Human Computer Interaction: CPSC 544
UBC Computer Science - Fall 2009

Here are some examples, together with their ratings for 4 articles:

2. Most readers will be tempted, much like Stuart Card (p. 53), to attribute the reported lack of productivity gain to the limitations of pre-1995 computers. If modern computers do indeed fare better, it would be interesting to consider the reasons why they do so and at which point productivity gains began to emerge. If not, it would be interesting to consider instead whether productivity captures accurately the usefulness of computers and what explains their popularity.

3. Some of this material has found its way into "software engineering" education. Mantras like "Plan to throw one away", "Embrace change", "Live with your customers" and the like are a key element of Agile Methods/Extreme Programming. At the same time, half of this seems to be ignored in favor of design patterns, OOP, and automated testing - at least in software engineering courses that I have taken. In your experience, does this seemingly artificial split between "Software Engineering" and "HCI" exist: a) in academia, and/or b) in industry? Or do a bunch of people just call themselves "good designers" and be done with it?

4. I've had an example of a terrible case of the 'two variable problem' burning itself into my soul for most of a decade. My rant usually decays into this: "What the hell kind of world /*is*/ this, that a microwave has more than two knobs?" Like all people I have ever observed (and I do pay attention to this), I learned long ago not to trust or use any of the advanced 'automatic' settings on any microwave. This stems from realizing that my cognitive model of properly cooked popcorn (popped, neither charred nor smoking) is clearly different from that of the system's designers (smoking heap of slag). Two variables: duration and power. It's been more than 60 years, people! Get it right! (Note: the SUB has two machines each of which have two big knobs, one for power and one for time. I believe there isn't even a start button - it's a beautiful thing.)

6. Norman's article was written at the cusp of a great sea change in terms of what desings were being sold and used; 2002 was after all the beginning of the iPod era (Oct. 2001), and the beginning of Apple's great gains in market share over the past decade. Do iPods work better than other digital audio players with similar feature sets and price ranges? Likely not, but they are undoubtedly more aesthetically pleasing than most other devices, thus making users feel good when using them. I'm curious as to how much impact Norman had at this point in time, or was he merely commenting on what he saw materializing in the design community.

2. I found it very surprising that statictics show that computers have actually reduced efficiency - maybe it was true some years ago when there wasnt enough training and computers werent as common as they are today; but is the situation still the same in todays world, when computers are apparently very popular and have reached almost every area we can think of?

3. In-context observations of target users can be difficult to attain; what strategies can the designer use to compensate for bureaucraic roadblocks in user-centered design?

4. Norman went into a great deal of detail around the gulf between the user’s goals and the physical system; in particular, he talks about the psychological variable associated with the user, and the mapping between the psychological goals and intensions to the action sequence that will be required. Indeed these variables will be very detailed and involved for any given task, as Norman discusses; however, *how does one design for a diverse group of users?*  A group of users will certainly be individuals, and have their individual psychological variables.

6. I did not find his conclusion to be anything new to me, I have always agreed that the best interfaces are a harmony of aesthetics and usability as he said. For example, I believe that Google is winning the web application/service war because its interfaces have a good balance of design and usability. Microsoft and YAHOO are constantly struggling to play catch up and they don't seem to understand why, but I think it's because their interfaces don't achieve the same affect as Google's.

2. he author presents many statistics on the fact that when computers are applied in the phase two (mostly in services as opposed to manufacturing) applications (i.e., augmentation) they are not as productive as they are supposed to be. However, the data mostly reflect the situation in 80s. I wonder, is it the same in recent years as well?

3. It is interesting to note that the author indicated (Table 1) advertising as a component of usability. That is something I haven'ts thought about, how big of a role does marketing play?

4. In order to design an interface, at least three kinds of special knowledge is required: knowledge of technology, people and the task that is to be accomplished. Although a team of people can be trained in each specific area, each person should still have some understanding of the other areas in order to communicate.

6. Although the paper says that positive affect tends to make people think in a broader perspective , which might be distracting - still it goes on to state in the end that attractive interfaces work better - I found this conclusion slightly confusing. I think something that distracts the user is more likely to lower efficiency.

2. This reading emphasizes the lack of productivity that has resulted from phase II computing. Lots of evidence from other studies, statics, and graphs are given as supporting evidence.

3. Gould provides an overview of lots of different methods for involving the user in the design of interactive systems, but it is an old paper.

4. Author expends the mapping and conceptual model  terms mentioned in previous chapter. Psychological and physical bases of cognition are important as they both require attention. Human factor is mainly the psychological base, however our design forms the bridges between these two bases.

6. The author here makes a very simple point: At first we have to ensure usability then we should go for pleasure or beauty.