This is my boy, Joseph Liam Kennedy, born today at 5:46pm. He bounced into our lives a healthy little man of 3.59kg and 47cm.

Mum and bub are doing great, and Grace and Evie are overjoyed to finally meet “baby Joe”.

Looking forward to showing off the newest of the bunch, after everyone has a well earned rest!

No related posts.

Lately I’ve been wrangling a research report into shape and I’m finding it so much easier to just print stuff out, cut it up, organise and rearrange it, then stick it together with sticky tape. Then I’ll go back and edit the document electronically.

Alternative titles for this blog could have been “You know you’re getting old when you…” or “You know you’ve been playing craft and colouring-in with your kids when you…”. (Actually that last one is very apt since I have been loving colouring in with my daughters lately!)

No related posts.

It’s like the old adage “never buy version 1.0 of a Microsoft product”, it sometimes takes a few updates/facelifts before the new generation achieves a balanced, harmonious look. And sometimes it never does, just stays plain fugly.

Here are five examples. (I’ll admit up-front, some of these vehicles weren’t absolute stunners before fuglification but they were at least adequate, even handsome.)

Mazda 3: 1st Gen to 2nd Gen

Definitely a case of a lovely looking car hit with the fugly stick. Especially the hot MPS version, which is a real shame. The 2nd gen is bigger (which I think is a running theme here in this list) but looks gangly and is smiling like a doofus. Fail.

Nissan X-Trail: 1st Gen to 2nd Gen

OK when I said some of these cars weren’t that great looking before, I was talking about the X-Trail. The first version wasn’t pretty, but the second is fugly. And bulbous…it’s got a big arse.

Subaru Liberty: 4th Gen to 5th Gen

Ahh the 4th gen Liberty, a really elegant design. But they had to make it fugly with the introduction of the lunchbox styling of the latest model. Sure it’s bigger, allowing Subaru to compete with the large sedans, wagons and SUVs in the family market, but it looks bad. I feel ill.

Holden Commodore: 3rd Gen to 4th Gen

The VZ was a refined evolution of the 3rd generation shape, a very nice looking vehicle. The VE that replaced it may be technically superior (it’s a “billion dollar design” after all) but it’s fugly. The HSV models based on the VE are much better looking, but the standard models look misshapen and boxy. I was disappoint.

Toyota Hilux: 6th Gen to 7th Gen

Where I grew up, real men drove a Hilux. Preferably a 4WD dual cab version. And the 6th generation were nice a design. But they got well and truly fuglified with the next model, especially the 2WD versions which look tubby and moronic. You’d look a right berk doing donuts in a paddock in one of those!

No related posts.

I still don’t like using the term in most cases, and I’ll explain why. But in the intervening years I have come up with an alternative, which I’d like to share with you. Within the UX team here at NDM, I’ve been referring to user sessions as CIDeR (Collaborative Iterative Design Refinement) sessions. I’ve had some success in convincing my team-mates and the term is starting to permeate out into the business.

Why CIDeR?

Typically our users are involved in our design process by way of a series of one-on-one sessions where users are shown stimuli of some kind, to elicit feedback. The purpose is to guide the design process and allow decisions to be made (usually) regarding the user interface. Successive rounds are used to allow the design to evolve based on user feedback, in effect making users collaborators in the design process.

Hence the name:

• Collaborative – The user is an integral part of the process, as are our colleagues from other disciplines. This word also helps break down the ‘UX guy is expert’ and ‘participant is lab rat’ dynamic that can accumulate.
• Iterative – The approach works best if it’s a process of constantly evolving the design or the idea. This word helps convey to the business that this isn’t a one shot deal, there will be several rounds of user involvement, with some thinking and designing in between.
• Design – Typically these sessions are for the purpose of producing something tangible, whether it’s designing a website or a concept. This word grounds the name/description.
• Refinement – We are working towards producing something. In conjunction with ‘iterative’ this word impresses upon people the fact this is a process, and in conjunction with ‘design’ it gives a sense of progress.

Oh, and of course there’s the added benefit of being able to say “let’s have some CIDeR and think it through” when the team reaches an impasse or isn’t sure how to proceed.

We involve users in our process in many other ways, from up-front ethnographic research through to large quantitative market research, and lots of things in between, but the bread and butter would be the CIDeR sessions. Hence it’s important for us to be clear what this work is and what it delivers—to our team but also to our business.

Why not “usability testing”?

There are four problems with the term usability testing as a label for the type of work done in a CIDeR session, some of which are refinements of the point I made last time:

• Promises conclusive, definitive results – The term sounds too absolute. As you’d expect from “testing”, after all other types of testing deliver conclusiveness or they’re considered a failure.
• Implies a focus on just the UI and usability – Much of what we do is more than usability of the user interface. We’re digging deeper, talking through preferences, perceptions. Part of this is due to the fact that for news products, the content is as much a part of the interface as the buttons, links, labels and code.
• Suggests summative application – To many people, when you say “usability testing” they think that’s something to be done at the end, a validation exercise to make sure we can go live. This isn’t at all the case for most of the work our team does, which is more about exploration over time; a fluid process rather than check-list item.
• Coloured by past experience – Any term that has been around for a while, and widely misunderstood or misused, will be horribly tainted by the experience stakeholders have had with things labelled with that term. This is certainly the case with “usability testing”. I often see this as a tendency towards quant; people expect task failure rates, ‘time on task’ and other rigid measurements and won’t give up on those kinds of outputs from our work. Again, these are rarely the things we are looking to obtain.

Don’t get me wrong, if you practice a method that does live up to all of these things, and you call it usability testing, good on you. Our team rarely does, so I don’t want to set an expectation in the minds of my stakeholders that that is what they’re going to get. We needed a new name.

How does CIDeR work with other techniques?

The CIDeR approach is qualitative and indicative, rather than conclusive. Which means that some findings (ie opinions, perceptions, propensity to buy/use) may not be representative of the larger population, and as such it is necessary to:

1. exercise care in taking these findings on board, using them in the right way, and
2. make use of quantitative methods, either before or after CIDeR, to determine the implications for the broader audience.

Sometimes a more formal method for involving users in the design process is used, which we do call “usability testing”. A more rigorous approach is taken to assessing how easily users are able use a given design, typically later in the design process. Because this technique is dealing strictly with usability, it is acknowledged that relatively small sample sizes (~5) can be used to draw conclusions about the usability of the design for the entire audience.

Questioning regarding opinions or propensity to buy/use, however, do require larger sample sizes. So, alongside both the CIDeR and “usability testing” methods, quantitative research may also be employed, typically to gauge reactions to a product proposition or design. This focuses more on supporting decision making at a product level as opposed to the design or user interface level.

“Pour me a glass!” or “Ewww that’s left a bitter taste”?

What do you think of the name CIDeR? Would you use it in place of the term usability testing? Why or why not? All feedback greatly appreciated.

(Originally posted to the USiT blog, reproduced here with some minor alterations)

Related posts:

1. Stop calling it usability testing
2. Testing a Web site’s first impression
3. The Claw – mobile device usability testing jig

There’s nothing like some real world feedback to improve a product, and Angus was most helpful in this regard. Besides the introduction of AMCap, Angus pointed out that the webcam mounting solution wasn’t the best. The original screws from the webcam base were too short to make it all the way through the perspex and securely hold the webcam, even with the countersinking. So I’ve enhanced the design by using meatier screws (wood screws actually) that are longer than the original and with wider thread to really bite into the plastic of the webcam. Note this is a destructive enhancement, the new screws will wreck the hole for the original screws and you’ll no longer be able to attach the webcam’s circular desk stand.

The new screws also have bigger heads that a normal screwdriver will drive (not requiring a jeweller’s screwdriver like the original screws). So not only are the webcams held nice and securely, but it’s easier to undo and move them.

The other enhancement Angus suggested was to use ‘velcro’ on the handset, so it can be taken off the Claw for setup changes, but then securely re-attached. The ‘velcro’ strips are Command Picture Hanging Strips (annoyingly, they don’t refer to them as ‘velcro’).

I also tied the two USB cables for the webcams together with cable ties, making them less messy when using the Claw.

The Claw is evolving!

(Originally posted to the USiT blog, reproduced here with some minor alterations)

Related posts:

1. The Claw – mobile device usability testing jig

I want to show off the work of my two budding artists. The yellow piece above, illustrated by Grace, shows “people”. Grace has developed a definite, if eerie, style and her people always look very consistent. She’s never seen “The Tripods” or “War of The Worlds” by the way.

Evangeline’s piece is a faithful rendering of “circles and up and down lines”. With some help from mum, Evie’s repertoire is growing, and by the time she’s two I think we might see a square or oblong (a word that is sure to make her giggle).

No related posts.

OK, pop quiz:

1. I’m going to be a lot busier as of next year
2. Good things come in threes
3. Both of my daughters will be big sisters
4. I’m glad I bought a 7 seat car

The correct answer is e. All of the above!

I’m so happy to tell you all that in February, my wife and I will be having our third child! We’ve always planned to have three kids and have been blessed yet again, so we couldn’t be happier. It’s going to really take things up a notch, I really am going to be busy. But hey, they say that after two you don’t really notice the extra burden :) (shhh, i don’t care if they be were sarcastic or it was some cruel inside joke!)

[Photo credit: N-ino]

No related posts.

The ominous black shape featured in last week’s “Guess that object” post is in fact my take on a mobile device usability testing jig, inspired by the work of Kirk Henry of Lokion Interactive (via Harry Brignull). I’ve been working on this device to help with testing site and app designs on mobile phones and tablets. Quite often these contraptions are called a sled but I’ve been calling this one “The Claw”, for hopefully obvious reasons.

Its purpose is to allow you to get a good view of the screen of a mobile device—handset or tablet—as well as the user’s face, during usability testing (or any other activity that you’d like to see what’s happening while someone uses a mobile device. Using software such as TechSmith Morae 3.0, you can easily record from both cameras.

A key feature of this particular design is its flexibility, it’s attached to the device and moves with it, and it can be used for two different sizes of device: smaller phones, handsets, smartphones (eg iPhone, Android, Blackberry), as well as larger tablets (eg iPad, Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1). This second feature is achieved by having two sets of attachment locations for the cameras: one lower down for handsets and one higher up for tablets.

Design and development

After a much earlier prototype built out of a desk lamp (left side of photo below) a major design decision was made, that the rig needed to move with the mobile device, rather than sticking the mobile to the jig and asking the user to use it fixed in place.

While the claw is tethered to a PC via USB cables, it still allows quite a lot of freedom of movement and lets the user hold the device more or less naturally.

A second prototype was built using a wire coathanger, to get the dimensions and angles right before committing to a building material that wasn’t as pliable (right side of photo above). Two things became obvious and resulted in two distinctive features of the final design.

The downward-facing camera that records the screen of the device needs to be at the right height and angle to get a good view of the screen. If angle A is too much more than 90°, you either can’t see the whole screen, or the view you get is at a steep angle meaning the perspective distortion is high (the end of the device closest to the camera appears much smaller than the end that is furthest away from the camera). Additionally the end of the mobile device furthest away from the camera may be out of focus compared to the closer end.

Also, you’re balancing getting a good view of the screen with obstructing the user’s view of the screen. This is especially an issue when the camera is this close to the device.

Another factor to take into account is the ‘focal length’ of the camera being used. The Microsoft VX-6000 webcams I used couldn’t be placed any closer to the device than I’ve placed them, otherwise the picture was blurry and the camera also gets in the way of the user viewing the screen.

I also discovered that in order to provide a good view of a larger device like a tablet (without too much of any angle) the downward-facing camera needed to be more directly overhead. Hence the second bend in the claw that brings the jig back past vertical (ie angle B). The height of the camera was also a factor, as having it too close to the device means that you can’t see the whole screen of a 9-10” device. As before, a balance needs to be struck between getting a good view of the screen and obstructing the user’s view.

After some experimenting, the angles and heights were worked out and it was time to build the next prototype…The Claw.

Manufacture

With very little budget, and because it was just a prototype, I decided not to use something like Ponoko but instead to make it myself. The Perspex is 10mm thick, to give it strength and stop it bending when in use. You can get it at any plastics fabricator, I bought this black specimen from Australian Plastic Fabricators for about $20.

There are also places that can cut, bend and drill any design you want (including Australian Plastic Fabricators) but it can be expensive if you’re ordering a low number of units, like one. So I again decided to do it myself.

Note: 10mm Perspex is hard to bend! :) If you have a heat gun (used for heat-shrinking, stripping paint, welding copper plumbing pipes etc) it should be fairly easy, especially if you have a nozzle that focuses the heat to a narrow strip. I didn’t have one. So I used my toaster. I don’t exactly recommend it, but it does work.

1. Print out a scale diagram of your design and place it on a heat resistant surface right next to the toaster (you’ll use it as a guide to bend the perspex)
2. Mark the Perspex where you want to bend it
3. Place the Perspex over the top of the taster, with the mark positioned above one of the slots (don’t stick the Perspex into the toaster!)
4. If you have a multi-slot toaster you might need to cover some of the slots so that your Perspex only gets heated in one spot. I used slices of bread to do this, since they were right there next to the toaster and I got a bonus snack! Don’t completely cover the slots of your toaster might have a meltdown
5. Adjust the toaster setting to a fairly high/long setting, I had to heat the Perspex for about 4 minutes, but experiment a little and see what it takes for your toaster to make it pliable enough. You don’t want to melt it, firstly because it will give off fumes but also because it’ll likely stretch as you bend it, you want it about as pliable as a paper clip
6. Once you think it’s ready to bend, use oven mitts or some heat resistant gloves to pick up the Perspex and place it on the scale diagram and bend to the desired angle and hold it in place
7. Do this quickly as the plastic will cool and stop being flexible within 10 seconds or so

[A toaster oven might also work, but it wouldn’t be very precise in terms of where it heats the plastic, and you’ll probably burn your hands. Just buy/rent a heat gun :) ]

After bending is when you drill and cut the holes. If you drill and cut before bending, the lower structural rigidity will probably mean it won’t keep its shape. The purpose of the drill holes is to mount the cameras. The cameras I used are both Microsoft LifeCam VX-6000 models, fairly cheap but also fairly good quality, but probably their best attribute of this webcam is it’s tilt and swivel bracket that attaches to a round base. If you unscrew the base and removed it, you can mount the tilt and swivel bracket to the perspex, using the original screw. The hole for the screw will need to be countersunk because the screw is not long enough to make it all the way through 10mm of Perspex.

The purpose of the large cavities is to save weight. That’s why I used 10mm Perspex, because that thickness would mean there would be enough strength after the weight-saving holes were cut. Also these large holes are a neat way to thread the cameras’ USB cables out the back of the claw.

To make the cavities I drilled holes around the perimeter, very close together and then bashed out the centre and filed down the edges. It’s an old trick I picked up somewhere, probably making stuff in the garage when I was a kid, but you could drill one hole and use a jigsaw to cut around the perimeter. The weight-saving cavities remove about 32% of the weight, but leave structural integrity.

Cameras

The cameras I chose are good enough for the job, but to further advance the design, smaller and higher resolution cameras might be used. But is likely to mean a move away from USB webcams, making for a more expensive and complicated exercise.

To attach the mobile device to the rig, I use 3M Command Strips (normally used for hanging pictures on walls etc). The advantage of these strips over double-sided tape is that they can be easily removed and they don’t damage the mobile device or leave any sticky stuff on it.

Morae setup

Morae 3 allows you to record from two webcams, and it’s pretty easy to do so. Start with a hardware or mobile recording configuration and set the “Main” source as the bottom webcam (the one pointing down at the device). I mount the webcams upside down to allow the tilt mechanism to work, giving an easy way to adjust the angle of the camera in relation to the rig. So in Morae you need to flip the camera using the camera settings.

Set the “PiP” source as the top webcam (the one pointing at the user’s face). Again I mount it upside down so you need to flip the image in the settings.

For a reason I can’t currently figure out, Morae won’t use the microphone in either of the webcams as the audio source for recording, so I use a Logitech USB desk microphone placed nearby, it picks up audio well enough.

That’s it, the only things you need to do each time you use the claw is adjust the camera tilt and angle, and maybe adjust the focus ring (in case it has been bumped since last use). Then you plug in the USB cables, stick on your mobile device, launch Morae and away you go!

Future development

The claw is currently being is used for several different projects, on both handset and tablet devices. Next steps are to make some refinements to the angles and dimensions and then produce a better quality version using a service such as Ponoko.

(Originally posted to the USiT blog, reproduced here with some minor alterations)

UPDATE October 31st 2011: I’ve just written a new post about some enhancements I’ve made to The Claw

Related posts:

1. The Claw 2.1
2. My laptop thinks it’s a mobile
3. Stop calling it usability testing

The answer will be revealed shortly, along with a full explanation.

(Note: you NDM folks are disqualified from entering!)

No related posts.

Hopefully I’ll be able to blog a few things soon, when I have a spare few moments.

No related posts.