DIMS | Communication and Visualisation

140520| GRS60312 / GRS65000

Ron van Lammeren

What’s wrong with this title?

Maps for Monitoring

2/49

Maps for monitoring

3/49

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/business/ibm-takes-smarter-cities-concept-to-rio-de-janeiro.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What type of design?

Interaction Design

Setup

A Previous knowledge

B Usability

C User centered design

D Usability evaluation

E Trends

4/49

?

?

design evaluate

Interaction design: designing interactive products to support the way people

communicate and interact in their everyday and working lives

DIMS: designing interactive products to support the way people communicate

and interact with integrated monitoring systems

- Prepare a design for integrated monitoring system for a selected beneficial area

taking into account state-of-the-art developments in the field of geo-information

- Demonstrate the use of proper visualization techniques for effective communication

of the information in the monitoring system

A.Medium is the message

5/49

http://bit.ly/cSNvc1 / Rogers et al, 2011 (p 482 -487) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

What went wrong?

A.Geo-Visualisation

6/49

Bertin | cartography

Tufte | data visualisation

Ware | visual interpretation

Blok | spatio-temporal data visualisation

all linked to cognitive aspects like:

attention, perception, memory, learning, communicating, problem solving, etc

What knowledge may help ?

7/32

Geo-visualisation and more...

User

Interaction

Communication

Practical requirements

geo-referenced research messages

(un) expected responses

interface

geo-visualisation

interface

A.Interactive visualisations

8/49

What interaction?

B.Usability [of Geo-Visualisation]

Usability Making products and systems easier to use,

and

matching them more closely to user needs and requirements

International standard, ISO 9241-11:

The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to

achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction

in a specified context of use.

9/49

www.usabilitynet.org

http://icaci.org/research-agenda/usability-of-maps-and-gi/

Your daily GIS

Arthur, C. (2010)

Tovar, V. (2013)

Google Maps mobile

Crowdsourcing http://on.fb.me/KnPSgB

(Vk 25/11/2013)

10/49

Examples!

B. Six Usability Goals

Effective to use (effectiveness)

Efficient to use (efficiency)

Safe to use (safety, error tolerant)

Have good utility (in line with required tasks)

Easy to learn (learnability)

Easy to remember how to use (memorability)

Rogers, Sharp, Preece 2011

B.User experience goals

Desirable aspects

● Satisfying, enjoyable, challenging, helpful, provoactive, ..

Undesirable aspects

● Frustrating, Boring, Patronizing, Cutesy, ..

The users - who is using the product?

highly trained and experienced users, or novices?

Their goals - what are the users trying to do with the product

does it support what they want to do with it?

The usage situation (or 'context of use')

where and how is the product being used?

12/49

What to support the user’s interest?

C. Process of interaction design

Establish requirements

Design alternatives

Prototype

Evaluate

13/49

Your approach ?

C. User centered approach

14/49

Applying a user-centered development cycle to interactive visualisation design

?

?

Wassink et al 2008

“ the user never makes an error “

C. Design / Engineering stages

1. Early envisioning phase

Analysis of current situation (users, environments, tasks)

- profiles and requirements

2. Global specification phase of early prototypes

Design (by use scenarios), Proposal of solutions, present to users and

other stakeholders

3. Detailed specification phase of complete prototypes

Based on evaluation of 2.; visual representation and interaction styles

Rogers, Preece, Sharp, 2011

15/49

http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/13407stds.htm

C1. Early envisioning : Personas

16/49

personal characteristics, activities, interests thay may lead to usability scenarios

Rich descriptions of typical user of the product.

A persona represents a synthesis of a number of real people and

is characterized by a unique set of goals relating to the product intended.

Psychological characteristics: cognitive style, motivation Knowledge and experience: ranking novices to experts Physical discomfort: colour blind, pattern recognition Task related: role, frequency of use

C1.Techniques to define Personas

Questionnaires (many users, difficult to design)

Interviews (exploring, time consuming)

Existing documentation (trustworthy?)

Observation (creates understanding, time consuming)

Participation

Focus groups

Use different methods, involve all stakeholder groups

Use template for requirement description (e.g. Volere template)

http://www.volere.co.uk/articles.htm 17/49

How to create Personas?

C1 Example screenshot study for GIS

Goals:

How do GIS users organise and customise the interface?

study common users in daily usage

Users were asked to send a screenshot of their entire screen when working on routine tasks

Questionnaire to provide additional information

Sent to GIS mailing lists

Analysis:

proportion of interface assigned to map-other parts of interface (e.g. toolbars)

User experience

Screen resolution

Results: simple technique to understand how GIS is used in situ

Haklay & Zafiri 2008

18/49

Example!

C2. Global and detailed specification

Statement about an intended product that specifies what it should do or how it should perform (Rogers et al, 2011; p 355)

Requirements describe the formal specifications required to implement the system

Goals of requirements analysis:

Understand about users, tasks, context (personas)

Produce a stable set of requirements

getting requirements right is crucial

the stage where failure occurs most commonly

!! mistakes in a final product are expensive !!

try to understand underlying needs

do not decide for the user, but check with the users

19/49

C2.Translate requirements into prototypes

Translate requirements in application tasks

Involves breaking a task down into subtasks, then sub-sub-tasks and so on. These are grouped as plans which specify how the tasks might be performed in practice

Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) focuses on physical and observable actions, and includes looking at actions not related to software or an interaction device

Start with a user goal which is examined and the main tasks for achieving it are identified

Task analysis techniques such as HTA help to investigate existing systems and practices as well

20/49

C2.Examples HTA and Story Board

21/49

Example!

C3. Detailed specification |

design principles

22/49

• Visibility highly visibly attracts attention

• Feedback important to know how to continue

• Constraints eg deactivating options

• Consistency locations on a screen, symbols

• Affordance a mouse button affords to click, a door handle to push

Rogers, Preece, Sharp, 2011

http://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/

How about ArcGIS ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWc0Fd2AS3s

Verweij et al, 2010 23/49

Main design rule?

Usability evaluation

24/49

Any consistency?

Usability evaluation

25/49

What affordance?

C. Methods & Tools

26/49

Some of the same techniques are used in design and evaluation differently Different evaluation approaches and methods are often combined in one study

http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/methods.htm

D.Usability evaluation

?

?

Just bought a dog

A big one ?

No, not so big ...

Long hair?

No, short hair !

What colour?

White black spotted...

What a nice dog !

Isn’t it ?

D.Usability evaluation – how?

Approaches

Controlled involving users like Usability testing, Living lab

Natural settings involving users like Field studies

Analytical evaluation without users like Heuristic evaluations

Ranges of methods and techniques which delivers metrics

Quantitative - qualitative

Formative - summative

Users - experts

http://www.useit.com/jakob/

D.Evaluation approaches

29/49

Usability

testing

Field studies Analytical

Users do task Natural env. not involved

Location controlled Natural env. anywhere

When prototype Early use stage prototype

Data quantitative qualitative problem

Feed back measures &

errors

descriptions problems

Type applied naturalistic expert

D.Evaluation methods

Method Usability

testing

Field studies Analytical

Observing x x

Asking users x x

Asking experts x x

Testing x

Modeling x

30/49

D.Evaluation objectives

31/49

D.Usability inspection methods

32/49

Heuristic evaluation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YnKKwPyxUw Cognitive Walkthrough

Think aloud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BehiUS68KmM Tourist Eye

Performance test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mj3avh6vIw Sharepoint test

What method could you think of?

D.Usability evaluation metrics

33/49

Usually lab experiments

Performance metrics

Issues based metrics

Self-report measures

Behavioural and physiological metrics

Tullis, Albert 2008

http://www.scribemedia.org/2011/07/21/exploring-pros-and-cons-of-behavioral-metrics/

D. Eye tracking example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqD2pXqT0Z0

34/49

Example!

E. Trends

35/49

E. 3D visualisations

Increasing demand for 3D, “realistic” visualizations, with high level of detail and animation

familiarity with new technology (games)

3D, realistic visualizations are aesthetically pleasing

expected benefits of realism

● general expectations that realistic depictions minimize interpretive effort

● real world feels complete, accurate, easy (available instantly and constantly)

36/49

E.3D visualizations

If the data themselves are 3D, the third dimension communicates important information

3D useful for:

visualizing volumes, and sightlines (instead of making mental models by combining 2D visualizations)

Communication by place

navigating through areas

Realistic texturing, illumination:

may facilitate feeling of ‘presence’ in a location

may introduce affective appraisal of an area

http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/revelations/en-GB/home/

37/49

E.3D better than 2D?

2D and 3D displays support different classes of spatial tasks

2D:

tasks requiring relative positioning, such as metric judgements of distances, sizes, angles and 2D object recognition

poor for shape-understanding tasks

3D:

tasks requiring shape understanding, such as line-of-sight judgements, gross scene layout, and 3D object identification

poor for relative-position and metric judgement tasks

For many tasks (visual search, memorization etc) 2D icons seems better than 3D-icons

“Display should highlight task-relevant information, and this process of highlighting inevitably entails paring down reality.”

38/49

Hegarty et al. 2011, Lammeren et al. 2010

E.Preference for realism

• extraneous realism slowed response time and lead to more eye fixations on both task-relevant and task-irrelevant regions of the displays • some participants persisted in favoring these realistic displays over non-realistic maps.

Hegarty et al, 2011

39/49

Example!

E.Preference for 3D visualizations

Users prefer realistic, complex and high-fidelity displays, even when their performance is lower (extra information is not task relevant, and distracting)

Users have more confidence in data presented in realistic displays

Appreciation of the 3D visualization may transfer to the content of the data

User preferences, even those of domain experts, are not a good indication of effectiveness; testing required.

Smallman, St John 2005

40/49

Why 3D preference?

E. Attractive things work better

when we feel good, we overlook design faults

41/49

Any preference?

E. Attractive things work better

when we feel good, we overlook design faults

Donald Norman (2002)

“.. any pleasure, derivable from the appearance or functioning of the tool increases positive affect, broadening the creativity and increasing the tolerance for minor difficulties and blockages.

The changes in processing style released by positive affect aid in creative problem solving that is apt to overcome both difficulties encountered in the activity and those created by the interface design.

“Tools that are meant to support serious, concentrated effort (…), are best served by designs that emphasize function and minimize irrelevancies. “

42/49

Summary

Usability Goals (Efficient, Effective, Error, Utility,

Learnable, Memorable)

Develop with users

(User centered development)

Design criteria (Visibility, Feedback, Affordance,

Consistent, Constraints)

Let users participate in the design

(requirements, task hierarchy, storyboards, test

performance)

Evaluate the design by usability evaluations

Affect may become an important issue (2D versus

3D ( abstract vs realism)

43/49

?

?

References Rogers, Sharp & Preece 2011 Interaction design Wiley

Wassink et al 2008 Applying a user-centered approach to interactive visualisation design in Trends in Interactive Visualization Advanced Information and

Knowledge Processing, 2009, 3, 175-199

Verweij et al 2010 An IT perspective on integrated environmental modelling: The SIAT case ; Ecological modeling 221: 2167-2176

Haklay, Zafiri 2008 Usability Engineering for GIS: Learning from a Screenshot; The Cartographic Journal Vol. 45 No. 2 pp. 87–97

Tullis, Albert 2008 Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Senaratne et al 2012 Usability of Spatio-Temporal Uncertainty Visualisation Methods in Gensel et al. (eds.), Bridging the Geographic

Information Sciences, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography

Hegarty et al 2012 Choosing and Using Geospatial Displays: Effects of Design on Performance and Metacognition; Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Applied vol 18, 1: 1-17

Lammeren et al 2010 Affective appraisal of 3D land use visualization; Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 34 (2010) 465–475

Smallman, St. John 2005 Naive Realism: Misplaced Faith in Realistic Displays; Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications 2005

13: 6

Norman, 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York, NY.

Tractinsky et al 2000 What is beautiful is usable; Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 127-145

Lee, Koubekl 2010 Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use Interacting with Computers 22

(2010) 530–543

44/49

140520| rvl | www.geo-informatie.nl

Based and inspired by Joske Houtkamp lectures, Rogers et al, projects of Peter Verweij; MGI/GIMA thesis studies (2000 – 2010) of

Bos, Hoogerwerf, Ottens, Davelaar, de Roo, Momot, Velema, Witte, Gaertner, Zhou, Luisman, Milosz, Getachew, Valster, van Rooij,

Gold, Link, Petrenko, van der Mijden, Smit

45/49

Text and pictures from DiWi, Foulkes, GESO, PSPE, QUICKS, VOLANTE projects

DIMS|Communication

and

Visualisation

Usability of

Interaction design

D. Performance metrics

Best way to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency

Calculated based on specific user behaviours, using scenarios or tasks

Task success (can user complete task, binary or levels)

Time-on-task (how quickly can user perform task)

Errors (number of mistakes made during task)

Efficiency (amount of effort, cognitive/physical, to complete task/number of

steps required to complete a task/combination task success and time)

Learnability (change of efficiency metric over time)

Senaratne et al, 2012

46/49

D.Issues based metrics

Anything that

● prevents task completion

● creates confusion

● produces an error

● performing the wrong action, missing information, misinterpreting

information, not understanding navigation, etc etc.

Real issues?

How severe?

How frequent?

User groups perform tasks in lab

47/49

D.Self-report measures

Ask users about their perception of the application and

their interaction with it

Semantic differential scales

Beautiful o o o o o o o Ugly

Likert scales

“The information was easy to find”

strong disagree / disagree / neither agree nor disagree / agree / strong agree

Open-ended questions

(Which 5 elements did you like the least/most? Reasons for assessments)

Standard questionnaires: SUS (System usability scale),

QUIS (user interface satisfaction),

USE (Usefulness, Satisfaction and ease of Use)

48/49

D. Behavioural and

physiological metrics

Observation of (non)verbal behaviour

Facial expressions (video, electromyogram sensors)

Eye-tracking (analysis of fixations to create a heat map)

Skin conductance, heart rate (arousal)

Pressure on mouse, on seat

http://www.scribemedia.org/2011/07/21/exploring-pros-and-cons-of-behavioral-metrics/

49/49

D. Other inspection methods

Cognitive walkthrough, stepping through a pre-planned prototype scenario noting potential problems.

Guided by 3 questions:

● Will the correct action be sufficiently evident to the user?

● Will the user notice that the correct action is available?

● Will the user associate and interpret the response from the action correctly?

Valster 2008, MGI thesis GRS-2008-02

Full screen image with title