex sensor that detects bending forward).

Interactive Technology Design (ITD) - Standalone Prototypes

2011-03-11T18:00:00.007+01:00

In the standalone iteration students are asked to make a prototype of their solution that exhibits a measure of autonomous behaviour, described as “doing, on its own and under software control, something fundamental to its intended interaction with the user”. Since the iteration lasts only three weeks (which means three days of ITD work) the tutors do not expect any depth of concept development. The tutors also encourage students to use the Wizard of Oz technique for some parts of the prototype behavior.

Sensor Chair - Group 1

The students developed a concept that shows a person's presence and availability at the office as feedback to colleagues. The Sensor chair knows if a person is sitting on it by means of a force sensor, which is the input of the interactive system. Green (present) and red (absent) LEDs function as outputs. In our next prototype, we will be able to incorporate more sensors, like accelerometers or temperature sensors. Furthermore, they will work on a more expressive output of the system. The user can control his availability status, by performing common/intuitive actions to show people can or cannot approach you.

Live Poke - Group 2
Imagine that you are in an office space and you want to contact a colleague who is somewhere else inside the buiding. In this concept you have a little avatar of him/her on your desk which you can poke fysically. After you do this the other persons avatar of you will start drawing the attention of your colleague. In this scenario there are three different actions which your colleague can perform:

1: Accept the attention - By simply poking the avatar back a video chat screen will appear and an instant connection is made.

2: Reject the attention - The colleague can reject the call by pushing the head downward, so the attention hungry avatar is in a bend over position

3: If he/she is not available - When the call is not answered or rejected after some time, the avatar stops drawing attention and stands with on arm raised until it is poked or rejected again.

After presenting the results the students found out that this process was a little bit to complex and that the interaction of poking is just a little bit to vague. Over the coming weeks they will try to make it better.

Interactive Coffee Cup - Group 3
The concept is a coffee cup with the game to relax people’s wrist. At the beginning, the light for the coffee cup flickers and announces the game. Each person has 30 seconds to turn the cup upside down to enter the game. After 30 seconds, the light counts down: 3, 2, 1. Then people begin to shake coffee cup. Anyone finishing 30 circles firstly will be the winner. This game helps to prevent Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) for workers who use computers for the whole day and inspire team with wrist exercise.

The CSCW2011 Paper - Supporting Generation Y Interactions: Challenges for Office Work

2011-03-09T09:43:00.005+01:00

Our paper of "Supporting Generation Y Interactions: Challenges for Office Work" will be published in the 2011 ACM Conference on CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work), March 19–23, 2011, Hangzhou, China.

http://www.cscw2011.org/

Authors

Wei Liu, Pieter Jan Stappers, Gert Pasman, Jenneke Taal-Fokker

Abstract

With Generation Y entering the workforce, for the first time IT supported tools at home are more advanced than these tools at work. This project aims to understand and model this friction and its challenges through a sequence of literature review and interviews. We identified six qualities of interactions and how they occur in private and work contexts. Based on these findings, we aim to develop guidelines as well as demonstrators that support Generation Y interactions in future office work.

Keywords

Generation Y, Interaction Quality, Office Work

ACM Classification Keywords

H.1.2 User/Machine Systems: Human factors

Poster

http://www.cscw2011.org/

Demonstrating Generation Y Interactions

2011-03-07T16:40:00.014+01:00

Building demonstrations was a research activity followed understanding Generation Y. This research aimed to understand how to map interaction quality (instant, expressive, and playful) in order to develop new tools and applications that support office work. The hypothesis and expectations were the proper demonstration of interaction quality can positively influence and guide the development of Generation Y interactions. The criteria for evaluating a successful demonstration was how well they represented the interaction quality and could affect future ways of working.

30 students at Beijing University of Technology were involved in December 2010. Instant, expressive, and playful were selected as the key interaction quality to demonstrate, because they were the top-3 prioritized ones listed in our research and found to be the most understandable ones by the students. Each student group focused on at least one interaction quality, created a specific scenario in office work context, and explored how this quality can stimulate new ways of working. The demonstration aimed to develop experiential and inspirational interfaces. Below are some examples:

FLY 2 U

The Fly 2 U is a physical interface that assists office workers to find and communicate with their colleagues. User A blows air to the device to activate it, points it towards user B to light and vibrate his/her corresponding device immediately. User B gets notified and may walk to user A to have a chat without interrupting other colleagues.

SNOW TREE

The SnowTree is an interactive tool that can make the office work to a quantified standard. According to the frequency of user’s typing and clicks on their keyboard, a number of flakes will be generated and kept remained on the “tree” to indicate workload.

iContainer
The iContainer aims to help Generation Y form good habit of organizing stuff (i.e. stationary) on desks in office. For example, when bringing a key towards the box, the corresponding container will light. When putting the key in a wrong container, a fault sound will be played.

TIMER
The Timer is an interface that represents the countdown metaphor. It helps office workers input a to do list, set time to countdown, and get notified. Swiping, scrolling, and rubbing are the expressive actions in this demonstration.

iTree
Leaves on the tree will fall down to indicate an incoming event.

iFinder
LED lights point the directions to find the missing objects (e.g., stationary) in office.

iCushion
Depression relieving.

Time Planner
Setting time/events by scrolling wheels.

A Video for Understanding Young Generation Y

2011-02-25T15:43:00.000+01:00

ITD 2011 Hacking Workshop - Group 2

2011-02-21T10:37:00.001+01:00

The concept Simon Showdown is about changing the context of the traditional Simon Says game into something that is more formiliar to Generation Y. This generation is raised in a world where computer games can be played with friends, online or thru a network. This gave the students an idea. Why not make Simon into a multiplayer game? The result is a game integrated into a Playstation controller that can be operated by two players. The one who can keep up the suggested gestures wins the game!

ITD 2011 Hacking Workshop - Group 1

2011-02-21T09:50:00.001+01:00

Using a couple of LED’s and some old and playful instruments, the group has designed a playful multiplayer version of Simon says. In a working environment, the new generation should be able to use new ways of interacting through technology flawlessly. If one department, colleague or person within the company fails to understand, the whole system will not work. For this renewed version of Simon says, the same principle applies. All the colleagues can see the main control/function board, but can only operate 1 trigger. The colleagues will need to cooperate in order to be (more) successful. Interaction qualities like, playful, instant and expressive are meant to be incorporated in the game.

ITD 2011 Hacking Workshop - Group 3

2011-02-16T09:42:00.001+01:00

The concept is a kit ball chair for office workers. The idea came from hand fitball and fitball. After a long time sitting on the chair and facing computer, people needed gentle sports to exercise their muscles of waist. In this prototype, a user moves the chair ball with hip and play the game as exercise. Four pressure sensors were chosen and placed on four points of the ball. When the ball moves forward or backward, the sensors are pressed. The resembled buttons being touched in SIMON GAMES. The students took old devices apart, made connection and did soldering.

Design Brief for ITD 2011 - Generation Y Interactions

2011-02-14T13:22:00.003+01:00

This project aims at exploring and supporting Generation Y Interactions. Being the first generation of digital natives, Generation Y (born between 1978-1994) grew up with hi-tech equipment, such as mobile phones and wireless Internet, in their private domains. In their office work, however, the rich interactions that these new technologies offer are hardly supported. To improve the fit, each student group should focus on one interaction quality (instant, expressive, playful), create a specific scenario in office work context, and explore how this quality can stimulate new ways of working. The design should aim to develop experiential and inspirational tangible interfaces (on desktop scale). Research done so far will guide students to quickly conduct design activities. Besides the final deliverables in the end of the course, one conference paper on the findings will be produced and submitted.

ITD 2011 Has Begun

2011-02-14T13:16:00.005+01:00

Interactive Technology Design (ID4220 6 ECTS) is a course in the DFI master programat the Industrial Design Faculty of the Delft University of Technology.

Supervisory staff: Aadjan van der Helm, Walter Aprile

I am involved in ITD as a design mentor. I proposed a design brief and lead 15 students to explore Generation Y ways of working this time.

In the mid 1980s we saw the emergence of the field of human computer interaction, including workstations with graphical user interfaces and color reprographic systems. By the 1990s the integration of modalities of interaction such as touch, graphics, auditory feedback, speech synthesis, and speech recognition, became technically feasible. The development of new design methods, input devices, rapid prototyping tools, and multimodal interaction styles opened up a new world of interaction design possibilities. More recently we have begun to see the migration of human-computer interaction technology towards physical products and in ambient environments. New wireless technologies and high-band width communication networks have created possibilities for context aware and personal mobile and in-home products. Developments in local storage devices , materials, sensors and actuators, and dialogue management technologies supported by user modeling, have further opened up new doors in designing for interaction.

The course, aims to equip graduate students with design theory while gaining practical experience in the development of products which utilize potentials of embedded technology in products in terms of enriching the user experience.

Research Through Design - iPhone and iPad in a BMW

2010-12-06T10:10:00.000+01:00

ITD Prototype 3

2010-11-15T10:47:00.000+01:00

ITD Prototype 3 - Students designed the ‘Message in A Bottle’, a long table for the lunch area in the Exact building that brings people together and encourages them to communicate with each other. (instant communication, social connection)

ITD Prototype 2

2010-11-15T10:46:00.002+01:00

Prototype 2 - Students designed the ‘Spyglass’ as a mediator between Exact and their visitors and employees, who can experience the Exact building with augmented reality. It breaks the reality into a second layer of information, which people can interact with. (multi-tasking, Internet usage, content creation)

ITD Prototype 1

2010-11-15T10:45:00.000+01:00

ITD Prototype 1 - Inspired by the Exact’s philosophy of “being part of a family”, students designed an interactive video installation that aims at introducing the corporate identity of the company in a natural, collaborative, and innovative way by the people who work at Exact. (direct feedback, visual communication,guestual interaction)

Prototyping Interactions – Mentoring the ITD Course

2010-11-15T10:43:00.000+01:00

Goal:

The goal of this activity was to learn prototyping knowledge, to guide students to explore new user interactions, and to gain teaching experience through mentoring the Interactive Technology Design (ITD) course. The development of new design methods, input devices, rapid prototyping tools, and multimodal interaction styles opened up a new world of interaction design possibilities. The course aims at equipping graduate students with design theory and practical skills in the development of embedded technology in products in terms of enriching the user experience.

Set-Up:

Interactive Technology Design (ID4220, 6 ECTS) is a course in the Design for Interactions (DFI) master program at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of Technology. I was involved as a mentor in Spring, 2010. I mentored 15 students who worked on a design brief from Exact, which aimed at communicating Exact’s corporate identity by a number of interactive installations/prototypes. During this course, I learnt programmable toolkit for building interactive prototypes and practiced rapid prototyping skills with students. I actively provided feedbacks and suggestions for students’ work along the way. To have their work relevant to my research, I provided them with my research results so far and steered them to explore the future ways of interacting. I expect to acquire a design brief directly relevant to my research and help mentor the ITD course again next year, in order to further explore ‘Generation Y’ interactions by prototyping.

Results:

Prototype 1 - Inspired by the Exact’s philosophy of “being part of a family”, students designed an interactive video installation that aims at introducing the corporate identity of the company in a natural, collaborative, and innovative way by the people who work at Exact. (direct feedback, visual communication,guestual interaction)

Prototype 2 - Students designed the ‘Spyglass’ as a mediator between Exact and their visitors and employees, who can experience the Exact building with augmented reality. It breaks the reality into a second layer of information, which people can interact with. (multi-tasking, Internet usage, content creation)

Prototype 3 - Students designed the ‘Message in A Bottle’, a long table for the lunch area in the Exact building that brings people together and encourages them to communicate with each other. (instant communication, social connection)

My Research Framework

2010-11-05T15:34:00.005+01:00

The figure above shows my research framework, which distinguishes three major components: Generation Y (people), information technology (IT), and work context. On the intersections of these three components lie the interactions we try to understand. Literature research provided us with and overview of current knowledge, trends, and the state-of-the-art for each component, but also revealed that not much has been published on the intersections. Therefore, in a series of interviews at four companies, I tried to gain insights into the frictions at these intersections. In further studies we intend, mainly through prototyping and case studies, to fill in the gaps of understanding of these intersections, and ultimately to come to guidelines for supporting Generation Y interactions in office work situations.

User Friendly 2010 - Embracing Asian Culture

2010-11-05T15:04:00.007+01:00

User Friendly2010, the seventh UX conference of China, will be held in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China, from Nov 12th, 2010 to Nov 14th,2010.

The theme for this conference is “Embracing Asian Culture”. Asian culture, as the important part of world culture, has deeply influenced human society. User experience research and design are originally the research and redesign towards regional cultures.

For more information, please visit the User Friendly 2010 official website at
http://www.upachina.org/userfriendly2010

Pressing All the Right Buttons

2010-08-19T13:40:00.000+02:00

This article by Marek Pawlowski, founder of MEX, asks whether there is still a place for physical buttons and controls as more manufacturers follow the path towards generic, touch-based slates where the interaction layer is abstracted into software.

Touch interfaces are proliferating, but there are still instances where the tactile satisfaction of a physical button delivers a better user experience. As the trend towards interfaces defined primarily in software and touch accelerates, the mobile industry should consider where in the design process it makes sense to invest in ‘real’ controls.

Buttons reward us. They invite us to interact by broadcasting their function and then satisfy our tactile cravings by providing a distinct response. It speaks to our innate human desire to find useful tools with which to influence our surroundings.

There are certain tactile responses which, at a subconscious level, we find extremely satisfying. For instance, most adults still dissolve into a child-like state of fascination when presented with a sheet of bubble wrap to ‘pop’. I personally find an inexplicable joy in the rotary movement of the volume control on my car’s sound system and the solid, metallic dial which controls the suspension lock-out on my bike.

The level of satisfaction created by these controls is determined by a combination of factors:

How effectively the control achieves the desired result. The speed and ease with which it allows us to create change is directly proportional to how connected we feel to the experience.
The continuous feedback it provides while in use. A rotary dial which spins freely without any ‘feeling’ is not nearly as satisfying as one which has intermediate ‘clicks’ or continuous resistance feedback.
Whether we can determine the state of a control at-a-glance. A button which stays depressed when in use or a rotary dial with printed stage indicators allows us to start our next interaction with fore-knowledge of how we need to manipulate it.
Ease of manipulation in proportion to its importance. Jog wheels used repeatedly for relatively inconsequential actions like scrolling should be much easier to manipulate than, say, a power or reset button where the user would never want to press it by accident.

Touchscreens offer almost unlimited scope for interface customisation, but they are, in essence, designed for direct manipulation: cause + result. You touch your finger to a sound slider icon (cause) and drag to increase the volume (result).

In contrast, physical controls provide an additional layer where the user experience may be enriched: the interaction flow becomes cause + effect + result. You twist the sound dial (cause), you feel the resistance (effect) and the volume increases (result). If correctly implemented, the effect layer can help to differentiate products and become a valuable part of the experience.

The real challenge is in knowing where in the product design such an approach is appropriate and how to make best use of the constrained bill of materials budget to achieve results.

A few scenarios where physical controls have an advantage over virtual, touchscreen interactions spring immediately to mind (I’d also be very interested to hear from readers who have other suggestions):

Cold weather environments, where users are likely to be wearing gloves. In these situations, most capactive touchscreens won’t work at all (they require skin contact to activate the touch interaction) and even resistive touchscreens will be difficult to manipulate with any degree of accuracy. Essential functions which need to be accessed on the move could benefit from direct button access.
High dirt, grease or moisture environments. There are numerous scenarios where this may be a factor, from devices designed for use in the kitchen (have you tried following a recipe on a touchscreen device while your hands are dirty from cooking?) to entire geographic regions where dust and sand make touchscreens easily scratchable.
Interactions which require two or more distinct steps of movement. For instance, a camera button where the first press activates the focusing and the second press takes the photo.
The reasssurance of instant visual or tactile confirmation. One of the most consistently popular features of devices such as the iPhone and Palm has been the physical ’silent’ switch, allowing users to see instantly whether their device is in ‘mute’ mode when in a meeting. Some users even make use of this without ever looking at the switch, simply feeling for the ‘on/off’ position in their pockets.
High volumes of text input. Advances in graphical layouts and auto-correction software have made virtual keyboards viable on touchscreen devices, but there is still a gulf between the amount of text entered by users with a physical keyboard and those using on-screen input. The travel, feedback and spacing possible with physical keys remains unsurpassed for speed of text entry.
Reduced dexterity. Age, disability, illness and even finger size can all have an impact on our ability to perform the nuanced gestures required by some touchscreens. Physical controls can make it easier for these users to manipulate the key functions of their device.

However, despite these specific attributes, the advantages of touchscreens and abstracting much of the UI into software are clear. Accepting that touchcscreens will be a key feature of most mobile devices in the future, we are faced with choices.

On the one hand, we may attempt to create a ‘pure’ touch UI, where almost everything is controlled through screen interactions - Apple is the most prominent example of this. Alternatively, we might add buttons and controls for a few primary functions (such as back, scroll and search) - this method is favoured by many Android-powered devices. A third choice is to offer a significant physical alternative for input, for instance by adding a keyboard, or an optical scroll-pad - devices such as the Blackberry Torch, Palm Pre, Nokia N97 and X3 fall into this category.

The user experience challenge is to balance the speed and convenience gained from dedicated buttons with the additional latency which results from users switching between touch and physical input methods.

There is an argument that less is more in these situations.

Consider the iPhone, for instance. Although the raw speed of text input through something the iPhone’s on-sreen keyboard may be slower than a physical keyboard, the overall time to complete common tasks like entering a web search or typing a text message may actually be quicker because there is less latent time lost through the user having to switch between ‘touch’ mode and ‘keyboard’ mode. Consistency tends to result in faster, more satisfying interactions.

This is particularly true when the user is required to switch the orientation of their device from portrait to landscape to access the keys, as with handsets such as the T-Mobile G1 and Nokia N97. This action is often sufficiently time consuming and disruptive to ensure it is only ever used when the user knows they are going to enter a significant amount of text. However, with many of these devices, designers seem to assume the keyboard will be the dominant method of text input and therefore invest little effort in providing easy on-screen alternatives.

There are now several devices which combine portrait orientation touchscreens with a keyboard, reducing the time and effort required to switch between modes. The Blackberry Torch and Palm Pre both offer this with slider form factors, while the Nokia X3 has a 12-key physical keypad for fast texting and a touchscreen in a candybar form factor. Crucially, the X3 is optimised for single-handed use, something we are seeing less of with the expanding size of touchscreen slates.

In future, haptic effects and electro-deformable polymers (EDP) may make it possible to simulate the true tactile feel of physical buttons. EDPs will actually allow areas of the touchscreen surface to raise and lower, controlled by software, to give buttons real feeling beneath our finger tips.

In the interim I would urge device manufacturers to consider investing in the development of their own distinct tactile palettes. Integrated across touchscreens and physical controls, there should be a specific Nokia, Sony Ericsson or Motorola ‘feel’, which guarantees users will experience the same quality of button travel or smoothness of touchscreen glass across the product range.

Nokia managed to tie hundreds of millions of users into an ongoing upgrade cycle because they were familiar with the visual UI. I believe there is an equally valuable opportunity for all manufacturers to build customer loyalty through a consistent approach to tactile quality.

In addition, manufacturers should consider specific tactile highlights for each device, where one or more of the physical controls is highlighted as a key part of the product design. It should deliver a particular advantage over touchscreen interaction, such as a well-designed two-stage camera key or a scroll wheel ideal for reading emails.

Research: Generation Y Expects Home & Work To Intersect

2010-08-02T09:59:00.001+02:00

Global research from Johnson Controls Global WorkPlace Solutions indicates a majority of Generation Y (18- to 25-year-olds) views the workplace as an extension of home life and expects mobile work environments, easy access to the office, and high tech amenities. The results of the study, which were released in North America during WORKTECH10 New York, create new challenges for employers wanting to attract and retain young talent.

Johnson Controls launched the research project, called OXYGENZ, to gauge Generation Y members across the world, including in the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, India, and China. The survey was developed in conjunction with Haworth and U.K.-based design consultancy, iDEA.

“It’s clear that this generation prefers a flexible working environment and schedule,” said Dr. Marie Puybaraud, director of Global WorkPlace Innovation and the report’s author. “Whether they be engineers in New York or accountants in India, the idea of flexibility is a common theme that employers need to be aware of.”

The Generation Y workforce expects the workplace to reflect its members “own city crash pads’” with a contemporary design showcasing relaxing and vibrant colors.

Members also value environmental sustainability. In fact, 96% of global respondents desire an environmentally friendly workplace, but not at the expense of cool design. Nearly half (47%) of all respondents want solar panels on site at work, and more than 70% want recycling programs in the office. This generation also expects ample breakout rooms and coffee bars in the workplace.

Top priorities for attracting Generation Y workers in the United States include:

Work location:

79% prefer to work in an urban setting against 21% in a rural setting, second only to the percent that prefers an urban setting in India; and
47% prefer natural light in their working environment.

When asked about their preferences for traveling to work, Gen Y respondents in the United States stated:

Car: 51% with 34% preferring to drive a hybrid car, the highest of any country surveyed;
Walking: 18%;
Public transport: 15%;
Cycling: 7%; and
Motorcycle or scooter: 9%.

The top three priorities for United States Gen Y’s when choosing an employer:

Meaningful work;
Quality of life; and
Work colleagues.

“The newest and youngest members of the workforce are making their presence felt all over the world,” said Dr. Puybaraud. “They are tech savvy and demanding, and while the recession has mitigated some of the need to court them as the economy recovers, U.S. companies that offer what they desire will undoubtedly be in the strongest position to secure the brightest, sharpest and most talented workforce.”

Workplace Redefined: Study Examines Shifting Workplace, Generational Attitudes

2010-07-23T10:22:00.001+02:00

By Sandy Smith

The more things change, the more different generations of workers become the same, suggests a new study from Robert Half. The research shows that workers of all ages have a new appreciation for company stability when making career decisions.

Yet, for many, getting to firmer ground may entail a career change: Four out of 10 professionals polled said they are more inclined to look for new opportunities outside their firms as a result of the recession. Other findings include:

Pay is not keeping up with performance. More than one-third (37 percent) of employees felt they are not being fairly compensated for assuming a greater workload during the recession.
Work is more engaging. About one in four (28 percent) said they are more engaged in their work as a result of the recession.
Generational views on next career steps differ. For Gen Y, looking for a new job is the most common post-recession career plan, whereas Gen Xers polled said they are more inclined to update their skills. For baby boomers surveyed, staying put at their companies was the most commonly cited post-recession career plan.
Cross-generational teams bring challenges, rewards. Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of hiring managers said managing multigenerational work teams poses a challenge. But more than one-third of workers polled felt having a group of employees at different experience levels increases productivity.
Retirement plans are being put on hold. Nearly half (46 percent) of workers believe they will work past the traditional retirement age, and more than one-third said the recent recession has had a very strong impact on those plans.

“There has been considerable focus on the differences among various generations, but our research confirms many similarities,” said Max Messmer, chairman and CEO of Robert Half International. “Understanding the values shared by nearly all employees, particularly in light of changing economic conditions, can help companies enhance their recruitment and retention efforts.”

Generational Similarities

For all generations surveyed, working for a stable company and having job security were two of the most important aspects of the work environment, beating out having a short commute or working for a socially responsible company. When evaluating employment offers, salary, company stability and benefits were the most important factors for all three generations, according to those polled.

Healthcare coverage, dental coverage, vacation time and 401(k) matching were the highest valued benefits for all generations surveyed. Among professionals who plan to work past the traditional retirement age, strong majorities in all generations cited the past recession as an important factor in their decision. The most commonly cited benefit of being part of multigenerational work teams was bringing together various experience levels to provide knowledge in specific areas.

Generational Differences

When it comes to post-recession career plans, more Gen Yers (36 percent) than Gen Xers (30 percent) and baby boomers (24 percent) planned to look for new job opportunities. Gen Xers polled were more inclined to enhance their skills sets (38 percent) and build tenure with their companies (33 percent) in the aftermath of the recession than other generations.

A greater percentage of baby boomers (54 percent) than Gen X (46 percent) or Gen Y (39 percent) respondents said they will work past the traditional retirement age. More Gen Xers (34 percent) than baby boomers (27 percent) said they had increased their retirement savings since the recession began.

Older workers appear to believe that work ethics differ between generations. More baby boomers (54 percent) than Gen X (45 percent) or Gen Y (35 percent) employees identified the greatest challenge when working with multiple generations as having differing work ethics and approaches to work/life balance. Gen Yers attributed these difficulties to differing communication styles (29 percent for Gen Y versus 16 percent for both Gen X respondents and baby boomers).

“Many employees, particularly Gen Y professionals, are biding their time in their current employment situations and plan to make a move when they feel the economy is on firmer footing,” said Brett Good, a Robert Half International district president. “Now is the time for employers to take action and outline career paths within their company for strong performers. Compensation reviews also should be conducted to ensure that pay is competitive.”