Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction

More documents

Recommendations

Info

joyed the challenge of breaking the eldest sister’s user password. At home they sent anonymous teasing messages to each other via the infrared link. The size and bulkiness of the in2its were not seen as a problem when used at home, but the children thought the machine was too big to be fun to carry around. In the focus group, we found that the older siblings tended to control the conversation and do most of the talking. In order to get everyone’s opinion, the younger ones were encouraged by asking them individual questions. 3.2 GAME BOY CAMERA STUDY The study using the Game Boy Camera indicated that users should be able to edit digital images before sending them over the wireless network to others. All the children who participated in the Game Boy Camera study liked editing the pictures with silly stamps, such as adding ugly monster or beautiful princess eyes. Moreover, the boys enjoyed the activity of taking pictures, preferably together, by spying on people, play-acting stories and staging silly pictures. They also spent a lot of time together exploring the product for new features and possibilities. They showed the Cameras to their friends and gave away most of the printed pictures they took. The girls preferred to take pictures of family, friends and pets, and they traded pictures with each other. The best pictures were printed out and kept as treasures, stuck to a notebook or pencil case. 4. DISCUSSION 110 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES Although it is not possible to generalise about the findings of the two explorative user studies, it would appear that experiencing fun in product use would relate to human interaction as well. We hope that this paper works as an inspiration for designers to explore more fully the social aspects of fun in their creations. The paper describes activities that the children experienced as fun, such as spying, gossiping, and taking pictures together. Personal technologies could support playful aspects of work as well. For example, experiencing work as a game and goofing around in the workplace [4] could be some them to explore further. We also hope that our methodological problems in studying user experience of fun will encourage researchers and designers to study and develop valid techniques for observing and testing feelings of fun in product use. Due to the tight schedule of the project and other parallel tasks, we did not think to observe the children in their own environment during the trials. In hind-
sight, a field enquiry could have given more reliable information on how the children used the devices, but we did not have the methodology for observing feelings in the field. Field methods devel oped for user research, such as contextual inquiry [5], or those presented by Hackos and Redish [6] or Wixon and Ramey [7], do not provide specific techniques to understand the user’s feelings or attitudes, as their approach is more about understanding a user’s tasks at work. Another methodological problem was that, on the basis of our previous user studies with children, we were aware that children might adopt other group members’ opinions in focus grolips. Indeed, we did detect sometimes that those who had different opinions did not say them aloud. However, it also worked the other way round, because sometimes, if a user tried to tell exaggerated truths in order to impress us, they were corrected by their friends in the group. The reason why we took the risk of missing something in the focus groups was that we did not know the right terms and questions to talk about fun with children. We believed that in focus groups children would use their own language when among other, familiar children. If given more time, we could have tried to apply an informal method called “co-discovery exploration” [8] for iterative design of consumer products. In “co-discovery exploration”, the users are asked to come in pairs to a laboratory. The method concentrates on cognitive and emotional aspects of the first impression, and initial use of a product. We wanted the users to explore the devices for at least some days in their own environment, but the idea of users exploring the devices in pairs after the trial could be worth trying, if field inquiry methods do not provide better alternatives. As well as testing existing technologies, some of the empathic methods developed by designers during the design process to take into account users’ needs, feelings and emotions could have been worth trying as we tried to explore what “fun” meant to our target group. However, the emphatic design techniques used in design companies vary. There are some publications about those techniques [9,10], but their descriptions are often too general to be applied in practice, and their suc cessful implementation would also need years of accumulated experience. Gaver et al. [11] have described a promising technique of emphatic design, called “cultural probes”. To their target group they sent packages called probes, containing disposable cameras, postcards, maps, etc. with questions on specific experiences. The focus of their study was not on fun but the technique would be interesting to try when exploring users’ experiences of it. However, the technique needs piloting in order to find the right language to ask about fun and a good way to communicate the gathered data to all parties in the design project. ARTICLE 1 111
Page 3 and 4:
Katja Battarbee UNDERSTANDING USER
Page 5 and 6:
FOR YOU
Page 7 and 8:
4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES 101 1 IT
Page 9 and 10:
an experience, the recipient is use
Page 11 and 12:
It takes a group to turn a design s
Page 15 and 16:
1 INTRO - DUCTION 1.1 FOCUS AND AIM
Page 17 and 18:
duction cycles are short and the st
Page 19 and 20:
fizzy flavoured water seem to be ab
Page 21 and 22:
tronic, and there was no movement o
Page 23 and 24:
and content developers to channel t
Page 25 and 26:
1.3 WHAT IS DESIGN FOR USER EXPERIE
Page 27 and 28:
longer process, in the order of mon
Page 29 and 30:
something independent of being and
Page 31 and 32:
panies are more likely to publish r
Page 33 and 34:
3 CO-EXPERIENCE takes the most prom
Page 37 and 38:
2 USER EXPERIENCE DEMYSTIFIED This
Page 39 and 40:
ecause of the way people enjoy chal
Page 41 and 42:
ness - the ability to facilitate ta
Page 43 and 44:
43 ACTION GOAL goal goal goal actio
Page 45 and 46:
Interaction designers who focus on
Page 47 and 48:
other kinds of products. These mode
Page 49 and 50:
THE MOMENT PAST EXPERIENCE DREAMS F
Page 51 and 52:
experiences with products that do n
Page 53 and 54:
53 ACTION INHERENT INFORMATION AUGM
Page 55 and 56:
Hassenzahl defines fun as a mode of
Page 57 and 58:
ing, and coveting products all elic
Page 59 and 60: verbal self-reports are subject to
Page 61 and 62: veen’s alarm clock (ibid.) is int
Page 63 and 64: spaces illustrates, merely telling
Page 65 and 66: even artistic, approach that treats
Page 67 and 68: BEHAVIOUR EXPERIENCE 67 OBSERVATION
Page 69 and 70: FIGURE 14 69 Empathic observations
Page 71 and 72: Liz Sanders has been influential in
Page 73 and 74: FIGURE 17 73 Examples of self docum
Page 76: 3.1 REALITY SEEKS THEORY FOR SERIOU
Page 80 and 81: 3.1 REALITY SEEKS THEORY FOR SERIOU
Page 82 and 83: 3.1.1 EXPERIENCES IN SOCIAL INTERAC
Page 84 and 85: He succeeds in terminating the repo
Page 86 and 87: 86 3 CO-EXPERIENCE drawn from the c
Page 88 and 89: 21 FIGURES 20 The actual fishing ex
Page 90 and 91: 90 3 CO-EXPERIENCE typically half-w
Page 92 and 93: field testing as an early research
Page 94 and 95: ple explore a product or a technolo
Page 96 and 97: the time (articles 1 Mäkelä & Bat
Page 98: 1 IT’S FUN TO DO THINGS TOGETHER
Page 102 and 103: 102 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES cial
Page 104 and 105: 104 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES
Page 106 and 107: The results of the two user studies
Page 108 and 109: FIGURE 2 One of the users with a Ph
Page 112 and 113: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the other
Page 114 and 115: KEYWORDS User experience, interacti
Page 116 and 117: pretation act to shape the experien
Page 118 and 119: 118 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES
Page 120 and 121: CATEGORIES AND SUBJECT DESCRIPTORS:
Page 122 and 123: make proposals and counterproposals
Page 124 and 125: The first message (figure 1) is jus
Page 126 and 127: and sunniest time of year. The “f
Page 128 and 129: ecome fluent in forms of media, the
Page 130 and 131: mote storytelling. [3] Narration an
Page 132 and 133: in Computer Systems 2002, Minneapol
Page 134 and 135: INTRODUCTION Usability experts know
Page 136 and 137: 136 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES ence
Page 138 and 139: 138 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES Simil
Page 140 and 141: ticipant was given a MMS phone (eit
Page 142 and 143: Sometimes experiences belong to lar
Page 144 and 145: From Liisa: 11 th July 2002 6:35 p.
Page 146 and 147: People may also align with negative
Page 148 and 149: From Thomas: 16 th July 2002 1:41 p
Page 150 and 151: 150 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES disti
Page 152 and 153: 152 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES 6. Bl
Page 154 and 155: 52. Taylor, A. and Harper, R. (2002
Page 156 and 157: CATEGORIES AND SUBJECT DESCRIPTORS:
Page 158 and 159: 158 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES proac
Page 160 and 161:
USER-PRODUCT INTERACTIONS: FLUENT,
Page 162 and 163:
162 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES end,
Page 164 and 165:
tive, often shared experiences - su
Page 166 and 167:
166 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES inter
Page 168 and 169:
oth a subjective and objective view
Page 170 and 171:
170 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES T. Ed
Page 172 and 173:
172 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES
Page 174 and 175:
This leads us to the core question
Page 176 and 177:
that resist all your attempts to un
Page 178 and 179:
or even grass. This poses new chall
Page 180 and 181:
FIGURE 2 The large emply piazza. FI
Page 182 and 183:
INTERVENTIONS A first attempt to sp
Page 184 and 185:
• After recording, preview the me
Page 186 and 187:
A SCENARIO FOR THE SATELLITES The s
Page 188 and 189:
pants can experience affective inti
Page 190 and 191:
the importance of qualitative exper
Page 192:
A AFFECTIVE COMPUTING WEBSITE . . .
Page 196 and 197:
196 REFERENCES Beyer, Hugh. & Karen
Page 198 and 199:
198 REFERENCES Garrett, Jesse James
Page 200 and 201:
200 REFERENCES The ever improving d
Page 202 and 203:
202 REFERENCES Picard, Rosalind W.
Page 204:
1900 ZEPPELIN, ESCALATOR . . . . .
Page 208 and 209:
EVENTS, INVENTIONS, ART, CULTURE DE
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
show all

Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?