UserDesigner HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupzware

1
User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online
Communities Groupz-ware

• Niki Lambropoulos
• Interaction Design Consultant
• Intelligenesis Consultancy
• nikilambropoulos.org

2
Design Approaches in HCI

• Participatory design (Bjerknes et al, 1987)
• Plastic Interface for Collaborative Technology
  Initiatives through Video Exploration (PICTIVE,
  Muller, 1991)
• Collaborative Analysis of Requirements Design
  (CARD Muller et al, 1998)
• Why do we need another design?

3
Need of a New Model in HCI

• absence of specific methodology for online
  communities
• the great number of online communities on the
  net and their unique character
• absence of standards for online communities
  categorization and indexation
• absence of software categorization and
  description of characteristics
• absence of a flexible guide to deal with the
  constrains that appear in Interaction Design
• the nature of research and evaluation as such, as
  based on users individualistic and subjective
  views.

4
Model for Innovation Technology

• make work effective, efficient and safer
• improve and enhance learning and training
• provide enjoyable and exciting entertainment
• enhance communication and understanding
• support new forms of creativity and expression

5
User-Designer Plus (U-D) I-D Process for
Groupz-ware Production

• Stage I Establishing Requirements and I-D
  Evaluation Criteria Catalogue
• Stage II Focus Groups
• Stage III Software Description - Evaluation
• Stage VI Users Profiles and Recommendations
• Stage V Pre-Production
• Stage VI Final Production
• Stage VII User-Designer Plus (U-D)

6
ID Stage I II

• Stage I Establishing Requirements and Evaluation
  Criteria Catalogue
• Stage II Focus Groups
• Target population sampling
• High level of their expertise
• The nature and culture of online communities
• Relativity to the main study target group (from
  0 to 100)
• Participants familiarity with different software
  used in online communities
• Accessibility to focus groups
• Content analysis and reports.

7
U-D Stage I Evaluation Criteria Catalogue (ECC)

• A. Sociability People, Purposes, Practices -
  Management of the Community (code S)
• A1. Sociological aspects (Identity S-ID,
  Relations S-REL , Language S-LAN )
• A2. Management aspects (Practice S-PRA ,
  Community Knowledge S-CK, Evaluation and
  Assessment S-EVA, Evaluation for Research S-RE)
• B. Usability HCI and Interaction design (code U)
• Common tools (U-TOOLS) based on the previous
  sociability indicators. As such the tools are
  suggested to support identity (code U-ID),
  relations (code U-REL), language (code U-LAN),
  practices (code U-PRA), community knowledge (code
  U-CK) and evaluation (code U-EVA).
• Research Tools usability evaluation (code U-RE)
• Additional features (code U-ETC)

8
U-DI Evaluation Criteria Catalogue
9
ID Stage III to V

• Stage III Software Description - Evaluation
• Stage VI Users Profiles and Recommendations
• Stage V Pre-Production
• Prototype construction could be represented with
  the use of scenarios and prototypes
• Sociability and Usability tests
• Prototype Refinements

10
ID Stage VI Final Production

• Production of the final application.
• International Use on the Internet.
• Final Survey, Analysis and Report based on the
  evaluation criteria catalogue. Data Analysis
• Descriptive Analysis
• Inferential Statistics
• Generalisations by standard inferential
  statistical methods
• Measures of association between usability and
  sociability
• Test of significance

11
Stage VII User-Designer Plus (U-D), Why Plus
()?

• what credible research design can be used to
  effectively evaluate an intervention which might
  help the community? (Sanson-Fisher, 2004)
• Online Groupz need time-based direction and
  design
• Interrupted Short-Time-Series Design

12
Interrupted Short-Time-Series DesignRecording
Evaluating a Process
B
A
X
e.g. one week
Baseline 0
Endline 10
2
4
6
8
13
Example Focus Groups Criteria Selection

• High level of their expertise
• The number of online communities members they
  were moderating
• Relativity to the main study target group (from 0
  relativity as in Habbo Hotel to 100 relativity
  as in tagteachernet)
• Participants familiarity with different software
  used in online communities. The ratio of
  applications complexity and sophistication varied
  from simple open source software (e.g.
  yahoo.groups) to software from production
  companies (e.g. commkit, specifically designed
  software for massive online communities)
• Accessibility to the focus groups (the author is
  an e-mint member).

14
E-mint Evaluation Criteria Catalogue
15
Synthesis of Findings
16
Result Sociability - Usability
S
S
S
S
S
U
U
U
U
U
Eyeball of Participation (from the Lurkers
Project McDonald et. al, 2003)
17
Conclusions U-D provides

• simplicity and functionality
• process-based framework that creates close
  examination of both social networks and
  interventions as well as causal inference for
  sociability and usability
• Individual and social networks
• new theories created in each stage
• clear research design and data analysis
• Consistency to decision making processes
• adjustability to future trends

18
Thank you

• For your attention!
• niki lambropoulos
• Intelligenesis Consultancy
• nikilambropoulos.org
• niki_at_lambropoulos.org

19
Photo by Jennifer Risley