Hide menu

TDDD58 12 hp /Interaction design project

Course information



Introduction

Welcome to learn more about methods for user research, design and prototyping of interactive productions.

You are assumed to have taken an introduction to marketing, visual communication, and graphic design before this course. In this course, we deal with the methods used in a human-centered design process and look at how interactive productions are experienced by users and customers, whom we are going to create business and pleasure for. The best proven way of getting there is user research with interviews and observations that provide a good basis for a creative design work and an iterative prototyping. It is these methods that this course is about.

The examination takes place in four assignments with both group parts and individual parts.

Observe! Lectures are given in English, but the seminars for individual readings are in Swedish. Students who don't speak Swedish will have separate seminars that are booked with the seminar leader Lisa Malmberg. Exchange students will be spread out in the project groups to facilitate peer-learning.

The design work is done in groups of approx. 5 students. In the design process you work your way through four exam parts consisting of research, ideation of concepts, revisions of ideas in sketching and paper prototype tested with users, and finally detailing of solutions in a computer prototype that also is tested with users.

The group work is closely linked to the lectures and the course literature. The lectures will introduce and deepen topics described in the literature and some excercises are also conducted.

Workflow for each assignment:
a) individual work to read up on the literature, prepare for the seminar and prepare for the design work;
b) the group meets and goes through the assignment and plans the work;
c) individual design work;
d) the group meets and develops the group deliverables;
e) the seminar is conducted and hand in of Individual Readings for the seminar;
f) the written and oral group presentation and hand in of both Individual Design Work and Team Project Work.

Course Evaluation from Last Year

Last year there were five glitches highlighted in the course evaluation that now have been taken care of:

  1. Last year students felt that they didn't get cridit for the team project work. This year each of the four assignments are now graded on Team Project Work (55%) , Individual Readings (25%) and Individual Design Work (20%). See the examination page for more details.
  2. Last year the students felt that the information on what was expected of them in each assignment was unclear. This year information about what should be done in the different assignments has been clarified.
  3. Last year the grading criteria for individual reports were unclear and they took too much time. This year individual reports have been removed from the course and seminars have been introduced instead to examine Individual Readings.
  4. Last year strudents could hear one thing from one teacher and another thing from another teacher. This year the division of labour between the lecturers has been changed to minimize the risk of different instructions from different lecturers.
  5. Last year external clients were used in the course which made every team project work very different, which made it difficult to maintain focus on the learning objectives of the course. This year no external clients are used.

Course Literature

If you sit at home you access Bangor, Kortum and Miller (2008), Matthews, Judge and Whittaker (2012), Nørgaard and Hornbæk (2006), and Ylirisku, Halttunen, Nuojua and Juustila (2009) from ACM Digital Library and Taylor & Francis Online, available through the Linköping University Library. If you use the university computers or the university WiFi you can just click the link to the articles below. Observe that the course literature differs from Swedish speaking students and English speaking students.

Swedish speaking students have the following literature as mandatory course literature:

  • Arvola, M. (2014). Interaktionsdesign och UX. Lund: Studentlitteratur. (In Swedish)
  • Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24 (6), 574-594. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10447310802205776
  • Matthews, T., Judge, T., & Whittaker, S. (2012). How do designers and user experience professionals actually perceive and use personas?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12), pp. 1219-1228. New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2207676.2208573
  • Nørgaard, M., & Hornbæk, K. (2006). What do usability evaluators do in practice?: An explorative study of think-aloud testing. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems (DIS '06), pp. 209-218. New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1142405.1142439
  • Ylirisku, S., Halttunen, V., Nuojua, J., & Juustila, A. (2009). Framing design in the third paradigm. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09), pp. 1131-1140. New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1518701.1518874

English speaking students have the following literature as mandatory course literature:

  • Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24 (6), 574-594. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10447310802205776
  • Decision Making Confidence (2013). How to Use the Pugh Matrix. http://www.decision-making-confidence.com/pugh-matrix.html (accessed 2014-06-05)
  • Krug, S. (2014). Don't Make Me Think, Revisited: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability. New Riders.
  • Matthews, T., Judge, T., & Whittaker, S. (2012). How do designers and user experience professionals actually perceive and use personas?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12), pp. 1219-1228. New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2207676.2208573
  • Nørgaard, M., & Hornbæk, K. (2006). What do usability evaluators do in practice?: An explorative study of think-aloud testing. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems (DIS '06), pp. 209-218. New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1142405.1142439
  • Saffer, D. (2009). Designing for Interaction: Creating Innovative Applications and Devices (2nd Edition). New Riders.
  • Ylirisku, S., Halttunen, V., Nuojua, J., & Juustila, A. (2009). Framing design in the third paradigm. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09), pp. 1131-1140. New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1518701.1518874

Non-mandatory suggested readings for those who wish to go deeper:

Communication with Teachers

Current information and news about the course is always published on the course website. You are required to keep an eye on news and changes that are published on the site. When you contact the teachers by email, always use the email address that you got through the university, and you also need to keep an eye on information from the teacher that may be mailed to your LiU account.

Research and Design Ethics

Be sure to always have informed consent from people who involved in your study or who appear in text or images in your student work. Anonymize them if possible. Make sure that they are aware of the aims and possible future use of their participation. See the HSFR guidelines for research ethics (in Swedish) or the Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Law and Humanities from the National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway (in English). See the AIGA Standards of Professional Practice for guidelines for professional ethics in design.

Copyright

You own the copyright to material produced during your studies, but the university reserves the right to use the material produced during the course of informational, educational and research purposes, unless you explicitly say otherwise. This means that some projects may be included in the preparatory material for next year's students. Student work may also be used in contexts where the university in various ways is presented.

Further Resources

Personas:

Sketching:

Prototyping

Some tools used by students earlier years:

 


Page responsible: infomaster
Last updated: 2014-08-05