Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:39:58.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW TO MAKE ADVANCED ONLINE USER STUDIES MEANINGFUL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Pontus Wallgren ,
Maral Babapour  and
Siw Eriksson
Pontus Wallgren*
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology
Maral Babapour
Affiliation:
Institutet för stressmedicin, VG-region
Siw Eriksson
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology
*
Wallgren, Pontus, Chalmers, IMS, Sweden, pontus.wallgren@chalmers.se

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It is of vital importance to explore and understand future users' needs and requirements in the early phases of the product development process. However, in times of social distancing meeting users might not be possible. The project reported on in this paper has investigated the possibilities of conducting advanced user studies online. In total 30 small experimental studies have been conducted. Common digital tools that were used were e.g. Zoom, Teams, Mural, Miro, Snapchat, and Instagram.

The data was analyzed in a thematic content analysis by the authors on Mural. Identified challenges were excluding not tech-savvy user groups, missing out on interpersonal interaction and observations, as well as difficulties creating participant commitment and trust. On the positive side were perceived efficiency, a more levelled power distribution between participants, and ease of engagement and data retrieval for tech-savvy users.

Identified best practices included lowering social barriers through warm up activities and techniques to support open discussion during workshops. Furthermore, engagement could be supported through private social media groups, regular reminders, as well as clear communication of purpose and goal of the activities.

Keywords

User centred designCollaborative designonline collaborationRequirements
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1787 - 1796
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Baxter, K. (2015), Understanding Your Users : A Practical Guide to User Research Methods, Tools, and Techniques, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2015.Google Scholar
Brandt, E. (2007) How Tangible Mock-Ups Support Design Collaboration. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20, 179–192.10.1007/s12130-007-9021-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlile, P. R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13, 442–455.10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eason, K. D. 1995. User-centred design: for users or by users? Ergonomics, 38, 1667–1673.Google Scholar
Emerson, Stolzoff and Romanova, (2021), https://www.ideo.com/blog/4-ways-to-work-together-when-we-cant-be-together 20210107Google Scholar
Engelbrektsson, P. (2004) Enabling the user: exploring methodological effects on user requirements elicitation. PhD, Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
Eriksson, S. Wallgren, P., Larsson, I.C.M., Facilitating Users and Designers Towards a Shift of Perspective for True Participation in Co-creation in Health Care: A Holistic Activity Theoretical Approach, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Design4Health, Amsterdam, 2020 Vol. 1 s. 177–184Google Scholar
Gaver, B., Dunne, T., Pacenti, E. (1999), Cultural Probes, Interactions, January 1999 https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granskär, M. & Höglund-Nielsen, B. (2008). Tillämpad kvalitativ forskning inom hälso- och sjukvård Lund, Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Jansson, David G., and Smith, Steven M.. (1991) Design fixation, Design studies 12.1 (1991): 3–11.10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-FCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, Sage.Google Scholar
Pettersson, I., Ju, W., (2017), Design Techniques for Exploring Automotive Interaction in the Drive towards Automation June 10-14, 2017, Edinburgh, United Kingdom c 2017 ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-4922-2/17/06 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera Lopez, F., Wickson, F., & Hausner, V.H., (2018), Finding Creative Voice: Applying Arts-Based Research in the Context of Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainability 2018, 10, 1778; https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10061778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, E., & Stappers, P.J., (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design, ISSN 1571-0882 print/ISSN 1745-3755 online_ 2008 Taylor & Francis https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, E. B. N. & Stappers, P. J. (2014) Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10, 5–14.10.1080/15710882.2014.888183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Söderman, M. (2001) Product representations: Exploring computer-based technologies and customers' understanding of product concepts. PhD, Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
Tomitsch, M., & Hepburn, L., https://medium.com/design-at-sydney/five-human-centred-design-methods-to-use-in-your-projects-when-you-are-in-isolation-420da5d06aaaGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H., & Wieder, D. L. (1977). The DIARY: Diary-Interview Method. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 5(4), 479.Google Scholar