Lecture slides on HCI and Visual Design for UX

Here are some of the presentations that I have made for lecturing human-computer interaction and visual design for user experience. I hope you find them useful 🙂

It’s been a while since I have uploaded lectures slides on SlideShare. Here are some of the presentations that I have made for lecturing human-computer interaction and visual design for user experience. They are a sample of the themes I have taught at Indiana University Bloomington. However, I do hope you enjoy the slides and find them useful 🙂

Summer 2016 Course: INFO-I 400: Special Topics in Informatics (Visual Design for UX)

Fall 2016 Course: INFO-I 300: Human-Computer Interaction/Interaction Design

Guest lecture for INFO-I 300. Instructor: Gopinaath Kannabiran.

Quote on designers and expert subjectivity

“An expert subjectivity is needed in design, because “design professionals” require a cultivated ability to read socio-cultural signs and trends; a creative and reasoned ability to explore alternative futures; a verbal ability to articulate these activities; a receptiveness to alternative framings and a willingness to explore highly variable alternative directions; and above all a personal identity or coherence that holds all of these moving parts together through a given process.”

Jeff Bardzell (2012)


Bardzell, J. (2012) Commentary on: Shusterman, Richard (2014) [sic]: Somaesthetics. In The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed. [online] ed. by Soegaard, M. and Dam, R.F. Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation. available from https://www. interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/somaesthetics.html. 39, 93, 95, 96, 106

On deprivation and user experience

In the book, “Experience Design: Technology for All the Right Reasons” by Marc Hassenzahl (2010), there’s a section labeled, “Do needs have different priorities?” Below is last paragraph of that,

“Identifying situations, which imply the systematic deprivation of a need, is an important starting point for Experience Design. It is difficult to “sell” an experience of a certain type to somebody, who is already saturated. However, the true challenge for Experience Design is to fulfill needs without making this too obvious.” (Hassenzahl, 2010)

For some reason, this paragraph made think quickly of

  • Issues that I’ve experienced as educator and the possible relation between saturation and learning experiences,
  • the relevance of contrast in design and its use as a mechanism to avoid saturation,
  • and the connection between the use of a particular design and the so-called north-south in the sense that
    • even though the deprivation of needs occurs worldwide, it is likely that they result different for all the people or regions in the world,
    • and how that might imply that a design
      • just cannot guarantee a uniform user experience at all, or
      • it is important for any design to leave enough room for the users to adapt it and thus support the creation of a meaningful user experience.

A small but powerful paragraph from my perspective.

Definition of “an experience-oriented approach”

Below, there is an extract (part of the introduction) from the paper “Experience-Oriented and Product-Oriented Evaluation: Psychological Need Fulfillment, Positive Affect, and Product Perception” by Hassenzahl, Wiklund-Engblom, Bengs, Hägglund, and Diefenbach (2015).

Sometimes I feel that we have diluted the notion of UX. However, this text reminds me that academia is there for the study and examination of phenomena, including the so-called UX, and that a good aspect of academic work is providing coherent and robust (based on previous research and studies) concepts and methods. What caught my attention from this paper is how it defines “experience-oriented approach” and includes the concepts of emotion, meaning, and dynamic story.

Extract

“Accordingly, Hassenzahl (2010) argued to put “experience before the product” (p. 63), which requires rethinking what technology actually is, why it matters, and what its intended effects are (Forlizzi & Battarbee, 2004; Hassenzahl, 2010; Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006; McCarthy & Wright, 2004). As opposed to a task-oriented approach, the experience-oriented approach focuses on the personal, subjective side of interaction with a product, understanding interaction as a dynamic story, able to create emotions and meaning. Admittedly, we are far from a common accepted definition of what user experience could or should be (Law, Roto, Hassenzahl, Vermeeren, & Korte, 2009) and experience research can be biased and sub-optimal (Bargas-Avila & Hornbæk, 2011). But experience is at the heart of the emerging postmaterialistic, experiential society (Schulze, 1992) and economy (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). Technology firms can hardly afford to ignore it (Hassenzahl, 2011).

In addition to changes in how to think about or even design technology, a focus on experience suggests reconsidering the models and assumptions underlying well-accepted approaches to evaluation. So far, the “product” is often quite narrowly understood as the tangible set of materials it is made of (e.g., screens, keys, buttons, knobs, windows, sliders) and evaluation focuses on those material aspects. An experience-oriented perspective, however, acknowledges that people foremost create meaningful and memorable stories through interacting with a product. These stories become in fact a part of the product and in turn serve as a basis for a more explicit product evaluation. In other words, if asked about aspects of a product, such as its perceived usefulness or the quality of certain features, people will likely probe their memory for experiences they have had and then base judgments upon a particular or a collection of remembered moments. This process is so pervasive that it even works with imagined experiences (Rajagopal & Montgomery, 2011).

This calls for an extended perspective on evaluation, including products and experiences, as well as a better understanding of how people derive judgments from recollected experiences…
…[W]e define “an experience” (Forlizzi & Battarbee, 2004) as a retrospectively constructed personal narrative, based on feelings, thoughts, and actions remembered from a collection of moments…”

(emphasis added)

 

 

Online resources about research and for a PhD dissertation

This is a personal post about online resources that talk about conducting research. I expect this list to be organic, and this is for me to not forget while I’m working on my (HCI + design) dissertation. However, I hope it’s helpful for you too!

This is a personal post about online resources that talk about conducting research. I expect this list to be organic, and this is for me to not forget while I’m working on my (HCI + design) dissertation. However, I hope it’s helpful for you too!

Please, if you know about a cool resource that needs to be added to this list, let me know! I’m @omitzec on Twitter!

Inspiration: PhD dissertations in HCI and Design

Resources for applying to an academic position

CHI 2016 Workshop on Visual Literacy & Human-Computer Interaction

ATTN: We have extended the submission deadline for the CHI 2016 Workshop on Visual Literacy & HCI to February 1st, 2016

Call for Position Papers: “Visual Literacy & HCI”
CHI 2016 Workshop to promote visual literacy as first class competency in HCI research and practice

=============================
OBJECTIVE
=============================

The goal of this workshop is to develop ideas about and expand a research agenda for visual literacy in HCI.

By visual literacy, we mean the competency
(i) to understand visual materials,
(ii) to create visuals materials, and
(iii) to think visually.

There are three primary motivations for this workshop on visual literacy in HCI, namely
(i) to engage HCI researchers in the transformative dimensions of visual literacy with respect to modern digital technology
(ii) to assess the relevance and pervasive nature of visual artifacts in and as a consequence of HCI design, and
(iii) to promote visual literacy as a first-class competency in HCI research and practice.

This workshop will consist of paper and visual material presentations, critique, and structured discussion sessions. The overall goal is to detail a viable research agenda that investigates the persistent and emerging dimensions of visual literacy in HCI.

=============================
IMPORTANT DATES
=============================

Extended Submission Date: February 1st, 2016
Camera-Ready Papers: February 12, 2016 (5pm EST)
Workshop: May 8, 2016

==================================
WORKSHOP QUESTIONS
==================================

At the workshop, we will address visual literacy in HCI from the perspectives of researchers and practitioners. We invite the CHI community to consider the following questions:

1. What are the dimensions of visual literacy in HCI?

2. How do visual metaphors and visual artifacts influence the way we think about HCI research and practice?

3. How do HCI researchers and practitioners use visual literacy to conveying knowledge, for conceptualization, for engagement, or as support for argumentation?

4. How is visual literacy efficacy evaluated, sustained, and fostered?

5. Does current and future technology require new ways to comprehend, create, communicate and teach about visual literacy in HCI?

==================================
WORKSHOP THEMES
==================================

In the most general terms, we invite paper contributors to explain notions of visual literacy in terms of three main themes, namely

(i) Visual understanding
how are visual materials understood and explained in HCI research and practice?
(ii) Visual making
how are visual materials used in HCI prototypes and other forms of making?
(iii) Visual thinking
how is visual thinking different than textual thinking, and how does it augment notions of HCI?

There are a number of alternative themes or framings that are germane to visual literacy, namely

(i) Definitions
how may visual literacy be defined in terms of constituent dimensions and competencies?
(ii) Scale
how is the scale and pervasive nature of visual materials implicated in HCI?
(iii) Measure
how can we know what is entailed in claiming visual competence in HCI?
(iv) Transdisciplinarity
how can we transcend disciplinary boundaries with respect to the integration of concepts of visual literacy as they owe to various fields within and beyond HCI?

==================================
ABOUT PARTICIPANTS
==================================
This workshop invites people focused on the development, use, and exploration of visual material in HCI, either in the context of research, design process, or outcome.

People working in the following areas, but not limited to these, may be interested in submit position papers:
* Visual literacy
* Visual thinking
* Design-oriented HCI
* Digital Imagery
* Data Visualization
* Information Visualization
* Interface Design
* Visual and Digital Rhetoric
* Communication Design
* Information Design
* Interactive Art & Media
==================================
FORMAT & GOALS
==================================
Participants are invited to contribute papers that present theories, frameworks, methods, and exemplars of visual literacy in HCI. The workshop aims to build a network of collaboration among those in the CHI community interested in promoting visual literacy in HCI research and practice. Through presentations and group activities, participants will propose the notion, dimensions, and future research directions for visual literacy in HCI. The workshop group activity will include hands-on, visually-oriented, methods to synthesize and present insights.

==================================
PARTICIPANT SELECTION CRITERIA
& REQUIREMENTS FOR IMAGERY
OR POSITION PAPERS
==================================
Physical presence of at least one author of each accepted position paper is required. To encourage the inclusion of thoughtful imagery, submissions have no page restrictions. Papers are to be submitted in the ACM archive format, ACM extended abstracts format, or the SIGCHI DIS pictorial format.

==========================================
WHERE TO SUBMIT IMAGERY OR PAPERS
==========================================
Submit your imagery or position paper to kyle@hcivisualliteracy.com

=======================
NOTE
=======================
All participants must register for both the workshop and at least one day of the conference.

==========================================
ORGANIZERS
==========================================
Kyle Overton (Indiana University — USA)
Omar Sosa-Tzec (Indiana University — USA)
Nancy Smith (Indiana University — USA)
Eli Blevis (Indiana University — USA)
William Odom (Simon Fraser University — Canada)
Sabrina Hauser (Simon Fraser University — Canada)
Ron Wakkary (Simon Fraser University — Canada)

=======================
WEBSITE
=======================
http://www.hcivisualliteracy.com

Social media, thoughts and rhetorical situation

In the paper “The Rhetorical Situation,” Bitzer (1992) claims that rhetoricians don’t treat the formal aspects of the type of situation in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse. In the same text, he remarks,

“Each reader probably can recall a specific time and place when there was opportunity to speak on some urgent matter, and after the opportunity was gone he created in private thought, the speech he should have uttered earlier in the situation.”

I really enjoyed that quote. After reading it, one of the things that came to my mind was social media. A couple of times, I’ve considered venting what happens in my mind after facing a situation like the one above. I censor myself and decide not to post anything most of the times, though. Sometimes, I think it’s the “heat” of the moment. Sometimes, I think I need to think things better. Sometimes, I simply forget what I wanted to “conjecture” from that situation.

Later, I’ve seen some Facebook friend’s venting what they think or feel regarding everyday situations. I’ve always wondered, why aren’t they open to say things out loud? Recently, I noted that one of my closest friends posted, “sad.” Of course, I went to check the comments and no response (at that moment) about the reason of being sad. I think I’ve done something similar a couple of times, as well. Not putting just “sad,” but expressing indirectly how I feel towards a certain person, thing or situation. However, externalizing thought was the key thing that I needed: to express it, to make it real.

The Bitzer’s quote made think that, somehow, social media is not strong enough sometimes to encourage the user to express her thoughts. In other words, to avoid self-censorship.Notwithstanding, when we don’t care (or perhaps, we care too much), social media allows to throw what we think in a easy and quick way. I wonder,

  • what is the difference between throwing a “second-chance-to-argue” “private” thought and other forms of self-expression? For example, a graffiti.
  • Why is it safe sometimes to externalize that type of thought or inner conversation in social media? When is not it?
  • Where do we learn such awareness? Does that awareness follow or go against the free of speech in social media?

I don’t really know.

What do you think? Are you having a conversation in private thought already?

 

Cheers.

 

Reference.
Bitzer, L.F. (1992). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 25, Selections from Volume 1, pp. 1-14.

Sketchnoting Tutorial

As part of the course INFO-I300: Human-Computer Interaction Design in Indiana University, I’ve created a small tutorial about sketchnoting. This is the first time that I write down the rationale for the way in which I take notes. It was an insightful and interesting exercise. My quick insights are:

  • Sketchnoting helps to organize and synthesize information
  • Sketchnoting helps to develop metaphorical thinking
  • Sketchnoting helps to develop a personal visual coding for information
  • Tools are important (e.g., needle point marker, brush tip marker and good quality sketchbook)
  • Drawing skills are not that relevant. Notes should make sense to you first.
  • Consistency is a key aspect for sketchnoting

Based on my experience, the steps for good sketchnoting are:

  1. Listen
  2. Filter
  3. Write down
  4. Code visually
  5. Relate content

I hope the tutorial shown below can be help you for anyone interested in sketchnoting.

Cheers!

Participatory Design: making, telling, and enacting.

“Design participation is an evolving practice of making, telling and enacting. The iterative flow of events between these activities is essential, not only for participation to occur naturally, but for participation to occur with ease and with joy. When we can fully engage people’s minds, hearts and bodies in imagining and expressing future situations of use, we can be assured that they have an opportunity to influence future ways of living, learning and being.”

 

* Eva Brandt, Thomas Binder and Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders. Routledge Handbook of Participatory Design (Routledge International Handbooks) (p. 176). Taylor and Francis. 2012.

Is there a theory of design?

A quick reflection among two PhD students and Research Assistants on Human-Computer Interaction Design at Indiana University Bloomington.

I had a quick discussion with my friend and colleague Jordan Beck, who is now working on the notion of Design Identity. As part of that work, Jordan is creating a list of definitions of Design and an interesting list of possible design theories. Then, we were discussing whether there’s a theory of design as such. As usual, we employed the whiteboard to discuss our viewpoints. The result is shown below.

Schemas about theories of design
a) A typical example form Gestalt theory (Jordan). b) A schema regarding theories in relation to their “belongingness” to Design and their applicability (Omar). c) Design as consequence of a networked non design theories (Jordan).

As it’s shown in the schema b, I was telling Jordan that most theories of design are generated from other fields, such as Psychology, Philosophy, or Literary Studies. This idea is represented by the horizontal axis. My quick comment was made in relation to the applicability of those theories—the vertical axis. I conjectured that, in terms of applicability, designers pay more attention to those theories not generated within Design since they are the ones that are more related with the designer’s competence at the moment of actually doing design. In relation to the theories generated within Design—that is, generated by Design Researchers, in designerly (research) context, and working for and with designers—usually they don’t know or care about those theories because their not “visible” in their everyday practice.

Then Jordan came with the schema c from the picture above by which he remarked about the possibility that Design is (partially) constituted by networked knowledge/theories not generated “within” Design.” From here, he made the interesting question about whether there’s a theory really generated within design. The quick discussion was basically focused on that. I commented that it seems to be no theory of design as such. Since the two of us are taking Erik Stolterman’s seminar on Philosophy and Theory of Design, I added to my point that by discarding knowledge generated from non design Disciplines, Philosophy of Design might represent the theory of design—as theoretical generative means regarding design and for design. Yet we talk about Philosophy, so it belongs to other field at the end. Tricky and funny.

In relation to comments above, we got this quick and crazy deduction that there’s no theory of design apparently. Later, since there’s a relation between some disciplines and design as we appreciate in the current “design theories”, Design seems to be present somehow (or mapped back) in these fields. If it is possible to create this type of bidirectional connection with any discipline, does it mean that design is everywhere somehow? Was Paul Rand right when he said that “Everything is design”?