UPA tutorial sample.rtf

Michael Müller, Tom Dayton, Daniel Lafreniere

Description

VARIATIONS ON A THEME: CARD-BASED TECHNIQUES FOR PARTICIPATORYANALYSIS AND DESIGNINTRODUCTIONIn this tutorial, participants gain hands-on experience with three related participatory methods throughwhich groups can share and co-create their visions. We presented a panel based on this idea at UPA’97,and it was very well received. One of the recommendations from the evaluations of the panel was toexpand it into a full-day tutorial. We are proposing to meet this request.The tutorial presents three card-based methods for participatory analysis and participatory design:• CARD (Collaborative Analysis of Requirements and Design)• CUTA (Collaborative Users' Task Analysis)• TOD (Task Object Design)The CARD technique was discovered by Tudor in 1992, and was subsequently refined by her andcolleagues (Tudor et al., 1993). Using physical materials similar to playing cards, CARD is a participatorytechnique through which users and software professionals (and other stakeholders) may collaborativelyanalyze an existing or proposed task flow, or may design a new task flow. The materials and the processesaround the materials support participatory work in several ways: The materials become a low-tech "common language" that supports rich communication among thestakeholders. The process of using the materials makes sure that no single participant may "own" the cards, whichthen become the "property" of the group. The simple low-tech physical form of the cards allows ...

Informations

• Publié par: Oslu
• Nombre de lectures: 14
• Langue: English

Extrait

UPA'98 TUTORIAL PROPOSAL

PAGE

1 of 3

Variations on a Theme...

VARIATIONS ON A THEME: CARD-BASED TECHNIQUES FOR PARTICIPATORY

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

INTRODUCTION

In this tutorial, participants gain hands-on experience with three related participatory methods through

which groups can share and co-create their visions.

We presented a panel based on this idea at UPA’97,

and it was very well received.

One of the recommendations from the evaluations of the panel was to

expand it into a full-day tutorial.

We are proposing to meet this request.

The tutorial presents three card-based methods for participatory analysis and participatory design:

•

CARD (Collaborative Analysis of Requirements and Design)

•

CUTA (Collaborative Users' Task Analysis)

•

TOD (Task Object Design)

The CARD technique was discovered by Tudor in 1992, and was subsequently refined by her and

colleagues (Tudor et al., 1993).

Using physical materials similar to playing cards, CARD is a participatory

technique through which users and software professionals (and other stakeholders) may collaboratively

analyze an existing or proposed task flow, or may design a new task flow.

The materials and the processes

around the materials support participatory work in several ways:

•

The materials become a low-tech "common language" that supports rich communication among the

stakeholders.

•

The process of using the materials makes sure that no single participant may "own" the cards, which

then become the "property" of the group.

•

The simple low-tech physical form of the cards allows all of the participants to have equal access to

them, and equal facility in moving them, re-arranging them, modifying them, and (if necessary)

making new cards.

The cards thus contribute to participatory and democratic work.

They become a form of support or

scaffolding for egalitarian access and expression, and for full and open discussions.

Since Tudor's initial discovery, several card-based techniques have developed and diverged from her

original model.

This tutorial brings together several of these variations for a collegial comparison of their

strengths and weaknesses.

We provide formal descriptions, completed work samples, and hands-on

experiences for the participants, to aid them in adapting card-based methods to their own work.

In the following sections of this proposal, we briefly describe the three techniques, and then summarize the

agenda of the tutorial.

CARD-BASED TECHNIQUES

CARD

In the CARD technique (Muller et al., 1995), participants use cards to lay out or critique task flows. The

cards represent work components, including computer-based functionality, non-computer events and

objects, people, and people's mental work (cognitions, motivations, strategies, and goals).

The process

emphasizes mutual preparation, education, and validation.

Participants include representatives from the

group or groups of users who have a stake in the system, plus representatives from software professionals

with a stake in the system.

The result is a graphical description of the users' task flows (or a critique of

those flows), which can easily be transformed into an object-oriented analysis or a GOMS-CPM-style

timeline analysis.

More importantly, the graphical description becomes an easily understood, concrete

description of tasks and computer usage.

CUTA

CUTA (Lafrenière, 1995, 1996) is based on cards showing a picture of a user doing a specific activity with

a specific object. Also, on each card, there are areas for the description of the activity, its duration, and its

frequency. There are cards for every object and situation encountered in a specific workplace. The goal is

for participants, collectively, to describe the task flow by ordering the cards on a shared workspace. The

result is an informal documentation of the users' tasks, suitable for formal documentation or sharing with

UPA'98 TUTORIAL PROPOSAL

PAGE

2 of 3

Variations on a Theme...

developers.

Task Object Design

In Task Object Design (Dayton, McFarland, and Kramer, 1998), participants design a complete set of units

of information that are needed and desirable for a worker to do a task that has already been documented in

a flow chart.

Each object is represented by an index card.

These task information objects serve as

stepping-stones from the task flow to an object-oriented user interface design.

TIMELINE FOR THE SESSION

We will provide a mixture of formal description (25%), examination of work samples (12%), hands-on

experiences (50%) and plenary discussions (13%).

The following timeline assumes an eight-hour day with

six

hours of tutorial time.

Introduction (40 minutes)

We will begin the tutorial with theoretical background of participatory design, and a brief survey of

participatory practices based largely on the survey of practices (Muller, Haslwanter, and Dayton, 1997) in

the recently updated

Handbook of HCI

(Helander, Landauer, and Prabhu, 1997).

We will then introduce

the three methods, supplemented by printed handouts and videotaped materials from Tudor.

Examination of Work Samples (50 minutes)

We will ask the participants to divide into three large groups.

The three groups will move,

in parallel

,

among three work samples.

Each work sample will be based on a single one of the three techniques in the

tutorial.

We anticipate taking about fifteen minutes per work sample

(3 x [15 minutes/work sample + 5

minutes for transitions]).

(Mid-morning break)

Hands-on Workshops (180 minutes – divided into three 60-minute sub-sessions)

The major work of the tutorial will then take place in the form of three hands-on workshops with each of

the three practices.

The three large groups will again move

in parallel

from one workshop to another, so

that each participant has experience with each of the practices (one practice per workshop).

Each workshop

is planned to take 55 minutes (3 x [55 minutes/workshop + 5 minutes for transitions]).

Within each workshop, the large group will split up to form small groups (about six people per group).

Each group will receive card-based materials for their chosen technique.

Instructors will help the

participants to conduct their workshop with the materials provided.

Each of the small groups will perform

a task analysis of selected aspects of exploring the UPA'98 program, and of registering for the conference.

The first sub-session will take place before lunch (60 minutes).

The second sub-session will begin before

lunch, and continue after lunch (30 minutes + 30 minutes).

(Lunch

)

The third sub-session will take place after lunch (60 minutes).

(Mid-afternoon break)

Plenary Discussion: Participants’ Experiences and Comparisons (45 minutes)

After the three workshops, we will reconvene for a plenary discussion.

Instructors will facilitate the

participants to identify differences in the object models (materials), process models (activities), and

participation models (who is involved) among the different techniques, as well as anticipated outcomes of

each of the practices.

In this discussion, we hope to limit instructors’ contributions to those of elicitation

and facilitation, with the content coming from the participants themselves.

Conclusion:

Related Practices and Adapting the Practices to the Participants’ Needs (45 minutes)

The bulk of the day has been spent in a relatively narrow focus on three participatory practices.

In our

conclusion, we expand our focus in two ways.

First, we describe the broader space of participatory

practices (per Muller, Dayton, and Haslwanter, 1997); this will be a relatively formal presentation (15

minutes).

Then we concluded with a plenary discussion about adapting the three methods in this tutorial to

the diverse needs of the participants and their own organizations (30 minutes).

RELATED METHODS

For completeness, we note that the techniques in our proposal are not the only card-based techniques that

are used in participatory analysis or participatory design

— although we believe that the techniques in our

UPA'98 TUTORIAL PROPOSAL

PAGE

3 of 3

Variations on a Theme...

panel are the only participatory practices that use cards to represent task components or software entities.

The Layout, Organization, and Specification Games involve cards that contain textual descriptions of work

situations, which are discussed by collaborative groups composed of users and software professionals (see

Ehn and Sjögren, 1991; Klaer and Madsen, 1995).

For a broader review of participatory practices, see

Muller, Hallewell Haslwanter, and Dayton (1997).

REFERENCES

Ehn, P., and Sjögren, D.

(1991):

From system descriptions to scripts for action.

In J. Greenbaum and M.

Kyng (Eds.),

Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems

(pp. 241–268).

Hillsdale, NJ,

USA: Erlbaum.

Klaer, A., and Madsen, K.H.

(1995).

Participatory analysis of flexibility.

Communications of the ACM,

38

(5), 53–60.

Lafrenière, D. (1995).

Créez des interfaces gagnantes

.

Montréal (Québec) : Les Éditions Logiques.

Lafrenière, D.

(1996).

CUTA: A simple, practical, and low-cost approach to task analysis.

interactions

III

(5), 35-39.

Dayton, T., McFarland, A., and Kramer, J.

(1998).

Bridging user needs to object oriented GUI prototype

via Task Object Design.

In L. Wood (Ed.),

User interface design: Bridging the gap from user

requirements to design

(pp. 15–56).

Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.

Muller, M.J., Hallewell Haslwanter, J.D., and Dayton, T. (1997).

Participatory practices in the software

lifecycle.

Chapter to appear in M. Helander, T. Landauer, and Prabhu, P. (Ed.),

Handbook of human-

computer interaction

.

Amsterdam:

Elsevier.

Muller, M.J., Tudor, L.G., Wildman, D.M., White, E.A., Root, R.W., Dayton, T., Carr, R., Diekmann, B.,

and Dykstra-Erickson, E.A. (1995).

Bifocal tools for scenarios and representations in participatory

activities with users.

In J. Carroll (Ed.),

Scenario-based design for human-computer interaction

.

New

York:

Wiley.

Tudor, L.G., Muller, M.J., Dayton, T., and Root, R.W. (1993).

A participatory design technique for high-

level task analysis, critique, and redesign:

The CARD method.

In

Proceedings of the Human Factors

and Ergonomics Society 1993 Meeting

, Seattle WA, October 1993, 295-299.

Optimum Audience Size

We can facilitate small groups for as many as 40 participants.

Level of Experience

This intermediate-level tutorial is intended for people with some experience in either (a) usability work or

(b) software lifecycles.

Learned Information

•

Develop hands-on competence with each of the three practices

•

Know how to choose among the practices for one’s own work

•

Know how to adapt the practices to meet one’s own needs

•

Understand the diversity of participatory practices, and how to find more information about them

•

Understand issues in participatory work with users and other stakeholders

UPA'98 Tutorial Proposal

Backgrounds of the Instructors

Variations on a Theme...

BACKGROUNDS OF THE INSTRUCTORS

Tom Dayton

Tom Dayton is an expert in user-centered design, having invented participatory methods and used and

taught them many times in several companies.

He has also taught methods at UPA, CHI, INTERCHI,

HFES, and OZCHI conferences.

Tom chaired an influential ACM SIGCHI workshop that reported on

methods and needs.

He got his Ph.D. in 1989 in experimental psychology with emphasis on research

methodology and HCI, then was a postdoctoral fellow at IBM's T. J. Watson Research Center before

joining Bellcore, where he was a Principal Usability Engineer in the Rapid Applications Usability group.

He is co-author of the

Design Guide for Multi-platform Graphical User Interfaces

published by Bellcore.

Tom is now Senior Usability Engineer in the Sun Microsystems Usability Labs.

His work now focuses on

extending multi-platform object-oriented GUI design methods and styles to include Web browser styles and

fully compound documents.

Daniel Lafrenière

Daniel Lafrenière is a consultant in usability at GESPRO Technologies. His contracts include task analysis,

writing guidelines, prototyping, evaluation, and integrating user-centered techniques within the software

development lifecycle. In 1995, he published the book

Créez des interfaces gagnantes

(

Create Winning

User Interfaces

), which is a synthesis of techniques and guidelines on user interface design. This book is

widely used in universities in the province of Québec and in Europe. In 1993 he co-authored a course on

user interface design for the computer science bachelor program at Laval University. He has been teaching

HCI there since, both in the Computer Science Department (Bachelor level) and more recently in the

Information Systems Department (MBA in IT). He's also been teaching HCI in many large corporations

such as Téléglobe Canada, Bell Canada, Hydro-Québec and Vidéotron. Daniel is a member of ACM's

SIGCHI, UPA and Québec Professional Computer Association.

Michael Muller

Michael Muller is an internationally recognized expert in participatory design, currently working as a

research scientist at Lotus Research (Lotus Development Corporation); previously, he worked at Microsoft

as a usability manager, and at U S WEST Advanced Technologies as a Work and Usability Analyst.

Michael has taught or co-taught tutorials at CHI’91-CHI’95, CHI 96, and HFES’93 — as well as UPA'96

— and has taught one-day courses as an invited lecturer in Aarhus, Oslo, Toronto, and Vancouver.

His

work is concerned with human-human collaboration and its technological support, with analyzing,

representing, and supporting skilled work, and with methods for Participatory ANalysis, Design, and

Assessment (PANDA) of software systems in work contexts.

The formal part of Michael's education

includes a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology from Rutgers University.