*Note that the course schedule is tentative.* Lecture slides will be posted after each class.
Location: Room 140, Computer Science Building
Instructor: Narges Mahyar
Email: nmahyar@cs.umass.edu
Office: Room 322, Computer Science Building
Office Hours: Thursdays 3:20-4:20 pm (* no office hours on Feb 21)
TA: Pooya Khaloo
Email: pkhaloo@umass.edu
Office hours: Weds 1-2:30pm, CS 207
This is an advanced course in Human-Computer Interaction. This course will provide a deeper treatment of some topics that are typically found in an undergraduate HCI course. For example, design methodologies, evaluation methodologies (both quantitative and qualitative), human information processing, cognition, and perception. This course will also introduce students to research frontiers in HCI. The course will cover topics of Universal Usability, CSCW, Digital Civics and fundamentals of designing interactive technology for people.
Course Overview
People are increasingly surrounded by interactive computational technology systems that are integral to their everyday life. However, poorly designed systems are common, and they can lead to negative outcomes such as frustration, lost time, and errors. The role of design is more crucial than ever before for crafting appropriate systems that truly meet people’s needs, abilities, and expectations. This course covers the theories and concepts important for all professionals and researchers that design interactive technology for human use. This course will build common ground across students from a range of backgrounds, so they will have a shared vocabulary and methods to bring into other components of the Designing for People. Designing for People means designing for human experience, abilities, and fallibilities, which requires in-depth engagement of people throughout the design process in order to develop interactive technologies that fit human needs and capabilities. More specifically, the course adopts a human-centered design (HCD) approach and teaches a highly iterative process called design thinking. This process draws heavily on fundamental human-computer interaction (HCI) methods. Students will have a chance to practice and hone their abilities through weekly homework in the context of a project, in-class activities, and discussions.
Course Origins
This course was originally developed and taught by Prof. Joanna McGerener and Dr. Leila Aflattony at University of British Columbia (UBC) as a new graduate course in HCI on the Fundamentals of Designing Interactive Computational Technology for People (DFP). The course draws on Prof. McGerener’s many years of teaching HCI courses at UBC and also borrows materials from Prof. Karon MacLean and Jessica Dawson.
Textbooks
Survey and research articles will be the primary text for the course, chosen from a collection of readings. There is no textbook required.
Prerequisite
Students are expected to have taken an HCI course prior to taking this course. While there are no other formal prerequisites, the ability to do basic computer programming will be an asset for the prototyping part of the course. Alternate tools that require minimal programming will, however, be possible. Further, there will be some coverage of experimental design and analysis, which relies on some basic statistical knowledge.
Accommodation Statement
The University of Massachusetts Amherst is committed to providing an equal educational opportunity for all students. If you have a documented physical, psychological, or learning disability on file with Disability Services (DS), you may be eligible for reasonable academic accommodations to help you succeed in this course. If you have a documented disability that requires an accommodation, please notify me within the first two weeks of the semester so that we may make appropriate arrangements.
Academic Honesty Statement
Since the integrity of the academic enterprise of any institution of higher education requires honesty in scholarship and research, academic honesty is required of all students at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Academic dishonesty is prohibited in all programs of the University. Academic dishonesty includes but is not limited to: cheating, fabrication, plagiarism, and facilitating dishonesty. Appropriate sanctions may be imposed on any student who has committed an act of academic dishonesty. Instructors should take reasonable steps to address academic misconduct. Any person who has reason to believe that a student has committed academic dishonesty should bring such information to the attention of the appropriate course instructor as soon as possible. Instances of academic dishonesty not related to a specific course should be brought to the attention of the appropriate department Head or Chair. Since students are expected to be familiar with this policy and the commonly accepted standards of academic integrity, ignorance of such standards is not normally sufficient evidence of lack of intent (http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/acadhonesty/).
Inclusive Statemnet
In this course, each voice in the classroom has something of value to contribute. Please take care to respect the different experiences, beliefs, and values expressed by the students, faculty, and staff involved in this course. My colleagues and I support UMass’s commitment to diversity, and welcome individuals regardless of age, background, citizenship, disability, sex, education, ethnicity, family status, gender, gender identity, geographical origin, language, military experience, political views, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and work experience (cics.umass.edu/about/inclusivity-statement).
Week | Date | Topics and Readings | Lectures | Deliverables |
1 | Tues- Jan 22 | Design Thinking Norman, Donald A. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, 01/01/2013. Web. 31 Aug. 2017. Reading #1. Chapter 1. The psychopathology of everyday things. Reading #2. Chapter 6. Design Thinking. [Read p. 217-236] | Lecture 1 | Research Journal |
Thurs- Jan 24 | Human-centered design and HCI Reading #3. Mackay, W. E. (1995). Ethics, lies and videotape…. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, United States, May 07 – 11, 1995). CHI ’95. ACM, New York, NY, 138-145. doi pdf | Lecture 2 | Research Journal CITI Training-Group2 (ethics training): Please complete the training and post your certificate/s to Gradescope by Monday (1//28) midnight. Link | |
2 | Tues- Jan 29 | Field Studies – Observations Reading #4. Blomberg, J., Burrell, M., and Guest, G. (2003). An ethnographic approach to design. Chapter 50. In Jacko, J. and Sears, A. (Eds.) The Human Computer Interaction Handbook (pp. 964-986). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Read up to last column on p. 973] doi pdf Reading #5. Porcheron, M., Fischer, J. E., and Sharples, S. (2016) Using mobile phones in pub talk. Proceedings of ACM CSCW ’16, 1649-166. doi pdf | Lecture 3 | Research Journal Read project overview Form teams |
Thurs- Jan 31 | Field Studies – Interviews Reading #6. Fontana, A. and James F. (1994). Interviewing: The Art of Science. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 361-76). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Read up to first column on p. 368] pdf Reading #7. Allison Woodruff. (2014). Necessary, unpleasant, and disempowering: reputation management in the internet age. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 149-158. pdf | Lecture 4 | Research Journal | |
3 | Tues- Feb 5 | Field Studies – Surveys/questionnaires Reading #8. Hochheiser, H., Feng, J. H., & Lazar, J. (2017). Surveys. Chapter 5. Research methods in human computer interaction (pp. 109-133). Elsevier Science. [Read: p.105-128; skip examples if needed] Reading #9. Malin Eiband, Mohamed Khamis, Emanuel von Zezschwitz, Heinrich Hussmann, and Florian Alt. 2017. Understanding Shoulder Surfing in the Wild: Stories from Users and Observers. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4254-4265. doi pdf | Lecture 5 | Research Journal Team Contract First interim-milestone: unstructured observation in public place |
Thurs- Feb7 | Qualitative Data Analysis Reading #10. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M. & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Chapter 1. Introduction to Applied thematic analysis (pp.2-21). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. [Read p. 7-18] doi pdf Reading #11. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M. & Namey, E. E. (2012). Themes and Codes. Chapter 3. Applied thematic analysis (pp.49-78). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. Optional Reading. Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, 77-101. pdf link | Lecture 6 | Research Journal | |
4 | Tues- Feb 12 | Affinity Diagrams Reading #12. Holtzblatt, K., and Beyer, H. (2017). Contextual Design: Design for Life. Chapter 6. The Affinity Diagram (pp. 127-146). Elsevier Inc. pdf Reading #13. Nouwens, M., Griggio, C., and Mackay, W., (2017). WhatsApp is for family; Messenger is for friends”:Communication Places in App Ecosystems. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 727-735. doi pdf Reading #13 (alternative). Vitale, F., Janzen, I., and McGrenere, J. (2018). Hoarding and Minimalism: Tendencies in Digital Data Preservation. Proceedings of the CHI 2018. Paper 587, 12 pages. pdf doi | Lecture 7 | Research Journal |
Thurs- Feb 14 | Presentation (Empathize) No Reading | Project Milestone-Empathize | ||
5 | Tues- Feb 19 | No class-Monday Class Schedule | ||
Thurs- Feb 21 | Personas Reading #14. Cooper, Alan, et al. (2014) About Face : The Essentials of Interaction Design, Chapter 3. Modeling Users: Personas and Goal (pp. 61-99) John Wiley & Sons. [Read p. 81-97] pdf Reading #15. John Pruitt, Jonathan Grudin (2003). Personas: Practice and Theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1-15. doi pdf Optional Reading. Lene Nielsen, Kira Storgaard Hansen. (2014). Personas is Applicable – A Study on the Use of Personas In Denmark. In Proceedings of the 2014 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1665-1674. doi pdf Optional Reading. Tara Matthews, Tejinder Judge, Stephen Whittaker (2012). How Do Designers and User Experience Professionals Actually Perceive and Use Personas? In Proceedings of the 2012 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1219-1228. doi pdf | Lecture 8 | ||
6 | Tues- Feb 26 | Working Class No Reading | ||
Thurs- Feb 28 | Establishing Requirements Reading #16. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. Preece, J. (2011) Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Chapter 10. Task Description, Task Analysis (pp.373-388). Chichester, West Sussex : Wiley. [skip activities/assignments] pdf Link Optional Reading. Task Examples. [Recommended to read] Link | Lecture 9 | Project Milestone-Define | |
7 | Tues- March 5 | Conceptual Models and Design Reading #17. Jeff Johnson and Austin Henderson. (2002). Conceptual models: begin by designing what to design. Interactions 9, 1 (January 2002), 25-32. doi pdf Reading #18. Greenberg, S., and Buxton, B. (2008). Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful (Some of the Time). In Proceedings of the 2008 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 111-120. doi pdf ***Bonus reading (optional): Supporting Communication and Coordination in Collaborative Sensemaking. Narges Mahyar, and Melanie Tory. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (VAST 2014), pp. 1633-1642, 2014. [Paper] [Video] | ||
Thurs- March 7 | Human Abilities and Sketching Reading #19. Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Chapter 13-17. Sketching interaction (pp.135-155), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. [Read p. 135-151] Link pdf Reading #20. Greenberg, S. (2011). Sketching user experiences: The workbook, Section 4. Snapshots in Time: The Visual Narrative (pp. 145-177), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. Link pdf | Lecture 11 | ||
8 | Tues- March 12 | No Class-Spring Recess | ||
Thurs- March 14 | No Class-Spring Recess | |||
9 | Tues- March 19 | Presentation (Ideate) ***Bonus reading (optional): CommunityCrit: Inviting the Public to Improve and Evaluate Urban Design Ideas through Micro-Activities. Narges Mahyar, Michael R. James, Michelle M. Ng, Reginal. A. Wu, Steven P. Dow, ACM Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2018), 14 pages. [Paper] | Project Milestone-Ideate | |
Thurs- March 21 | Prototyping Reading #21. Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Chapter 35. Interacting with Paper (pp.371-391), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. [Read p. 381-391; skim-through the rest] Link pdf Reading #22. Tohidi, M., Buxton, W., Baecker, R., Sellen, A. (2006). Getting the right design and the design right. In Proceedings of the 2006 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘6). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1243-1252. doi pdf | Lecture 12 | ||
10 | Tues- March 26 | Evaluation of Prototypes – Discount Methods Reading #23. Wilson, C. (2013). User Interface Inspection Methods, Chapter 4.cognitive Walkthrough (pp. 65-79), Elsevier Inc. [Read p. 66-74] Link pdf Reading #24. Wilson, C. (2013). User Interface Inspection Methods, Chapter 1. Heuristic Evaluation (pp. 1-31), Elsevier Inc. [Read p. 14-29] Link pdf | Lecture 13 | |
Thurs- March 28 | Evaluation of Prototypes – Usability Testing Reading # 25. Dix, A. et al. (2004). Human-Computer Interaction, Chapter 9. Evaluation techniques (pp. 318-364), Pearson. [Read: p.343-362] pdf Reading # 26. Oram, L., McLean, K., Kruchten, P., Forster, B. (2014). Crafting Diversity in Radiology Image Stack Scrolling: Control and Annotations. In Proceedings of the 2014 DIS Conference on Designing interactive systems (DIS ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 567-576. pdf | |||
11 | Tues- April 2 | Experiments I – Experimental Design Reading #27. Hochheiser, H., Feng, J. H., & Lazar, J. (2017). Experimental research. Chapter 2. Research methods in human computer interaction (pp. 25-44). Elsevier Science. [Read: p.25-41] Reading #28. Hochheiser, H., Feng, J. H., & Lazar, J. (2017). Experimental design. Chapter 3. Research methods in human computer interaction (pp. 45-69). Elsevier Science. [Read: p.45-67] | Lecture 15 | Project Milestone-Prototype |
Thurs- April 4 | Working Class and Prototype Review ***Bonus reading (optional): UD Co-Spaces: A Table-Centred Multi-Display Environment for Public Engagement in Urban Design Charrettes. Narges Mahyar, Kelly Burke, Siyi Meng, Jialiang Xiang, Kellogg S. Booth, Cynthia Girling, and Ronald Kellett, Interactive Surfaces and Spaces (ISS ’16), pp. 109-118, November 6-9, 2016. [Paper] | |||
12 | Tues- April 9 | Guest Lecture-Pooya Khaloo | Interim-milestone: Proposed goal(s) of experiment | |
Thurs- April 11 | Experiments II – Statistical Analysis Reading #29. Hochheiser, H., Feng, J. H., & Lazar, J. (2017). Statistical analysis. Chapter 4. Research methods in human computer interaction (pp. 71-104). Elsevier Science. | Lecture 16 | Project Milestone-Test 1 | |
13 | Tues- April 16 | Working Class and Prototype Review Reading #30. Findlater, L., Moffatt, K., McGrenere, J., and Dawson, J. (2009). Ephemeral adaptation: the use of gradual onset to improve menu selection performance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1655-1664. DOI pdf | ||
Thurs- April 18 | Presentation (Test 1) No Reading | |||
14 | Tues- April 23 | Experiments III – Threats to Validity Reading #31. Baecker, R. Grudin, J., Buxton, W., Greenberg, S., (1995) Methodology Matters: Doing research in the behavioral and social sciences. Human Computer Interaction: Toward the year 2000 (pp.152-169), Morgan Kaufmann. pdf | Lecture 17 | |
Thurs- April 25 | Working Class and Final Prototype Review No Reading | Project Milestone-Test 2 | ||
15 | Tues- April 30 | Presentation No Reading | Project Milestone-Test 3 |
Researcher journals are an important part of the deliverables in this course.
Instructions on how to post your entries in your researcher journal are found further below.
Due: by 9:00 PM the night before readings are covered in class. This is a strict cutoff. (Note: we reserve the right to change this time within the term)
Students must do the core readings before the classes. By the due date/time, students must create an entry in their shared journal with a question/comment about the material being covered that day, one note per required reading (typically 2 per class, but can be more or less). We encourage you to also to have a copy of these questions/comments with you in class and use them as a springboard for discussion.
Your questions/comments should be thoughtful, and clearly show that you have done the reading and reflected on it. They do not all have to be phrased in the form of a question, a comment is fine. If you are genuinely confused by some aspect of the reading, then it is useful and legitimate to ask for clarification. However, simply asking something that you could trivially look up yourself is not a good question. As with any written work that you submit, we expect correct grammar and spelling.
The goal of the shared journal is not only for you to reflect on the readings yourself, but also to learn about your classmates reflections on those same readings. For this reason, the journal entries are open to the full class. This will lead to richer in-class discussions.
Course staff will grade some of your questions/comments (random selection). Those that are graded will be graded on a 3-point scale of {good-3, okay-2, poor-1}, and we will sometimes provide feedback, especially at the outset of term.
Each question/comment should be at most one short to medium length paragraph. Often two or three sentences will suffice. The goal is to have short, crisp questions/comments.
We will drop each student’s lowest 3 grades. Thus, you can essentially choose not to do this assignment for 3 of the readings. Choose these wisely.
Unless otherwise specifically arranged with the course staff, your questions/comments will not be graded after the due date/time (as timestamped on the journal entry).
Researcher Journals are found as a module in Pizza. Each reading is set up as a Discussion item with the label that matches the reading number on the course schedule page. For example, to submit your journal entry for the first reading simply “Reply” to the discussion topic “Reading #1”.
Four important things to note:
Tab Content
Project title: Designing a Human-centred Interactive Computational Technology
Description:
Throughout the course, we will explore and apply different methods that are appropriate for designing and evaluating an interactive computational technology that closely meets human needs. Examples of potential technologies are interactive 2D interfaces, interactive 3D devices, wearables, robots, and so on. Your team will choose a topic from the list provided below which will seed your project. You will identify a clear problem to be addressed (or potential design opportunity) by investigating people’s behaviors, activities, and interactions, and will then create a working prototype that meets their needs, which you will evaluate. Following the design thinking process, there are approximately 6 project milestones, which may include a small final design showcase. These will be scheduled approximately every other week and there will be deliverables for each. For approximately half of these milestones, your team will need to be prepared to “present” your work during class time in the form of a “design crit” for which you will be marked and receive constructive feedback. Meeting the project milestones is crucial in completing the project successfully.
Team formation:
The first step in the research project is to form a team with 3 other people. There is not a lot of time for this, so you will need to move fast. You are free to work with whomever you choose, but you should strive for as multi-disciplinary a team as possible. Your team will choose a project topic listed in the project description. Groups will be set up for each team in Piazza. Once your team is formed, you will need to complete a team contract and submit it to gradescope (pdf). The due dates for these steps are noted in deliverables on the Schedule page.
Milestones:
Please see course schedule for tentative dates for each milestone. A draft outline of what might be required for each of the milestones is given below. These will be refined and provided to you as you approach each milestone.
Grading (tentative)
Team Deliverables 1, 2, 3, 4,5 – Part I | 50% |
Individual Deliverable 5 – Part II | 20% |
Total: | 70% |
Submission:
Details provided in individual milestone descriptions.
Topics:
Potential design problems/opportunities/situations, which are deliberately vaguely specified:
*Notes*