Panos's Home Page  Research  Publications  Teaching  Student Projects

Video Interviews and Prototyping

Panos Markopoulos

March 2010

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 design.

The following topics will be covered:

Schedule

Date

Time

Lecture / Presentations

Deadlines/Presentations by students

Homework

Mon 15/3

 

09:30-11:00

Using video in contextual interviews

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assignment 1: Ethics Lies and Video Tape"

Read paper by W. Mackay. Prepare interview plan.

Shoot 2 Interviews for Mini Project

Prepare 10' presentation per group (max): your interview plan, your findings, your reflections upon how you did it and a brief extract from the interview footage.

 

To be delivered at the end of course: full footage of 2 interviews on DVD, with a copy of the signed consent form.

 

Tue 16/3

9:30-10:30  

 

10:45-11:45

 

 16:00-17:00

 

 

Video brainstorming and prototyping

Assignment 1. Contextual Video Interview Presentations (10' per team)

 

 

Assignment 2: Presentations video brainstorms

Read papers on prototyping fidelity, starting from Vertenley's paper

 

Assignment 2. "Minority Report"

Video brainstorm exploring novel forms of interaction.

To be delivered at the end of course:  your clips edited down to 60"-90" each

Wed 17/3  

 

 

   

 

Assignment 3: "The Truman Show"

Read STARFIRE paper and watch the video - as a preparation for shooting your own.

Plan 2 focus group per team to evaluate your two renditions of your concept

To be delivered at the end of the course: your edited video (max 4')

Thu 18/3 11:00-12:30 N.B.  Intro QR moved to this week   Prepare final presentation of 12' per team : show your video and present an analysis of another team's video according to the STARFIRE principles.

Fri 19/3

15:30-17:00

 

Assignment 3: Video prototype presentations 

Deliverable:  DVD with all video files and presentation files (ppt or other), informed consent forms, and a README file to list the contents.

 

Mini-Project

Teams of designers are quick to mark their territory. Sometimes this is with moving the furniture around, sometimes it is with making a constant loudscape that shows clearly this is their territory. Their territory is populated with artifacts they have created, borrowed, reproduced, and which are mounted on walls or sides of cupboards or are cluttering the working surface. Designers collaborating, team up and dissolve to work individually very fluently, they connect over the internet to share documents, print a lot of materials and make appointments with each other and with external parties. Still apart from their laptops and their access to internet their world is rather low tech: marker pens, flipcharts and tinkering materials rather than a collaborative virtual environment and ambient intelligence, which they are often busy creating. Perhaps immersive technologies are not what they need to improve their work - but perhaps also some modern technological developments can support collocated groupware and especially creative design work. 

This project is about designing interactive solutions that help collocated creative teams work together. How could their room and furniture change so that it supports their creative processes? What kind of interaction styles are needed to facilitate such interaction? How can we ensure that different people working on different parts of a large wall sized display do not interfere with each other's work-or even better are aware of what each other is doing?  How can the technology be helpful to their efforts rather than get in the way? 

You are invited to study the work practices of collocated teams, the materials they use, the current patterns of interaction when they are collocated and how could these be supported. You may consider any type of enabling technology that is available currently and that could serve your purposes with some reasonable level of integration and application development. 

Reading

  1. Ethics, Lies and Videotape, Mackay, W., (1995), Proc. CHI’95, pp.138-145.

  2. The "Starfire" Video Prototype Project: A Case History, Tognazzini, B., Proceedings CHI ‘94 - see the page at http://www.asktog.com/starfire/starfireHome.html

  3. Vertelney, L.  Using Video to Prototype User Interfaces.  SIGCHI Bulletin, Vol. 21, Number 2, (October 1989), pp. 57-61.

 

Fidelity reading assignment

  1. Rettig, M. 1994. Prototyping for tiny fingers. Commun. ACM 37, 4 (Apr. 1994), 21-27. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/175276.175288

  2. 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

  3. 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]

  4. 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]

 

Past Runs of this course

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009