I recently returned from a great conference in Dublin, iHCI 2010. I have to say I was really impressed by the talks but disappointed at the same time at the reaction to my comments about quantitative research needing to be included in the UX mix of research tools.
It seemed from the presentations and comments that there was a negative feeling to wards quantitative research being applied in this domain (similar to the sometimes derogatory comments qualitative research methods get in psychology). The enthusiasm for gathering the whole view of the experience in one piece of research is in danger of making UX quite weak methodologically with the focus on interviews and comment analysis.
It is a shame that no one in the HCI community wishes to see what we have in usability research methodologies and delve into the decades worth of research into human emotions to identify ways of measuring these flippantly termed "fuzzy concepts". In particular, emotions have been studied effectively using experimental methods and this must not be forgotten. If we are to build as a subject area (indeed as a science) we must be able to gain scientifically meaningful results which are rigorously collected and analysed to form a base of "givens" or truths about interactions in specific contexts. Experiment based knowledge should be low on confounds, leading to high causal inference. The limitations of studies with these methods are also clearer than the fuzzy methods of interviews and ethnographic research where inference is left to the experimenter and is based on few participants. Although qualitative research can help, it needs to be the base for further quantitative experimentation. Controlled experiments have been used to measure emotions, feelings and motivations already so there is no need to naval gaze to the extent to which is occurring with the development of user experience in finding adequate methodologies.
Sunday 5 September 2010
Monday 12 July 2010
Get everyone online by 2012? Just because it's good for you.....cause I say so
Upon taking a break from my life absorbing PhD write up (a life...what's that again?) I read an interesting and mildly irritating article on the BBC website stating Martha Lane Fox (of Lastminute.com fame) stated that she wanted to get everyone of working age on the Internet by the end of the parliament. Honourable task. But I feel this might be quite an empty (although it has a lot of chapters) proposal.
Firstly I agree that the opportunities online are numerous and it's near ubiquity means that there is a need for access for those who are not able to access a connection.....and this is the key...if they want to. There are plenty of people who do not use the internet because they do not want to use it or they feel negative about using it or (importantly) they have had a bad experience and don't want to use it again.
This is where Cyberpsychology and HCI has a telling tale to tell. The concept of computer anxiety (although flawed in that it focuses on a vague stressor i.e. we use computers for so many things rather than just using a computer so no doubt the anxiety is more complex) suggests that giving these users access (leading the horse to water) will not make them use computers (will not make the horse drink).
The key to getting users who do not want to go online, be it through fear, anxiety, or through lack of motivation to go online is not to force traffic from existing bricks and mortar or telephone service channels and pushing users online (which is why I think David Cameron is rather keen on this digital manifesto of Martha's as it would save the government millions) but to give them adequate confidence through training and positive user experiences when online to return.
Usability and user experience is key here. There is no point getting all working people online for the interfaces they use to be poor and frustrating (as users usually blame themselves for errors in interaction) ultimately leading to damaged confidence (and you guessed it more anxiety, less inclination to return and so the loop continues especially if they are forced to use the internet to do things). If this occurs then the horse will have the water but will find it is a little bit sour and not return to drink again.
It is disappointing to see very little drive for good usability or HCI practice in this manifesto. It is an important way of getting people online (if users experience a good interface and a positive experience they are more likely to see a point in the internet and bother to use it again) and keeping them coming back for more. Will this lead to a boom in HCI and usability commissions from the government to develop great to use sites for everyday tasks? Or will someone be asked to advise David Cameron on HCI related issues for this digital plan? Will someone be shouting from the rooftops of the importance of HCI in bridging the digital divide? ......Don't think so, especially when you have many technologists with the attitude of "give them a connection and that solves most of the problem". For instance who wants a key to a room which has dirty sheets and mirky water in the bathtub. Sure you can wash in it and sleep in it, but it won't be pleasant.
If on the off chance David Cameron is looking up HCI on the internet and comes across this, I'd be more than happy to help. Here's a link to my website :)
Firstly I agree that the opportunities online are numerous and it's near ubiquity means that there is a need for access for those who are not able to access a connection.....and this is the key...if they want to. There are plenty of people who do not use the internet because they do not want to use it or they feel negative about using it or (importantly) they have had a bad experience and don't want to use it again.
This is where Cyberpsychology and HCI has a telling tale to tell. The concept of computer anxiety (although flawed in that it focuses on a vague stressor i.e. we use computers for so many things rather than just using a computer so no doubt the anxiety is more complex) suggests that giving these users access (leading the horse to water) will not make them use computers (will not make the horse drink).
The key to getting users who do not want to go online, be it through fear, anxiety, or through lack of motivation to go online is not to force traffic from existing bricks and mortar or telephone service channels and pushing users online (which is why I think David Cameron is rather keen on this digital manifesto of Martha's as it would save the government millions) but to give them adequate confidence through training and positive user experiences when online to return.
Usability and user experience is key here. There is no point getting all working people online for the interfaces they use to be poor and frustrating (as users usually blame themselves for errors in interaction) ultimately leading to damaged confidence (and you guessed it more anxiety, less inclination to return and so the loop continues especially if they are forced to use the internet to do things). If this occurs then the horse will have the water but will find it is a little bit sour and not return to drink again.
It is disappointing to see very little drive for good usability or HCI practice in this manifesto. It is an important way of getting people online (if users experience a good interface and a positive experience they are more likely to see a point in the internet and bother to use it again) and keeping them coming back for more. Will this lead to a boom in HCI and usability commissions from the government to develop great to use sites for everyday tasks? Or will someone be asked to advise David Cameron on HCI related issues for this digital plan? Will someone be shouting from the rooftops of the importance of HCI in bridging the digital divide? ......Don't think so, especially when you have many technologists with the attitude of "give them a connection and that solves most of the problem". For instance who wants a key to a room which has dirty sheets and mirky water in the bathtub. Sure you can wash in it and sleep in it, but it won't be pleasant.
If on the off chance David Cameron is looking up HCI on the internet and comes across this, I'd be more than happy to help. Here's a link to my website :)
Friday 25 June 2010
Government 2.0- and wikis- Jumping in head first
Politicians are moving to include collaborative Web 2.0 technologies in their technology mix. This may be dangerous if not done correctly.
"Obama Plans more open government" was the headline on the BBC website on the 22nd of May 2009. Citizens of America (the country with one of the largest set of Internet users) are getting the chance to have their say about how to make government more transparent. Ideas will be gathered through email, post and a specially designed website, debated on a blog and then the best proposals will be drafted by the citizens on a wiki. Sounds like a great idea. The White House feels that "The process of making policy must benefit from the best available information in society....Much of the expertise we need can be found among the nation's citizens." This is a further example of the bombardment of technology on the electorate. Britain has seen similar attempts at participatory politics (although none as extreme as the Obama administrations attempts above) in the guise of stinted and awkward YouTube clips announcing policies and posing for "intimate chats" with the user.
Embracing the new dawn of technology is good news for politics. The participation of the electorate in policy drafting and formation does seem like a logical step in the world of Web 2.0 technology and high apathy in the electorate. It may even abate the feeling of powerlessness the voter has when governments seem to make decisions on their behalf.
On a personal level I feel it a tad gimmicky. The reason we have elections are to elect representatives who on our behalf can summate the views of the constituency and let the consensus be heard in our parliament. Connecting with the voter through YouTube is one thing (and a good thing in these times of cash strapped parties trying to fight elections) but using wikis in policy drafting is quite another. It makes the part where we have our view heard by our MP in the hope it affects the end policy result meaningless as users compete for their view to be drafted into the policy.
Wikis as tools in democracy have four underlying problems. The first being their fluidity. Wikis are completely editable and amendable by any user. Ideas which may have seemed valid to a democratic party contributer 10 minutes ago may not seems so valid to a Republican. Then much edit war and flaming ensues. This is why we have a parliament, to debate the issues in a civilised manner.
This touches on another oversight of implemeters of wikis, the fact that Web 2.0 applications are intrinsically social. This means there is an element of social psychology in user behaviour. Much thought then needs to go into the norms and identity features of the wiki system before it is to be implemented. Recent research has suggested that anonymity leads to closer adherence to group norms in computer mediated communication. These norms can however be good norms (such as neutrality and respecting others opinions) or bad norms (flaming or mass deletion of others entries). Identification of users has the benefit of giving accountability leading users to think about their contribution carefully but research suggests such identifiability leads users to collaborate less and create a less dynamic wiki site. Wikipedia works because users are identified yet they have a strong unified group norm of contributing and creating valuable information. Politics is divisive and heated with exisiting external group norms which may boil over into wiki behaviour. Republican voters therefore helping to draft policy wording for a Democrat administration through a wiki unhindered is unlikely to happen.
Much research has also shown that very few people actually contribute to such things as wikis and blogs in terms of a representative sample of the population. this may be partly due to the usability issues presented by markup language (although many wikis now have Rich Text Editors) or perhaps a lack of confidence or anxiety towards using technology. Many potential users are alos put off by the fact that they do not have to use it. It is an extra hassle to learn how to use (again the usability issue) and contribute to especially if your interest in the policy/topic for which the wiki is being used is low. The use of such technology may alienate and leave behind users who are anxious about technology and older users who may not be familiar with the technologies being used or feel they can't get their head around this editable thing. The race for high tech supremacy may be alienating the most loyal of voter bases.
This leads to a polarization of the views expressed on the wiki to the most technology savvy and mobilised/enthusiastic voice, not necessarily the most beneficial. For instance many extreme views could gain prominence as the fringe parties see this open government as an opportunity to influence policy whilst others so not contribute because of lack of knowledge how to, or lack of motivation to. It will not gather a representative sample of the electorate.
Wikis I feel are not the best way to connect with voters and allow them into the process because of these issues. A reconnection of parliamentarians with their constituents would be far better than a hotchpotch of IT gimmicks to appear savvy and cool to the younger population. It is about time government thought hard about their IT strategies as such Web 2.0 tools can be used effectively (as Wikipedia has demonstrated) but not all wikis are wikipedia. New technology can open up new ways of participation, it just needs some thought. Something which, when it comes to IT implementation, all political parties seem oblivious to.
"Obama Plans more open government" was the headline on the BBC website on the 22nd of May 2009. Citizens of America (the country with one of the largest set of Internet users) are getting the chance to have their say about how to make government more transparent. Ideas will be gathered through email, post and a specially designed website, debated on a blog and then the best proposals will be drafted by the citizens on a wiki. Sounds like a great idea. The White House feels that "The process of making policy must benefit from the best available information in society....Much of the expertise we need can be found among the nation's citizens." This is a further example of the bombardment of technology on the electorate. Britain has seen similar attempts at participatory politics (although none as extreme as the Obama administrations attempts above) in the guise of stinted and awkward YouTube clips announcing policies and posing for "intimate chats" with the user.
Embracing the new dawn of technology is good news for politics. The participation of the electorate in policy drafting and formation does seem like a logical step in the world of Web 2.0 technology and high apathy in the electorate. It may even abate the feeling of powerlessness the voter has when governments seem to make decisions on their behalf.
On a personal level I feel it a tad gimmicky. The reason we have elections are to elect representatives who on our behalf can summate the views of the constituency and let the consensus be heard in our parliament. Connecting with the voter through YouTube is one thing (and a good thing in these times of cash strapped parties trying to fight elections) but using wikis in policy drafting is quite another. It makes the part where we have our view heard by our MP in the hope it affects the end policy result meaningless as users compete for their view to be drafted into the policy.
Wikis as tools in democracy have four underlying problems. The first being their fluidity. Wikis are completely editable and amendable by any user. Ideas which may have seemed valid to a democratic party contributer 10 minutes ago may not seems so valid to a Republican. Then much edit war and flaming ensues. This is why we have a parliament, to debate the issues in a civilised manner.
This touches on another oversight of implemeters of wikis, the fact that Web 2.0 applications are intrinsically social. This means there is an element of social psychology in user behaviour. Much thought then needs to go into the norms and identity features of the wiki system before it is to be implemented. Recent research has suggested that anonymity leads to closer adherence to group norms in computer mediated communication. These norms can however be good norms (such as neutrality and respecting others opinions) or bad norms (flaming or mass deletion of others entries). Identification of users has the benefit of giving accountability leading users to think about their contribution carefully but research suggests such identifiability leads users to collaborate less and create a less dynamic wiki site. Wikipedia works because users are identified yet they have a strong unified group norm of contributing and creating valuable information. Politics is divisive and heated with exisiting external group norms which may boil over into wiki behaviour. Republican voters therefore helping to draft policy wording for a Democrat administration through a wiki unhindered is unlikely to happen.
Much research has also shown that very few people actually contribute to such things as wikis and blogs in terms of a representative sample of the population. this may be partly due to the usability issues presented by markup language (although many wikis now have Rich Text Editors) or perhaps a lack of confidence or anxiety towards using technology. Many potential users are alos put off by the fact that they do not have to use it. It is an extra hassle to learn how to use (again the usability issue) and contribute to especially if your interest in the policy/topic for which the wiki is being used is low. The use of such technology may alienate and leave behind users who are anxious about technology and older users who may not be familiar with the technologies being used or feel they can't get their head around this editable thing. The race for high tech supremacy may be alienating the most loyal of voter bases.
This leads to a polarization of the views expressed on the wiki to the most technology savvy and mobilised/enthusiastic voice, not necessarily the most beneficial. For instance many extreme views could gain prominence as the fringe parties see this open government as an opportunity to influence policy whilst others so not contribute because of lack of knowledge how to, or lack of motivation to. It will not gather a representative sample of the electorate.
Wikis I feel are not the best way to connect with voters and allow them into the process because of these issues. A reconnection of parliamentarians with their constituents would be far better than a hotchpotch of IT gimmicks to appear savvy and cool to the younger population. It is about time government thought hard about their IT strategies as such Web 2.0 tools can be used effectively (as Wikipedia has demonstrated) but not all wikis are wikipedia. New technology can open up new ways of participation, it just needs some thought. Something which, when it comes to IT implementation, all political parties seem oblivious to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
