During theme 5, we will have to lectures given by Haibo Li and Eva-Lotta Sallnäs. Before those we are to read the following articles:
- Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008). Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 10(6), 1022-1033
- Moll, J. and Sallnäs, E-L. (2013). "A haptic tool for group work about geometrical concepts engaging blind and sighted pupils." ACM Transaction on Accessible Computing. 4(4), 1-37.
- Huang, Y., Moll, J., Sallnäs, E-L., Sundblad, Y. (2012). "Auditory feedback in haptic collaborative interfaces." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 70(4), 257-270.
Part one - Haibo Li
The first article on using the mobile phone’s vibrating functions when watching a game of soccer was fairly interesting to me. I am very interested in soccer myself and thought the article opened up for a new dimension on experiencing soccer rather than just watching it. I thought it was a bit hard to understand exactly what Haibo and his co-workers meant sometimes and I hope to get an enhanced view of the research during the upcoming lecture!
How can media technologies be evaluated?
By having an idea how to, for instance only stream the key events of soccer games, media technology is useful to solve a lot of issues of today’s society. We integrate media technology more and more in our everyday life and I think it’s fascinating to see what good solutions we come up with.
The first thing that comes to mind is that media technologies can be evaluated through user-testing. I think the method Haibo Li used in his research was a good way of evaluating his idea. The combination of letting the users in the study test the application and then speak their mind is a good way to conduct truthful and helpful answers I think.
What role will prototypes play in research?
I already think the use of prototypes is a great tool for acquiring better results in research. Haibo Li uses it in his research and Eva-Lotta Sallnäs also uses it in her study. It gives the test person a greater understanding on the topic no matter subject. Perhaps studies in the philosophical area (Kant, Walter, etc) are harder to make prototypes of but I really think it enhances the experience to interact with prototypes. This I mean both in the context of research studies but also in the learning environment such as in school. According to me, the future of prototypes shine bright.
Why could it be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype?
I’m not sure I get the question but I think, on the one hand, as said above, that using prototypes give an enhanced experience and that is one way of argue for the use of it. On the other hand (another way of interpreting the question) I think there for sure is a need to explain and argue for the choice of prototype. It is essential to explain for the test person why the prototype is being used and what the aim of the experiment is. The aim of the study is not essential to explain, however for the user to understand the prototype correctly he/she needs to know how it works and why it’s being used in my opinion. I think this is important to engage the test person in the study and for the test person to see the advantages of using media technology in the research.
I did some reading up on the definition of proof-of-concept prototype and according to Technopedia and Leardon my first interpretation of the question seems most suitable. Again, I think prototypes are a phenomenal tool to give a greater understand of the product/idea.
What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?
Prototypes can be of low-fidelity and high-fidelity. They can be close to the final version of the product or a quick paper sketch. In the introduction course to HCI we developed a number of prototypes, both low-fidelity and high-fidelity. This was the first time I created prototypes and I’ve done several more after the course!
If you’re not having so much time and money you can create a prototype that looks like an app for smartphones with the aid of POP or a bit more advanced version with softwares as Axure or Balsamiq. So, the characteristics of prototypes, I would say, are the fact that they’re trying to show you the final product/idea with the help of media technology. Of course you can create a prototype with paper and a pencil, however I think the base idea of prototype is to engage you and enhance the experience of the research you’re participating in.
How can design research be communicated/presented?
Through illustrations, graphs, diagrams, etc. I mentioned a couple of posts ago that I would like Chang’s article, about well-being in correlation of multimodal devices, better if he would have used more illustrations/graphs. In that way I could have understood his research in more ways than just the written text.
Perhaps I’m nagging on about this but through prototypes and media technologies I think the scientist/teacher/whom-ever can present the idea in a much clearer way than only in writing. The use of haptics and audio from the article below illuminates the fact that sighted people and blind people engage and understand each other better when using several communication tools. I think this too is in favor for media technology being used to a greater extent.
Part two - Eva-Lotta Sallnäs
The articles written by Eva-Lotta Sallnäs dealt with haptics and audio tools when working in a group where one in the group is either blind or blindfolded. The first study was on 11-12 years olds and second one was on university students. Again, an interesting area in which I haven’t thought of before.
How does a collaborative setting differ from a single user setting as regards methodology used and the results obtained?
It is more straightforward when observing a single user setting. This is because there are no interactions with other people and you - as a researcher - only need to evaluate and analyze one person. This leads to more to the point results however I think it can be more interesting to reflect on collaborative settings. By analyzing such you get more inputs to your research and even though it’s more complex perhaps (depending on what you’re studying of course!) this can give you richer results.
How can qualitative and quantitative methods in the same study complement each other?
As written in the pre-reflection on theme 4 I think you will deepen your research by having both a qualitative and quantitative method. In the best of worlds you can use them in combination to ask the right questions and therefore receive more detailed results. In Haibo Li’s article he (and his coworkers) first used a qualitative method (testing a prototype) and then a quantitative (survey on the experiment). I interpret this as a combination of two methods and I think it gives the research far more deep than if for example only conducting the prototype session.
How can using both subjective and objective methods give a better understanding of a phenomenon?
I think this is kind of in line with the second question. By being objective and asking objective questions you will be certain that the questions aren’t biased. However when you’re having a qualitative semi-structured interview and would like to ask follow-up questions you need to be subjective and ask the right questions depending on the situation. I do think - as said in the question above - that you should have both subjective and objective methods when conducting results to your research.
Prepare one question that you would like to discuss during the lecture.
I thought the research was very interesting and I would like to know more what made Eva-Lotta get in to this study area. Also, I would like to know what she is investigating at the moment and in what way, she would say, we can integrate media technology further in education purposes - both for visually impaired people but also for sighted people in co-operation (e.g. group work) and individual based learning.
Part 1:
SvaraRaderaHaha I thought about you when I read about Haibos research! What an idea! Thou irritating sitting in a lecture-hall and hear 50 phones BSSSS BSSS all at the same time.
They used a qualitative research with a prototype, which seems to be the most common way to research media-technology, but do you think using any other methods might give the same result? Can we even evaluate user-experience without a qualitative method? I do not think we can with the same result cause otherwise we'll only get the result of the users perception of the product. And that might include to much overall then just specifics.
Haha the minions....!
Part 2:
You're touching on something that I've written to in my post: how to combine both qualitative and quantitative methods and how hard it is to do so. You are mentioning that it can give you a better result and I agree - but only if you do it right. It's more difficult do perform and not succeeding in doing that might give you a crappy result. I think that doing research easy in the beginning (like we are now) and the do the more difficult stuff later might create a better researcher with more success.
I also hadn't thought about dong research with more then one subject before this part of the course but after that I think it seems to be really difficult (but more accurate to the real world). The participants not only interact with the object you're testing but also with each other. And people is harder to understand then technology - right?
Good reflections :)