Interaction design

customer. By monitoring the whole customer-base and their purchasing habits, it is possible for the company to collect large data sets that are then analysed to optimise the supply chain of ingredients or the packaging (i.e. creating multiple package sizes to match different sizes of orders). The impact on the design of products and services is clear: as the product itself transforms the process, the split between design and production is called into question as it fragments and decentralises it to enable dynamic reconfiguration (Löffler and Tschiesner, 2013). This industrial revolution opens up new possibilities for bespoke design that can exploit the “production of batches of one” to focus on the values and experiences of the individual as opposed to optimising the production process. In other words this technology-driven innovation enables a strong application pull (Lasi, et al, 2014). Seen in this perspective, Industry4.0 holds much potential for interaction design to explore single- piece designs, all rooted in the same technology and supported by the same services. Taken

Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) are increasingly deployed to achieve distributed systems that are modular, flexible and extensible. Designing for a SOA can be difficult, however. There are issues involving the granularity of the cooperating services, and there are no currently accepted conventions for describing a service or its interactions at an abstract level. This paper presents the Service Responsibility and Interaction Design Method (SRI-DM), an agile approach for engineering a Web Service design, based on capturing a scenario as a use-case, factoring this into a set of Service Responsibility and Collaboration Cards, and constructing a Sequence diagram illustrating their interactions in fulfilling the scenario. The paper presents the notation for each step and describes with the aid of an example how this process is used to create a service design within the domain of e-assessment.

The goal of this master thesis project is to determine interface and interaction design patterns that can enhance the usability of e-commerce checkouts for new customers. Such interface and interaction design patterns are similar to software design patterns, although the focus is different. Software patterns describe solutions for repeating design challenges in a given context. The same goes for these interface and interaction design patterns. These patterns are like building blocks for user experiences. They deal with aspects such as, but not limited to, interaction structures (e.g. sections on one page versus spread across different pages), element positioning and text style. These patterns allow the user experience to be enhanced in a proven approach. As stated, this in turn allows both short term and long term e-commerce profits to increase, making it beneficial for e- commerce companies as well their (potential) customers.

Interaction design is a term used by different people from various backgrounds. The term is used to describe different activities in designing and creating different artifacts including artistic objects, websites, PC applications, GPS systems, etc. It makes it difficult to define such a term. Sharp et al. [2] defined this term as “designing interactive products to support the way people communicate and interact in their everyday and working lives” (p. 8). From this definition, we can observe two key points of interaction design. For one thing, the authors attempted to emphasize that interaction designers have to deal with their designs from the consumer’s perspective; in other words, they must involve users in the designing process. In addition, interaction designers ought to view their designs as products that are going to be sold in the market. The other key point here is that these interactive products should be useful for their potential users in their daily lives; it follows that interactive products should help people in their homes, offices, stores, vehicles, and anywhere they are.

Interaction design—ID—focuses on the correct interpre- tation and implementation of the user-product dialogue [1]. It allows generating products ready to be easily and intuitively used by the most of the users, and accepted since the beginning, thus avoiding soft reliability prob- lems [2]. It is quite young as a research field, but already full of methods and tools based on the usability concept. As the ISO 9241 standard says, usability is “the effec- tiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users achieve specified goals in particular environments” [3]. Specifically, ID methods and tools focus on user satisfaction because new definitions of product quality are heavily based on it. The first developed tools were collections of principles and guidelines, mainly used for usability evaluation activities. Some examples of them are the seven dialogic ISO principles [4], the eight Shnei- derman’s golden rules [4], the ten Nielsen’s heuristics [5] and the interaction paradigms of Dix, Finlay, Abowd and Beale [6].

21 its acknowledged importance, the curriculum for interaction design rarely involves students’ direct exposure to practitioner design experts, e.g. communities of practice [11]. Having practitioners involved in the teaching exercise through sharing their hands-on design experience has an invaluable benefit: it guarantees students’ access to the current design practices by facilitating their skills development – that “knowing-how” – that lies beyond the knowledge covered in the textbooks. However, such an endeavour requires significant commitment, whereas time is always an expensive resource in the industry arena. Hartfield et al. [9] successfully involved a team of designers in such a project, who acted as mentors along the entire project duration. Despite its great advantage, this involvement in coaching a design team poses considerable challenges on practitioners’ time resources [ ]. 9 A more practical solution is having practitioners as invited guests. This will limit their participation to only one session, where they can focus on presenting and practically demonstrate a particular, often-used design method. The combination between presentation and demonstration is fortunate: it provides students’ access to both declarative and procedural knowledge through paradigmatic examples associated with the case studies. In addition, the demonstration is an example of reflection in action whose considerable benefits were discussed above.

Abstract. In this paper we present human work interaction design challenges and opportunities for the vision of the Smart University as a platform that pro- vides foundational context data to deliver the university of the future. While learning analytics have enable access to digital footprints of student activities and progress in terms of data such as demographics, grades, recruitment and performance, they cannot provide information about activities and interaction in the physical study and work spaces in a university. The smart university pro- poses a novel platform that will provide context aware information to students through the integration of learning analytics with data sensed using cyber- physical devices in order to provide a holistic view of the environments that universities offer to students. However, designing the interaction of students and staff in the smart university ecology of information and sensing devices re- quires an understanding of how they work as individuals, as members of teams and communities. Through two use cases we illustrate how insights obtained from social cognitive work analysis can be used for the design guidelines of the different interfaces part of the smart university ecology.

There is a need to have a systematic approach to understand the effects and dynamic interaction between users and the system. As to encounter this, a set of user requirements need to be established in design activities, followed by the design stages that is done iteratively and finally the evaluation process involving users as to ensure that the system or product helps the users in achieving their goal [26 & 20]. Researchers raised issues on how in principle, the system or product can be designed to raise awareness and quality reflection of activities from users and society [21]. In view of that, proliferation of graphics became a key characteristic of modern social organization in design culture [17]. This is by reason of graphical context may influence the practice and results of interaction design [17].

The question of what is and what is not design research—both research in the service of design and research about design—dogs anyone whose research touches on aspects of design and any single disciplinary-bound context, as is common in academics if not in practice. We will argue that design is not a single disciplinary pursuit in its nature. Others have argued all corners of this debate, including Cross (2001), Fallman (2003), Nelson & Stolterman (2003), Rust (2007), Zimmerman, Forlizzi, & Evenson (2007), and others. We focus in this section on the specific case of interaction design as it owes to design

designing interactive products to support people in their everyday and working lives. In particular, it is about creating user experiences that enhance and extend the way people work, communicate and interact. (1997) describes it as "the de- sign of spaces for human communication and interaction." In this sense, it is about finding ways of supporting people. This contrasts with software engineering, which focuses primarily on the production of software solutions for given applications. A simple analogy to another profession, concerned with creating buildings, may clar- ify this distinction. In his account of interaction design, Terry asks how architects and civil engineers differ when faced with the problem of building a house. Architects are concerned with the people and their interactions with each other and within the house being built. For example, is there the right mix of family and private spaces? Are the spaces for cooking and eating in close proximity? Will people live in the space being designed in the way it was intended to be used? In contrast, engineers are interested in issues to do with realizing the project. These include practical concerns like cost, durability, structural aspects, environmental aspects, fire regulations, and construction methods. Just as there is a difference between designing and building a house, so too, is there a distinction between in- teraction design and software engineering. In a nutshell, interaction design is re- lated to software engineering in the same way as architecture is related to civil engineering.

In rural parts of developing countries, many people rely upon farming to provide food, yet lack valuable agricultural information about soil conditions, the weather forecast, pest and plant diseases, efficient irrigation methods, and crops they intend to grow. They also often lack basic literacy skills, and have little or no knowledge about Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). Agricultural information systems are common among large commercial farms in the developed world, but small, local implementations for the developing world require sensitive and participatory design practices, since existing technologies, interaction design methodologies, and usability testing techniques are all developed by and for the developed world.

Il mutato contesto del progetto contemporaneo del design ha trovato negli ultimi anni una forte convergenza nei temi progettuali legati all'interaction design. Il disegno dell'interfaccia, la rappresentazione dei dati e la pervasività dei nuovi media hanno portato nella disciplina a scenari inediti e a possibilità progettuali da indagare sia in ambito didattico che professionale. Da alcuni anni, nell'ambito del mio percorso di ricerca, sto indagando il rapporto tra il progetto dell'interfaccia e il product design. La dematerializzazione dei feedback tattili e visivi, la sempre più diffusa digitalizzazione delle superfici di interazione degli oggetti, mostrano come il design del prodotto non è immune alla trasformazione che ha cambiato i media della comunicazione negli ultimi dieci anni.

Problem specification in the context of interaction design brings into attention aspects like ambiguity and structure. While educators try to provide just enough details to leave room for the exploration of the design space, students prefer a more articulated and structured problem definition [2]. This tension is generated by students’ limited ability to handle less structured tasks. However, the skill to formulate problems precedes and is at least as important as the one of finding solutions. Unfortunately, in today’s higher education, the emphasis is almost entirely placed on problem solving skills, while significantly less efforts have been made to ensure the acquisition of problem formulation skills [3]. From our experience of teaching interaction design, even graduate students are often less prepared for this challenge; it is a skill to be learned.

Digital products are popular in the Internet era, the traditional products not only need to solve problems and achieve intended funtions, but also need to provide good expe- rience for the users. Interaction design thinking provides important ideas and methods for the traditional product derivation. An interaction system of good experience need coordination of people, activity, context and technology. There are four important me- thods of product derivation: “user-centered”, “design new interaction behavior”, “es- tablish better product usage context” and “promote product derivation through new technologies”. The interaction design thinking helps to enhance the experience of de- rived products.

Over the last two decades, the cartographic community has experienced a democratization of digital spatial technologies and information. This trend was strongly driven by web cartography, which led to novel web-based cartographic tools for data processing and representation, in many instances even available as open source software (see e.g. Mapbox, D3, turf.js or Mapbender). In addition, national and regional open data programs, as well as volunteer geographic data infrastructures, such as OpenStreetMap (OSM), are providing citizens, researchers and companies with access to a variety of publicly available spatial information resources. Besides immense innovation in the expert field of spatial research and spatial industries, those trends changed the relationship between consumers and producers of cartographic products 1 . Before, the production of most cartographic products was in the hands of cartographic experts, who were producing for a consumer audience. Through the availability of tools and data, we see a diffusion of cartographic production. Non-experts or experts from other domains —like interaction design 2 ,

"Working with Davide was a really learning experience for me. Beyond his great experience with interaction design and information visualization, he is also capable of following several diffent projects and activities without loosing his focus, patience and flexibility, often reaching a coherent and very good result. For sure he is a professional example to follow."

We used the Twileyed games as data and the device to reflect on the gaze design space, challenges, questions and dimensions of gaze gameplay during a user study with twelve participants. We asked them to play the games and observed their experience and strategies. Based on the ob- servations we discussed through 5 themes, the questions and opportunities to create engaging and playful gaze- enabled games. The resulting discussion arose topics on the challenge of using gaze for both sensing and action, with a focus on attention to understanding the ambiguity of the interaction, and visual dilemmas. Moreover, we dis- cussed the use of ambiguity and metaphors to create en- gaging and playful experiences. Finally, we identified how playing with gaze interaction opens up the space to design with gaze taking different identities. We refer to "identity" to what or which game element the user’s gaze controls. With Twileyed we aimed to engage the gaze-enabled games re- search community to think out of the box.

Buttons were given a bright colour and a uniform look throughout the cabin (Fig.54, Fig.55 and Fig.56). The main purpose of this change was to communicate interactability and similarity in their method of interaction. The buttons were also made bigger than normal and made visibly movable. This was done to negate the undesirable need for high accuracy movements for interaction, and to provide the user with visual feedback in response to their action (as kinaesthetic feedback would normally communicate this small movement). When the user’s hand would come close to a button, the hand would automatically animate to a pointing stance, providing the affordance of pushing the button (as seen in Fig.56). As there is no set paradigm for deciding to what extent the appearance can be changed without losing the connection to reality, these changes were made on intuition and validated by other KLM employees.

Some person may argue that it seems I put the designer in the top level above all other elements. I would say yes and no. Yes is because I think there must be someone or something playing the core role and the designer is the most appropriate person to deal with this under the consideration of the design process. No is because we can always shift our point of views. The way I choose is like seeing the world from the designer’s eyes. We can view the world from users’ eyes, technologies’ eyes and the system’s eyes. But we have to remember one thing, no matter which key element’s eyes we are using, we must consider other key elements simultaneously in an interactive way.

2010] shows that some participants want to present a sanitized version of their family life and indeed deleted recordings. It was, then, essential to design a study with which participants would feel comfortable and at the same time one that would enable us to collect rich data. The study is not meant as an ethnography of Christmas, but as a way to gain an initial understanding and create a space for design thinking that would help our research progress toward concepts, prototypes and field evaluations [Randall et al. 2007]. Light (e.g. [Light 2006]) has frequently used methods that allow people’s own evaluation of what is significant to lead data collection and analysis as an acknowledgment of Schutz’ position that ‘The social world is not essentially structureless. It has a particular meaning and relevance structure for the human beings living, thinking, and acting therein. They have preselected and preinterpreted this world by a series of common-sense constructs of the reality of daily life, and it’s these thought objects which determine their behaviour… The thought objects constructed by the social scientists refer to and are founded upon the thought objects constructed by the common-sense thought of man [sic] living his everyday life.’ [Schutz 1973: 6]. To this end, the diary study was perfectly adequate and actually collected a much larger and more varied range of events than we anticipated, as discussed below.