Andreas Maier

Differentiating between successful and less successful products by using MAInEEAC - a model for interaction characterization

Today, the success of a software product is defined by a great user experience caused by a well-defined interaction concept rather than features. Therefore we present a new interaction model called MAInEEAC (Model for Accurate Interaction Engineering, Enhancement, Alteration, and Characterization) that is able to show what makes an interaction a great experience and what are the elements of great human-computer-interaction. Having evaluated the ways of entering an address with nine distinct navigation systems, we present several findings which are crucial for making an interaction successful. Thereby it becomes clear that a higher level of detail is required in order to recognize important differences between single interactions. MAInEEAC provides these details and can be seen as a further step towards better understanding of human-computer-interaction.

Gestaltung intuitiv benutzbarer Softwareanwendungen mit der IBIS Methode

Zusammenfassung Ziel des Usability-Engineerings ist die benutzergerechte Analyse und Gestaltung von Produkten. Um eine intuitive Benutzung zu ermöglichen, müssen die Benutzeranforderungen analysiert und in die Benutzungsschnittstelle zwischen Mensch und Computer übersetzt werden. Hier besteht eine große Herausforderung darin, eine Vielzahl an Gestaltungsentscheidungen so zu treffen, dass das Designkonzept den Benutzeranforderungen und -erwartungen entspricht - und im besten Fall sogar durch innovative und kreative Benutzungsschnittstellen übertrifft. Dieser Beitrag stellt einen Ansatz vor, der es erlaubt, Benutzeranforderungen systematisch ins Design zu überführen, ohne dabei stark von der Erfahrung und den Fähigkeiten der Designer bzw. Entwickler abhängig zu sein. Weiterhin regt der Ansatz zur Gestaltung intuitiv benutzbarer, innovativer und kreativer Benutzungsschnittstellen an.

A User-Centered Model for Usable Security and Privacy

Security, privacy and usability are vital quality attributes of IT systems and services. Users and legal authorities demand that systems are secure and preserve privacy. At the same time, security and privacy mechanisms should not complicate workflows and must be transparent for the user. In order to master this challenge, a close involvement of the users is necessary—both at development and at run-time. In this paper, we present a user-centered model for usable security and privacy that is aligned with user-centered design guidelines [34] and the Human-Centered Design process [28]. Based on this model, we present an initial method for the design of usable security systems. Through active involvement of the user, the model and the method are meant to help developers to identify and solve shortcomings of their security and privacy mechanisms. We motivate our work and present our results based on an Internet of Things/smart home scenario. Due to the amount of private data and strong data protection laws, both usability and privacy are of major importance in this domain. However, our model and method are not limited to the smart home domain, but can be applied whenever usable security and privacy are of particular interest for a system under development.

Improving the Identification of Hedonic Quality in User Requirements — A Controlled Experiment

Systematically engineering a good user experience (UX) into a computer-based system under development demands that the user requirements of the system reflect all needs, including emotional, of all stakeholders. User requirements address two different types of qualities: pragmatic qualities (PQs), that address system functionality and usability, and hedonic qualities (HQs) that address the stakeholder’s psychological well-being. Studies show that users tend to describe such satisfying UXes mainly with PQs and that some users seem to believe that they are describing an HQ when they are actually describing a PQ. The problem is to see if classification of any user requirement as PQ-related or HQ-related is difficult, and if so, why. We conducted two controlled experiments involving the same twelve requirements-engineering and UX professionals, hereinafter called “analysts.” The first experiment, which had the twelve analysts classifying each of 105 user requirements as PQ-related or HQ-related, shows that neither (1) an analyst’s involvement in the project from which the requirements came nor (2) the analyst’s use of a detailed model of the qualities in addition to the standard definitions of “PQ” and “HQ” has a positive effect on the consistency of the analyst’s classification with that of others. The second experiment, which had the twelve analysts classifying each of a set of 50 user requirements, derived from the 105 of the first experiment, showed that difficulties seem to be caused both by the analyst’s lacking skill in applying the definitions of “PQ” and “HQ” and by poorly written user requirement specifications. The first experiment revealed that classification of user requirements is a lot harder than initially assumed. The second experiment provided evidence that the difficulties can be mitigated by the combination of (1) training analysts in applying the definitions of “PQ” and “HQ” and (2) casting user requirement specifications in a new template that forces provision of the information needed for reliable classification. The experiment shows also that neither training analysts nor casting user requirement specifications in the new template, by itself, mitigates the difficulty in classifying user requirements.

Usability Integration in Agile Development Processes: A Practice-Oriented Best Practice Approach

Abstract Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) increasingly rely on agile software development. However, the majority of established usability methods have been developed with traditional software engineering principles in mind. So, one might assume that these methods and tools might not be applicable to agile development projects. In this paper, a possible approach to systematically adapting traditional usability methods to application in agile projects is introduced and documented as best practices. These best practices can be quickly and dynamically employed by agile development team members and can thus contribute to higher quality of software development outputs. The approach described in this paper was developed in the context of a German research project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and conducted by one research institute and three software-developing enterprises and will be evaluated throughout the further course of the project. For this purpose, a number of best practices have been adapted to the context of agile software development and described in detail in order to allow inexperienced software developers of small and medium-sized enterprises to successfully apply these best practices. As two examples of these best practices, we illustrate the best practices ‘Contextual Inquiry’ and ‘Template-Based UI Design’ in this paper.

Measuring Negative User Experience

Nowadays, the induction of positive user experience is a vital aspect of the development of smartphone applications. Existing approaches aim at engineering good user experience to make applications more enjoyable and pleasurable. Especially in business applications, employees need to be motivated to perform their tasks, in order to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Negative user experience lowers user acceptance and decreases motivation. A study was conducted to identify factors that can cause negative user experience. This study found negative aspects of an example mobile application, of which Usability and Utility have been found to directly contribute to a negative Emotions and thus to negative user experience.

Die IBIS- Methode: Eine RE- Methode zur Entwicklung intuitiver Nutzungsschnittstellen

Motivation Software-Hersteller, die dem wachsenden Bedarf nach intuitiv benutzbaren Produkten gerecht werden wollen, können sich einer Vielfalt von UsabilityMethoden bedienen. Gerade für kleine und mittelgroße Unternehmen (KMU) ergeben sich hier jedoch mehrere Herausforderungen. Häufig stehen nur sehr wenige Mitarbeiter zur Verfügung, die sich um die Usability der Produkte kümmern können. Diese brauchen leichtgewichtige Methoden, die auch mit wenig Design-Expertise zu kreativen und intuitiv benutzbaren Produkten führen. Zum Entwurf intuitiv benutzbarer Produkte wird oft empfohlen, auf für Benutzer bereits vertraute Gestaltungslösungen zurückzugreifen. Die Gefahr ist dabei aber, nur Altbekanntes zu wiederholen und somit dem Benutzer keine echten Neuerungen anbieten zu können. Häufig sind es aber gerade die neuen und kreativen Interaktionslösungen, die auf dem Markt durchschlagenden Erfolg haben (s. Multi-TouchProdukte von Apple). Bisherige Methoden erlauben keinen stringenten Übergang von der Anforderungsanalyse zum User Interface (UI) Design. Dieser Schritt im Gestaltungsprozess ist unterspezifiziert und wird schon seit längerem unter dem Begriff „Design-Gap“ diskutiert [1]. So hängt es stark von der Erfahrung und dem Können der Software-Entwickler ab, wie gut das Ergebnis ist und ob die entstehenden Produkte den mentalen Modellen der zukünftigen Benutzer von Ihrer Arbeitsaufgabe entsprechen.

We need non-formal methods based on formal models in interaction design

Motivation -- With collaborative interaction design, formal models have to be used by expert stakeholders in order to work effectively and efficiently. But these formal models should not be discussed with non-expert stakeholders. Therefore, we use non-formal methods which are based on our formal models when we talk to non-expert stakeholders. Research approach --Expert stakeholders have to get a common ground for their discussions. To achieve that common ground, expert stakeholders have to use models, which formalize an interaction they want to design. We develop non-formal methods based on a conceptual model that are easy to apply by non-experts. This way, non-expert stakeholders can allow free play to their thoughts and do not have to adopt formal entities and models. Therefore, the expert can easily interpret the information received from non-expert stakeholders by using the underlying conceptual model. Findings/Design -- Early collaboration with non-expert stakeholders in order to design interaction in a user centered way is important and performed best with a formal model for expert stakeholders and non-formal methods based on these formal models for discussions between expert and non-expert stakeholders. Actually, formal modelling is crucial from our point of view, but we experienced that insisting on it when collaborating with non-experts, leads to insufficient results. Take away message -- Without having formal models in mind, non-formal methods cannot be applied effectively for a collaborative design of interactions. Non-formal methods like an open requirements elicitation in form of workshops or interviews may fail gaining all necessary information if there is no formal model which builds the basis for the non-formal methods. Only with formal models, we are able to plan, lead, and analyze non-formal methods in a way to get optimal results.