(Comment left on: Kerry Barone's Blog)
Researchers:
Oded Nov - New York University Polytechnic Institute, New York NY
Sunil Wattal - Temple University, Philadelphia PA
Paper Link:
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518754/p333-nov.pdf?key1=1518754&key2=3172836621&coll=&dl=&CFID=78245382&CFTOKEN=17889818
Nov and Wattal address how privacy features and concerns affect the amount of information sharing in social networks.
More specifically, they addressed how the "antecedents of privacy concerns" (individual privacy concerns, trust in other users, socially learned privacy concerns) affect the "impacy of privacy concerns on information sharing."
To this end, Nov and Wattal created several hypotheses:
-Internet privacy concerns are related to specific communities.
-Increased interaction with other members in the community negatively impacts amount of data shared.
etc...
The researchers took their hypothesis and contacted users of Flickr to take part in a survey. Those that accepted would fill out the survey and have their data monitored through an API. The amount of public photos was measured to indicate the amount of sharing and trust of information on the social network.
The results of the survey and study indicated that trust in other users and the networks information sharing norms had a negative effect on the amount of sharing that occurred and decreased the amount of public information that was shared.
They also found that privacy concerns lead users to implement more restrictive setting and share less data.
___________________
My Spill:
The team put forth multiple hypotheses about privacy and social norms which is interesting, but I feel like the research team really failed to delve into getting any real data out of any of their hypotheses.
They chased to many rabbits and ended up losing most of them.
The fact that they only studied the Flickr community is a little disappointing with all the different social networking sites out there.
The amount of data shared could vary tremendously depending on the website and the kinds of controls the site offered in data sharing and the perception of the general communities. I feel like if the study were conducted again in a network like MySpace versus facebook, that we could get some good comparative data.
(Like facebook users feeling more protected and sharing more information than myspace users or something like that)
I felt like the results the team did come up with were pretty obvious.
I'd like to see how different sharing/protection mechanisms on the same site would affect amount of data shared.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Inmates are Running the Asylum (part 1)
(Comment left on: Brett Hlavinka's Blog)
Book: The Inmates are Running the Asylum - Why High-Tech Product Drive us Crazy
and How to Restore the Sanity
Author: Alan Cooper
In his book, Alan Cooper addresses the problem of why software is difficult to use and frustrating for end users.
He calls this problem "The Dancing Bear" in which he means that people are introduced with software products that function (dance) but not very easily or elegantly (the bear is dancing). Cooper says that people are divided into two groups when they use computer software:
1) Apologists
2) Survivors
Apologists make excuses for bad software and tell survivors that they should be amazed that the products work and fulfill its function. They say, "Look! The bear is dancing."
Survivors on the other hand look at the ungraceful dance of the bear and feel something is wrong and are frustrated with the bear's dance. (Software could be better, easier to use, and more friendly.)
The reason "dancing bearware," that is to say bad/hard-to-use software, exists is because software is created by the ultimate apologists: Software Engineers.
Software engineers are trained to think like computers: deterministic, apathetic, literal, sequential, predictable, etc.
They think this way to be able to more easily make efficient software.
Therefore, they lose the perspective of the end user and usability of the software system is sacrificed.
Cooper also identifies the problem that companies are run by businessmen who are also introducing the constraints of time, money, and marketability which makes the software be produced hastily and with a list of features that may not be important.
Thus interface design for the end users is sacrificed.
Cooper proposes a solution to the problem by saying that companies and software development teams should have special interface designers who act as a third force to ensure product quality and usability for the potential customers of software.
_______________________
My Spill:
I have mixed feeling reading this book.
On one hand, I feel like a survivor who's sympathetic to computer illiterate folks who get frustrated with everyday computer interaction. In that mindset, I can see what Cooper is saying about trying to make software easier to use. That's a good cause that most software engineers need to take into perspective. We're all in this business because at some level, we all enjoy to work with computers. Certainly easy to use programs are part of what brought us here.
On the other hand, I am still entrenched in the views of apologists.
Although Cooper is a programmer himself, I think he is sometimes disconnected from all the difficulties and considerations that must be taken to develop good software.
At one point, he explains that the search for file function on the computer is too confusing for users because it gives them to options to search by file name, type, and location. The user doesn't have to use all these options! They are there for people who know where and what they want to search for!
Honestly, people can learn how to more effectively use a computer, it's just that most people aren't willing to learn and understand!
With all that said, I think putting interaction designers into programming teams and companies is a good idea that is worth implementing. If we can make better software for people that way, then let's do it.
I also think feature creep and the computerization of certain products needs to be reversed. Modern day cameras can be overly complex and alarm clocks should be made simple.
Making things simple is a good cause. I just wish he wouldn't insult programmers.
Book: The Inmates are Running the Asylum - Why High-Tech Product Drive us Crazy
and How to Restore the Sanity
Author: Alan Cooper
In his book, Alan Cooper addresses the problem of why software is difficult to use and frustrating for end users.
He calls this problem "The Dancing Bear" in which he means that people are introduced with software products that function (dance) but not very easily or elegantly (the bear is dancing). Cooper says that people are divided into two groups when they use computer software:
1) Apologists
2) Survivors
Apologists make excuses for bad software and tell survivors that they should be amazed that the products work and fulfill its function. They say, "Look! The bear is dancing."
Survivors on the other hand look at the ungraceful dance of the bear and feel something is wrong and are frustrated with the bear's dance. (Software could be better, easier to use, and more friendly.)
The reason "dancing bearware," that is to say bad/hard-to-use software, exists is because software is created by the ultimate apologists: Software Engineers.
Software engineers are trained to think like computers: deterministic, apathetic, literal, sequential, predictable, etc.
They think this way to be able to more easily make efficient software.
Therefore, they lose the perspective of the end user and usability of the software system is sacrificed.
Cooper also identifies the problem that companies are run by businessmen who are also introducing the constraints of time, money, and marketability which makes the software be produced hastily and with a list of features that may not be important.
Thus interface design for the end users is sacrificed.
Cooper proposes a solution to the problem by saying that companies and software development teams should have special interface designers who act as a third force to ensure product quality and usability for the potential customers of software.
_______________________
My Spill:
I have mixed feeling reading this book.
On one hand, I feel like a survivor who's sympathetic to computer illiterate folks who get frustrated with everyday computer interaction. In that mindset, I can see what Cooper is saying about trying to make software easier to use. That's a good cause that most software engineers need to take into perspective. We're all in this business because at some level, we all enjoy to work with computers. Certainly easy to use programs are part of what brought us here.
On the other hand, I am still entrenched in the views of apologists.
Although Cooper is a programmer himself, I think he is sometimes disconnected from all the difficulties and considerations that must be taken to develop good software.
At one point, he explains that the search for file function on the computer is too confusing for users because it gives them to options to search by file name, type, and location. The user doesn't have to use all these options! They are there for people who know where and what they want to search for!
Honestly, people can learn how to more effectively use a computer, it's just that most people aren't willing to learn and understand!
With all that said, I think putting interaction designers into programming teams and companies is a good idea that is worth implementing. If we can make better software for people that way, then let's do it.
I also think feature creep and the computerization of certain products needs to be reversed. Modern day cameras can be overly complex and alarm clocks should be made simple.
Making things simple is a good cause. I just wish he wouldn't insult programmers.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
How Well do Visual Verbs Work in Daily Communication for Young and Old Adults?
(comment left on Brett Hlavinka's blog.)
Researchers: Xiaojuan Ma and Perry R. Cook of Princeton University
Paper Link: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518759/p361-ma.pdf?key1=1518759&key2=8393675621&coll=&dl=&CFID=77302547&CFTOKEN=53317107
This research was concerned with creating a set of visual methods to communicate a specific verb and identifying the differences in identifying those verbs between young and old adults.
They did this by identifying the 48 most used verbs in English speech and removing redundancies in meaning across those verbs. Then, for each verb they created a single static image, a panel of four images, an animation and a video clip to try and convey that word visually. They also constructed nouns and adjectives from single photos and made 68 phrases. From there, they rounded up young and old people and had them interpret each phrase and each person was ranked in terms of:
1) Difficulty in interpreting a verb
2) Speed of coming up with a thought
3) Confidence in Response
4) Personal Preference
5) How much the context (of the phrase) helped interpretation.
The results showed that, as predicted, older people took longer to interpret phrases and recall words.
The results also showed that videos were the most effective in conveying verbs especially when the verbs were categorized as "not imageable."
Another intersting result is that indirect symbol such as "?" for "wonder" and "<3" for "want" were quite confusing for the participants and should be avoided when constructing a visual representation of a verb.
The researchers came up with several design principles or "visual verbs:"
• Multiple pictures/frames are better for conveying verbs.
• Utilize common gestures if applicable, but be aware of possible cultural differences.
• Carefully use symbols, especially when not obvious.
• Simplify backgrounds (some objects (i.e. desks) were distracting), and use common scenes and props.
• Carefully use special effects in videos, especially with elderly users who are less familiar with them and might mistake fast-forwarding to “busy” or “hurry.”
• Consider age-related effects like cognitive overhead, response speed, visual degeneration, and preference.
_________________________
My Spill:
In the light of increasing globalization and increased exposure to multiple cultures and languages, there comes a need to be able to communicate. But given the fact that there are many prominent languages and even linguists can't learn them all, there comes the need to be able to convey ourselves beyond the bounds of spoken language.
This is where this kind of research comes in. Although there isn't a system in place to solve this problem yet, a way to express language on a digital medium through images and videos rather than words would be indispensable. So this research examines the effectiveness of expressing the most crucial part of any language, verbs, in terms of vision.
The research itself doesn't interest so much as the idea of a way to communicate without words does. Imagine being able to speak to anyone without knowing any other language! While that might be cool, it does sound unfeasible. The researchers did say that the aim of their research was to give a way to communicate with people who suffer from Aphasia which is certainly a noble cause.
The real drawback of the research is the lack of any kind of tangible system to convey verbs effectively. Sure, they identified a few preferred way to communicate, but language-less communication is still far off. I might also want to blame these researchers for not coming up with any really new knowledge but I'll refrain from that.
Researchers: Xiaojuan Ma and Perry R. Cook of Princeton University
Paper Link: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518759/p361-ma.pdf?key1=1518759&key2=8393675621&coll=&dl=&CFID=77302547&CFTOKEN=53317107
This research was concerned with creating a set of visual methods to communicate a specific verb and identifying the differences in identifying those verbs between young and old adults.
They did this by identifying the 48 most used verbs in English speech and removing redundancies in meaning across those verbs. Then, for each verb they created a single static image, a panel of four images, an animation and a video clip to try and convey that word visually. They also constructed nouns and adjectives from single photos and made 68 phrases. From there, they rounded up young and old people and had them interpret each phrase and each person was ranked in terms of:
1) Difficulty in interpreting a verb
2) Speed of coming up with a thought
3) Confidence in Response
4) Personal Preference
5) How much the context (of the phrase) helped interpretation.
The results showed that, as predicted, older people took longer to interpret phrases and recall words.
The results also showed that videos were the most effective in conveying verbs especially when the verbs were categorized as "not imageable."
Another intersting result is that indirect symbol such as "?" for "wonder" and "<3" for "want" were quite confusing for the participants and should be avoided when constructing a visual representation of a verb.
The researchers came up with several design principles or "visual verbs:"
• Multiple pictures/frames are better for conveying verbs.
• Utilize common gestures if applicable, but be aware of possible cultural differences.
• Carefully use symbols, especially when not obvious.
• Simplify backgrounds (some objects (i.e. desks) were distracting), and use common scenes and props.
• Carefully use special effects in videos, especially with elderly users who are less familiar with them and might mistake fast-forwarding to “busy” or “hurry.”
• Consider age-related effects like cognitive overhead, response speed, visual degeneration, and preference.
_________________________
My Spill:
In the light of increasing globalization and increased exposure to multiple cultures and languages, there comes a need to be able to communicate. But given the fact that there are many prominent languages and even linguists can't learn them all, there comes the need to be able to convey ourselves beyond the bounds of spoken language.
This is where this kind of research comes in. Although there isn't a system in place to solve this problem yet, a way to express language on a digital medium through images and videos rather than words would be indispensable. So this research examines the effectiveness of expressing the most crucial part of any language, verbs, in terms of vision.
The research itself doesn't interest so much as the idea of a way to communicate without words does. Imagine being able to speak to anyone without knowing any other language! While that might be cool, it does sound unfeasible. The researchers did say that the aim of their research was to give a way to communicate with people who suffer from Aphasia which is certainly a noble cause.
The real drawback of the research is the lack of any kind of tangible system to convey verbs effectively. Sure, they identified a few preferred way to communicate, but language-less communication is still far off. I might also want to blame these researchers for not coming up with any really new knowledge but I'll refrain from that.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Sketch and Run: A stroke based Interface for Home Robots
(Comment left on: Subodh Prabhu's Blog)
Researchers:
Daisuke Sakamoto
Koichiro Honda
Masahiko Inami
Takeo Igarashi
Paper Link:
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518733/p197-sakamoto.pdf?key1=1518733&key2=0508845621&coll=&dl=&CFID=75086870&CFTOKEN=52161669
Sakamoto et al. have identified the problem that robots designed for the home are completely autonomous and lack controls for the user to specify what a robot needs to do.
So Sakamoto et al. developed what they called "Sketch and Run" for the Roomba. (a vacuum cleaner robot) The Sketch and Run system observes the robot from a system of several cameras positioned on the ceiling looking straight down; The user can then issue pen-stroke based commands on a hand-held controller (in this case, a laptop) to tell the robot where to move, vacuum, pause, resume, and
An important part of the system is that the user can issue a command and leave the robot to its work which is an important feature in any robot. Hence the name, "Sketch and Run." This principle is called asynchronism.
___________________________
My Spill:
Sketch and Run's system provides an easy-to-use way to asynchronously control robots that can easily be extended to other robot models. That's great.
I'd love to see robotics come into the home with a user friendly model.
I have a few problems with sketch and run:
First is that the command strokes for resume and stop seem too similar.
Second is that the command strokes for go home and pause seem too complex.
Third is the fact that they claim that they want to make a user friendly control system that is affordable yet they use a system of four ceiling mounted cameras in order to make their system work.
Finally, the camera system was flawed in that the Roomba would go out of the cameras detection if they went to the overlapping edges of the cameras and control would become difficult.
These kinds of serious kinks need to be worked out in the future.
They need to make simpler strokes for control and an easier way to detect the robot other than a bunch of ceiling mounted cameras.
Researchers:
Daisuke Sakamoto
Koichiro Honda
Masahiko Inami
Takeo Igarashi
Paper Link:
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518733/p197-sakamoto.pdf?key1=1518733&key2=0508845621&coll=&dl=&CFID=75086870&CFTOKEN=52161669
Sakamoto et al. have identified the problem that robots designed for the home are completely autonomous and lack controls for the user to specify what a robot needs to do.
So Sakamoto et al. developed what they called "Sketch and Run" for the Roomba. (a vacuum cleaner robot) The Sketch and Run system observes the robot from a system of several cameras positioned on the ceiling looking straight down; The user can then issue pen-stroke based commands on a hand-held controller (in this case, a laptop) to tell the robot where to move, vacuum, pause, resume, and
An important part of the system is that the user can issue a command and leave the robot to its work which is an important feature in any robot. Hence the name, "Sketch and Run." This principle is called asynchronism.
___________________________
My Spill:
Sketch and Run's system provides an easy-to-use way to asynchronously control robots that can easily be extended to other robot models. That's great.
I'd love to see robotics come into the home with a user friendly model.
I have a few problems with sketch and run:
First is that the command strokes for resume and stop seem too similar.
Second is that the command strokes for go home and pause seem too complex.
Third is the fact that they claim that they want to make a user friendly control system that is affordable yet they use a system of four ceiling mounted cameras in order to make their system work.
Finally, the camera system was flawed in that the Roomba would go out of the cameras detection if they went to the overlapping edges of the cameras and control would become difficult.
These kinds of serious kinks need to be worked out in the future.
They need to make simpler strokes for control and an easier way to detect the robot other than a bunch of ceiling mounted cameras.
Interactivity Attributes: A New of Thinking and Describing Interactivity
(Comment left on William Hodge's blog.)
Researchers:
Youn-kyung Lim, Sang-Su Lee, Kwang-young Lee
Department of Industrial Design, KAIST
Republic of Korea
paper link:
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518719/p105-lim.pdf?key1=1518719&key2=0569745621&coll=&dl=&CFID=76811067&CFTOKEN=85641568
Video demonstration link:
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518719/p105.mov?key1=1518719&key2=2289745621&coll=&dl=&CFID=76811067&CFTOKEN=85641568
The primary goal of this research was to define a set of attributes that allow designers to describe what they called "the shape of interactivity" or an interactive artifact.
In other words, they were setting out to describe interactive objects/interfaces.
With that knowledge, they believed that designers could more effectively create good interfaces. They believed that the kind of interaction given to an interface could be concretely describable much like physical materials are described.
More than that, this team set out to identify the kinds of emotional reactions people had to these kinds of interactions.
For example, they created a set of interactive flash modules that the users manipulated with a mouse. These flash modules demonstrated several kinds/shapes of interaction:
Concurrency (concurrent/sequential) - When clicked all the marbles moved together or separately
Continuity (continuous/discrete) - a marble moves in a circle continuously or in steps
Expectedness (expected/unexpected) - Marbles moved to a corresponding slot or in a random slot
Movement Range (narrow/wide) - Marbles shuffle around when mouse in near or far
Movement Speed (fast/slow) - Marbles move quickly or slowly when mouse is near
Proximity (precise/proximate) - User adjusts area with measurement or without
Response Speed (delayed/prompt) - User clicks marble and the the marble moves instantly or is delayed
After the users played with a particular flash module, they asked them if they the interface felt like it was described and what kind of emotions the user felt.
They found that certain kinds of interfaces produced a range of emotional responses and they believe that when designers create interfaces, the designer consciously choose the kind of interaction environment to produce the desired emotional response.
(For the kinds of emotions that are attached to which interactivity modules, please refer to the paper.)
___________
My spill:
This paper was interesting in that it has sought out to measure the kinds of emotions people had to varying kinds of interfaces. It would be useful if designers of systems and interfaces had a kind of chart where they could look up and see what kind of interface they should use to evoke pleasure or introspection or sadness or whatever the designer may choose.
That said, I really don't think much was accomplished by this research. We already have ways of describing how objects react to certain action and how objects move. To some extent, we also know how people generally feel about certain reactions. We know for ease of use, we generally want quick response speeds, precise measurements, fast movements (but trackable) and reactions we expect.
As far as what kind of future work can come from this, the research team itself did say that they didn't test different styles of the same interactions and how the users felt about those differences. For all we know, the emotional responses may just be attributable to the kind of flash module they made rather than the interactions themselves.
Researchers:
Youn-kyung Lim, Sang-Su Lee, Kwang-young Lee
Department of Industrial Design, KAIST
Republic of Korea
paper link:
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518719/p105-lim.pdf?key1=1518719&key2=0569745621&coll=&dl=&CFID=76811067&CFTOKEN=85641568
Video demonstration link:
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518719/p105.mov?key1=1518719&key2=2289745621&coll=&dl=&CFID=76811067&CFTOKEN=85641568
The primary goal of this research was to define a set of attributes that allow designers to describe what they called "the shape of interactivity" or an interactive artifact.
In other words, they were setting out to describe interactive objects/interfaces.
With that knowledge, they believed that designers could more effectively create good interfaces. They believed that the kind of interaction given to an interface could be concretely describable much like physical materials are described.
More than that, this team set out to identify the kinds of emotional reactions people had to these kinds of interactions.
For example, they created a set of interactive flash modules that the users manipulated with a mouse. These flash modules demonstrated several kinds/shapes of interaction:
Concurrency (concurrent/sequential) - When clicked all the marbles moved together or separately
Continuity (continuous/discrete) - a marble moves in a circle continuously or in steps
Expectedness (expected/unexpected) - Marbles moved to a corresponding slot or in a random slot
Movement Range (narrow/wide) - Marbles shuffle around when mouse in near or far
Movement Speed (fast/slow) - Marbles move quickly or slowly when mouse is near
Proximity (precise/proximate) - User adjusts area with measurement or without
Response Speed (delayed/prompt) - User clicks marble and the the marble moves instantly or is delayed
After the users played with a particular flash module, they asked them if they the interface felt like it was described and what kind of emotions the user felt.
They found that certain kinds of interfaces produced a range of emotional responses and they believe that when designers create interfaces, the designer consciously choose the kind of interaction environment to produce the desired emotional response.
(For the kinds of emotions that are attached to which interactivity modules, please refer to the paper.)
___________
My spill:
This paper was interesting in that it has sought out to measure the kinds of emotions people had to varying kinds of interfaces. It would be useful if designers of systems and interfaces had a kind of chart where they could look up and see what kind of interface they should use to evoke pleasure or introspection or sadness or whatever the designer may choose.
That said, I really don't think much was accomplished by this research. We already have ways of describing how objects react to certain action and how objects move. To some extent, we also know how people generally feel about certain reactions. We know for ease of use, we generally want quick response speeds, precise measurements, fast movements (but trackable) and reactions we expect.
As far as what kind of future work can come from this, the research team itself did say that they didn't test different styles of the same interactions and how the users felt about those differences. For all we know, the emotional responses may just be attributable to the kind of flash module they made rather than the interactions themselves.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Sacred Imagery in Techno-Spiritual Design
(Comment left on: Jacob Faire's Blog)
Researchers:
Susan P. Wyche, Kelly E. Caine, Benjamin K. Davison, Shwetak N. Patel,
Michael Arteaga, and Rebecca E. Grinter
GVU Center
Georgia Institute of Technology
DUB Group
Computer Science & Engineering
Paper Link:
In this research, Wyche et al. create an example mobile phone application called Sun Dial which is designed to show how applications can be made to go beyond simply providing functionality, but also paying attention to religious aesthetic principles and beliefs and incorporating sacred imagery to make for a program that can more intimately connect a user to a religious experience.
Sun Dial itself is a mobile-phone application that provides a visual interface so that Muslim users can identify the time of day that they need to offer up their prayers. By researching Islam's aesthetics they found that simplicity and a reverence of nature is pleasing to Muslim sensibilities, so they created an interface that shows the sun moving from sunrise to sunset and settling into green circles that indicated the window of opportunity for the believers to pray. In the background they inserted a picture of a mosque along with a skyline that changes colors to indicate dawn, day, and sunset.
Users reported that the interface was simple, pleasing, and offered an easy reminder of the Muslim principles and history.
____________________
My spill:
To me, this paper just reinforces the fact that you should consider your target population when your designing any product. If your target is a particular religious group, then you research what is important to that group, provide the features your application is supposed to address, and then make those features have seamless interface that is pleasing to the aesthetic of the user.
The only fault I find is that this kind of research doesn't really uncover anything really new. They really only made an application for a target population. It just doesn't seem ambitious to me.
As for what could be improved on for this kind of application would be a set of customizable features of what kind of background the user wanted or maybe provide an audio alarm to alert prayer times.
It is interesting for a designer to take a look at a religious perspective. I will admit that it makes me a little uncomfortable at the kind of demographic change that is going on in the world. But it is good business principle to adapt to that kind of change.
Researchers:
Susan P. Wyche, Kelly E. Caine, Benjamin K. Davison, Shwetak N. Patel,
Michael Arteaga, and Rebecca E. Grinter
GVU Center
Georgia Institute of Technology
DUB Group
Computer Science & Engineering
Paper Link:
In this research, Wyche et al. create an example mobile phone application called Sun Dial which is designed to show how applications can be made to go beyond simply providing functionality, but also paying attention to religious aesthetic principles and beliefs and incorporating sacred imagery to make for a program that can more intimately connect a user to a religious experience.
Sun Dial itself is a mobile-phone application that provides a visual interface so that Muslim users can identify the time of day that they need to offer up their prayers. By researching Islam's aesthetics they found that simplicity and a reverence of nature is pleasing to Muslim sensibilities, so they created an interface that shows the sun moving from sunrise to sunset and settling into green circles that indicated the window of opportunity for the believers to pray. In the background they inserted a picture of a mosque along with a skyline that changes colors to indicate dawn, day, and sunset.
Users reported that the interface was simple, pleasing, and offered an easy reminder of the Muslim principles and history.
____________________
My spill:
To me, this paper just reinforces the fact that you should consider your target population when your designing any product. If your target is a particular religious group, then you research what is important to that group, provide the features your application is supposed to address, and then make those features have seamless interface that is pleasing to the aesthetic of the user.
The only fault I find is that this kind of research doesn't really uncover anything really new. They really only made an application for a target population. It just doesn't seem ambitious to me.
As for what could be improved on for this kind of application would be a set of customizable features of what kind of background the user wanted or maybe provide an audio alarm to alert prayer times.
It is interesting for a designer to take a look at a religious perspective. I will admit that it makes me a little uncomfortable at the kind of demographic change that is going on in the world. But it is good business principle to adapt to that kind of change.
Creating a Spoken Impact: Encouraging Vocalization through Audio Visual Feedback in Children with ASD
Comment: Nobody has blogged on this paper so I can't really comment...
Researchers:
Joshua Hailpern
Karrie Karahalios
Jim Halle
(All from the University of Illinois)
Paper Link:
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518774/p453-hailpern.pdf?key1=1518774&key2=2274935621&coll=&dl=&CFID=74933136&CFTOKEN=29791244
In this particular study, Hailpern et al. presented the Spoken Impact Project (SIP) which was designed to be used by children (with the help of a professional) with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in order to increase the rate of vocalizations produced by the children. Children with low-functioning ASD have trouble communicating and may never even develop speech or language skills. ASD children also tend to withdraw into their own world and do not like human interaction which makes acquisition of language skills extremely difficult.
With this in mind, SIP included a computer system that reacted to sounds produced by a child by giving audio, visual, or combined audio and visual output that is meant to stimulate the child to producing more sound. The team was focused on getting the child to produce what they called SSLV, or, Spontaneous Speech-Like Vocalizations, which is a parameter based on classical autism treatments.
After running a base test without feedback on 5 different children, the children used the system in several different sessions where each session had a different kind of feedback.
After the data from the test were gathered and statistical analyses were run, it was found that 3 children reacted to/preferred audio feedback and 2 reacted to visual feedback. It was also found that providing feedback encouraged a positive response from the children. 1 particular child's responses were particularly strong so a follow up study was run on what was called a "Wizard-of-Oz" system which was based on SIP. The child was given the prompt, "Say [word]" and was rewarded with both visual and audio feedback. At the end of the session, the child would repeat all the words that were given to him.
_______________________
My spill:
It is encouraging to see research being taken on for helping these kinds of kids and actually producing some positive results. Future researchers and current therapists for this problem should focus on integrating a fun and flexible system that can adapt to a child's preference of either visual or audio feedback and getting that system to teach them actual language skills and communication.
I think SIP is on the right track. The only drawback is that it needs to keep going.
Also it would be nice to see a study taken on with a larger population. Statistically speaking, they needed a larger population and more trials to get more significant results.
Researchers:
Joshua Hailpern
Karrie Karahalios
Jim Halle
(All from the University of Illinois)
Paper Link:
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1520000/1518774/p453-hailpern.pdf?key1=1518774&key2=2274935621&coll=&dl=&CFID=74933136&CFTOKEN=29791244
In this particular study, Hailpern et al. presented the Spoken Impact Project (SIP) which was designed to be used by children (with the help of a professional) with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in order to increase the rate of vocalizations produced by the children. Children with low-functioning ASD have trouble communicating and may never even develop speech or language skills. ASD children also tend to withdraw into their own world and do not like human interaction which makes acquisition of language skills extremely difficult.
With this in mind, SIP included a computer system that reacted to sounds produced by a child by giving audio, visual, or combined audio and visual output that is meant to stimulate the child to producing more sound. The team was focused on getting the child to produce what they called SSLV, or, Spontaneous Speech-Like Vocalizations, which is a parameter based on classical autism treatments.
After running a base test without feedback on 5 different children, the children used the system in several different sessions where each session had a different kind of feedback.
After the data from the test were gathered and statistical analyses were run, it was found that 3 children reacted to/preferred audio feedback and 2 reacted to visual feedback. It was also found that providing feedback encouraged a positive response from the children. 1 particular child's responses were particularly strong so a follow up study was run on what was called a "Wizard-of-Oz" system which was based on SIP. The child was given the prompt, "Say [word]" and was rewarded with both visual and audio feedback. At the end of the session, the child would repeat all the words that were given to him.
_______________________
My spill:
It is encouraging to see research being taken on for helping these kinds of kids and actually producing some positive results. Future researchers and current therapists for this problem should focus on integrating a fun and flexible system that can adapt to a child's preference of either visual or audio feedback and getting that system to teach them actual language skills and communication.
I think SIP is on the right track. The only drawback is that it needs to keep going.
Also it would be nice to see a study taken on with a larger population. Statistically speaking, they needed a larger population and more trials to get more significant results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
