The aim of this module (40 hrs) is for students to familiarize with the use of Video for Interaction Design.
This year, the emphasis of the module is methodological. You are requested to examine the role of prototyping in desing.
The following topics will be covered:
Lecture / Presentations
|Deadlines/Presentations by students||
Using video in contextual interviews
Introduction of the mini-project
Video Prototyping and brainstorming
Interview Presentations (10' per team)
Assignment 1: Ethics Lies and Video Tape"
Prepare interview plan
Read paper by W. Mackay
Shoot Interviews for Mini Project
Deliverable: 5'presentation with 3 slides: your process, your findings, your reflections upon how you did it.
Select at maximum 5' of footage fro interview to show to class.
Assignment 2: Reading on Prototype fidelity
Read papers on lo-fi prototyping, starting from Vertenley's paper and
"Minority Report" : video brainstorm exploring novel forms of interaction.
An intro to focus groups
Fidelity paper presentations
(5' per team)
Video Brainstorm show
Assignment 4: "The Truman Show"
Read the STARFIRE paper and watch the video - as a preparation for shooting your own.
Set up 2 focus group per team to evaluate your two renditions of your concept
Show video of max 2x4' max illustrating your concept
Presentation of 10' regarding the focus groups planning and execution
Final report 8 pages SIGCHI format should include: process/product/reflection descriptions for all steps of your week: video interview , brainstorm, prototyping, focus group and a conclusion.
Report includes preliminary analysis regarding the comparison of the 2 videos.
Report includes evaluation of your video regarding Starfire
Much of design work involves the user of shared representations, being inspired from each other's work, having a broad knowledge of related designs that can also act as shared points of reference within design teams. In a department teaching design, students often work in proximity with each other: informally much knowledge is shared and ideas travel (slow) through informal social networks. This type of cross fertilization that characterizes creative environments is though restricted: it can work with the people one meets with regularly and is ephemeral; when the project ends and the prototypes are out of sight much of the knowledge that was embodied in the artifacts created is lost. It is often the case that people on different floors of the same department work on related topics, that researchers in the same group are unaware of the work of each other, that a particular problem that manifests itself in a health care application has already been addressed in an unrelated design project, e.g, accessing music collections. A by product of this, is that when students go home in the evening much of the department is a messy area that fails to portray the nature of the work, the atmosphere of the place.
Technology can support creative processes in many ways. The aim of this project is to explore obstacles to sharing design relevant knowledge and experiences (like those alluded to above) as they unfold in a design education department and to seek ways in which Ambient Intelligence technology can support these. Eventually we look to seek opportunities for easy access and capture of design relevant knowledge (part of the project is to find what that may be and what are appropriate forms for its representation) and to seek ways in which peer learning can be supported opportunistically. We seek ways in which working and moving through a design environment could bring to life the work that is done within the space.
Ethics, Lies and Videotape, Mackay, W., (1995), Proc. CHI’95, pp.138-145.
"Starfire" Video Prototype Project: A Case History, Tognazzini,
B., Proceedings CHI ‘94 - see the page at
•Vertelney, L. Using Video to Prototype User Interfaces. SIGCHI Bulletin, Vol. 21, Number 2, (October 1989), pp. 57-61.
Optional: a quick (a bit dated) cookbook see http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs247a/Storyboards.pdf
Fidelity reading assignment
Rettig, M. 1994. Prototyping for tiny fingers. Commun. ACM 37, 4 (Apr. 1994), 21-27. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/175276.175288
McCurdy, M., Connors, C., Pyrzak, G., Kanefsky, B., and Vera, A. 2006. Breaking the fidelity barrier: an examination of our current characterization of prototypes and an example of a mixed-fidelity success. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montréal, Québec, Canada, April 22 - 27, 2006). R. Grinter, T. Rodden, P. Aoki, E. Cutrell, R. Jeffries, and G. Olson, Eds. CHI '06. ACM, New York, NY, 1233-1242. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1124772.1124959
Reinhard Sefelin , Manfred Tscheligi , Verena Giller, Paper prototyping - what is it good for?: a comparison of paper- and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping, CHI '03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, April 05-10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA [doi>10.1145/765891.765986]
Robert A. Virzi , Jeffrey L. Sokolov , Demetrios Karis, Usability problem identification using both low- and high-fidelity prototypes, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground, p.236-243, April 13-18, 1996, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/238386.238516]
The deliverable is one DVD per project team. All work should be included in
This DVD should be labeled and the contents described on its cover.
Please include the following:
A. Video Material
1. max 5' edited Mini project video interview
2. max 6' video brainstorms
3. max 4' your video prototype (in two compression rates: for viewing in class and for the web).
4. footage of the focus group
proceedings, (Duration depending on consent you have obtained).
0. Readme.txt file or table of contents
1. Report (8 pages SIGCHI style) including
about the interview: interview plan, session summary and conclusions and analysis of your own interview with respect to Ethics guidelines
about brainstorm: reflection on outcome and process
about prototype: description of prototype, feedback from users
about focus group: focus group plan, results, analysis
2. Focus Group Report (4 A4 max, SIGCHI style)
Everyone should be present in the class at the starting time listed in the schedule.
To minimize change-over time, presenters should have one laptop connected, with access (through the network or USB stick or hard disc) to the presentations of each team.
In preparing your presentations, make sure you describe:
process - focus on what decisions you made on the way, rather than a list of steps you did.
product - focus on the conclusions you draw from each part of the process, rather than on a dry exposition of findings/creations.
It helps if the whole group is interactive, so you can learn from each other's experiences. So ask questions, share your thoughts about the work of other people.
One rule is though to remain constructive even when you are offering critique. You can inquire about the rationale of other people's work, suggest shortcomings, offer alternatives, but do so in a helpful manner that does not become personal.
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,2005, 2006, 2007, 2008