Designing for Humans

Morae 3 Preview - Product Usability Testing Capabilities

Last week I attended a demo of the beta version of Techsmith's Morae 3 (hosted by PhillyCHI & UPA Delaware Valley) .  The latest version of the usability software product is expected to be launched  late summer/early fall this year.  Based on the demo, it looks like it's close to being operational, but there are still bugs to work out.

For those unfamiliar, Morae is a software-based usability testing tool that was launched in 2004.  It replaces traditional usability labs that relied on hardware video cameras, scan converters and video tape with web cams, screen capture software and basic digital video editing/presentation capabilities.  Morae 2 provided some improvements and feature enhancements.

While Morae/Morae 2 is excellent for software/web usability testing, it has limited applicability to 3D product testing.  While you could test on-screen simulations of products (especially interfaces) and capture off-screen action via a the web cam, off-screen video capture is not its strong suit.  For one notable, exception, I used the original version of Morae to conduct ride-along usability testing of an in-car GPS.

Morae 3 is a step in the direction of supporting product research.  Shane Lovellette's presentation highlighted features including:

• Support for simultaneous recording of up to two external digital video and/or web cameras - for example, one recording the user's face, the other focused on the hands.
• Ability to capture from multipe monitors simultaneously - for example to study a multi-screen financial workstation.
• Automatic task delivery to guide a user through a series of tasks without a moderator

The use of dual external video cameras will be most benefical for product research.  Video is saved in Morae at up to 720x440 resolution, fine for most situations, but not where detailed imagery is required.

On the anaysis and editing side, Morae 3 allows the facilitator to add comments and notations during the recording and review video at up to 4x speed.  It also has built-in integration with PowerPoint and Word for efficient output generation.

While the demo focused on mobile phone/pda usability testing, it may be useful for a wide range of product testing situations, as well as for field research where movement/portability is not a factor (e.g. observing from a stationery position), as your cameras will be tied to the laptop during recording.

Design Research Conference - September 2008

 

While the list of speakers and schedule is still being assembled, this year's IIT Design Research Conference is scheduled for September 19 - 20 at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago.  The lineup already features heavy-hitters Don Norman and Liz Sanders, and topics including mental models, sceanrios, field stories to research technology.  Registration will start at the end of May.

First Impressions of Livescribe Pulse Pen (finally!)

I've been suggesting the potential benefits of the Livescribe pulse pen to user researchers for months now, and now I finally have one (well, two actually).  After a few of days of use, I am positively impressed by the product, but it does have a significant design flaw.

On the positive side, the pen's ability to synchronize recorded audio with your handwriting and then review via "paper replay" works very well.  The unique user interface takes a bit of getting used to, but is relatively simple.  Since the pen only has a single button for power on/off, all interface commands are done through tapping on various symbols pre-printed on the notebook paper.  For example, to navigate the menu structure you use the pen to tap on the four points of a cross-hair printed at the bottom of Livescribe's notebook (see image below). 

The four points of the cross hair are equivalent to up, down previous and next.  But you can also simply draw your own cross-hair if you need to access the navigation  - this user-generated user interface capability is quite clever and worth considering in other product experiences.

The audio quality was as good as expected.  With the recording quality set on high, I was able to follow a small conference room conversation playback relatively clearly, even though I had been sitting next to a digital projector.  Although I would probably use headphones during playback for greater acuity.  The recording function has settings for different size recording environments, but I haven't tinkered with those yet.

From a physical perspective, the pen is as large as a fountain pen, but light and comfortable for my larger than average hand size.  I used the pen in a recent client meeting and no one seemed to notice - or at least I didn't see anyone staring at the pen or asking about it. 

But it was during this meeting that I realized a major problem with the pen design.  If you put it down, it tends to roll.  There's no clip or any other protrusion to prevent the cylindrical pen from drifting off the notebook, to the table, and possibly the floor.  I tried various orientations to minimize the chance of rolling - perpendicular versus parallel to the notebook, but that didn't seem to matter much.  What I did find was that the natural resting place of the pen is with the micrphones face down.  This means that putting the pen down impairs the audio quality (not to mention that a rolling pen is noisy). 

This lack of a clip is counter to one of the primary benefits of the pen - the ability to record when you're not writing.  A clip would provide a roll-stop, and also allow the researcher to more easily attach it to his or her clothing, backpack, etc. while participating hands free.  I'm planning to create my own solution to this design gap.

One other point - the provided desktop software provides little in the way of useful functionality beyond storing and transferring the writing/audio recordings.  But there are expectations of third-party software development that will exploit the pen's capabilities.

All of that said, the Livescribe Pulse definitiely delivers on its claims, with functional, easy to use software and recording capabilities.  I just wish they had considered hands-free operation.  Also, if you can stomach David Pogue's cheesiness, here's a video review from last Friday's New York Times.

IDSA Boston - Research in Focus, May 18

The IDSA Boston Chapter is holding it's second annual design research event on Thursday, May 15th:

"Please join us for our second annual design research event! This year, presenters will focus on how research, strategy, design, and business come together to produce results and create opportunities in the context of case studies. The topics will include how clients receive research, the integration of research in the product development process, and how people work with research as a team. We have a diverse panel of speakers each offering an exiting view of the latest in research results. The presentations will be followed by a question and answer session.

Our speakers include:
Heather Reavey: Senior Strategist, Continuum
Elizabeth Lewis: Director of Research and Strategy, Catapult Thinking
Mikey Siegel: Research Assistant at MIT Media Lab, Personal Robots Group"

You can RSVP via Evite.

IDEA 2008 Jury Experience

A couple of months ago I described my experience as a juror for the ID Magazine Annual Review. For the last couple of days I had the terrific opportunity to serve on the jury of the IDSA/Businessweek IDEAs (International Design Excellence Awards). 

While I am not able to discuss particulars of the entrants or awardees, I would like to share my observations on the experience.  In particular, I'd like to discuss my realization that the social aspects of judging designs is analogous to the social aspects of the design process itself.

What do I mean by social aspects?  Consider the various interpersonal interactions that occur during the design process - collaboration during concept generation, peer critique during refinement, and eventually, client feedback.  The value and outcomes of each of these situations greatly depend on the personalities and interpersonal dynamics of those involved.  This is a natural part of the design process, as it should be of most successful human endeavors.

Collaboration and iterative review were very much a part of this year's IDEA judging.  (For more information on the judging process, listen to jury chair Alistair Hamilton's podcast on the 2008 IDEAs.)  Much like the start of concept generation, the review process began with each of the 20 jurors working independently. During the first phase of judging, each juror independently reviewed all of the submitted documentation (forms, images, videos, etc)  entries within a a set of assigned subcategories. 

But this quickly became a collaborative effort as subcategories were assigned to two jurors.  Following their independent reviews, pairs would discuss their recommendations with each other.  When there was disagreement about particular entries, a juror had to convince his or her partner about whether or not to advance an entry to the finalist round.  Although jurors were not the creators of the designs (jurors were recused from entries that they had involvement with) this back and forth reminded me of the discussion that goes on when designers meet to discuss the relative merits of their concepts or sketches.

In the next round, each judging pair reviewed their selected finalists in person.  This year's IDEA awards judging was improved over previous year's, because for the first time (!), the jurors had access to most of the actual products for the design finalists.  Consequently, the discussions were more focused on issues such as details, comfort and finish - much like they would be in a design review of refined prototypes.  Again, each juror had to "make the case" to his or her partner for the designs that deserved merit.  As in the design process, some designs which sounded good on paper, fell short in person, while others exceeded expectations.

The iterative review process continued with a larger review cycle.  This time three or four pairs of jurors discussed the designs that they had selected.  Up until this point, jurors had only examined their assigned subcategories, so it was comparable to presenting a refined design to a larger group that had not been directly involved, such as a broader design or management team, or even a client.  During this cycle modifications were made based on constructive input and discussion within the working team.  At the conclusion of this phase, each of the award winners had been selected and agreed upon by the majority of each working group.

Finally, all of the designs (both award winners and finalists) were open for discussion to the entire group of 20 jurors.  In this last-check round, any juror could suggest raising or lowering the award recognition of any item, whether they had reviewed it previously or not.  This provided a valuable diversity of inputs and perspectives, but the decision was ultimately left up to the relevant working team because of their deeper knowledge of the particular subcategories.    

In retrospect, it was clear that jurying reflected the design process (arguably, as it should) in many essential ways: small-team collaboration, iterative review, and making the case in front of progressively larger stakeholder groups.  Ultimately, like design, it was a mix of creative, intellectual fun and time-constrained challenges. 

Last, but not least, a nod of recognition to all of the entrants, my peer jurors, and especially the IDSA staff for their excellent organization and support that made this process possible and succesful.