Tag Archives: Personalisation

Of Chocolate and Human Factors

Posted on by
1
Chocolate

Not All Chocolate Is Created Equal

My final week discussing Dix 2010 [1] which I covered last week, and the week before that too. Now lets:

imagine you have a group of children and want to give them lunch. In the UK you might well choose baked beans. Not the most exciting choice, but few children actively dislike baked beans; they are acceptable to everyone. However, give each of those children a euro (or maybe two) in a sweet shop … they will all come away with a different chocolate bar, the chocolate bar that is ‘OK’ for everyone gets chosen by none. Much of traditional HCI design is like baked beans – a word processor installed for the whole company, a mail program used by every student, good enough for everyone. However, increasing personal choice, especially for web-based services, makes design more like the chocolate bar; different people make different choices, but what matters is that the product chosen is not ’good enough’ for all of them, but best for some.

Now I’ve covered this in my 2007 paper discussion [2] and Dix has a very good point. I think that the salient point here is that systems run in a combinatorial way, where as individual findings can exist with minimal confounding variables muddying the waters.

Different operating modalities are useful for providing a personalised experience and a one-size fits all approach is not the way forward. Indeed, I wonder if universal design, or participatory design just encourage a product which is acceptable to all but desired by none.

References

  1. Dix, A. (2010). Human–computer interaction: A stable discipline, a nascent science, and the growth of the long tail Interacting with Computers, 22 (1), 13-27 DOI: 10.1016/j.intcom.2009.11.007
  2. Simon Harper (2007). Is There Design-For-All? Universal Access in the Information Society, 6 (1), 111-113 : http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-007-0071-2

Model-Based User Interfaces and the Web

Posted on by
2
An Ontological Representation of the Internet (Credit: Bill Cheswick, Lumeta Corp.)

An Ontological Representation of the Internet (Credit: Bill Cheswick, Lumeta Corp.)

Interesting ideas coming from the Model-Based UI XG W3C Incubator Group with their Final Report of 04 May 2010 proposing model driven approaches to Web interface creation, and Web application Interaction. Within the Web Ergonomics domain I’m particularly interested in the sections on user modelling [1] via the use of an ontology [2]. Now while I think this particular approach shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the ways in which ontologies are used within the semantic Web and Description Logic communities; mainly because they seem to want to try and model an individual user as opposed to a generic type of user. I still think the ideas may be useful in that enabling simple data to be added by individuals, such as psychologists, and then a reasoned representation, with a greater expressibility derived from these ‘fragments’. This maybe just what we need to start moving deep cognitive understandings of the Web Ergonomics of users into a form that can help us simulate and apply this knowledge to instances of Web Interactivity, sort of a CogTool on steroids.

As yet, I’ve no idea how these simulation concepts could or should be linked – but we may want to look at the ongoing work in medical bio-ontological systems to see if there are some lessons (both good and bad) that we can learn from.

ResearchBlogging.org

  1. Dominik Heckmann, & Antonio Krueger (2003). A User Modeling Markup Language (UserML) for Ubiquitous Computing LNCS User Modeling 2003, 1 (1) : 10.1007/3-540-44963-9_55
  2. Dominik Heckmann, Tim Schwartz, Boris Brandherm, Michael Schmitz, & Margeritta von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (2005). Gumo – The General User Model Ontology User Modeling 2005, 1 (1), 428-432 : 10.1007/11527886_58

Accessibility Equals Flexibility

Posted on by
Reply
Flexibility is a Benefit of Accessibility

Flexibility is a Benefit of Accessibility

Ask any well informed Web developer to rate how important Web accessibility is, and I’d expect most to rank it high. Ask them why, and I’d expect most to talk about disabled users, altruism, and the law. An enlightened few may talk about the business case, or expand on the many technical advantages of making their sites accessible. As a professional developer you’ll know that many disabled users consider the Web to be a primary source for information, employment and entertainment. Indeed, from questioning and contact with many disabled users I have discovered that the importance of the Web cannot be under-estimated.

‘For me being online is everything. Its my hi-fi, my source of income, my supermarket, my telephone. Its my way in.’

This quote, taken from a blind user, sums up the sentiments I experience when talking with many disabled users, and drives home the importance of Web accessibility in the context of independent living. Indeed, by making sites accessible we help people live more productive lives, a view shared by Jef Raskin, creator of the Macintosh GUI for Apple Computer; inventor of SwyftWare via the Canon Cat; and author of ‘The Humane Interface’.

‘Humans are variously skilled and part of assuring the accessibility of technology consists of seeing that an individual’s skills match up well with the requirements for operating the technology. There are two components to this; training the human to accommodate the needs of the technology and designing the technology to meet the needs of the human. The better we do the latter, the less we need of the former.’

Indeed, it may surprise many designers and developers to know that when they are developing accessible code they are also, more then likely, developing aesthetically pleasing code too. But this shouldn’t be the most basic motivator for Web accessibility. Indeed, developers should also understand that accessible means mobile, or as Sears and Young put it, situational. The notion of the situationally-induced impairment, by which they do not mean an actual impairment of the person directly, but indirectly by the computational device or the environment in which it must be used. They point out that able-bodied individuals can be affected by both the environment in which they are working and the activities in which they are engaged, resulting in situationally-induced impairments. For example, an individual’s typing performance may decrease in a cold environment in which one’s finger does not bend easily due to extended exposure at low temperature, or the similarities between physical usability issues on both small-devices, such as a Mobile Telephone, Personal Digital Assistant, or any other hand-held device with a small keyboard and display, and accessible interaction scenarios. This means that by making your Web site accessible you can transfer accessibility solutions into the mobile and situational context. It’s a lot easier to make a Web page mobileOK if it is already accessible.

This support for the situational impairment, through flexibility, adaptability, and the ability to personalise the content, in other words transformable content, is important for access in developing regions too. Web use in developing regions is currently characterised by constrained operating modalities. Slow speed, low computational power, reduced bandwidth, compact keyboards, small screens, and limited power, all compound the problem of access and inclusion. In addition, interaction is sometimes without conventional written language and illiteracy is also a barrier to information and services. However, the benefits of Web technology are so great that the peoples of these regions often adopt resourceful methods of interaction and access sometimes repurposing Web resources so that they are put to a different use than for which they were intended. Understanding that content must be transformable also supports users at home who are conventionally excluded. Currently, the opportunities created by Web technologies are not enjoyed by the whole of society, indeed, there is a strong correlation between Web exclusion and social exclusion. There are significant and untapped opportunities to use the Web better on behalf of citizens, communities, and digitally disenfranchised groups. However to achieve inclusion, systems must be created seeing the human factor, not as an adjunct, but as a part of an integrated solution from the outset. We know that the multiplicity and ubiquity of devices and their interfaces are key to successful inclusion, households may very well have a games console or digital television, but no general purpose computer system. Being able to deliver content to any device, and support the users needs as opposed to the developers is key to making good Web resources which will be used, and which matter to real people.

Accessibility is not just about disability, if anything it is more about flexibility of mind at every level of the construction process form commissioning, through design and build, and on to evaluation. Accessibility accentuates good design and adaptability which helps future proof your sites against changes in guidelines, recommendations, and design. By making your sites accessible you also make them flexible.