DESIGNING *for humans

Applying Evidence-Based Design to Medical Product Design

What is Evidence-Based Design?

The medical field is a useful resource for consideration by product researchers and designers. The combination of rigorous, but varied procedures, and focus on measurable outcomes lends itself to efficient and effective practices.  For instance, a few weeks ago I discussed the success of checklists in surgical contexts and their potential application as a format for design recommendations & guidelines.

Evidence-based design (EBD) is another important methodology that stems, not directly from the medical field, but from architecture and the design of healthcare environments.  While one might think that any design process should be, or at least could be, based on evidence, the term "evidence-based design" is specific to the "process of basing decisions about the built environment on credible research to achieve the best possible outcomes." 

The goals and methods of EBD should be quite familiar to anyone experienced with the scientific method, but because the approach accounts for qualitative as well as quantitative research and data analysis, it is highly relevant to user research in product design.  The basic approach of EBD includes the following: 

• Reviewing the existing body of research literature to determine relevant findings and recommendations
• Prioritizing and balancing referenced findings with primary data gathered from site visits, subject matter experts and stakeholders
• Hypothesizing about the potential outcomes of design decisions, and then tracking those outcomes following design implementation

A simple example in the context of a healthcare environment design (e.g. a new outpatient clinic), might begin with a review of published research on outpatient clinic design as well as reviewing decisions made on similar past projects.  The Center for Health Design provides references to extensive resources for evidence-based design.  Then conducting interviews with the staff (e.g. doctors, nurses, administrators) and consumers (e.g. patients, family members).  The results from this research would drive the design decisions - for example, to  provide sufficient collaborative working space in the waiting room for patients and their families.  Outcome factors, such as patient satisfaction ratings and waiting time, would also be established and subsequently measured.

Evidence-Based Design and Qualitative Data

One reason I consider EBD valuable to product designers is that the EBD research approach accounts for many of the methodological concerns that arise in qualitative, small-sample research. Evidence-based design  makes the valuable point of considering any research method from the perspectives of both objectivity and context.  That is, the most objective, typically quantitative methods, such as controlled laboratory studies or surveys, also tend to be the most removed from the actual design context.  They provide scientific credibility, but may not account for the specifics of the particular situation.  

On the other hand, interviews and ethnographic observation, while qualitative, can be performed contextually, and provide deeper detail and relevance, albiet with less scientific rigor.  EBD recommends a balance of both kinds of research to provide the best data set, and also discusses how to blend the two approaches - for example gathering quantitative data about patient movement while conducting observational research.

Similarly, EBD discusses how to handle apparently conflicting or contradictory research findings.  Such situations are an opportunity to examine the root causes of the differences - for example did two similar studies provide contrasting results due to differences in the populations studied, or the particulars of data collection? 

In other words, the EBD research approach is a realistic and pragmatic one.  The mindset of gathering different types of data from different sources and then looking at the findings across the data sources is comparable to the triangulation approach that I employ in product design research.

Evidence-Based Design Vs. User-Centered Design

Presumably any product or interface design practitioner who has read this far would be wondering how evidence-based design relates to user-centered design.  In both methodologies, the goals are very similar - apply appropriate design principles to create effective, usable results.  And while there is overlap between the two fields, their are also significant differences in their details.  In fact, there are at least two critical differences between how evidence-based and user-centered design are practiced:

• Published Research - In EBD, there is a focused effort to document the best practices for healthcare environment design via journals, such as Healthcare Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD).  In comparison, product design is a much broader, diverse field, and while there are publications and conferences, it is challenging to find focused sources around the effective design of a specific type of product, versus general guidelines for product design (e.g. ergonomics, human-computer interaction guidelines).
• Outcomes Measurement - A critical goal for EBD is the definition and measurement plan for evaluating the outcomes of the design.  These are often based on clinical results and patient/staff satisfaction.  Direct outcomes measurements is rarely a part of any user-centered design process.  In product design, outcomes may be estimated prior to implementation through usability testing (an activity seemingly not given significant attention in EBD), and occasionally via post-launch evaluations.

Adapting Evidence-Based Design Methods to Product Design

It's a given that increasing the integration of published research and outcomes measurement would benefit the product design field.  But I expect the reality of that will vary greatly with the particular types of products.  Consumer-focused areas like electronics and computers will likely remain relatively closed for competitive reasons. 

Medical product design would be an appropriate area to apply EBD methods.  It already has the obvious connection with the medical field, and with that come some of the necessary resources.  For instance, both ergonomic/human factors periodicals (example here) as well as specialized medical journals (example here) address the effectiveness of tools for the growing field of tool design for laparoscopic surgery.  These articles address the effectiveness of tools from both the design and clinical outcome perspective, although require some learning & effort to understand the specialized vocabularies.

But finding appropriate reference information is only half the story.  Research is a cyclical process where those taking guidance from previous research must disseminate their own findings.  This may be done formally, through the journals and conferences, or informally via blogging or trade group meetings.  For example, the interaction designers association, while focused on interface design, is a great model of an online community sharing best practices and guidance for design on an as-needed basis.  This bottom-up information distribution is also see in social/professional networking sites such as the Medical Devices Group on LinkedIn.

More generally, the thoughtful planning and balancing of qualitative and quantitative methods advocated for in evidence-based design may be the strongest takeaway for product designers. 

In the future, I expect that environmental designers/architects and product designers will work more closely in shaping the entire user experience. In such an integrated approach essentially every detail of the healthcare provider's and patient's experience will be considered - from the layout of the room to the ergonomics of a medical instruments to the usability of healthcare information systems - rather than designed as independent objects that must co-exist within the same system.

For more information on Evidence-Based Design, I highly recommend the succinct and readable Practitioner's Guide to Evidence-Based Design (pictured above).

Understanding Analysis

 

Steve Baty has written a gem for JohnnyHolland.org on Deconstructing Analysis Techniques.  Essentially a primer on various types of data analysis and organization methods, this meta-analysis is succinct, clear and readable.  Baty did a great job of defining and differentiating terms that all to often are used interchangeably or imprecisely.  He is assisted by the simple, but effective graphics of Jeroen van Geel, which serve as a data visualization to accompany the text.  For example, on "Aggregation":

  In one respect aggregation is simply the process of bringing together data from a variety of sources and adding it together. In an analytic context it also carries with it the connotation of combining those sources together into something new...

...We combine data from each of these sources and arrive at some single figure - based on some form of calculation (we’ll save the ‘how’ of that for another time). That single figure - which we can track year-to-year - is our aggregate. Unlike a summary, which characterizes a single piece of data, you can see that our aggregate is a composite value.

In short, a beautiful little article...I wish I could write like this once in a while.

Checklists as a Design Tool

The humble checklist has been receiving a good deal of attention in recent years, particularly in the context of medical error avoidance.  For example, earlier this year the New England Journal of Medicine published A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population.  The international study reported a nearly 50% decline in patient deaths when a combined written/verbal checklist was used in conjunction with surgical procedures.  The authors diligently point out several possible sources of error that may have contributed to the results, including the Hawthorne effect, a "short-term improvement caused by observing worker performance." 

But rather than seeing the Hawthorne effect as a source of error, I see it as a source of performance.  That is, the checklist process serves as a continuing form of performance observation - by having to refer to an external reference, the surgical teams were consistently self-aware and performed better as a consequence.

Self-awareness is an important issue in successful design as well.  A major challenge in user research is communicating recommendations or guidelines to a design and/or engineering team, with the goal of affecting the team's behavior towards a desired design outcome.  Design guidelines are typically communicated in a number of ways - reports, presentations, working sessions, collaborative discussions, etc. - but the checklist format might be an even more effective communication tool.  This is because of both the way checklists are created, and how they are used.

The checklist format requires that information is presented in specific, succinct and actionable terms.  For example detailing the size of touch points, the labeling of a control, or the diameter of a handle.  This forces the checklist creator (i.e. the researcher) to come to specific recommendations.  Those items that cannot be boiled down to a single point should be further discussed or researched until they can be, and if not, considered for removal.

For the checklist reader, the benefits of a structured list over a more vague presentation or lengthy report should be clear.  But its also important to keep in mind the verbal component of checklist usage in the medical study.  The check-and-balance approach of having open communication is probably as important, if not more, than the checklist itself. 

Comparing the benefits of a checklist in the highly structured, rigorous surgical domain with the creative, diverse world of design may be a stretch, but I expect that the value of clear communication is consistent across all human endeavors.

Ergonomics for Interaction Designers: Part 3

  

This is the third and final part of this introductory "mini-series".  Part 1 introduced the value of ergonomics to interaction designers, and Part 2 discussed some of the challenges and methods of anthropometric design for a broad range of users.  Now I am going to focus on how to identify ergonomic issues in observational and lab testing contexts.

Qualitative Observations Issues in Field Research

While interaction designers will typically lack special training in ergonomic assessment methods, most will have some degree of familiarity, if not significant experience with user-centered methods including contextual observation (aka ethnographic field research) and usability testing.  All of these methods share objective observation as a common data gathering method, and really only vary in the particular variables or characteristics that are the subject of study.  And while anthropometric data is intrinsically quantitative, qualitative observational research can be applied to identify ergonomic issues.  With these factors in mind, I've developed a basic set of ergonomic observational criteria to use as guidelines when evaluating design fit.  The guidelines are inspired by Stephen Pheasant's cardinal rules of anthropometrics, extended to qualitative field research. 

Pheasant advised focusing on Reach, Clearance, Posture and Strength.  I'll explain how these can be applied to a consumer electronics device, the InterAction Labs SQWEEZE Game Controller, pictured above.  The SQWEEZE is an accessory to the Nintendo Wii - inserting a Wii controller into the SQWEEZE unit allows the user to apply push/pull forces for gaming - think of drawing a bow string to shoot an arrow, for example.  While the SQWEEZE was well designed by ergonomics standards, it makes for a good example for explaining the four anthropometric characteristics:

• Reach typically refers to extending the arms and finger for effective control without over-extension.  In the case of the airport Kiosk discussed in Parts 1 & 2 there's a clear potential for placing the touch screen at a height or distance that would be difficult for some people to access effectively.  That type of reach is a non-issue for handheld devices like the SQWEEZE, but other types of reach can come into play.  In the case of two-handed devices, the distance between the handles needs to be appropriately set to accommodate a comfortable grip.  For the SQWEEZE, this distance actually varied between the push and pull positions as the handles flexed inward and outward respectively.  Similarly, the diameter of the handles affects the user's ability to adequately wrap his or her fingers around them; a smaller-scale, but just as important, reach issue. 
• While reach is about making sure things are not too far away, clearance is primarily focused on making sure things aren't too close together.  In interaction design terms, we might think of this as literal "white space".    There needs to be adequate room for the hands to move around the handles without bumping into anything, constraining usability or performance.
• We tend to think of posture as a full-body issue; standing upright or bending.  But in fact posture, defined as deviation from a natural, comfortable position, can be examined at the level of a specific limb or limb-segment.  In handheld controllers, wrist posture is frequently the factor of interest.  A design that forces the joints into contorted, unconformable positions, particularly for extended periods, is an ergonomic failure.
• Strength was particularly important for the SQWEEZE as it's essentially a force transfer device.  Testing with children indicated the device should not exceed 2.5lbs, but it also had to withstand up to 150lbs of crushing and pulling - the strength of a 90th percentile male.  In more general terms, designs should avoid requiring significant exertion by the user, but need to have sufficient resistance to provide feedback and avoid accidental triggering, for example as on a mobile phone keypad.

I've just scratched the surface of these four key ergonomic factors, but I want to re-enforce a couple of critical issues to keep in mind.  First, when we talk about an particular factor, it's important to consider it at multiple levels of scale.  In the case of posture, we might look broadly at how someone approaches a kiosk from an overall body perspective, but then focus more narrowly on the deviation of the hands and fingers.  Second, these factors are not independent of each other - in fact they are highly co-influential.  For example, if there is limited visual access, then a user may change his or her body and limb postures to accommodate improved field-of-view, but in doing so, increase the extent of reach and reduce the effective  transfer strength.

Last, but not least, I add a fifth factor which goes beyond the physical, to the perceptual and cognitive: Feedback.  Feedback refers to the user's ability to receive input on the impact of their actions on the interface or system.  For the SQWEEZE this can mean the tactile, visual and even audible mechanical feedback that corresponds with using the device.  For a touch screen kiosk, there is the perceived resistance of the touch service, and the feedback from the software responses.

Putting all this together, a person conducting observational research can use these five factors as a checklist for identifying potential ergonomic problems in real-time, or post-hoc (e.g. with video review). 

As a mnemonic aid, putting Feedback together with the other four ergonomic factors (Reach, Clearance, Posture and Strength), gives us FRCPS, or FoRCePS.  This was actually created as a mental cue during surgical observations, thus the clinical abbreviations.  I'm certainly open to more approachable re-combinations of the letters.

Measured vs Perceived Fit

In more formal assessment situations, such as usability testing, there are a number of quantitative methods for measuring fit and identifying ergonomic problems or risks.  But what seems well-designed on paper doesn't always result in well-received or usable.  I've observed numerous situations where the "technical" ergonomic requirements of a design would suggest a good fit, but in reality, the majority of users preferred an alternative.  There are various reasons for this ranging from individual differences, to preference for the familiar, to the influence of aesthetic design.  It's not the reason for these outcomes that matters so much as the need to capture this input.  In other words, it's just as important to measure subjective or perceived fit and comfort, as it is to measure anthropometric fidelity.

Recently, a number of surveys and guidelines have become available for measuring perceived comfort (I realized perceived comfort is redundant, but I'm including it for clarity).  For example, Kuijt-Evers, Vink & De Looze present a basic survey for hand tool comfort that covers factors from ease of use, to performance to....blisters.  In practice, it's helpful to use a vetted survey like this as a starting point, and then add and subtract questions based on the particular needs of your product, users and tasks, paying attention to the FoRCePS issues described above.  As with any user-research study, piloting and iterating the usability testing approach is as important as iterating the design itself.

 

 

Part 3 Takeaways

• Keep awareness of key ergonomic issues during design, research and usability testing by focusing on the five critical aspects of ergonomics - feedback, reach, clearance, posture and strength - keeping in mind that not all are of equal relevance for each design case.
• Good technical fit of a product is meaningless if users don't find it comfortable.  Therefore, evaluate the qualitative aspects of ergonomics in parallel with technical measurement.

Hopefully, these guidelines can serve as a starting point for thinking about and integrating ergonomics into your design process.  They can be readily included into existing design research and usability testing protocols There may be an intimidation factor, as there is a tremendous amount of technical knowledge in the ergonomics field (even a professional certification), but these qualitative methods can give you a high-level head start.  Remember, good design is as much as about identifying problems as solving them. 

Ergonomics for Interaction Designers: Part 2

Part 1 of E *IxD set up the conceptual background on why ergonomics is a valuable knowledge area for interaction designers and  discussed some of the basics of anthropometrics (designing for fit).  We were looking at Eye Height as a critical attribute for positioning the height of a kiosk display, so that a broad range of users could comfortably view the screen.  But having the display at an appropriate height for visibility is just addressing one aspect of interaction - the user also needs to control the interface - in this case via a touch screen. 

Designing for Multiple Anthropometric Dimensions

There are several body measurements that could be relevant for reaching a touch screen, but a practical one would be Forward Grip Reach distance - roughly the distance from the shoulder axis to the palm of the hand.  With those two metrics in mind - eye height and forward grip reach - you could picture any user as the function of two perpendicular lines  - a vertical line, representing the individual's eye height, and a horizontal line representing arm reach.  This is illustrated above for a range of three different users - note that the wheelchair user has a sitting eye height compared with the two standing users. 

While it might seem relatively straightforward as to how to situate the kiosk- place the screen at a distance and height that accommodates the greatest range of users - the story gets more complicated, because, well people are complicated. Not just complicated in a psychological sense, but in an anthropometrical sense as well.  The factor that adds complexity is the lack of correlation among anthropometric measurements within people.  What do I mean by that?  Let's take a step back and think in interaction design terms.

In interface design, one is typically working within the constraints of a display.  For example, a common resolution for web browsers is 1024 pixels x 768 pixels.  Some older displays might be set at 800x600.  So while the specific vertical and horizontal dimensions change, the relationship between height and width, or aspect ratio, remains constant at approximate;y 1.3 in both cases.  So if you're taking a design originally intended for 1024x768 and then need to scale it down to 800x600, it will need to be reduced proportionally. 

Ergonomic design would be much easier if people had consistent "aspect ratios", but our body measurements are not predictably proportional or strongly correlated.  Meaning the that all of the the tallest people in one dimension (such as eye height) do not always have the longest measurement for all other dimensions (for example, forward grip reach).  An extreme example, swimmer Michael Phelps has a reach that is longer than the majority of people of the same height.   What this means is that for practical purposes, each anthropometric variable could be considered independent of others. (Note that the level of correlation among different metrics can vary - for example, different attributes of the hand are closely correlated to each other, but measurements of different limbs are weakly associated.)  So when we are setting an eye height that accommodates the lower 5% to upper 95% of that metric, and then a forward grip reachthat accommodates the lower 5% to upper 95% for that particular metric, we are actually talking about two different groups of people.  Only a subset of people who fall within the eye height range will also fall within the reach range, albeit a large subset, but below the 90% of the population we are striving to include.

 

Another way of understanding this is described in the Herman Miller monograph on The Anthropometrics of Fit.  The design focus in this case is fitting people to a chair rather than a touch screen kiosk, but the concept is the same.  In the illustration above the back row represents all of the people who were the original intended audience for fitting a chair.  Each row in front  of that shows how a small percentage of people are excluded with each anthropometric variable (seat height, seat depth, etc.).  The front row shows the overlap of all four variables such that  "almost one-third of our sample [in blue] had at least one dimension out of four that was either smaller that the 5th percentile female or larger than the 95th percentile male."

Practical Solutions

There are some analytical methods for more effectively addressing these issues mathematically, but that's beyond the scope of discussion (for those interested, see Guidelines for Using Anthropometric Data in Product Design) .  In practical terms there are three solution approaches: design multiple sizes, adjustability and satisficing. 

Multiple sizes, as it implies, creates a range of models, where each is targeted at a specific subset of the user population.  The most extreme example of this (aside from bespoke, individualized designs) comes from clothing and footwear, where there are literally dozens of sizes and variations to enable a relatively close fit for the vast majority of the population.  For products such as furniture, this may be limited to three or four sizes, better known as small, medium and large.  In fact, this was Herman Miller's solution to the chair fit problem - creating three different sizes allowed for fit of 95% of the population between the smallest 1st percent and highest 99 percent - a greater range then they had originally intended. During the design of the airport kiosk that we discussed in part 1, one of the early proposed solutions was to create a two-sided kiosk with a "low" and "high" screen positions that could comfortably suit a wide range of users.

Adjustability is really a special case of multiple sizes where the user (or an expert) modifies the fit at installation or during use.  Most of us are familiar with adjusting the driver's seat in a car.  These seats are not infinitely adjustable, but typically have three or more control points that can lead to a very wide range of positions, within the available space constraints.  The downsides of adjustability are cost, reliability, and the extra work placed on the user to adjust the fit.  Note, that many users may not always set the best fit for themselves.

Satisficing,  is coming up with a single solution that fits the broadest range of users.  In practice this tends to skew towards the smaller or shorter end of users because, larger users can always bend (although at 6' 4" I can say that's not always comfortable) and smaller users may have physical limitations due to age or disability that take priority (legal and otherwise).  Most designs for public spaces will take this approach, as in elevators, water fountains and ATMs.   For the kiosk, the best single solution is pictured below at a fixed height and distance that was manageable for a broad range of users:

 

Prototyping for Fit

Whether designing a single solution or multiple sizes, it is important to  to follow a user-centered design process.  There may be room in interface design for "genius-centered design", but there's no substitute for real-world measurement of physical fit.  As in interaction design, prototyping can take many forms, depending on your goals and need for fidelity at each stage of the design process.  For example, if the initial goal was simply to conduct a real-world test of key dimensions, then a simple sticker on a wall could serve as a "prototype" for display position.  For more detailed issues, such as task-specific grips on a tool handle, foam mock-ups can be created and evaluated.

A typical UCD process for ergonomic fit would follow these steps, presented in an abbreviated form here:

1. Define relevant populations (e.g. age range, nationality, sex)
2. Define key dimensions or variable for fit consideration (e.g. height, reach, weight, etc)
3. Determine boundary measures for each anthropometric dimension from reference data, from lower 5th to upper 95th percentile (keeping in mind that some dimensions, such as head clearance in a doorway, may be one-sided)
4. Compare referenced dimensions with existing real-world products for reality check
5. Apply dimensions to create mock-ups for initial, informal ergonomic feedback with users
6. Refine design(s) to create foam or similar low-fidelity mock-ups for fit evaluation
7. Continue to refine as needed/budgeted

In part 3 I'll get into specifics around actually measuring the "usability of fit", that is, the quantitative and qualitative measures to assess whether a design actually fits a range of users.

Part 2 Takeaways:

• Anthropometric variables such as height and reach should be considered as independent of each other.  Therefore the more variables that you are designing for, the smaller that population that will fit across all of those dimensions. 
• Human bodies do not have fixed aspect ratios like screens do, but it seems a little more than coincidental that widescreen displays became popular in synch with the growth in population obesity.
• Providing multiple sized designs or adjustability are pragmatic solutions when good fit is important, but in most cases, a single, satisficing solution is required.
• Use anthropometric data as a starting point to build mock-ups or prototypes, then evaluate fit - more to be discussed next time.

Ergonomics for Interaction Designers: Part 1

Firstly, this is not about adjusting your chair so that you're not slumped over the screen when working on a Flash prototype (although office ergonomics is a very important subject).  Rather, the topic of discussion is the increasing value of ergonomics knowledge to the interaction designer.  Ergonomics is necessary for 3-dimensional, tangible product design where issues of physical fit and comfort are critical.  But for interaction designers in the 2-dimensional world of the display screen, ergonomics has largely been...irrelevant.  For example in most cases, interfaces are designed for existing, defined hardware that are out of the control of the interaction designer.  But things are changing...

Driving Factors
The continuing convergence of digital interfaces with physical products is putting interaction designers in a position where knowledge of anthropometrics, kinesthetics, and other non-cognitive human capabilities is valuable for creating effective design solutions. 

There are several trends contributing to this, including:

1. The rapid proliferation of touch screen and other gestural interfaces which combine "direct" physical control with digital interface design.  If you want to design for a finger, you have to know how a finger works. 
2. The growth of ubiquitous computing leading to an increased range of scale and form factor in devices that contain interfaces, from traditional computers and laptops, to kiosks, tablets, phones, interactive video walls, electronic ink and consumer appliances (to name a few).  As a result, people are interacting with interfaces in  range of positions and contexts that go beyond simply standing or sitting in front of a screen. So beyond fingertips, knowing how people can reasonably user their bodies to hold, view, reach and interact is valuable.
3. Computing power and bandwidth across such devices now supports more complex, involved tasks such as data entry, long duration reading and gaming, all of which can lead to risks for repetitive motion injuries, or at least discomfort. Having a knowledge of the types of interactions that can cause such injuries, and how to design around them, is essential.
4. An ever increasingly diverse range of end-users are gaining access to interactive devices, across age, and physical characteristics.  For example, the One Laptop Per Child campaign has produced a global, kid-sized laptop.  In home health care, a market of predominately elderly users, more devices contain embedded interfaces.  And ADA and similar legislation requires that devices are accessible to users with a range of disabilities.  In other words, you need to know your user, for it is not you - a given in interface design, a necessity in ergonomic design.
5. Last, but not least - interest.  Several of the factors described above are driving many interaction designers to explore and study the world of physical product design. For example, the IIT Institute of Design is hosting a "thinkering" workshop specifically to provide "an opportunity for interaction designers to get their hands dirty with electronics, soldering, and wiring, and learn how to interface hardware artifacts with virtual interactions."  Just as it is important to understand the electro-mechanics of hardware, it is essential to understand the relevant mechanical attributes for the users of such hardware.

What all of these trends have in common is a growing need to accommodate human physical characteristics and constraints in the design of digital interfaces.  For the most part, this skill set is not part of the experience of interaction designers.  Consequently, I'm posting this first in a series of explorations on the topic of Ergonomics for Interaction Designers, or E *IxD for short.

Anthropometrics: The Building Blocks of Ergonomic Design

In any field of design there are those elements that are defined and unchangeable, and those that are malleable  It is the latter in which designers specialize.  For example, in interaction design, the fixed elements might include a specified screen resolution, development language and minimum type size.  As you might guess, in physical product design, there are many constraints, but human physical characteristics are the most fundamental.  Therefore, the most fundamental design question is, how do I design for the range of human physical constraints?  For this, we turn to anthropometrics the measure of human body size and proportions. 

Let's focus on one simple anthropometric variable - height.  Actually, even height is not that straightforward as there are many types of height: stature (what we mean when we say height), eye height (distance from the ground to the eyes - important for display positioning), shoulder height, fingertip height (standing, with arms relaxed), and sitting elbow height, to name a few. 

Suppose we are designing an interactive touch screen kiosk that will be used in an international airport terminal (like the one pictured below, via Core77).  It is expected that the kiosk users will include travelers from around the world, male and female, from kids through elderly adults.  While this may sound like the worst case scenario for physical design (and it is), it's also very typical.  In this case we are going to focus initially on eye height because we want to set the display so that it can be viewed most easily without looking up or bending down too much.  (Note that line of sight is optimally about 10 degrees below the horizontal plane.)

If we refer to anthropometric data tables, like those found in Stephen Pheasant's Bodyspace,  we find quite a range in eye height, varying by nationality, age and sex.  For example an average, 50th percentile Dutch man has an eye height of 1670mm, while an average, 50th percentile eight year old British girl has an eye height of 1165mm.  That's over a 500mm difference, and those aren't even the most disparate populations!  So how do we accommodate the diversity of physical characteristics?

Molenbroek and de Bruin discuss the various approaches that one can take to accommodating the range of anthropometric characteristics, summarized in the diagram below:

The most basic approach, if we can even call it that, is "Procrustus", which means that no attempt to accommodate the user has been made, and the user must adapt to the product, however it happened to be designed.   Incidentally, this term comes from Greek Mythology, where Procrustes was fitted to a bed by sawing off his head and feet.  Only slightly better is the Ego-design approach, where the designer uses his or her own body as a reference.  Now every designer does this to some extent for convenience, but it should serve only as a starting reference point.

Design for the mean sounds like a good idea - find the average eye height, and the majority of users will be accommodated.  False assumption - as the diagram indicates, a majority of people are excluded by relying on the mean, with only a few falling into the sweet spot in the center.

Designing for one end of the spectrum (small) or the other (tall), can work in some cases.  For example, if you design a door to accommodate the tallest users, then by definition, those of shorter stature will fit as well, as clearance is a one-ended variable.  But in our case, the appropriate height of a kiosk display is a two-ended issue - there is a hypothetical "too high" as well as a "too low".

Which brings us to some workable approaches.  Design for adjustability means that the product can accommodate a range of users, typically through a mechanical solution. For example, a tilting, height adjustable screen, or multiple interaction stations set at different eye heights.  Of course adjustability in the physical world adds cost and complexity, and can lead to unreliable products, so is not always an available solution. 

In the end, the most common solution is to Design for More Types.  In practice this typically means defining a population and then fitting for a reasonable range within that population. Traditionally that range spans from the smallest fifth percentile to the largest 95th percentile.  This includes a very broad range of users, but purposely excludes the most extreme 10% of the population (the largest 5% and smallest 5%) - the long tail, where a small number of outlier users can account for a significant design change. 

Last, but not least is the ideal - Design for All.  This means that the product can fit the entire range of an anthropometric characteristic.  This is technically possible as humans are not infinitely variable in any dimension.

Part 1 Takeaways:

• Knowledge of ergonomic methods and techniques is becoming a valuable skill set for interaction designers due the growing diversity of devices, users and contexts for interaction.
• Anthropometrics, the measure of the human body, is a fundamental area in ergonomics, and a starting point for understanding how to design systems that fit people.
• Among anthropometric approaches, designing for a broad range (5th to 95th percentile) is often the most practical and accomodating.
• When furniture shopping in Ancient Greece, be specific about measurements.

In Part 2 I'll discuss how to apply the anthropometrics to a real-world interaction design problem, and also discuss the added complexity of dealing with multiple anthropometric variables - like eye height and arm length, so the user can actually see and reach the screen.

comments and suggestions always welcomed...

The Best Damn Book on User Research.

"Using prose to create a data array is like using the edge of a fork to cut meat.  It can be done, but not well, unless the meat is tender indeed (corresponding to very simple data arrays)."
- Edward F. McQuarrie

Colorful language is not what makes Edward McQuarrie's Customer Visits the best book I've read on the topic of user research.  In fact, the book is overwhelmingly direct, cutting like a knife through the ambiguity and vagueness that surrounds the corporate customer research process. 

As a hardcore human-centered researcher,I approached the book with a skeptical manner: its sub-title is Building a Better Market Focus, and I learned of it indirectly, through a brochure for a seminar that McQuarrie was giving.  But I was quickly impressed by the organization and specificity of the content.

The book is structured around the processes for planning, conducting and analysis for site visits.  While it's focused on researching business customers, such as medical equipment and software developers, the methods and advice can be applied to other cases (e.g. consumer research). 

McQuarrie's to-the-point style is supported by case studies and referenced sources, providing both pragmatic and conceptual guidance.  What I found most useful was that Customer Visits specifically addresses the key questions that many organizations face when planning and conducting user research, such as:

• What types of customer are appropriate for field research - "Customer visits are most applicable when there are some hundreds or thousands of customers in the market, the product is technically complex, its application is highly contextualized, and the underlying technology allows for differentiated product offerings."
• Defining the right level and wording of qualitative research objectives - "Note that objectives that rest on words such as 'identify', 'explore', 'describe' and 'generate' properly come early in the decision process....Specific verbs that do not match the capabilities of customer visits would include 'test', 'select', 'evaluate', 'rank order', 'measure', 'forecast' and 'track'."
• Number of participants to include in a sample and creating a sample frame  - "a sample of thirty customers could be expected to identify 90% of all the needs that might exist in the total population of customers...a sample of twelve might uncover 70 to 75 percent of needs."

Obviously I can't articulate the full context and insight around a a topic in a quote, but I hope this gives you a sense of the level of detail that McQuarrie delivers. 

Of course, the book is not perfect - much of the information on writing appropriate interview questions and conducting observations should be known to professionals, and McQuarrie does not get into any deep domain knowledge or tools for conducting more effective observations (e.g. observing ergonomic issues).  But the strength of the book is in what comes before and after the observations.  The section on analysis procedures is excellent, providing a clear analysis framework ("partition, cluster, connect, and array") and addressing how to handle quantitative expectations in a qualitative context.

Finally, McQuarrie updated the book this year and thoughtfully covers trends in corporate user research such as data visualization, research data management, and the explosion of the the term 'ethnography' -

"...there is no inherent opposition between customer visits and ethnographic approaches.  A customer visit program can be made as ethnographic as you like...there exists a variety of business and market situations that require a broad range of approaches to information gathering.  Let a thousand flowers bloom."

Perhaps, a little more colorful language than I had initially stated, but in the case of this book, the author has earned the right to use it.

DFH Follow-Ups

Here's some follow-ups on several items I've blogged about in recent months:

• Redesigned BMW iDrive: The New York Times reviewsthe improved user interface (including rotary text entry, pictured above) and control system for the storied design failure that I discussed most recently in July.
  

• Design Research Blog: Sam Ladner provides a new article and slide set discussing Qualitative versus Quantitative Research (part 2) on her blog.  I discussed a couple of her earlier posts on design research back in June.

• Design Research Portfolio Review: Last, but not least, following up from this past April's IDSA northeast district conference, Marty Gage (Lextant) has provided his presentation slides for his talk, What is a Design Research Portfolio? - Download Research_portfolio_final(PDF).

MVIP Cards for Sustainable Mobility

 

Creating specialized card decks seems to be a trendy way to support design brainstorming.  Earlier this year I discussed nForm's user experience trading cards, which like IDEO's Method Cards, provide inspiration or guidance for the user-centered design process.

This year, the Art Center College of Design won two IDEA awards for the Mobility Vision Integration Process.  This is a set of cards specifically designed to "support rapid future scenario development on the topic of sustainable mobility so that groups and individuals can quickly enter a dialog and brainstorm about possible outcomes, solutions and strategies".  I'm not entirely sure about the definition of "sustainable mobility", but it seems to be centered around developing mobile technology solutions (e.g. cell phones) in diverse contexts.

The site provides detailed instructions, but the basic concept seems to be to randomly select cards from a range of categories (e.g. customer, ecology, technology) that serve as requirements and constraints for driving brainstorming and concept generation exercises.

A printed deck of cards may be purchased, or even better (in terms of sustainability), a free online Flash version is available.

Comfort in Using Hand Tools

A recent dissertation out of Delft University (Netherlands), discusses Comfort in using hand tools: theory, design and evaluation.  You can download the document as a PDF (note - cover page is in Dutch, but document is written in English).

Kuijt-Evers covers the state of the art in measuring ergonomic comfort for non-powered hand tools and conducted empirical research to validate a set of qualitative comfort predictor for use in design and evaluation.

Here's the abstract:

Everyone uses hand tools in their daily life, like knife and fork. Moreover, many people use hand tools in their profession as well as during leisure time. It is important that they can work with hand tools that provide comfort. Until now, the avoidance of discomfort was emphasized during the design process of hand tools, like screwdrivers, hand saws and paint brushes. In the near future, the focus will shift towards providing comfort. However, some questions need to be answered to make this shift, like: What does the end-user mean with comfort in using hand tools? How can we translate this into hand tool design and the design process? How can we evaluate hand tools on comfort? These questions are answered in the current thesis.

An International Standard for Product Usability

I've got a bias against design standards based on my experiences working with organizations that have tried to set them before, rather than after designing a product.  Standards should be a way to document a proven approach, not a prescription for how to do something that hasn't been done yet.  On the other hand, process standards are useful a priori because they provide guidance on how to do something that you may have not done before.  And like design standards, process standards should be updated over time with experience.

With all that said, I am encouraged to see that the International Standards Organization (ISO) has published a set of standards and related process guidelines on "ease of operation for everyday products".  This refers primarily to consumer products.  Userfocus provides a useful, high-level explanation of the four part ISO standards:

"Part 1, 'Design requirements for context of use and user characteristics', provides a set of sensible design guidance for anyone who is developing consumer technology. It outlines a five-step process that the design team should follow...The remaining three parts of ISO 20282 (parts 2-4) propose test methods for measuring the usability of every day products. The three test methods are essentially the same and will be familiar to anyone who has observed a usability test."

In other words, the standards don't provide significant educational value to experienced usability practitioners, but may be useful for those getting started, or even those with some experience who are looking for guidelines on best practices.  Note that you can purchase the documents from the ISO site, but each of the four is over $100 US. 

The Userfocus article also stresses an important point about product usability testing - you need large samples to get reliable data in a variable population, but:

"remember that for most consumer products there is only one key goal: 'the most frequent and/or important user goal that the product is intended to support' as it says in the standard. This means that each participant will be asked to carry out just one or two tasks with the product, so the participant session time should be much shorter than with 'thinking aloud' testing. My estimate is that each participant could be briefed, tested and sent on his or her way in 20 minutes."

10 Ways to Think Like a Design Researcher

Ed Boyden is a professor at the MIT Media Lab, and he seems to spend a lot of time thinking about... thinking.  I learned about his blog when he recently published a notable post on the untapped value of using the brainpower of students to solve real world problems, rather than hypothetical example problems.  I highly recommend you read it, but that's not really the point of what I am focusing on here.

What I am focusing on relates to a post from last year titled How To Think - Managing brain resources in the age of complexity.  In brief, it discusses ten rules for how to organize information, and you should read it before continuing here so you'll know what I'm talking about.

I was struck by a couple of things in Boyden's article.  First, who has the time and motivation to "document everything obsessively"?  It seemed like his rules were unrealistic and time-consuming.  The second thing that struck me was that while some of these rules are impractical for living by, they make a lot of sense in the context of conducting user research, most notably:

• Synthesize new ideas constantly - I think this one is self-explanatory
• Learn how to learn (rapidly) - This one too
• Work backward from your goal - Design research should focus on producing actionable results to inform design.  Keeping this in-mind will make the research analysis process more efficient
• Make contingency maps - We call them task flows
• Write up best-practices protocols - We call this task analysis
• Compose conversation summaries - We call this interviewing

In fact, this list might be read like a series of guidelines for conducting design research.

Boyden provides some technical recommendations for documenting conversations as well (Interesting...and certainly obsessive.):

"I often use plenty of color annotation to highlight salient points. At the end of the conversation, I digitally photograph the piece of paper so that I capture the entire flow of the conversation and the thoughts that emerged. The person I've conversed with usually gets to keep the original piece of paper, and the digital photograph is uploaded to my computer for keyword tagging and archiving. This way I can call up all the images, sketches, ideas, references, and action items from a brief note that I took during a five-minute meeting at a coffee shop years ago--at a touch, on my laptop."

 

Video - An Ethnography and Interviewing Primer

A couple of IIT graduate students (Gabriel Biller & Kristy Scovel) have put together an entertaining video primer on field interview techniques.  You'll appreciate it if you've ever done street intercept interviews.  The video runs about 30 minutes.  I think this pairs well with Sam Ladner's (non-video) design research primer. 

Getting People to Talk: An Ethnography & Interviewing Primer

5 Guidelines for Ergonomic Observation

In my work in medical product ergonomics (as well as other areas of product design), I frequently encounter product teams who are applying field observation in their product development processes.  This is great, but much of the time, the teams lack the skills for conducting effective observations.  Actually, not so much the lack of skills, but a lack of structure to guide what to observe and how to document observations.  This lack of structure typically results in two types of patterns of observation notes:

1. Write everything - In this case observers write down every event in an ultimately futile effort to document the entire task flow, procedure, etc. This is the professional version of those students from high school who write down everything the teacher writes, even if they don't know what it means. I always loved it when the teacher would write something on the blackboard and then quickly erase it, leaving these human Xerox machines bewildered.
2. Write what's interesting- The more common approach is to document events or ideas that are out of the ordinary or unusual as they contribute above and beyond the observer's current knowledge base. This is certainly a more manageable approach, but is highly variable due individual observer's thresholds for what is "interesting".

How do you overcome these note-taking habits?  When I provide training on "Minimally Invasive User Research", I emphasize a team-based approach where multiple observers take on distinct, but overlapping roles.  For example, one observer may track high-level task flows while another focuses on the detail interactions between a user and a medical instrument.  But even when attention is focused to a particular set of user interactions, one can fall back in the write everything/write what's interesting habit.

An effective way to break away from those observational note-taking traps is to use guidelines.  Guidelines fall between having no structure and an overly-constrained template, by giving a set of elements to pay attention to, but the flexibility to document them as the observer sees fit. 

For example, in the case of observing a medical instrument interaction, I created the guideline of FoRCePS.  Forceps are a common medical instrument, making the term a memorable acronym for medical product designers.  The acronym represents five ergonomic areas to consider during observations, and is a loosely-based expansion of Stephen Pheasant's cardinal rules of anthropometrics.   The guidelines are:

• Feedback - Identify where the user's access to sensory feedback (e.g. visual, tactile) is compromised
• Reach - Identify situations where the user's major limbs (arms, legs) and minor limbs (fingers) must over-extend in order to carry-out a task
• Clearance - Identify situations where the user's major limbs (arms, legs) and minor limbs (fingers) must function within a limited space, such as finger holes or a handle
• Posture - Identify situations where the user's overall body posture is deviated from neutral position, as well as deviations at key joints (e.g. shoulder, wrist)
• Strength - Identify situations where the user must apply excessive or prolonged force for movement or stability, relative to their strength capabilities

Observers are encouraged to consider each of these guidelines individually for both macro and mico ergonomic issues, but also to understand how they interact with each other. For example, if there is limited visual access, compromising feedback, then a user may change his or her body and limb postures to accommodatean improved field-of-view, but in doing so, increase the extent of reach and reduce the effective  transfer strength.  I recommend watching a brief segment of a medical procedure (or other task where ergonomic compromises are common) to practice paying attention to these 5 issues.

So even with a set of five key principles, there's a lot to pay attention to during live observations and in follow-up video review.  Fortunately, FoRCePS and similar mental "tools" give an observer guidance and provide a consistent way to track issues that can be shared with other observers who are focusing on different aspects of the observed task.

Certification in Human Factors & Ergonomics

I recently earned my credentials as a Certified Professional Ergonomist (CPE), and in the process learned that there's some lack of awareness and/or confusion regarding the certification options in the field of human factors and usability.

The CPE program is run by the independent Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics.  The certification covers a broad and deep range of topics including ergonomics, anthropometrics, interface design and human factors principles.  Some companies and organizations have utilized CPE expertise to evidence the effective research behind the design of their products.  For example, Microsoft advertises the role of certified professional ergonomists right on the packaging of the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000.

Without getting into a lot of detail, there are multiple levels of certification depending upon work and academic experience.  Feel free to contact me if you're interested in finding out more about it.

To take a step back, the term professional certification refers to  "a designation earned by a person to assure that he/she is qualified to perform a job or task" and "generally, need to be renewed periodically, or may be valid for a specific period of time (e.g. the life-time of the product upon which the individual is certified). As a part of a complete renewal of an individual's certification, it is common for the individual to show evidence of continual learning."   Common professional certifications include accounting and nursing.

Many people in the usability field (particularly as it relates to Web and software user interface design) may be familiar with the Certified Usability Analyst (CUA) program developed by Human Factors International (HFI).  Note that HFI is a company, not a professional organization, so the CUA certification is specific to HFI's practices and methods, rather than those agreed upon by an independent body (although HFI is considered an industry standard-bearer). 

Moreover, the CUA is a relatively focused, short-term certification process "aimed at designers and developers who want solid training for practical work in user-centered design."  In fact, HFI distinguishes between their program, referring to CUAs as "the certified paramedics of the field", in contrast with CPE credential's:  "The CPE/CHFP program is aimed at full time usability engineering professionals. These people must have advanced degrees and at least four years of professional experience in the field. They are the certified physicians of the field."

Planning and Conducting Design Research: A Primer

Sam Ladner has a pair of brief, but effective articles on her design research blog -

Design research, step by step, published last year, discusses the basics of planning a design research project.  Ladner's critical point is that even in broad, exploratory research, it is essential to define a set of reearch questions to guide your approach, and to let you know when you've found answers.  This sounds obvious, but is often assumed, overlooked, or realized with overly-vague research questions (e.g. how are people using our product?  what are new product opportunities?), rather than with more specific questions that lead to actionable findings.

Getting meaningful insights from qualitative research is this year's follow-up post focusing on they key activities for analyzing data.  I particularly agree with Ladner's recommendations to "summarize frequently":

"After each interview, take 20 minutes to write out a brief summary of what you remember being the most important points of the interview (note that this is not a substitute to taking notes during the interview). These notes are the first step toward analysis. You are reducing “clutter” and irrelevant information. You are also exploring connections with previous interviews."

and to "visualize the results":

"Many qualitative researchers make use of summary tables and diagrams to further summarize results. My favourite visualization method is the mental model, which can convey a huge amount of information in a synthetic way, quickly. Other tools include mind maps and even the simple bulleted list."

Both of these activites are important for efficient and proactive research analysis and communication.

in the cards

You may already be familiar with IDEO's Method Cards, which succinctly show & tell 51 methods for conducting research and design.  The cards tend to emphasize ways of thinking like "Look" and "Try", rather than specific, concrete methods.

Enter design consulting firm nForm with their own set of "user experience trading cards".  These provide more tactical methods, apparently focused on UI design, with cards for "Ethnography" (pictured), "Taxonomy" and "Usability Capture Software".

The IDEO cards are probably more valuable due to the greater diversity of ideas presented (although they do overlap internally in some cases) and are more of a way to think about a problem; whereas the nForm cards are more of a primer to user-centered design methods.  And the IDEO cards are tangible in a more important way - you can order a set of actual cardsfor reference and sharing.

"If you don't get DesigningForHumans, you're making a mistake."

Actually, the quote I am making light of is:

"If you don't get the magazine from the Rotman School of Management, you're making a mistake."
-Bruce Nussbaum, Assistant Managing Editor, BusinessWeek

Nussbaum's admonition is used by the University of Toronto to promote its business school magazine, but strikes me as oddly worded, or faint praise.  As if reading the magazine was avoiding a mistake, but nothing beyond that (e.g. informative, stimulating, etc).  Which is too bad, because it's actually an interesting, well presented periodical, with an emphasis on design and its relationship with business.

The current issue, Winter 2008 (recent issues are available as PDFs), espeically, may interest design researchers and designers.  Of particular note, Jane Fulton Suri of IDEO authored Informing our Intuition - Design Research for Radical Innovation (p. 52 of the PDF/p. 54 of the print magazine).  Like many design research articles targeted at business readers, the content is heavy on definitions and clarifications of terms - for example the differentiation between quantitative and qualitative research:

"...effective research is not just about analysisof objective evidence – there isn’t any directly applicable data anyway; it’s also about the synthesis of evidence, recognition of emergent patterns, empathic connection to people’s motivations and behaviours, exploration of analogies and extreme cases, and intuitive interpretation of information and impressions from multiple sources. This type of approach is now often referred to as ‘design research’ to differentiate it from purely analytic methods."

The Winter issue also contains several articles related to applying 'design thinking' in the context of business.  And the Idea Exchange section consists of about a dozen, brief Q&As with thought leaders around the theme of thinking.  Ultimately the domain content only goes so far - an experienced design researcher is unlikely to learn much about his/her own field - but it's useful for understanding how to relate and communicate to the business world.

Rotman also walks the walk on design, with strong visual presentation and readability.  You could of course, read/print the PDF versions online for free, rather than paying the $99(Canadian) subscription fee, but given the elegance of the format and the relevance of the content, perhaps you'd be making a mistake.

Sketching:Designer :: ______:Researcher

If you've taken a standardized test you may recall analogy questions.  For example, if the problem posed was air:airplane :: _______:ship, a reasonable solution for the blank would be water (apparently this notation is called the Aristotelian format).

I started thinking about analogies after reading Carl Alviani's recent Coroflot posting - Questioning the Cult of the Sketch.  The article challenges the common view that strong sketching, or drawing skills, are critical for a designer, especially in the context of judging whether to hire a designer.  Alviani quotes a Creative Director at Nike: "A designer who can't sketch is like a journalist who can't write!".  Alviani's point is that sketching, which has traditionally been table stakes in the design industry, is now just one of many design-related skills - and arguably not one of the most important ones, compared to other forms of communication, management, etc.  A great designer need not be a great sketcher.

This got me thinking about the analogous skill to sketching in the design research field.  That is, what skill is considered so fundamental to conducting research that it would not only be possessed, but well-honed in experienced design researchers?  I made an initial, incomplete list:

• research planning
• observational aptitude
• note taking proficiency
• interviewing skills
• data capture competency (photo, video, audio)
• data synthesis and analysis

To narrow this down, I focused on those skills that had characteristics which were most analogous to sketching: early in the process, raw/unrefined, driven by personal interpretation and feel.  This led me to settle on a consolidated grouping of observing, interviewing and note-taking, that collectively we can call field research skills.

Now, turning back to Question the Cult of Sketch, can a great design researcher lack great field research skills?  I would think not - there is a critical distinction from sketching here - field research skills are intrinsically broader and multi-disciplinary relative to sketching.  One might be a weaker note-taker, for instance, but still excel with effective interview questions (and a good memory).

But perhaps Alviani and I are both asking the wrong questions because we are inwardly focused.  A more fitting question of the modern designer is - can you conduct research to inform your designing, and of the modern researcher - can you design to communicate your research results?  Otherwise expressed as research:designer :: design:researcher*.

*See Christopher Fahey's Design Research is a Design Process for an interesting perspective on these issues.

Interaction Design for Industrial Designers

Simultaneous with the first ever Interaction Design Association conference, IxDA founder David Malouf has an article on Core77 - Interaction Design and ID: You're already doing it...don't you want to know what it's all about?  He makes the important and valid point that embedded technology requires an understanding of interaction design by IDers.  The article provides a high-level overview of interaction design - it's not just about digital design, as his own examples from Motorola illustrate.

Malouf advocates that Industrial Designers need to increase their understanding of interactivity, for example to understand and design for interactions that change over time:

"So if product designers are facing a deluge of interaction design challenges (and they are), why is such poor attention being paid to bringing interaction design into the fold of the industrial design community?"

He then goes on to advocate several useful resources for interaction design, including schools, books, and organizations (like IxDA).

I found this article touched very close to my own experience.  I am a member of both IDSA and IxDA, which is probably not too rare, although I went against traffic by going from working primarily in interaction design to now focusing on industrial design.  In fact, a key driver of my current position was to bring interaction design and usability expertise to a predominately industrial design based firm,  So with that all said, I appreciate where Malouf is coming from. 

At the same time, I found his article one-sided - certainly its publication in Core77 suggests a largely ID audience, and Malouf does recognize shortcomings on both sides (ID and IxD):

"interaction designers lack access to traditional and formal general design education and training, and industrial designers lack any formal education and practice of interactivity"

But the clear message is that Industrial Designers need to get their stuff together around interaction design. I wonder if the reverse message is getting through to interaction designers - I would guess not likely.  Why?  In a word - specialization.  Time constraints and project complexity require collaborative, multi-disciplinary teams to solve design problems effectively.  There is overlap between  ID and IxD, just as there is overlap between these  disciplines and architecture, but overlap and awareness are not the same as proficiency, and certainly not efficiency across multiple design disciplines.

Neither IDers not IxDers "lacks access" to the training of the other, but there are skill sets that are separate and specific  to industrial design as there are for interaction design.  In the near-future, I would expect to see "domain designers" who are focused on multiple aspects of a given product category (e.g. mobile devices, automobiles).  Such "hybrids" would have deep knowledge of ID, IxD and other relevant methods for their particular field, but at the potential loss of discipline knowledge beyond their particular field of specialization.  I see this already in the difference between the analogy bases of consultants versus long-time internal/corporate designers.

Also, while Malouf criticizes last year's IDSA conference for a lack of emphasis on interaction design, he should have also mentioned that there was a great ID/IxD collaboration simultaneous with the conference put on by the San Francisco chapter of IxDA - INTERSECTION: Where Interaction and Industrial Design Meet (attendance was definitely skewed towards the interaction designers, but I represented).

For another interesting perspective on the same topics, I suggest reading Carl Alviani's Hacking the Physical Wolrd: What we taught software designers, and what they're trying to teach us.

And finally, a request to the IxDA.  The daily volume of thought provoking IxDA discussion threads is impressive - but I'd love to see an innovative solution to help me (and I imagine I am not alone) more easily find content of  interest without having to go through so many messages each day.

An Introduction to Neuroergonomics

In my recent article on emerging trends in design research, I intentionally left off the field of neuroergonomics.  While it is a growing field, I don't see it becoming commercially viable for several more years.  Moreover, it is a fascinating area  deserving of it's own posting (or several). 

To begin with, the term neuroergonomics represents the merge or overlap of neuroscience and ergonomics/human factors .  In other words, how a better understanding of brain functions can improve human factors methods and tools.

A primary research area within neuroergonomics is the application of neuroscience-based technology to the study of ergonomics.  Neuroergonomics: The Brain at Work, published in 2007, is a surprisingly accessible and readable collection of chapters covering these technologies, which include relatively familiar ones such as EEG and MRI, and others from the medical field.   While such technologies are robust, they can be impractical for real-world applications.

Other methods, while less precise, may have promise for measuring brain activity in less obtrusive ways.  For example, transcranial doppler sonography (TCDS - think weather radar for your head), uses localized sensors to measure cerebral blood flood as a potential correlate of workload or stress.  For example, higher bloodflow in certain parts of the brain may indicate that the user is working harder to complete a task.  Imagine having such a TCDS sensor embedded in a car or cockpit to evaluate if a driver was mentally overloaded and required assistance.  For more information on TCDS, see a video of the work being done at the University of Cincinnati (from the dept where I did my grad work, incidentally). 

Much of the work in neuroergonomics is at the level of basic research - determining the validity, reliability and practicality of applying such technologies to real world problems.  Consequently, the focus tends to be on high-level human factors variables such as attention, workload and stress.  Applications to more "everyday" product design problems are further down the road, but probably not as far as you might expect.

Of course, I've barely scratched the surface of the field of neuroergonomics.  For more information, I highly recommend the previously mentioned book.  You can also check out Raja Parasuraman's work - he is one of the leading researchers in this domain - including this introductory overview.

Task Analysis in Surgery...and Wii for Surgeons

One of the most challenging aspects in conducting medical ethnography/observation for design research is constructing a complete and accurate task analysis.  Breaking down a complex surgical procedure into logical sub-tasks typically requires rigorous observations over multiple sessions, detailed video review and validation from subject matter experts. 

Constructing hierarchical task analysis in surgery*, which was published in the January 2008 issue of Surgical Endoscopy, provides a high-level description and concrete example of the process for creating a hierarchical task analysis in a surgical context.  Click on inset image for a process diagram from the article.

*Note - accessing the full article requires a paid subscription, or the individual article may be purchased for $32 - then again there's always the library.

On a somewhat related note, New Scientist reports on the development of surgical training simulations for the Nintendo Wii:

"Now they are designing Wii software that will accurately simulate surgical procedures. A training platform based on the console, which costs about $250, might be more practical for trainee surgeons in the developing world..."

For designer/researchers, lower cost training simulators may provide a way to simulate or test prototype surgical tools in the design process.

Download the Human Factors Design Standard

Even if you don't design aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration's Human Factors Design Standard, is an invaluable (and free) reference for design practitioners. 

The complete design standard is large (10MB) and comprehensive - "an exhaustive compilation of human factors practices and principles" - but it provides succinct and tactical, evidence-based information.  For example, concerning touchscreens, fourteen specific guidelines are given for button size, labeling, position, dead space, etc, but the need to test with representative users is also recommended to keep these rules grounded in reality.

In 2007 the FAA added draft updates related to interface design, including displays and non-keyboard input devices (e.g. mouse, joystick, touchscreen). 

A brief, anonymous survey form is required to download the Human Factors Design Standard (HFDS).  Once past that, you may download the entire document or any of the 15 individual chapters or drafts, ranging from Alarms, Audio and Voice to Anthropometry and Biomechanics (a particularly strong section of the document).

Sparsely, but appropriately illustrated, the HFDS gives the actionable guidelines that so many product designers and students are desparate to find in a single location.

PS - Experimenting with larger font size for better readability on recent posts.

LiveScribe - Paradigm Shifting User Research Technology?

I don't believe in "mission statements", but if Designing for Humans had one, it might be "to realize the application of emerging technologies in support of design research".  While I discuss various technologies, many are specialized or several years away from general applicability.  But I recently learned of the LiveScribe smartpen, and I can honestly say this is a technology that can have a valuable, near term impact for virtually all researchers.

The device is an electronic pen set to launch in the first quarter of 2008.  It has several features, but the one that stands out is called Paper Replay.  This feature:

"allows total recall... by simply tapping on your notes. When used to take notes during a discussion or lecture, the smartpen records the conversation and digitizes the handwriting, automatically synchronizing the ink and audio. By later tapping the ink, the user can replay the conversation from the exact moment the note was written. Notes and audio can also be uploaded to a PC where they can be replayed, saved, searched or sent."

In other words, the pen records audio in synch with your writing ,and indexes the audio with your writing.  As a result, subsequently tapping on a particular written note will play back the audio segment corresponding to the time when the note was written.  Still not clear? - then watch the comic-book style demo.

So what does this mean for design research?  Well, note-taking is a challenging skill, and typically we rely on a combination of hastily written notes and audio (or audio-video)recordings to document research.  The LiveScribe brings these two approaches together in an integrated way, potentially reducing equipment and streamlining workflow.

While the LiveScribe was not designed for user research applications, consider how it might be applied:

• During user interviews, the researcher can reference what he or she writes or sketches directly back to the interviewees words for clarity and idea expansion.
• In usability testing the facilitator can reference recorded comments directly back to a discussion guide document to quickly drill-down to supporting quotes.
• For ethnographic observations informant conversations and environmental sounds can be unobtrusively recorded while taking notes. 

The potential paradigm shift is moving from using handwritten notes and recordings as separate, complimentary tools to truly integrated ones.  Well, perhaps not paradigm shifting, but damn convenient.

Reality Check: I should caveat that I have not used this product yet directly and am basing my assumptions on what I have read, but expect a full review as soon as it becomes available.   Also the pen requires special gridded paper, for tracking purposes.  I also wouldn't expect the audio quality recorded on the pen to be of high caliber, which is pretty important.

With that all said, I wouldn't be surprised if the LiveScribe (or a similar product), become a part of the user researcher's tool belt, along with the camcorder, notepad, and granola bar.

IDSA District Conferences and Other Upcoming Events

• The IDSA site lists some dates for the upcoming regional conferences.  Note that many of these dates are still tentative and subject to change.  For example, the Northeast District conference is listed as April 18-20, but has already been moved up to April 4-6.  Also the conference themes/names and the links to the web sites may be leftover from last year or non-functional.  Your best bet is to contact the regional VP for your district (listed on the same page), to get the scoop.  We'll provide a more clear posting once things are locked-down.
• The web site for the 2008 Design and Emotion Conference (Hong Kong) is online.  "The International Conference on Design & Emotion is a forum where practitioners, researchers and industry meet and exchange knowledge and insights concerning the cross-disciplinary field of design and emotion."
• The web site for the 2008 Healthcare Systems Ergonomics and Patient Safety Conference (France).  "The first HEPS conference aimed at creating bridges among different disciplines (medicine and surgery, information technology, occupational psychology, clinical engineering and architecture, human factors and ergonomics) in order to share a strong interest in the promotion of human factors and ergonomics in healthcare and patient safety."

Eight Design Research Themes for 2008: Technologies and Methodologies

2007 has witnessed the continued maturity of user research practices in product design/development organizations. As this continues, we look to 2008 and key areas of growth and change in user research technologies and methodologies. What many of these themes have in common reflects a shift from how to conduct research, to how to manage all of the research findings and results – clearly a positive trend and a nice problem to have.   Stay tuned into 2008 as these themes are tracked in further detail.

Technologies

Even a casual reader of this web log will have observed the ever-growing options in data gathering technologies available for a variety of research applications. For 2008, the themes in technology are diverse – from high definition video to a new resource of anthropometric head measurements of the Chinese population. But the more compelling tools address needs in organizing and analyzing qualitative data:

1. High Definition (HD) Video- HD video cameras are rising in popularity while falling in price. Higher resolution video means larger file sizes and typically more time for video editing and file management. On the other hand, greater visual clarity can be extremely valuable for studying fine motor control tasks, small control/interface element usage and visually-rich environments. Surgical observation and consumer electronics usability are two applicable areas for HD video.

2. International Anthropometric References – Much of the reference anthropometric data used to guide designs is based on the body dimensions European and North American populations, limiting applicability and, ultimately fit, to a broader user population. The availability of three-dimensional scanning technology, while still time-consuming and expensive, is driving the inclusion of additional populations. Size China is a program to create the first-ever digital database of Chinese head and face shapes for helmets, sunglasses and surgical masks. Such resources will provide a richer starting point for guiding form and size in product designs, but of course are not a replacement for fit testing with real participants.

3. Qualitative Data Management Software – As research capabilities mature, organizations will deal with a new set of challenges around handling larger volumes of research data. Research teams will struggle with organizing, presenting and efficiently re-using findings across projects. With that “embarrassment of riches, there is a need for techniques and tools that support research data management. For example, QSR Internationals’s forthcoming NVivo 8 provides a structure for entering, tagging and querying various forms of multimedia, qualitative data across multiple projects. These types of tools will enable more effective collaboration amongst both localized and geographically distributed researchers, and can provide a centralized repository for observational data.
4. Qualitative Data Analysis Software – The value of well-conducted research is extremely limited if it is not easily organized for effective communication. It is especially challenging to organize, analyze and interpret qualitative data such as user interview transcripts and observational field notes. Following many years of adapting general purpose software and technology, we now have access to a variety of software and hardware tools to support planning, collection, analysis and sharing of research data. Several new technologies can support unstructured data analysis in various ways including searching speech via text and syntactically mapping information. For example, IBM’s Many Eyes application visualizes text in a tree-like branching structure to enable more efficient analysis and data mining.

 

Methodologies

Design research methods will continue to adapt for studying the wider range of user experiences, beyond the primary product. Frameworks and techniques for mapping out user touch points will assist research planning, which will become specialized to particular domains (e.g. medical vs. consumer). Threading across all of this is the need for guidelines for effective research communication and presentation:

5. Comparative Ethnography - While many organizations are using ethnographic observation to understand end-user perspectives and stimulate innovative thinking, such research is frequently focused on a limited set of tasks and users. But a growing trend is to use ethnographic methodology to identify differences between contexts. For example, in a study of automobile driving behavior, Bresslergroup’s research plan not only focused on the in-car driving experience, but studied related, non-driving activities. Observing how comparable tasks (e.g. planning a route, choosing music to enjoy) are conducted in disparate contexts (in this case, in car vs. in home) provides unique insights to inform creative solutions.

6. Service Design - Beyond the “total product lifecycle” approach, organizations will need to understand where they fit within the range of loosely tied user experiences beyond the product itself. For example, medical implant designers should expand user research beyond surgery to understand the touch points that potential patients, caregivers and healthcare providers utilize to make treatment decisions, prepare for surgery, and deal with recovery and beyond. The emerging discipline of service design provides a framework for understanding how multiple types of providers and users interact across the various products, interfaces and environments where interactions and decisions occur.

7. Domain-Specific Research Methods – Although research practices can vary among domains (e.g. medical, consumer, industrial), core methods remain consistent. But as research teams mature, there is a movement towards industry-specific user research and design techniques. For example, in appliance design, usability testing with high-fidelity simulations is frequently necessary to elicit reliable performance feedback from consumers. By contrast, healthcare professionals are typically more capable of responding to lower-fidelity prototypes, partly attributable to their professional problem-solving processes.

8. Presenting Design Research – Typically, product development organizations can effectively present and communicate their work and capabilities in design and engineering. But even when products are backed by quality user research, teams may struggle with effectively communicating its influence on product design. Similarly, organizations have difficulty evaluating the research capabilities of potential employees. The Industrial Designers Society of Americas (IDSA) is leading the way in developing guidelines for design research presentations, starting with the organization of design research portfolio workshop & review at the Northeast District conference this April in Philadelphia.

Portfolio Review for Design Researchers

You read that right - a portfolio review for design researchers. 

With the growing number of design researchers and the importance of research as a skill for designers, there's a need for guidance on putting together a design research portfolio.

We are in the early planning stages, with the goal to pilot this at the Northeast District IDSA conference in Philadelphia, April, 2008 (district conference web site is not up yet).  This would likely be a sub-section of the overall design portfolio, with an emphasis on research methods.  The reviews will focus on the quality and presentation of:

• formulating research questions
• identifying research participants
• methods of conducting research and capturing data
• organization and analysis of findings
• communication of results and outcomes

It would be open to both students and professionals with work in design research, including designers, human factors specialists, design researchers, anthropologists, etc.

If you are a professional with experience in design research or human factors, and are planning to attend the NE district conference and are interested in serving as a reviewer, please contact me at robtannen@hotmail.com  Also, if you have suggestions or examples for the review process, guidelines, etc, please forward those to me as well.

Nothing written in stone  yet, so stay tuned...

UPDATE - Conference date has been set for first weekend of April 4-6, 2008.

iZone Sticker Photos for Field Research

A little bit of back to the future...although discontinued, Polaroid produced a line of cameras called iZone which were an updated version of the classic Polaroid instant camera. 

The cool feature of iZone was the film.  The photo sizes were very small ,about 2" x 1" - the goal was fun, not fidelity.  There were several different  types of novelty film: one film had fortunes printed to go along with the photo.  But my personal favorite is the sticker film, which has an adhesive back.  This made it very well suited for field observations.  You could take a quick photo, stick in in a note book,  jot down your observation notes and then go on to the next observation (click on photo inset above).  Even today with digital cameras there's no quick and easy way to combine photos and written notes in such a compact package.

Since the camera (and film) have been discontinued, they are a little hard to come by, but available through ebay and similar sources.  However, most of the film is near or past expiration - but I am told, and can testify from personal experience, that the film works well past its expiration date.

We'll be using iZones and sticker film to capture observations at the upcoming IDSA Connecting '07 conference.

2D vs 3D Prototypes in Testing 3D Consumer Products

An interesting, forthcoming study on the interaction between prototype format and control labeling in consumer products:

In their upcoming article in the journal Applied Ergonomics, Juergen Sauer and his co-authors compare the effectiveness of 2D (e.g. paper) prototypes to 3D products in evaluating usability and performance issues.  The authors' meta-analysis reveals that the inherent limitations in 2D prototypes typically limits their application to usability testing - for example clarity of control labels.  Consequently, they set out to determine "to what extent user behaviour with a 3D consumer product can be predicted from user behaviour with a 2D paper prototype."

The study examined user temperature and pressure settings for an actual power washer (arguably, not a 3D prototype) and 2D control settings prototypes.  As a second factor, different control label types (click on image detail, above) were used including standard numerals, and then two types of "enhanced labeling": substance-oriented (e.g. mud, grease) and object-oriented (e.g. tire, window). 

Enhanced labeling influenced users for both the paper and real-world products - for both types of prototypes users would use the control label as a guide to task-appropriate settings.  On the other hand, in the case of the numerical labeling, paper prototype users were much more likely to adjust the standard settings, whereas the real product users did not adjust the temperature as frequently.  The authors suggest an effort hypothesis as one possibility to explain the results.  In the case of the paper prototype, the relative effort and motivation to make changes is relatively small and consistent; whereas in actual product use greater effort is typically required.  When task-specific, enhanced, labeling is provided, there is significant motivation and cues to make changes in the actual product that were not available when relying only a numerical scale.

So what does this all mean?  Among other things, motivation and effort need to be considered as key factors in user's decision-making process when using real-world products that require physical effort.  Making design decisions, even about control labeling, based solely on paper prototypes, is risky.  This is probably less so, but not irrelevant, for on-screen interfaces, where less physical effort is required.

Designing interactive consumer products: Utility of paper prototypes and effectiveness of enhanced control labelling
Applied Ergonomics, Volume 39, Issue 1, January 2008, Pages 71-85
Juergen Sauer, Holger Franke and Bruno Ruettinger  http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17498642

The Future of "User-Designed"

Core77 is featuring an article about a collaborative project between Ignition, Texas Instruments and Southern Methodist University students/users to design next-generation digital projectors. 

In, The Future of "User-Designed": How one company worked with end-users to design their perfect product, by Bryan Hynecek, ininitial design concepts were created by gaming users - in this case master's students in video game development - and then reviewed and improved by the professionals. 

One might question whether using master's students in game development is truly "user-centered" in the sense that these might not be considered novice users.  On the contrary, I applaud the selection of a targeted, expert end-user sample who have clear interest and motivation, but are by no means product designers.  Decide for yourself.

Also see previous, related articles on user-driven innovation: http://humanfactors.typepad.com/idsa/2007/03/userdriven_inno.html

Summer IDSA Innovation to Focus on Research

Although it's still a few months from publication, the next issue of Innovation, IDSA's journal, will feature the theme "Research & Strategies for Informing Breakthrough Design".  This issue will focus on content that is germane to the Human Factors section, including research methodologies and design tools.

I will post more information as it becomes available.

The issue is scheduled for printing on June 16th.  To see the entire 2006 Innovation editoral calendar:

http://www.idsa.org/webmodules/articles/articlefiles/Innovation_2006.pdf

Ergonomics Course Modules

The United States Air Force has a set of online course on ergonomics, including courses in:

• Tool Design
• Workstation Design
• Basic Biomechanics

This is quite useful information, and is not focused on military applications specifically.  For example, the section on Tool Design demonstrates different types of hand-grips with an ice-cream scooper.

IDSA Conference - Blogs as a Research Tool

Thanks for the good turnout (see photo in previous post) and great questions at the presentation today.  There was a balanced mix of interest in blogs from both the research and design/technical perspectives.

Download a PDF of the presentation "Blogs as Reference and Research Tools for Designers":

Download idsa_blogs_presentation_2005.pdf (3.5 MB)

I'll be adding the audio and video from the presentation next week.

Here are links to some of the key sites discussed in the presentation:

·       Feedster (blog search)

·       PubSub (blog search)

·       Technorati (blog search)

·       Catalyst (research on blog use)

·       Pew (research on blog use)

·       TypePad (blog publishing tool)

·       News Gator (Web-based RSS reader)

·       You Subscribe (Outlook-based RSS reader)

Mapping Emotions

BusinessWeek Online features an article by Dan Formosa of SmartDesign, describing the general methodology for measuring emotional connections to products.  In this case, changes in  perceptions towards band-aids as a function of exposure time to the product.

Blogs as Reference and Research Tools

I'm currently gathering data (albeit, informally) for research on how industrial designers use blogs - specifically around learning about design research.  I'm also interested in hearing whether anyone has directly used blogs as a design research tool - for example, in place of traditional journals.

I'm collecting input via the Core77 boards and I'm also planning on launching a brief survey to HF section within IDSA.  I'll post the findings here, but my the primary purpose behind this is for a presentation on blogs (see p. 9) that I'll be making at the IDSA conference on August 26th.

Principles of Universal Design

The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University provides an overview of key principles or guidelines for universal product design that accomodates the wide variety of human capabilities and attributes.  The guidelines are downloadable and are also provided in several different languages.

Measuring Emotion in Product Design

Here are links to a couple of research papers that discuss methods for measuring emotional responses to products.  Both provide conceptual backgrounds and discuss a range of measurement approaches, including verbal and non-verbal (e.g. visual) rating systems that can be adapted to a range of situations.

Measuring Emotions - Development and application of an instrument to measure emotional responses to products

Affective experiences in the Home: measuring emotion

Overview of Touchscreen Research

Many products rely on touchscreen input.  Appendix A of Gregory Bender's dissertation provides an excellent overview of touchscreen technology, human factors and design research, with general guidelines.  Note that this tends to focus on larger touchscreens applications (e.g. kiosks, ATMs), rather than smaller devices (PDAs, media players).

The appdenix starts on page 78 of this document, which is actually page 89 of the PDF file:

http://www.thisoldtractor.com/gtbender/papers/dissertation.pdf