Intervening Variables (User Group/Profile)

The main talking point focused on environmental contexts, 36 of the 51 instances directly referenced environments. As the tests established a context of need activity followed by seeking approaches, student’s attention was on where these tests would take place, the spatial contexts. In summary, students found the thoughts of tests in environments outside unnerving, in that they had insecurities about testing applications with real users and this would take place in the field.

Table 5.2: Formative Session Sub-Categories – Intervening Variables

Formative Session

Breakdown of the most popular instance (emerging sub categories) Member Checked

Session 1 Environmental configurations are not going to work 16

Session 1 Confusion of Source Characteristic placement in model 5

Session 1 Environmental perspective influencing stress & cope 20

Session 1 Occurrence Sub Total (Intervening Variables) 41

Session 2 Grouping elements of the model 4

Session 2 Occurrence Sub Total (Intervening Variables) 4

Session 3 Don’t see the value in this element of the model 6

Session 3 Occurrence Total (Intervening Variables) 6

Total Intervening Variables (User Group/Profile) 51

Table 5.2 presents a spread of codes where this variable was initially very high, session one highlights 41 out of 51 instances attached to the interning variable. Out of the 41, 16

instances evolved around their “environmental configurations are not going to work” and “environmental perspective influencing stress and cope” with 20 instances. It became clear that the configurations were around test logistics and how the students capture data in the field. The researcher attempted to contextualize this by explaining this is the

“experimental” part of Experimental Design or Interactive Applications. Students need to explore and test a range of tools and methods, which are fit-for-purpose in the environment. The following example supported this discussion and decision-making.

116

“A student is travelling on a train form Darlington to Newcastle. The train is busy and the network is intermittent. In this environmental context the tester decides to use a screen reader to capture user interaction with the application and an interview will be conducted after the journey.”

This example used two capturing methods the screen reader is not an intrusive piece of software and will not distract or add stress in this situation, if they used an external capturing tool (i.e. a Go-Pro fixed). The Go-Pro would be intrusive in this environment and will add unnecessary stress potentially affecting the test participant’s cognitive abilities.

The second formative session created an unforeseen opportunity for the researcher. Students began to change the model to meet their needs –see the two examples in Appendix H. A discussion around “grouping elements of the model” turned into moving parts of the model around. For example, students felt that once a context of need is set the test should consider the environment, one student said, “Naturally this takes place in an environmental context, at home on the metro or in my mate’s car”. Therefore, one part of the group they proposed moving the environment out of the intervening variables and putting this as an activation mechanism explaining that once the need is established the application is chosen in the environment.

As the students progressed to session 3 the comments were much more disingenuous and the researcher felt that students just did not want to go out and do this field test, a discussion around the values of field testing which create a problem as 6 students “Don’t see the value

in this element of the model”. This point raised by a small minority related to field testing

with real users and the insecurities around their application.

5.1.3 USER MODALITY FACTORS

Codes based around Modality did not appear in session two but were prevalent in session one and three. Students also provided their interpretation of modalities and where they fit, this can be seen in Appendix H – Model 2. This model was insightful and a group of students felt that the researcher’s model should be split. One half was interpreted by the students as user requirements, or a user persona for the test and the other part was the test case or the seeking activity where the test participant is given an activity set by the user requirements.

117

Table 5.3: Formative Session Sub-Categories – User Modality Factors

Formative Session

Breakdown of the most popular instance (emerging sub categories) Member Checked

Session 1 Changing states of modality 2

Session 1 Modality States - Confusion of a modality state 16

Session 1 Occurrence Sub Total (Modality) 34

Session 3 Sampling issues 9

Session 3 Too many configurations 16

Session 3 Occurrence Total (Modality) 9

Total User Modality Factors 43

The wording of modality confused the student, “confusion of a modality state” noted down 16 instances, what constitutes wandering, visiting and travelling? Students interpreted visiting and travelling as the same modality and did not see the point. A suggestion was made to relabel to; walking, sitting and travelling (car, train or bike). This was interesting and the researcher explained the modality state is formed on past research and their

interpretations and will shape new models in user behaviour and interaction. Students also interpreted modality as something which is closely related to the

environments, session one discussed the “changing states in modality” and students felt it will be hard to monitor and capture data whilst moving (i.e., the test participant is running to catch a bus). The researcher explained the importance of applying methods that are

appropriate and fit-for-purpose in each setting and methods could change depending on the environment and modality. As students took these points on board session three notes “Too many configurations” which related to the changes in modality for walking, sitting travelling and their ability to capture and observe these changes. So students attempted to apply different user modality configurations but as the research will present in the analysis and discussion of field work students “played it safe” keeping to one or possibly two modalities.