In this paper we explore the use of creative software engineering design methods, particularly for rebuilding experiences in new contexts. We present results from a comparative evaluation of three approaches (scenarios with personas, TAPT, and no formal method): these suggest that techniques such as brainstorming are helpful, while structure and formality can distract from the creative process. Scenarios’ user-focus was noted as positive, as were TAPT’s analytical output and abstraction of experiences away from their original contexts. The best approach to design may be to apply multiple methods in a complementary fashion

Hooper, Clare J.

Millard, David E.

English

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)

 1 Supporting Transitions  with Creative Software Engineering Clare J. Hooper University of Southampton Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK clare@ecs.soton.ac.uk David E. Millard University of Southampton Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK  dem@ecs.soton.ac.ukIn this paper we explore the use of creative software engineering design methods, particularly for rebuilding experiences in new contexts. We present results from a comparative evaluation of three approaches  (scenarios  with  personas,  TAPT,  and  no  formal  method):  these  suggest  that techniques such as brainstorming are helpful, while structure and formality can distract from the creative process. Scenarios’ user-focus was noted as positive, as were TAPT’s analytical output and abstraction of experiences away from their original contexts. The best approach to design may be to apply multiple methods in a complementary fashion.  Context, design, evaluation, Scenarios, TAPT, transitions, user experience 1. INTRODUCTION Modern software systems are increasingly fluid and multimodal, with user interactions occurring across a  variety  of  devices  and  infrastructures  (desktop, web,  mobile,  embedded  systems,  etc.).  This complexity  of  potential  interaction  means  that understanding  user  experience  (UX)  is  an increasingly  difficult  part  of  the  software  design process – for example, how does online retail link with bricks-and-mortar shopping, how can we make social networking systems more accessible for the elderly, can web 2.0 style public collaboration work in the real world as well as the on the web?  In  this  paper  we  provide  an  overview  of  creative software  engineering  methods  for  understanding UX and discuss results of a comparative evaluation of  two  methods,  particularly  with  regard  to understanding the methods’ creative qualities. 2. CREATIVE SOFTWARE ENGINEERING Computer science as a field certainly encompasses creative elements (Titchener, 2005), and there exist various  creative  methods  for  gaining  insight  into users and their perspectives (Maiden, 2004). One is  cultural  probes  (Gaver,  1999),  packages  of maps, postcards and other materials, designed to elicit  open,  inspirational  responses  from  people with whom computer scientists will work.  Another  method  for  understanding  users  is personas (Grudin, 2002), the building of ‘actors’ or detailed  descriptions  of  people  representative  of user  groups.  They  might  include  name,  age, appearance,  clothes,  occupation,  family,  friends, pets, gender and ethnicity, and are often based on real  data.  Scenarios  (Tedjasaputra,  2004)  are broader narratives that describe different situations in which technology is used. They are stories, with setting, characters, and plot. They help designers and  analysts  find  assumptions  they  have  made, and can be used in conjunction with personas.  Probes,  scenarios  and  personas  focus  on  end users, but it is not always clear how they scaffold an  understanding  of  UX  grounded  in  specific contexts.  TAPT  is  a  new  technique  which addresses  this  (Hooper,  2010).  It  involves  a structured  analysis  of  experiences,  sufficient  to support  their  transition  to  new  contexts.  E.g.,  the design  of  physical  systems  inspired  by  online experiences (e.g. wiki-based collaborative areas in museums)  and  web-based  interactions  based  on physical experiences (e.g. a web-based picnic). 3. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION In  late  2009,  we  conducted  a  comparative evaluation  of  scenarios/personas  and  TAPT  as creative  design  methods.  In  the  evaluation,  43 software  engineers  worked  in  small  groups  on varying  design  tasks  using  varying  methods.  Full details are in (Hooper, 2010).  Scenarios  with  personas  were  chosen  as representative of current design practice. We also included No Method as a neutral baseline against which the  other  approaches could be judged (No Supporting Transitions with Creative Software Engineering Clare J. Hooper, David E. Millard 2  © Clare J. Hooper, David E. Millard, 2010. The original version of this article is published in the eWiC series. Method was presented to participants as a verbal discussion  during  the  design  process).  The  tasks involved re-imagining experiences in new contexts, for  example  re-providing  microblogging  in  a  care home for the elderly.  Participants  reported  on  how  well  the  methods supported  creation  of  imaginative,  novel  designs. Regarding TAPT, participants were positive about the structured analysis (“Gave an easy-to-refer to sheet to bring ideas into focus”; “With all the huge components  identified,  was  easy  to  link  them together  in  a  new  way”),  focus  (“It  helped  us concentrate  on  the  parts  we  needed  to  design creatively”),  and  helpfulness  of  abstracting  the original  experience  (“Separates  technology  from effect”;  “The  distilled  experience  forced  a  more abstracted  idea,  which  helped  reshape  the experience  much  more  easily”).  Negative comments  concerned  rigidity  (“constrained  by need to complete specific boxes”).  Comments  on  Scenarios  were  positive  about  the user-focus (“You try to envision yourself as these people”;  “Personas  …  lead  to  good  ideas”)  and brainstorming  (“Being  able  to  brainstorm  lets  you be  imaginative”).  Some  comments  concerned  the need for a balance between freedom and structure (“Discussion/brainstorming were good for creativity, but  needed  a  clear  structure  later”),  while  others disliked the rigidity (“it’s so prescriptive, your brain is in the habit of following instructions. I think that made  us  less  imaginative”).  Another  participant commented  that  there  was  no  real  creative  leap (“The design came incrementally… so although it is very tailored to the users, it isn’t exactly ‘novel’.”).  Comments on No Method were positive about the freedom  (“Lack  of  direction  meant  we  discussed many ideas – plausible or not!”; “we were able to be  as  creative  as  we  chose”),  and  lack  of structure (“it made us concentrate on ideas rather than  outputting  documents”;  “I  prefer  less structured methods”). The ease of use was praised (“It  was  easy  to  throw  around  any  ideas  that occurred”),  although  there  was  concern  about scalability  (“In  larger  groups  [than  2],  some opinions may get drowned out”). Other participants commented that the method was only as creative as its users (“Had a neutral effect. Didn’t hinder and didn’t  help.”;  “the  method  was  only  ever  as imaginative as we are”).  Participants also rated methods’ support in creating imaginative  and  novel  designs  on  a  Likert-scale. Interestingly, No Method was rated highly (82% of users said it did ‘well’ or ‘very well’), compared to Scenarios and TAPT (63% and 58% respectively).  4. DISCUSSION We tested these methods for transitioning between different contexts of interaction, both physical and digital. Each method appears to have strengths and weaknesses  in  this  context:  participants  liked  the structured analysis, focus and abstraction of TAPT, although they disliked its rigid structure (mirroring similar  comments  about  Scenarios).  Positive comments  on  Scenarios  included  its  user-focus, while positive comments on No Method centred on its  free,  unstructured,  easy-to-apply  nature: negative comments on this method concerned the lack of support for creativity.  The  high  rating  of  No  Method’s  support  for creativity  is  interesting,  and  perhaps  results  from people’s dislike of the structured, procedural nature of  the  other  two  methods  in  the  context  of  being free to come up with ideas. Although participants thought  No  Method  allowed  them  to  be  more creative, it would appear that TAPT and Scenarios enabled  the  production  of  creative  results  with certain  other  advantages,  as  detailed  above. Overall,  it  seems  likely  that  participants’  value-judgements  about  their  designs  will  have  been affected  by  the  methods  used.  We  plan  a  blind review  of  the  design  artefacts  to  gain  objective insight into the methods’ efficacy.  We can conclude that all three methods support, to some extent, the creation of imaginative and novel designs which involve transitions between contexts of  interaction.  Each  method  clearly  has  certain strengths  and  weaknesses:  No  Method  seems  to be  an  ideal  starting  point  in  the  design  process, perhaps  to  be  followed  by  the  application  of Scenarios  towards  identifying  user  groups,  and then  the  application  of  TAPT  to  elicit  the  explicit experiences of each user group. 5. REFERENCES Gaver, B., Dunne, T.,and Pascenti, E. (1999) Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6, 21-29. Grudin, J., Pruitt, J. (2002) Personas, participatory design and product development. Participatory Design, Palo Alto. 144-161. Hooper, C.J., Millard, D.E. (2010). Teasing Apart and Piecing Together: Towards Understanding Web-based Interactions. Web Science. NC, USA. Maiden, N., Gizikis, A., Robertson, S. (2004) Provoking Creativity: Imagine What Your Requirements Could be Like. IEEE Software, 21, 68-75. Tedjasaputra, A., Sari, E., Strom, G. (2004) Sharing and Learning through Pair Writing of Scenarios. NordiCHI. Tampere, Finland. Titchener, C. (2005) Reviewing the Arts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.  

Design: Cultural probes.

Personas, participatory design and product development. Participatory Design,

Provoking Creativity: Imagine What Your Requirements Could be Like.

Reviewing the Arts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.

Sharing and Learning through Pair Writing of Scenarios.

Teasing Apart and Piecing Together: Towards Understanding Web-based Interactions. Web Science.

Supporting Transitions with Creative Software Engineering

Supporting Transitions with Creative Software Engineering

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)