last update: October 12, 2009

USI-Module: Interaction Design

Instructor:     

Prof. Dr. M. Rauterberg, Full Professor, lecture room IPO 0.18
Faculty Industrial Design, Designed Intelligence Group, Technical University Eindhoven

Benefits

This assignment needs 40 hrs work per week, one week length.

After following this assignment students should be able to:

  • specify the interaction structure of a new and so far unknown interactive product based on validated design knowledge provided by literature (e.g. ISO9241 parts 14, 15, 16);
  • create low/mid-fidelity prototypes with a prototyping tool;
  • prepare and give two presentations (mid-term, and final).

Previous Knowledge

  • sufficient knowledge about PowerPoint, Flash, MacroMind Director, Java or any other Prototyping Tool

Abstract

The assignment will start with an overview over different interaction styles, and will introduce the design of a command language, menu and desktop user interfaces. The students will apply this design knowledge on a new design of an existing interactive product and come up with a full specification of the interaction structure, which can be used to build a prototype for user testing.

The first part of this assignment consists of selecting an interactive product, design the command language interaction style for the planned functionality with one of a formal specification method (e.g., BNF), and present the specification document/diagram of this command language interface at the second meeting.

The next parts of this assignment consists of implementing each interaction style (e.g. menu and desktop) in a low/mid-fidelity prototype.

Students will learn to design three different interaction styles as input for the implementation of a low/mid-fidelity prototype. They will gain hands-on experience in using validated design knowledge as input for creating an interactive prototype. They will experience how to optimise the trade-offs inherent in conducting prototyping.

Literature is provided through this web-page (see below) or via hardcopies (see office of Patricia Vinken). Additional information throughout the assignment will be provided during the assignment.

Assignment schedule

 

Date

Topic

Literature

1st meeting

Introduction in the design of a discrete interaction with buttons.

lecture-1 [PPT]

all relevant literature is provided at the begin of the following power point presentation lecture-1 (old)

optional:
A. Fischer: Natural Mapping Report

2nd meeting

Each student team present the assignment results.

Introduction in the design of a command-language interface.

lecture-2 [PPT]

 

all relevant literature is provided at the begin of the following power point presentation lecture-2 (old)

obligatory:
ISO 9241 part 15


optional:
Backus Naur Form Syntax
Wirth's BNF Grammar
Pascal-Report (page 47-49)
MS-DOS Command List
CACM(1989) Grudin

MITRE(1986) Smith & Mosier
UNIX quick reference guide

3rd meeting

Each student team present the assignment results.

Introduction in the design of a menu interface.

lecture-3 [PPT]

 

all relevant literature is provided at the begin of the following power point presentation lecture-3 (old

obligatory:
ISO 9241 part 14

optional:
Eric S. Lee & Raymond (1993) 'Menu-Driven Systems', The Encyclopedia of Microcomputers, Volume 11, Allen Kent and James G. Williams (eds.), p. 101-127 (1993).

4th meeting

Each student team present the assignment results.

Introduction in the design of a desktop interface.

lecture-4 [PPT]

 

all relevant literature is provided at the begin of the following power point presentation lecture-4 (old)

obligatory:
ISO 9241 part 16

5th meeting

Each student team present the assignment results.

 

 

Assignment work

The feedback for this assignment will be determined by the work done on the set of deliverables (see below). Each deliverable will cover a number of steps relevant for planning, applying and conducting a combination of formal and empirical methods. Furthermore, they will include discussions about the trade-offs of the decisions taken and the validity of the findings of the evaluation. Feedback will be determined based on the rigour with which the work is done, whether relevant concepts discussed in the assignment are embedded in the work and the report, and extra initiative to ensure good quality of work.

Deliverables

Date due

1.   A written report about the outcome of each student team according the assignment instruction at the end of lecture-1, plus 10 min presentation in electronic form (PPT).

2nd day

2.    A written report with the complete specification of the new command-language interaction structure described in a document/diagram (with at least 10 different user actions and 5 different system states); beginning with a short description of the idea and purpose of the new interactive product (200-500 words), plus 10 min presentation in electronic form (PPT).

3rd day

3.   A written report with the complete specification of the new menu interaction structure described in a document/diagram (with at least 10 different user actions and 5 different system states); beginning with a short description of the idea and purpose of the new interactive product (200-500 words), plus 10 min presentation in electronic form (PPT).

4th day

4.   A written report with the complete specification of the new desktop interaction structure described in a document/diagram (with at least 10 different user actions and 5 different system states); beginning with a short description of the idea and purpose of the new interactive product (200-500 words), plus 10 min presentation in electronic form (PPT).

5th day

5.   CD with all deliverables (1)-(4) handed in to the office manager Patricia Vinken or the assignor.

three days after final meeting

Student Feedback

Students will be working in four or five person teams throughout the whole assignment; s/he will be graded based on the quality of the written reports/documents and the presentation given using a 5 point grading scale [A=very good, B=good, C=sufficient, D=insufficient (recoverable), F=failed] and in constructive oral feedback after the presentations.