Assignment 1: Distilling User and Design Requirements
Due date: See class schedule
Overview
Two of the important early steps in evidence-based design is to describe the user(s) and to define the context in which the users are situated. Then, crucially, it is important to distill design implications from the context and the user description. These design implications are constraints or requirements that fall out of the context/user findings. Subsequently, once those design implications are identified, the task is more fully detailed and documented, and as you head toward an actual design, the design implications need to get instantiated in design implementations.
In this assignment, you will get practice in identifying user attributes, and then distilling implications from those user attributes. Remember that in real user-research, these attributes come from actually talking to the users, however, in order to effectively study user requirements you have to learn what kind of things you are even looking for, and how they get translated into design requirements.
Your task is as follows: for each of the following combinations of user type and context, create an Attribute-Implication table. The A-I table should include (at least) the following categories of user attributes: perception; cognition; (physical) movement; motivations; social attachments. You can add any other categories you see as potentially instructive.
For each category, identify at least three (3) attributes or aspects or descriptions that are applicable for that user class, in that context.
Then, complete each table row with at least one design implication. These design implications should be general enough that they cover a broad range of possible actual implementations while remaining plausibly grounded in concrete user experiences. Resultant design implications must clearly follow from the user attribute, and must be specific enough that they could be turned into a testable/verifiable design requirement.
Consider the following example of a partially-completed Attribute-Implication table for the user-context combination of "adult underwater (scuba diving)". Note that a fully completed table would have many attributes for each category, and often many implications for each attribute.
Example A-I Table: Adult underwater (scuba diving)
| Category | Attribute | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Perception | Restricted field of view (mask) | Do not require peripheral vision |
| Perception | Muffled/diminished hearing | Avoid depending on audio signals |
| Cognition | Reduced memory (cold water) | Use recognition rather than recall |
| Cognition | Possible distraction (looking at fish) | Assess and manage attention |
| Movement | Limited hand dexterity (gloves; cold) | Make controls operable with gloves |
| Movement | Variable orientation (hard to remain stationary, neutrally buoyant) | Move system with user |
| Motivations | Anxious or nervous (it is scary being under water!) | Make processes simple and clear when under stress |
| Social | Dive buddy present | Design may involve two individuals |
| Social | Dive buddy present | Enable user time to check on buddy regularly |
User-Context Combinations
- Teacher in highschool classroom
- A long-haul truck driver in a semi-truck driver seat
- Adult commuter on bicycle
- Child wheelchair user at a stadium
- Older adult (65+ years old) in commercial/restaurant kitchen
Submission and Grading
Submit a pdf to gradescope containing the A-I table for each user case on a separate page. Each table will be evaluated based on the degree to which your attributes are coherent possible observations based in user experiences, and implications will be evaluated based on how well they address the provided attributes, as well as if they are sufficiently precise to be measured in principle (if you are unsure about this, add a note of what kind of hypothetical experiment might be completed to test an interface/system for compliance with the requirement)