Today we had the first seminar based on the three different papers which all
- Designing and Evaluating Glanceable Peripheral Displays
Tara Matthews - Exploring the Design Space of Glanceable Feedback for Physical Activity Trackers by Rúben Gouveia et al.
- Evaluating Peripheral Displays by Tara Matthews
Prior to requirement to partake was to write a summary on one paper which we will give feedback to two different students. I read the 3rd paper as we had less than a day to prepare we were allowed to assign each person to a paper. We decided to have two people read paper 1 and 2 and the two others read the 3rd. You can see my summary of the paper below
Summary of Evaluating Peripheral Displays
This paper talks about the different criteria for the peripheral displays using effectiveness, efficiency learnability, memorability, flexibility, usefulness, and user satisfaction in relation to two evaluating methods and two models.
The case study was based on peripheral display of e-mail notifications system through two different systems, called the Ticker and the Orb. They both used qualitive and quantitative data as some things are based on feelings and others are based on numerical scale. Qualitative is used for criteria such as user awareness, user satisfaction and distraction. This is because these aspects are more based on the feeling of the user. They used an A-B-A format which meant that one week was baseline and two weeks with them using the display, and another one-week baseline. After a week in B phase where they have had time to get accustomed to the displays is when they conducted their interviews. They used experience sampling method which they found to be difficult as they formation of questions as if they are not formulated correctly it could lead to difficulties for the participants experience. This is where they used a numerical scale (1-5) through pop-ups. They then compared data where the distraction results were insignificant in speed and accuracy.
This was written by Tara Matthews, Gary Hsieh, and Jennifer Mankoff. It is published in a chapter of a book called Awareness Systems. They aim to give the pros and cons of each example method, but they also state that if they had more participants then there would be significant outcome. They also talked about the effect of the systems not working and taking the participants a long time to realize that. This connects to the error visibility and recovery criteria where it evaluates if the user understands that the display not working and is able to recover
They compare differences between Field techniques, and lab study and field study. They also wrote about Heuristic and Summative Evaluations and how they are not comparable. As they were used in two different stages in the display development as well as they cannot be used to replace on another, but heuristic could be used to help with iterations through feedback. They also knew the peripheral displays were effective by the participants asked about their commercial release.
Reference:
Matthews T., Hsieh G., Mankoff J. (2009) Evaluating Peripheral Displays. In: Markopoulos P., De Ruyter B., Mackay W. (eds) Awareness Systems. Human-Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-477-5_19
The seminar went alright as this was the first seminar we’ve had as well as it being online made the expectations clear and I aim to be prepared in advance by reading the weekly papers during the weekend as well as summarizing them.
After the seminar the group met on zoom to start the process of glancibility project, we choose to meet tomorrow with at least an idea each to share.
My scenario was based on my own experiences with public transportation. The idea was a person using the phone app to monitor the bus which then connects to the smart watch. The time of the watch will change based on your position and the position of the bus with color changes based on your position. We will present the ideas then make wire frames to the top ones and see from there.
Abdulrahman's Blog 