in1060: design for og med brukere inkludert evaluering Tone Bratteteig

Transkript

1 in1060: design for og med brukere inkludert evaluering Tone Bratteteig in1060: 26/2 2018

2 læringsmål - redegjøre for ulike tilnærminger til evaluering - forklare ulike metoder for evaluering - beskrive hva brukere kan bidra med i designprosessen - redegjøre for hvordan brukere kan involveres i design - diskutere grader av brukermedvirkning

3 læringsmål & oversikt - redegjøre for ulike tilnærminger til evaluering - hva er evaluering - forklare ulike metoder for - hva gjør man når man evaluerer? evaluering - beskrive hva brukere kan bidra med i designprosessen - redegjøre - hva for hvordan menes med brukere design for og med brukere? kan involveres - hva er i design det brukerne kan være med på i design - diskutere - grader av av brukermedvirkning: hva bestemmer de? brukermedvirkning

4 Institutt for Informatikk hva er evaluering? é-valuer: se verdien av.. evaluere: systematisk teste, prøve, sjekke, veribisere, validere teste hva i forhold til hva? - hva er det som skal evalueres og i forhold til hva / hvem: kriterier og mål - av hvem: hvem utfører evalueringen og hvordan - for hvem: hva skal evalueringen brukes til

5 Institutt for Informatikk fra design-forelesningen design som en samtale med materialet see move see (Schön & Schön & Wiggins) evaluering er integrert med design & analyse (iterativ utvikling)

6 Institutt for Informatikk fra design-forelesningen

7 Institutt for Informatikk hvorfor evaluering? hva vil vi vite underveis i design-prosessen, før resultatet er klart? - klarer brukerne bruke produktet? - vil de bruke det? (Og vil de kjøpe det?) - hva kan vi teste underveis, og når? (ide, skisse, prototype..) - hvor og hvordan skal vi teste? (lab eller naturlige omgivelser)

8 Institutt for Informatikk hva teste: kriterier og mål for evaluering - at artefaktet virker og blir forstått - funksjonalitet (ift. behov): hva skal artefaktet gjøre? - kommunikasjon & presentasjon av funksjonalitet de riktige tingene, det vi ønsket/behov riktig resultat, dvs. funksjonalitet ift. kravspesibikasjon - evalueringskriterier.. validere og veribisere - at artifaktet 1) gjør de riktige tingene og 2) gjør dem riktig - all evaluering avhenger av hvem og hva som evalueres automatisering: input -> output

9 hvem og hvordan evaluere? omfang - den som har laget artefaktet? - den som har bestilt artefaktet? - den som skal bruke artefaktet? - utenforstående (eksterne)? - eksperter? kostnad (ressurser) - mål: hva er godt nok? Hvem bestemmer det? kvalitet evalueringskriterier tid

10 Institutt for Informatikk hvordan evaluere: metoder - analytisk evaluering - heuristisk evaluering - summativ evaluering - formativ evaluering & - kombinasjoner av disse - bruker-testing - brukbarhets-testing - brukbarhets-studier - bruker-studier - feltstudier - brukbarhets-lab - kontrollert eksperiment osv.

11 hvordan: tilnærminger 3 hovedtyper: i lab, i felten, på kontoret i lab: brukbarhetstesting observere og måle funksjonalitet /kommunisere funksjonalitet i felten: feltstudier observere og intervjue i bruk / med brukere på kontoret: analytisk inspeksjoner, reviews heuristisk evaluering (f.eks. Nielsens Σ249 brukbarhetsproblemer)

12 tilnærminger 3 hovedtyper: i lab, i felten, på kontoret gir forskjellig informasjon og foregår på forskjellig tidspunkt i design brukbarhetstesting feltstudier analytisk (fra Preece et al) brukere gjør oppgaver naturlig praksis ikke involvert sted kontrollert omgivelse (lab) naturlig hvor som helst tid prototype tidlig prototype data kvantitative kvalitative problemer feedback målinger og feil beskrivelser problemer type eval. bruk / anvendelse naturlig praksis ekspertvurdering

13 Institutt for Informatikk i lab i kunstige omgivelser IFI:Design & SINTEF:HCI delt lab for brukeropplevelse

14 Institutt for Informatikk i felten i naturlige omgivelser (ikke iscenesatt)

15 på kontoret AskTog: First Principles of Interaction Design nn/g useit.com jnd.org 5/13/11 3:36 PM 10 Heuristics for User Interface Design 5/13/11 3:29 PM Interaction Design Solutions for the Real World Google Search useit.com Papers and Essays Heuristic Evaluation List of Heuristics Ten Usability Heuristics by Jakob Nielsen These are ten general principles for user interface design. They are called "heuristics" because they are more in the nature of rules of thumb than specific usability guidelines. Visibility of system status The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time. Match between system and the real world The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow realworld conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order. User control and freedom Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo. Consistency and standards Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions. Error prevention Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action. Recognition rather than recall Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate. Flexibility and efficiency of use Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions. Aesthetic and minimalist design Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors 10 Heuristics for User Interface Design Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely 5/13/11 3:29 PM indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution. Page 1 of 2 Help and documentation Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large. I originally developed the heuristics for heuristic evaluation in collaboration with Rolf Molich in 1990 [Molich and Nielsen 1990; Nielsen and Molich 1990]. I since refined the heuristics based on a factor analysis of 249 usability problems [Nielsen 1994a] to derive a set of heuristics with maximum explanatory power, resulting in this revised set of heuristics [Nielsen 1994b]. Search Select Language Search WWW Search Interaction Design Section Living Section About Bruce Tognazzini Powered by Translate asktog.com Jump to: Anticipation Autonomy Color Blindness Consistency Defaults Efficiency of the User Explorable Interfaces Fitts' Law Human-Interface Objects Latency Reduction Learnability Limit Tradeoffs Metaphors Protect the User's Work Readability Track State Visible Interfaces NN/g Home AskTog Basics Principles First Principles of Interaction Design The following principles are fundamental to the design and implementation of effective interfaces, whether for traditional GUI environments or the web. Of late, many web applications have reflected a lack of understanding of many of these principles of interaction design, to their great detriment. Because an application or service appears on the web, the principles do not change. If anything, applying these principles become even more important. Belorussian Version: Deutsche (German) Version: Italian Version: Nederlands (Dutch) Version: Polish Version: Portuguese Version: Spanish Version: Effective interfaces are visually apparent and forgiving, instilling in their users a sense of control. Users quickly see the breadth of their options, grasp how to achieve their goals, and do their work. Effective interfaces do not concern the user with the inner workings of the system. Work is carefully and continuously saved, with full option for the user to undo any activity at any time. Effective applications and services perform a maximum of work, while requiring a minimum of information from users. This work is copyright 2003 by Bruce Tognazzini. Permission to make copies for personal use is granted without reservation, provided this copyright notice remains on the copy. Please contact the author for permission to republish on a web site, to publish in bound form, or to make multiple copies, except that educators and in-house corporate Page 1 of 11 Updated Findings I'll present my newest usability guidelines in the tutorial on Fundamental Guidelines for Web Usability at the Usability Week 2009 conference in Las Vegas and Berlin.

16 Shneiderman's "Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design" These rules were obtained from the text Designing the User Interface by Ben Shneiderman. Shneiderman proposed this collection of principles that are derived heuristically from experience and applicable in most interactive systems after being properly refined, extended, and interpreted [9]. Institutt for Informatikk To improve the usability of an application it is important to have a well designed interface. Shneiderman's "Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design" are a guide to good interaction design. 1 Strive for consistency. Consistent sequences of actions should be required in similar situations; identical terminology should be used in prompts, menus, and help screens; and consistent commands should be employed throughout. 2 Enable frequent users to use shortcuts. As the frequency of use increases, so do the user's desires to reduce the number of interactions and to increase the pace of interaction. Abbreviations, function keys, hidden commands, and macro facilities are very helpful to an expert user. 3 Offer informative feedback. For every operator action, there should be some system feedback. For frequent and minor actions, the response can be modest, while for infrequent and major actions, the response should be more substantial. 4 Design dialog to yield closure. Sequences of actions should be organized into groups with a beginning, middle, and end. The informative feedback at the completion of a group of actions gives the operators the satisfaction of accomplishment, a sense of relief, the signal to drop contingency plans and options from their minds, and an indication that the way is clear to prepare for the next group of actions. 5 Offer simple error handling. As much as possible, design the system so the user cannot make a serious error. If an error is made, the system should be able to detect the error and offer simple, comprehensible mechanisms for handling the error. 6 Permit easy reversal of actions. This feature relieves anxiety, since the user knows that errors can be undone; it thus encourages exploration of unfamiliar options. The units of reversibility may be a single action, a data entry, or a complete group of actions. 7 Support internal locus of control. Experienced operators strongly desire the sense that they are in charge of the system and that the system responds to their actions. Design the system to make users the initiators of actions rather than the responders. 8 Reduce short-term memory load. The limitation of human information processing in short-term memory requires that displays be kept simple, multiple page displays be consolidated, window-motion frequency be reduced, and sufficient training time be allotted for codes, mnemonics, and sequences of actions.

17

18 evaluering med brukere tenk over hva som evalueres i forhold til hva/hvem: kriterier og mål - kan inngå i både analyse og design + som testing av hvem: hvem utfører evaluering og hvordan - først og fremst i felten + i lab (workshops, seminar mm) for hvem: hva brukes evalueringen til brukbarhetstest feltstudier analytisk brukere gjør oppgaver naturlig praksis sted kontrollert omgivelse (lab) naturlig ikke involvert hvor som helst tid prototype tidlig prototype data kvantitative kvalitative problemer feedback målinger og feil beskrivelser problemer hva vil vi vite? - klarer brukerne bruke produktet? Vil de bruke det? Og kjøpe det? - hva kan vi teste underveis, og når? (ideer, modeller, prototyper..) - hvor og hvordan skal vi teste? (lab eller naturlige omgivelser) type eval. bruk / anvendelse naturlig praksis ekspertvurdering

19 evaluering med brukere - kan inngå i både analyse og design + som egen test-aktivitet - først og fremst i felten + i lab (workshops, seminar mm) brukbarhetstest feltstudier analytisk brukere gjør oppgaver naturlig praksis sted kontrollert omgivelse (lab) naturlig ikke involvert hvor som helst tid prototype tidlig prototype data kvantitative kvalitative problemer feedback målinger og feil beskrivelser problemer hva vil vi vite? - klarer brukerne bruke produktet? Vil de bruke det? Og kjøpe det? - hva kan vi teste underveis, og når? (ideer, modeller, prototyper..) - hvor og hvordan skal vi teste? (lab eller naturlige omgivelser) type eval. bruk / anvendelse naturlig praksis ekspertvurdering

20 design som en samtale med materialet see move see (Schön & Schön & Wiggins) evaluering er integrert med design & analyse (iterativ utvikling), men kan også være en egen aktivitet

21 fra design-forelesningen: design som en samtale med materialet Schön: move experiments: see move see see: forstå situasjonen, se muligheter & valg move: velge et trekk og gjøre det see: evaluere trekket (mot visjonen) reblektere (tenke) - før vi designer - mens vi designer - etter at vi har designet

22 fra design-forelesningen: design som beslutningsprosess see: hvilke muligheter Bins hvilke valg har vi? move: hvilken valgmulighet skal vi prøve? - velge en mulighet - konkretisere den see: vurdere den nye situasjonen leder den oss et skritt i riktig retning? create select concretize evaluate choices a choice the choice the choice

23 design som beslutningsprosess 3 prinsipper for participatory design (brukermedvirkning i design) 1) ha innblytelse ( have a say ) 2) gjensidig læring (2-veis) 3) samarbeid om design ( co-design ) Design decisions and the sharing of power in PD Tone Bratteteig Dept. of Informatics, U. of Oslo POBox 1080 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo tone@ifi.no ABSTRACT The paper explores what exactly it is that users participate in when being involved in participatory design (PD). We argue that a focus on decision-making in design is important for understanding participation in design. Building on Schön we see design as involving creating choices, selecting among them, concretizing choices, and evaluating the choices and the design result. We discuss different ways for users to participate in these activities and address issues of participation as the sharing of power. Author Keywords Participation, decision-making in design, power, design moves, decision linkages, power/knowledge ACM Classification Keywords H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous. INTRODUCTION Participatory Design (PD) is an approach to the design of IT where the designers invite future users to participate in all phases of the design process. Much of the PD literature today explores and provides guidance on how to enroll (prospective) users as co-designers; how to organize the design process; how to develop a common ground and mutually learn from each other; how to develop ideas and evaluate them as a multidisciplinary team, etc. (Simonsen & Robertson, 2012). What is discussed less is what exactly it is that participants influence and how they may recognize their influence. In this paper our aim is to find a way to discuss and evaluate how participatory a PD project is. To achieve this, we focus on decision-making in design, which in itself is a conceptually challenging issue. The core of PD is design: to make an artefact and to introduce a change in somebody s practice by means of this artefact. In design, making decisions about which changes to make is crucial for the design result. We argue that a focus on issues of choice and decision-making in design is important for understanding how and why an artefact gets its final form, and hence what the participants contribute to in the design. Going back to Schön s notion of design moves we make an analytical distinction between: creating choices, selecting among them, concretizing choices, and create select concretize evaluate choices a choice the choice the choice Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. PDC 14, 06-OCT-2014, Windhoek, Namibia. Copyright 2014 ACM ISBN $ Ina Wagner Dept. of Informatics, U. of Oslo POBox 1080 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo ina.wagner@tuwien.ac.at evaluating the choices and the design result. The next sections explain our view in more detail, addressing the question of what it is that users participate in. We base this discussion on examples from a number of PD projects that we have participated in. We then elaborate the notion of participation as the sharing of power, before concluding the paper with some reflections on what practitioners of PD can learn from the conceptual tools we propose. DECISION-MAKING IN DESIGN Schön s notion of move experiments captures some aspects of decision-making in design (Schön, 1995). A move experiment includes the designer s evaluation of a situation, a move to change it, and an evaluation of the move. Seeing-moving-seeing is a process, in which problems are set and solutions are found and evaluated. Design moves involve different kinds of seeing: seeing what is there (what has been drawn, built) as well as seeing and judging ( is this how it should be, does it work?), before taking the next move. Schön addresses the important insight that what we call a decision is an integral part of design practice. PD projects are intensely collaborative, with stakeholders convening to discuss, propose, evaluate solutions etc. These are activities where the seeing of the solitary designer that Schön observed is complemented by argumentation and reflection from several participants, and more explicit types of decisions will be taken. Moreover, in PD much effort is spent on understanding the practices of future users. This involves activities, such as observing the practice and developing shared representations of it, on which the design can build. The fact that a use practice can never be fully represented except through users themselves participating, adds a range of new criteria to the making and evaluating of design choices. Similarly, evaluating an evolving prototype (in use) involves observation, the joint critical assessment of these observations and, eventually, new move experiments. Some theorists have argued that we can only determine what the decisions were when looking back in an act of reflection-on action (Schön, 1983), trying to reconstruct the process that led to a particular choice. Although both concepts, decision and choice, are used almost interchangeably in economic as well as in organization theory, we prefer to (in line with the philosopher Alfred Schütz) talk about choices, as design (and PD) is about creating alternatives to choose from. Hence, we reserve the term decision to the act of selecting between choices. Schütz argued that choice only happens in situations which give rise to a decisive new experience: the experience of doubt, of questioning, of choosing and

24 design som beslutningsprosess 3 prinsipper for participatory design (brukermedvirkning i design) 1) ha innblytelse ( have a say ) 2) gjensidig læring (2-veis) 3) samarbeid om design ( co-design ) Design decisions and the sharing of power in PD Tone Bratteteig Dept. of Informatics, U. of Oslo POBox 1080 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo tone@ifi.no ABSTRACT The paper explores what exactly it is that users participate in when being involved in participatory design (PD). We argue that a focus on decision-making in design is important for understanding participation in design. Building on Schön we see design as involving creating choices, selecting among them, concretizing choices, and evaluating the choices and the design result. We discuss different ways for users to participate in these activities and address issues of participation as the sharing of power. Author Keywords Participation, decision-making in design, power, design moves, decision linkages, power/knowledge ACM Classification Keywords H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous. INTRODUCTION Participatory Design (PD) is an approach to the design of IT where the designers invite future users to participate in all phases of the design process. Much of the PD literature today explores and provides guidance on how to enroll (prospective) users as co-designers; how to organize the design process; how to develop a common ground and mutually learn from each other; how to develop ideas and evaluate them as a multidisciplinary team, etc. (Simonsen & Robertson, 2012). What is discussed less is what exactly it is that participants influence and how they may recognize their influence. In this paper our aim is to find a way to discuss and evaluate how participatory a PD project is. To achieve this, we focus on decision-making in design, which in itself is a conceptually challenging issue. The core of PD is design: to make an artefact and to introduce a change in somebody s practice by means of this artefact. In design, making decisions about which changes to make is crucial for the design result. We argue that a focus on issues of choice and decision-making in design is important for understanding how and why an artefact gets its final form, and hence what the participants contribute to in the design. Going back to Schön s notion of design moves we make an analytical distinction between: creating choices, selecting among them, concretizing choices, and create select concretize evaluate choices a choice the choice the choice Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. PDC 14, 06-OCT-2014, Windhoek, Namibia. Copyright 2014 ACM ISBN $ Kristen Nygaard Ina Wagner Dept. of Informatics, U. of Oslo POBox 1080 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo ina.wagner@tuwien.ac.at evaluating the choices and the design result. The next sections explain our view in more detail, addressing the question of what it is that users participate in. We base this discussion on examples from a number of PD projects that we have participated in. We then elaborate the notion of participation as the sharing of power, before concluding the paper with some reflections on what practitioners of PD can learn from the conceptual tools we propose. DECISION-MAKING IN DESIGN Schön s notion of move experiments captures some aspects of decision-making in design (Schön, 1995). A move experiment includes the designer s evaluation of a situation, a move to change it, and an evaluation of the move. Seeing-moving-seeing is a process, in which problems are set and solutions are found and evaluated. Design moves involve different kinds of seeing: seeing what is there (what has been drawn, built) as well as seeing and judging ( is this how it should be, does it work?), before taking the next move. Schön addresses the important insight that what we call a decision is an integral part of design practice. PD projects are intensely collaborative, with stakeholders convening to discuss, propose, evaluate solutions etc. These are activities where the seeing of the solitary designer that Schön observed is complemented by argumentation and reflection from several participants, and more explicit types of decisions will be taken. Moreover, in PD much effort is spent on understanding the practices of future users. This involves activities, such as observing the practice and developing shared representations of it, on which the design can build. The fact that a use practice can never be fully represented except through users themselves participating, adds a range of new criteria to the making and evaluating of design choices. Similarly, evaluating an evolving prototype (in use) involves observation, the joint critical assessment of these observations and, eventually, new move experiments. Some theorists have argued that we can only determine what the decisions were when looking back in an act of reflection-on action (Schön, 1983), trying to reconstruct the process that led to a particular choice. Although both concepts, decision and choice, are used almost interchangeably in economic as well as in organization theory, we prefer to (in line with the philosopher Alfred Schütz) talk about choices, as design (and PD) is about creating alternatives to choose from. Hence, we reserve the term decision to the act of selecting between choices. Schütz argued that choice only happens in situations which give rise to a decisive new experience: the experience of doubt, of questioning, of choosing and

25 design som beslutningsprosess 3 prinsipper for participatory design (brukermedvirkning i design) 1) ha innblytelse ( have a say ) 2) gjensidig læring (2-veis) 3) samarbeid om design ( co-design ) Design decisions and the sharing of power in PD Tone Bratteteig Dept. of Informatics, U. of Oslo POBox 1080 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo tone@ifi.no ABSTRACT The paper explores what exactly it is that users participate in when being involved in participatory design (PD). We argue that a focus on decision-making in design is important for understanding participation in design. Building on Schön we see design as involving creating choices, selecting among them, concretizing choices, and evaluating the choices and the design result. We discuss different ways for users to participate in these activities and address issues of participation as the sharing of power. Author Keywords Participation, decision-making in design, power, design moves, decision linkages, power/knowledge ACM Classification Keywords H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous. INTRODUCTION Participatory Design (PD) is an approach to the design of IT where the designers invite future users to participate in all phases of the design process. Much of the PD literature today explores and provides guidance on how to enroll (prospective) users as co-designers; how to organize the design process; how to develop a common ground and mutually learn from each other; how to develop ideas and evaluate them as a multidisciplinary team, etc. (Simonsen & Robertson, 2012). What is discussed less is what exactly it is that participants influence and how they may recognize their influence. In this paper our aim is to find a way to discuss and evaluate how participatory a PD project is. To achieve this, we focus on decision-making in design, which in itself is a conceptually challenging issue. The core of PD is design: to make an artefact and to introduce a change in somebody s practice by means of this artefact. In design, making decisions about which changes to make is crucial for the design result. We argue that a focus on issues of choice and decision-making in design is important for understanding how and why an artefact gets its final form, and hence what the participants contribute to in the design. Going back to Schön s notion of design moves we make an analytical distinction between: creating choices, selecting among them, concretizing choices, and create select concretize evaluate choices a choice the choice the choice Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. PDC 14, 06-OCT-2014, Windhoek, Namibia. Copyright 2014 ACM ISBN $ Ina Wagner Dept. of Informatics, U. of Oslo POBox 1080 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo ina.wagner@tuwien.ac.at evaluating the choices and the design result. The next sections explain our view in more detail, addressing the question of what it is that users participate in. We base this discussion on examples from a number of PD projects that we have participated in. We then elaborate the notion of participation as the sharing of power, before concluding the paper with some reflections on what practitioners of PD can learn from the conceptual tools we propose. DECISION-MAKING IN DESIGN Schön s notion of move experiments captures some aspects of decision-making in design (Schön, 1995). A move experiment includes the designer s evaluation of a situation, a move to change it, and an evaluation of the move. Seeing-moving-seeing is a process, in which problems are set and solutions are found and evaluated. Design moves involve different kinds of seeing: seeing what is there (what has been drawn, built) as well as seeing and judging ( is this how it should be, does it work?), before taking the next move. Schön addresses the important insight that what we call a decision is an integral part of design practice. makt & innelytelse: Ø makt over noen PD projects are intensely collaborative, with stakeholders convening to discuss, propose, evaluate solutions etc. These are activities where the seeing of the solitary designer that Schön observed is complemented by argumentation and reflection from several participants, and more explicit types of decisions will be taken. Moreover, in PD much effort is spent on understanding the practices of future users. This involves activities, such as observing the practice and developing shared representations of it, on which the design can build. The fact that a use practice can never be fully represented except through users themselves participating, adds a range of new criteria to the making and evaluating of design choices. Similarly, evaluating an evolving prototype (in use) involves observation, the joint critical assessment of these observations and, eventually, new move experiments. Ø makt til å handle Some theorists have argued that we can only determine what the decisions were when looking back in an act of reflection-on action (Schön, 1983), trying to reconstruct the process that led to a particular choice. Although both concepts, decision and choice, are used almost interchangeably in economic as well as in organization theory, we prefer to (in line with the philosopher Alfred Schütz) talk about choices, as design (and PD) is about creating alternatives to choose from. Hence, we reserve the term decision to the act of selecting between choices. Schütz argued that choice only happens in situations which give rise to a decisive new experience: the experience of doubt, of questioning, of choosing and

26 design som beslutningsprosess med brukere see: hvilke muligheter Bins, hvilke valg har vi?... basert på brukernes ideer move: hvilken valgmulighet skal vi prøve? - velge en mulighet see: - konkretisere den vurdere den nye situasjonen, leder den oss et skritt i riktig retning? - hva er riktig retning? prioritert i brukskontekst... utforme med brukere... evaluere ift brukskonteksten create select concretize evaluate choices a choice the choice the choice

27 - hva er problemet? - wicked problems - hva er mulig? - hva kan være en løsning? - hva er riktig retning? - åpner nye muligheter? - hvordan inkludere brukerne? - organisere prosessen

28 Institutt for Informatikk design med brukere utvider iderommet see: hvilke muligheter Bins, hvilke valg har vi? move: hvilken valgmulighet skal vi prøve? - velge en mulighet see: - konkretisere den vurdere den nye situasjonen, leder den oss et skritt i riktig retning? - hva er riktig retning? utvide utgangspunkt i deltakernes kompetanse deltakernes erfaringer om teknologier om bruksområdet andre relevante kunnskaper hvordan kan disse utvides? med teknologien (designmaterialet) med bruksområdet (undersøk) metoder & teknikker create select concretize evaluate choices a choice the choice the choice

29 design som beslutningsprosess med brukere 3 prinsipper for participatory design (brukermedvirkning i design) 1) ha innblytelse ( have a say ) 2) gjensidig læring (2-veis) 3) samarbeid om design ( co-design ) vekt på to-sidig forståelse brukere med i alle faser organisere gjensidig læring organisere sarabeid om design organisere beslutninger makt og beslutninger dele makt i design-prosessen forhandle, samarbeide diskutere effekter (evaluere) øke brukernes handlingsrom create select concretize evaluate choices a choice the choice the choice

30 Institutt for Informatikk bruker-medvirkning - hvilken rolle skal brukerne ha? Hva skal de bidra med/til? - hva er brukernes motivasjon? Hva skal de få ut av prosessen? - hvordan kommunisere med brukerne? - hvordan samarbeide med brukerne?

31 Institutt for Informatikk bruker-medvirkning - hvilken rolle skal brukerne ha? Hva skal de bidra med/til? - informant (kilde) - hva er brukernes motivasjon? Hva skal de få ut av prosessen? - idegenerator (inspirator) - evaluator (tilbakemelding) - - hvordan designer (kreativ kommunisere samarbeidspartner) med brukerne? - hvordan samarbeide med brukerne?

32 Institutt for Informatikk bruker-medvirkning - hvilken rolle skal brukerne ha? Hva skal de bidra med/til? - informant (kilde) - hva er brukernes motivasjon? Hva skal de få ut av prosessen? - idegenerator (inspirator) - evaluator (tilbakemelding) - - hvordan designer (kreativ kommunisere samarbeidspartner) med brukerne? - hvordan samarbeide med brukerne?

33 Institutt for Informatikk bruker-medvirkning - hvilken rolle skal brukerne ha? Hva skal de bidra med/til? - hva er brukernes motivasjon? Hva skal de få ut av prosessen? - hjelpe dere - hvordan kommunisere med brukerne? - tro på prosjektet - behov for løsning - hvordan samarbeide med brukerne? - lære noe nytt - bidra - klarte ikke å si nei? hvordan påvirker brukernes motivasjon prosessen?

34 bruker-medvirkning - hvilken rolle skal brukerne ha? Hva skal de bidra med/til? - hva er brukernes motivasjon? Hva skal de få ut av prosessen? - hvordan kommunisere med brukerne? - muntlig - skriftlig - hvordan samarbeide med brukerne? - skisser & tegninger - demonstrasjoner - prototyper - design: gjøre noe sammen ikke bare snakke

35 Institutt for Informatikk bruker-medvirkning - hvilken rolle skal brukerne ha? Hva skal de bidra med/til? - hva er brukernes motivasjon? Hva skal de få ut av prosessen? - hvordan kommunisere med brukerne? - hvordan samarbeide med brukerne? - tid & tillit - to-veis respekt & forståelse

36 bruks-orientert design oppstart sette mål, planlegge bruks-praksiser problem-situasjon testing & evaluering iterasjon undersøke praksis materialisering, identeisere behov konkretisering & ønsker krav-spesieikasjon

37 læringsmål - redegjøre for ulike tilnærminger til evaluering - forklare ulike metoder for evaluering - beskrive hva brukere kan bidra med i designprosessen - redegjøre for hvordan brukere kan involveres i design - diskutere grader av brukermedvirkning forelesningene introduserer begreper & metoder som kan prøves og vurderes prosjektet