Investigation 3: Observing users and tasks

Assigned

Friday, 16 April 2021

Summary

In this assignment, you will continue the practice of observing users, albeit in a new context.

Collaboration

You may work alone or in a team of up to four students. You may consult other students in the class as you develop your solution. If you receive help from anyone, make sure to cite them in your responses.

In this assignment you will practice the contextual inquiry methodology. You will then use the data from your contextual inquiry to perform a task analysis.

The objectives of this exercise are to sharpen your powers of observation, to develop your ability to ask more and more precise questions, to practice describing your observations, and to experiment with task representations.

Assignment

In group of three or four students (assigned), identify a domain in which none of you are experts, but for which you can identify several “local” experts. For example, we have a number of Ultimate players at Grinnell; several students work as class mentors, or perhaps you have friends who have experience planning backpacking trips.

Identify three people who are willing to let your group observe the work they do in this domain. (The interviewees should not be enrolled in our course.) Interview each of these participants using the contextual inquiry methodlogy. Plan to spend between thirty and forty-five minutes in each session. If it is not possible to observe them in their normal work setting, instead ask them to demonstrate as concretely as possible how they carry out one of their work activities (e.g., how they do an overhand throw, prepare for a mentor session, or pack a backpack for a week-long trip).

Normally we would ask you to attempt the observations in person, in the normal location of the work (e.g., on Mac field for the Ultimate players). However, that may not be possible during the pandemic. Feel free to rely on remote interviews.

Each member of your group should participate in at least two interviews, and each interview should include at least two interviewers.

Finally, describe three kinds of tasks in more detail: (a) an easy task; (b) a difficult task; and (c) one in between. Aim to describe the tasks in enough detail such that someone who is completely unfamiliar with the activity would get a good idea of what is involved; try to capture both commonalities and variability in what you observed across different participants. Choose one or more representations for each task.

Work to submit

Write a short report structured as follows. I encourage you to include photographs, sketches, diagrams, or other representations. (Note: A quick and easy way to get a diagram into a document is to sketch it on paper or a whiteboard and then take a photo with your mobile phone.)

Report structure and rubric

Overview (2 points)

Describe at a high level the domain you chose and the activities you observed.

Contextual inquiry participants (7 points)

Describe the rationale behind your choice of contextual inquiry participants. For each of the three participants, give some details of their background and the environment where you observed their work.

Contextual inquiry results (7 points)

Identify high level tasks and themes that the participants shared in common in their practices. Then, note anything unique about each interview and comment on the rationale behind these events.

Task descriptions (9 points, 3 per task)

Describe three tasks (easy, moderate, and difficult) in more detail, using one or more representations. You may use different representations for different tasks. Explain why you rated each task as easy, moderate, or difficult, and your choice of representation.

Design concepts (5 points)

Using writing, pictures, or both, sketch out a few ideas for how new or redesigned information technology might help users accomplish these tasks. Consider using scenarios or use cases. If you do not see a place for new technology, explain why not.

Reflection (2 points)

What was the most challenging aspect of this assignment? Why?

Submitting

You will submit your work in the “Investigation 3” channel on Teams.

Citations

As is often the case, this investigation is closely based on one written by Janet Davis for a prior offering of HCI 232.

Dr. Davis indicates that her version of the investigation is “a bricolage of assignments by Blomberg, et al. (1995), James Fogarty, and Jim Boerkel.”