Google talks about using Metaphors and online collaboration

Today, I'll be attending the NYC Usability Professionals Association meeting which features
a presentation:
UX Research at Google in NYC: Methods and Case Studies

Two members of Google’s User Experience team will outline Google’s UX design and research processes in New York City, then delve into two recent case studies where designs were influenced by some unique work with metaphors, and where supporting underlying relationships with software can be the make-or-break predictor of success.

Speakers: Molly Stevens, UX Team member, Google, Inc.
Michelle Lee, UX Team member, Google, Inc.

Case study: "Using Metaphors to Communicate Research Results with Impact"
Molly Stevens will discuss how using a metaphor helped engineering understand the social dynamics of a b2b application. This caused them to fundamentally rethink the prioritization of features and some of the basic interactions.

Case study: "Getting on the bandwagon: Critical roles in online collaboration"

The biggest predictor of success is how software supports underlying relationships among group members. Not all collaborators are created equal;
Michelle Lee will explore critical roles & implications for design using Google Docs as a case study.

The Truth is Out There: Using Mobile Technology for Experience Sampling

I read Gavin Lew's (User Centric) article "The Truth is Out There: Using Mobile Technology for Experience Sampling" in the latest issue of User Experience Volume 7, Issue 3, 2008. (the paper version was delivered to my door via postal mail and I could not find a hyperlink yet on the UPA Publications website - sorry for the digression).

Rightly, he laments that lack of research in the wild as well as the need for longitudinal research. Specifically, we don't know much about the influencers of usage such as: motivation, fun and emotion. He discusses the common use of a diary to capture usage information to gain deeper insight to user activity and motivation.

One of the few longitudinal studies that we had conducted used a diary as method for capturing end user information and usage. The diary enabled us to learn more about what would happen to wanted vs. unwanted calls that were screened by a new telephone service.

Chin, John P., Herring, Richard D. and Familant, M. Elliott (1992): A Usability and Diary Study Assessing the Effectiveness of Call Acceptance Lists. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting 1992. pp. 216-220.

This study involved prototyping and testing feasibility of a caller acceptance list for Personal Communication Service (PCS). The caller acceptance list would allow only callers on the list to contact the PCS subscriber directly rather than be redirected to voice mail. The studied examined the impact of the users' caller acceptance list over a two week period based on a record of all phone calls received by end users The results showed that a caller acceptance list reduces the number of unwanted calls by one-third. The insights were valuable, worthy of the large amount of time and effort involved.

The challenge is to convince paying customers/clients that these longer term studies are worth the investment. With the new technologies in place, this may be the right time to pursue more research in the wild that is outside of the laboratory.

Luke Williams presents at NYC IxDA

Photo Courtesy of MJ Broadbent (NYC IxDA). Thanks to Icon Nicholson for hosting this event.

Last night, I attended Luke Williams (frog design) presentation at the NYC IxDA meeting which was standing-room-only and overflowing crowd of 75 attendees. Luke had a great discussion on how humans interact with shapes and objects at a fundamental and cognitive level. Interestingly, he specifically cited Apple's iPhone as an example of attempting to digitally represent the physical world (keyboard) in a digital interface. The lack of tactile feedback on a virtual keyboard is certainly a drawback. This is going to be an issue in many digital interfaces.

Certainly, the Nintendo's Wii is a great step forward toward incorporating gestures into the user interface in a mass market. The target market for all of the user interfaces would be "It so easy that even a Cave Man can do!"

I look forward to attending the next talk on Wednesday, September 17th when Dan Saffer of Adaptive Path will present "Tap is the New Click" from his upcoming new book. There's no talk in August.

The BIG Three: Usability, Utility and Ubiquity

Photo courtesy of MJ Broadbent of NYC IxDA.
Last June, I had attended a NYC IxDA meeting hosted by Icon Nicholson that featured
David Armano's presentation on micro-interactions in a 2.0 world.

I really enjoyed his talk. Essentially, he proposed that, "it is the little things that really do matter!" The sticky websites that have a relationship with the end users changes advertising on the web from merely broadcasting a message in brochure-ware mentality to an active interaction style. Engaging, empowering and enabling the end user is the key. Of this triumvirate, usability is only one aspect. One needs to also include Utility and Ubiquity. This becomes more apparent that it is a two way street when 25% of the content of Google search results about the 20 top brands are generated by consumer content! As usual, it is the word of mouth that works.

I look forward to the next NYC IxDA meeting scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday, July 24, 2008 when Luke Williams from frog desing will speak. For location details, send email to nyc-rsvp@ixda.org.

P.S. All guests for the event tomorrow will need to have their name on the list (same RSVP address as above).

Patent for User Interfaces with Personality?

You always wonder what impact you work has on the world or
how you contribute to the world.

Stanford researchers Clifford Nass et. al. cited my research

Chin, John P. (1996): Personality Trait Attributions to Voice Mail User Interfaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIG CHI April 13-18, 1996, Vancouver, BC, Canada. pp. 248-249.

along with others in their patent application regarding user interfaces with personalities.

This work was also cited by US Patent 7266499 - Voice user interface with personality, which was issued on September 4, 2007.

What do you think of patented user interfaces? Do patents stifle or foster innovation?

User Interfaces for an Aging Population

Recently, I read the latest issue of
Interactions, Volume XV.4 (July + August 2008)

An article entitled "Older adults, health information, and the internet" by Bo Xie at the University of Maryland, College Park, College of Information Studies - struck me as an important segment of the end user population that needs greater attention.

I saw an article about a new HP device that was used for one way transmission of email from the internet using a service called Presto (note I don't directly own any shares of HP or interests in this product or service - nor do I necessarily endorse it). This product is suppose to address those who do not want to use or own a computer. It allows other users on the internet with a mechanism for broadcasting/sending an email or photo to the intended person who might be either a ludite or low tech person.

It seems strange to me that the end user is not given the ability to "Reply" to the email sent by calling back and recording a reply message which has a audio recording from the end user. I would think products and services like Presto would make a provision for a unified mailbox that handled all types of media like audio files in addition to text. This would greatly enhance this service. I think I better a patent to this idea before someone else does!

Menu Design: Theory and Practice - PIE Menus

As a graduate student, I worked with my advisor, Kent Norman,
studying menu design. Recently, I found that he wrote an article
for the special 50th Anniversary Issue of
The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
(Volume 50, Number 3, June 2008).

Better Design of Menu Selection Systems Through Cognitive Psychology and Human Factors, pp. 556-559(4)

In the abstract, he concluded:

"that cognitive psychology has contributed substantially to the design of better menu selection systems... It is imperative that designers continue to apply these findings to interfaces that they develop and that researchers continue to study the characteristics and efficacy of innovative menu designs as they appear"

Unfortunately, it is not clear to me that designers are applying what has been learned from academic research. In a recent listserve thread by IxDA (Interaction Design Association), only a couple of designers were aware of the origins of the original pie menu.

Callahan, J., Hopkins, D., Weiser, M., & Shneiderman, B. (1993). An em-
pirical comparison of pie vs. linear menus. In B. Shneiderman (Ed.),
Sparks of innovation in human-computer interaction (pp. 79–88).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Pie menus reduced the time to make a selection by having the distance (mouse movement) to each item selection the same (unlike linear menus). This advantage can be predicted by the GOMS theory (Goals, Operators, Methods, and Selection Rules).

Fostering Innovation

Recently I read the latest issue of the User Experience Magazine: Volume 7, Issue 2, 2008
Online, you can access the User Experience Magazine if you are member of the Usability Professional Association:

On page three, there is a special note which states that
Dr. Ben Shneiderman, University of Maryland,
was being honored for his 60th birthday with a special issue of the
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction.


I worked with Ben while I was a graduate student and member of the Human-Computer Interaction Lab. There's a great quote:

"We begin by choosing excellent and pleasant people.
Then the Maryland Way is to foster innovation through seven sparks:

1. Choose a good driving problem
2. Become immersed in related work
3. Clarify short-term and long-term goals
4. Balance individual and group interests
5. Work hard
6. Communicate with internal and external stakeholders
7. Get past failures. Celebrate success!"

I wholeheartedly agree with these seven tenets.