Fitts's Law

// Comments

Cole J: Fitt's Law

Jared: Fitts' Law (correct spelling = +bonus points)

Brad Twitty: Fitt's Law

Straight out of 1954 comes Paul Fitts and his undisputed law. The basic idea is that several factors are taken into account when judging the success rate of movement from a current position to some other desired position. Three main factors that are needed are the distance between start and end, the size of the target zone, and the time it takes to travel there. 

Fitts conducted his original experiments using an oscilloscope to have subjects write letters at various sizes and speeds. Using this gained knowledge, he expanded his series of tests to utilized a reciprocal tapping method. Subjects would use a stylus to tap alternately between two metal plates that would vary in size and distance. 

He then moved to using metal disk transfer. This was identical to the previous experiment, but did not allow for any errors to be made. His final experiment removed the disks and had subjects only transfer pins between a set of boards.

His results were the same across all experiments. To make things easier, you had to change one of three factors. Make the distance smaller, the target larger, or allow more time for the user.

I find that it is very interesting that Fitts's Law still holds after 55 years. The law itself has come to be the proving point for many tests, especially on modern user interfaces. One problem that many UIs suffer from is lots of small buttons being far away. If every designer would take a moment before they start to sit down and really understand Fitts's Law, then we would have fewer, slightly larger buttons closer to us, and hopefully a better UI. As long as no one goes overboard on the law by placing one single giant button in the middle of the screen. Sure it would maximize Fitts's Law, but what would it actually be good for?

Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful

// Comments

Brad Twitty: ... Considered Harmful

Brian S: Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful

J Chris: Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful

Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful (Some of the Time)

Saul Greenburg, Bill Buxton

Usability evaluation is a very important step in the design process, but it should be taken moderately. As more emphasis is being placed on usability design, though, it starts to over step its bounds. Applying usability evaluation to places where it should not be utilized can result in "meaningless or trivial results and can misdirect or even quash future design directions."

As usability evaluation is becoming more popular with conferences, people are trying harder and harder to incorporate it into their paper, even when another method would present more compelling information. People would rather take the time to do an extensive proof than take the time to conduct risky hypothesis testing that might result in a failure of their research. Most researchers would rather take the easy way out and create an environment that is favorable to their study than attempt to see where it fails and where it can be improved upon. This ultimately results a lack of replication of the study meaning the researchers results are the only ones that are presented.

More researchers want to conduct their usability evaluation as early and often as possibly as well. The problem is that this results in an evaluation on early primitive sketches of designs rather than a working prototype. This can be useful if taken into consideration but not taken as the final evaluation of the design. Ultimately, the goal is to conduct several small usability evaluations throughout the design process that will lead to a final working design.

Several steps can be taken to solve the usability evaluation problem. Researchers need to understand that usability evaluation is just one of many steps in the design process. They need to judge when a usability evaluation would actually produce meaningful results. They need to stop using usability evaluation as the only evaluation on everything, even when it should not be applied. When usability evaluations are useful, they should be conducted in such a way that they produce strong results. Finally, we can look at other disciplines as examples on how to judge the worthiness of our own designs.

I found this paper to be very informative into the design process. Though I have not attended any conferences, from the papers that I have read and were presented, I do not feel the situation is as grim as they present. I will admit there have been some evaluations that I feel would justify this paper, but not enough to warrant any kind of complete overhaul of the design process. There are some people doing it wrong, but there are enough people doing it, at least somewhat, correctly that all hope is not lost. I will say, though, that CHI and UIST will accept almost any paper based solely on their writing, not their actual research. They seem to have a bit of a bias in that area.

Human-Centered Design Considered Harmfun

// Comments

Devin M: Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful

Kevin: Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful

Nick H: Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful

Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful

Don Norman

Another lovely writing from the mind of Don Norman. This time he talks of the horrors of human-centered design (HCD.) He compares HCD with ACD (activity-centered design.) The basic principle is to not design for people, but design for activities. The more you focus on the needs of a person, the more to alienate all the people you're not designing for. The one person will benefit at the expense of many others. 

Many companies focus on their users though. Listening to users is good in moderation, but will be your downfall if it is driving the product design. By trying to appeal to everyone that has a request, the product becomes bloated and hard to use. Ignoring your users totally is not always the best case either. There are few examples where the total ignorance of the users was actually a benefit. Most companies need to learn how to listen in moderation and design their products around activities, not specific users.

Another classic Don Norman writing. At this point, a short paper is about all I can handle at this point. He actually makes sense this time though. By focusing on the users, you please no one. By not listing to your users, you mostly please no one, unless your product seems to have a cult-like following that will blindly agree with you anyway. Companies should spend more time designing around what their product actually does and only take the users into consideration when it comes to testing to see if they can easily accomplish a task or if it helps them with an activity. I actually agree with Mr. Norman on this point.

Harmful Ethnogrophies

// Comments

Brad Twitty: ... Considered Harmful

John Z: Do we need new ethnographic methods?

Devin M: Ethnography Considered Harmful

Ethnography Considered Harmful

Any Crabtree, Tom Rodden, Peter Tolmie, Graham Button

This paper, Ethnography Considered Harmful, is essentially about how the current ways of conducting ethnographies is no longer completely applicable to the current situation. The problem is that the design process has slowly shifted outside the workplace. Computers are no longer seen as a staple of the workplace and have become mainstream and widely available. As with this shift, the study there-of should shift as well, and researchers are coming up with new ways of conducting ethnographies.

In this light, many ethnographers has shifted away from statistical analysis of the everyday things, to becoming more of a wordsmith. It's not necessarily what you write about, but how you write it. They must 'defamiliarize' themselves from that which they are attempting to study to see how it is really interacts with society. They are trying to find stuff that is more exotic than what has been typically reported on. Many have turned to critical reflection in their ethnographical practices. Studying only the critical parts of the study, looking at what makes things fail.

With these many new approaches come many new problems. Ethnographers are over compensating for the shift in computing trends. Instead of looking into the extremes of new methods, take a middle ground between the traditional and more modern approaches. Look back on how ethnographies were conducted in the work place and utilize those same methods in new ethnographical practices. Overall, the ethnographer should keep in mind the design when conducting their ethnography.

I felt this paper was very compelling and interesting. It sheds some light on the pros and cons of modern ethnographical practices and states what should be done to remedy the situation. Personally, I have read some literature that has claimed to be an ethnography but felt more like an attempt to sell a book rather than provide compelling research. Some people would greatly benefit from reading this paper, but overall, I feel that many ethnographies are doing the right thing. There was a change in society and a shift in computer usage, so the study of such things had to change with it.