Tom Dayton

Participatory Practices in the Software Lifecycle

Publisher Summary Participatory design has become increasingly important over the past several decades. The goal of this chapter is to help practitioners find methods, techniques, and procedures that they can use for participatory work. For this purpose, the scope is limited to methods and techniques that are relatively well-defined as courses of action, suitable for adoption by practitioners without a great deal of additional research. The concern is to help practitioners introduce their participatory practices in conventional software lifecycles. The scope is restricted to approaches that are more than the use of a particular technology or the creation of a particular artifact or representation. This chapter begins with a brief introduction to participatory design, including some of the questions that have arisen concerning the boundaries of participatory practice. The chapter then describes a taxonomic space of participatory activities. Participatory practices may be useful at different points within the software lifecycle. The taxonomy may be used by readers to select one or more participatory practices to incorporate into software lifecycle activities.

A Participatory Design Technique for High-Level Task Analysis, Critique, and Redesign: The CARD Method

CARD (Collaborative Analysis of Requirements and Design) is a participatory technique for analyzing task flows and for redesigning task flows, in software systems. It provides a macroscopic complement to the more microscopic design activities that are supported by the PICTIVE technique. CARD uses the metaphor of a card game as the vehicle for communication and collaboration among users, developers, and designers. We describe the technique, and provide illustrative session protocols and assessment data. The paper closes with a comparison to other relevant participatory practices, and a discussion of CARDs shortcomings.

Practical education for improving software usability

A usable software system is one that supports the effective and efficient completion of tasks in a given work context. In most cases of the design and development of commercial software, usability is not dealt with at the same level as other aspects of software engineering (e.g., clear usability objectives are not set, resources for appropriate activities are not given priority by project management). One common consequence is the assignment of responsibility for usability to people who do not have appropriate training, or who are trained in behavioral sciences rather than in more productoriented fields such as design or engineering. Relying on our experiences in industrial settings, we make personal suggestions of activities for the realistic and practical alternative of training development team members as usability advocates. Our suggestions help meet the needs specified in the recent Strong et al. [21] report on humancomputer interaction education, research, and practice.

Teaching experienced developers to design graphical user interfaces

Five groups of developers with experience in the design of character-based user interfaces were taught graphical user interface design through a short workshop with a focus on practical design exercises using low-tech tools derived from the PICTIVE method. Several usability problems were found in the designs by applying the heuristic evaluation method, and feedback on these problems constituted a way to make the otherwise abstract usability principles concrete for the designers at the workshop. Based on these usability problems and on observations of the design process, we conclude that object-oriented interactions are especially hard to design and that the developers were influenced by the graphical interfaces of personal computers with which they had interacted as regular users.

A C.A.R.D. game for participatory task analysis and redesign: macroscopic complement to PICTIVE

CARD (Collaborative Analysis of Re@rementsrsnd Design) is a panicipatory technique for analyzing task flows, and for redesigning task flows, in software systems. It provides a macroscopic complement to the more microscopic design mtivitixthat are supported by tJrePICTIVE technique. CARD uses the metaphor of a cd game as the vehicle for communication and collaboration among users, developers, and designers. We report initial results from the use of CARD on two products.

Comparing studies that compare usability assessment methods: an unsuccessful search for stable criteria

Four studies that compared inspection methods with usability testing were re-analyd using six distinct criteria for the superiority of one mefhcd to another. Each study’s own results were found —toa greater or lesser extent — to be in infernuf conflict when examined across the six criteria. These analyses, added to the well-known contradictions across the studies, argue that any conclusions regarding overall superiority of one method with respect to another are premalure. I%ey also lead to questions regarding tie selection of criteria.

Assessing a groupware implementation of a manual participatory design process

Our attempt to implement a groupware version of a manual participatory design process (Muller, Miller, Smith, White, and Wildman, 1992) has revealed several constmints that may apply to other groupware systems for collaboration — especially those that involve skills from outside the computer domain. The Manual PICTIVE Process. PICTIVE1 is a deliberately low-tech approach to the participatory design of systems (Muller, 1991, 1992). It was developed to bring users, developers, human factors workers, and other stakeholders in a product, directly into the design process as peer co-designers (e.g., Mtdler, 1991). PICTIVE uses a simple objec[ model of office tools, such as colored pens, Post-Itm notes, scissors, and so on, slightly customized for the intended computer domain. This facilitates the PICTIVE parficipafion model: Diverse stakeholders need a common language (Dykstra, 1991) or “equal opportunity” design environment (Mttller, 1992) for which (a) their skills are roughly equal within the environment, and (b) their domain knowledge can be easily expressed through the environment.

Participatory GUI design from task models

This tutorial provides practical experience in using an objectoriented (00) graphical user interface (GUI) design model, participatory 00 metho~, low-tech materials, and iterative usability testing, to design a GUI that confiorrns to multiple GUI platform styles. Participants turn user data (a previously done task flow) into a GUI design via the bridge of mapping the task flow into abstract task objects and mapping the task objects into GUI objects such as windows. They fill in the GUI’s foundation, such as the menus, by using multiplatforrn design guidelines.

Bellcore's user-centred-design support centre

Abstract Bellcore recently replaced its small laboratory that was designed primarily for formal testing of software usability. The new facility is a suite of rooms that handles multiple, independent activities. More importantly, the new space is a manifestation of our philosophy that the best approach to interface design is the cultivation of eclectic design practices early in and throughout the software development process. To that end, the new lab supports other kinds of user-centred design (UCD) activities in addition to formal testing of computerized prototypes of software interfaces. To encourage participatory design, nearly all the rooms are large enough for design meetings, contain entire walls of movable whiteboards, and have small tables so design teams can huddle over paper prototypes and task layouts. In this article we describe the new lab, the rationales behind its features, and the process by which it was designed.