DESIGNING *for humans

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Ethnography

Exploring Ethnography for Design Research in the February issue of MD&DI is more than a follow-up to the classic article Ethnographic Methods for New Product Development. 

According to author Stephen Wilcox (Chair of IDSA Human Factors section), ethnographic research is now common in medical device development.  The majority of this research is of course, qualitative, and primarily focused on identifying opportunities:

"Much so-called ethnographic research—perhaps most of it—is designed simply to generate ideas, that is, to stimulate creativity. Inevitably, when members of device-design teams go into the field and see directly how their devices and other devices are used, it generates insight and stimulates new ideas."

But there is another type of ethnographic research that is as much about the validity of findings as it is about generating ideas (Sidebar: simply put, in research, validity refers to the degree that you are actually measuring what you are intending to measure).  Typically validity is associated with quantitative measurement based methods such as performance testing.  But Wilcox suggests several ways to increase validity in ethnographic research including careful sample selection, quantitative measurement and objective data recording.  This more robust approach to ethnographic research comes with a price:

"conducting such research is difficult, time-consuming, and, frankly, expensive, in comparison with the idea-generation type of ethnographic research."

It's unlikely that most organizations will be able to accommodate all of the steps necessary to conduct highly valid ethnographic research - especially since many are just getting into the practice of doing any field research regularly.  But Wilcox's recommendations should really be taken as best practices for conducting any type of user research effort (whether validity is an explicit intention or not).  For example, making sure that the  "sample accurately reflects the population of interest" is a fundamental research planning step.  The deeper challenge when addressing validity is knowing what you know - for example determining whether your sample is truly representative.

The February MD&DI issue also contains an article on considerations for designing medical devices for home use, and another article on integrating human factors into the medical device development process.

Finally, for a less technical, down to basics overview of ethnography, see Design Meets Research, from GAIN, AIGA's journal of business and design.

"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.

I.D. Magazine 2008 Annual Design Review Jury Experience

Last week I had the privilege of serving on the equipment category jury for the 2008 I.D. Magazine Annual Design Review (to be published this summer).  By way of background, I.D. has been conducting an annual review of the best designs for over 50 years.  This is something I had wanted to do since I read the magazine as a teenager (perhaps that says as much about my social life as my interest in design, but anyway).   Besides equipment, there are a range of categories including consumer products, interactive design, furniture, environment and graphics.  Consequently, the selected winners are not only considered the best designs, but represent the state of the art in each category.

Given my background, I saw my responsibility as focusing on the ergonomic aspects of each of the nearly 50 products we reviewed.  My sensitivity to usability was heightened by staying in a New York hotel room the preceding night where the temperature controls were reversed.  Unable to get my $300 room warmed-up, I later found out that, due to some technical fluke, I had to set the control to cold to activate the heat.  This also meant lowering the thermostat to below the current room temperature so that the "cold" would switch on.

Fortunately, it turned out that my co-jurors who are designers/design teachers had as much to say about human factors, as I did about aesthetics.  By its nature, the equipment category tends to evolve gradually, compared to the more dynamic year-to-year changes of interactive or even consumer products.  The Annual Review issue will be published in a few months, so I can't go into details on the entries at this point (see the 2007 Annual Review for reference), but by participating in the judging process, I did learn or confirm some principles about what makes a successful entry. 

The judging process is based on expert review and consensus - in other words the criteria changes from year to year based on the expertise, opinions and criteria of the particular judges in each category.  At the same time, the nature of the judging process - one full day of going through a large number of entries - suggests the following to submitters:

1. Treat the Entry Process Like a Design Project: Successful designs meet the needs of their users.  In this context, the users of the entry forms are expert designers and their tasks are to relatively quickly review and classify submissions.  Design basics like appropriate use of typography and visuals to communicate information quickly and effectively are critical (one would think this would go without saying).  In other words, given two hypothetically equal design submissions, the one with the well presented, visually structured entry may get more attention than the scribbled one.  This may mean going above and beyond the constraints of the entry form, where appropriate. 

2. Communicate to a Naive Audience: While jurors are experts in design, they can come from a range of industries and backgrounds.  The equipment category in particular, includes a variety of complex, technical products that may be unfamiliar and require explanation.  Explanations should include a scenario to describe when, how and why such products are used.  In some cases, videos can illustrate usage with a demonstration or simulation.  Similarly, it is valuable to explicitly communicate why a particular product is an improvement over competitor or predecessors, as jurors may not be knowledgeable of particular domains.

3. Link the Product to the Greater Design World: Jurors are not only looking at the inherent strengths of a particular design, but how it fits into the current, changing design world (re:  my earlier comment about the Annual Review representing the state-of-the art). Consider that two well-designed products from completely different fields need to be compared against each other - broad, less tangible factors such as symbolism of emerging design trends,  or benefits to society and the environment may come into play.  This is not an easy area for the submitter to address, but I suggest considering the ramifications of a design to the field of "Design", as well as a product's specific users and industry.

I look forward to discussing the Annual Review issue when it comes out.

Human Factors in Mechanical Engineering

February's issue of Mechanical Engineering is focused on the role of human factors in design.  The lead article, the new point of view, discusses the renewed importance of human factors in product design, with a veritable who's who of IDSA experts in the subject, including Don Norman, Rob Tannen and Bryce Rutter.

The article is a useful introduction targeted at an engineering audience, and covering the wide range of human factors aspects, from physical fit to creating an emotional connection with the end-user:

"More than ever, successful companies incorporate human factors engineering, psychology, and cognitive theory in designs. Their goal is nothing less than to create a user experience that makes us love the product."

The issue also contains a focus on use - an article on the importance of collaboration between designers, researchers and engineers in creating usable products, and a video of a human factors discussion panel moderated by Don Norman.  Accessing the video requires filling out a brief registration form.

Finally, ME magazine is clearly putting its money where its mouth is, by launching the human factors articles in conjunction with a nice upgrade to it's web site design.

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.