Lecture: Course Introduction and things you love, things you hate
Assignment: Bring an interactive product you love and an interactive product you hate to class.
Lecture: Controls, context, and expression of intentReadings:
Konrad Baumann (2001): Controls. In Konrad
Baumann and Bruce Thomas (eds.) User Interface Design for Electronic Appliances. Taylor and Francis. 131-161.
FINAL CRITIQUE: Present control designsNote: January 21st is Martin Luther King Day and classes are canceled, so the critique for sections B and C will take place on Wednesday, January 23rd.
Assignment: Bring boards with control designs. Be prepared to discuss both your classmates designs based on the grading criteria.Class Activities:
Lecture: Personas and scenarios
In class: reading discussion, activities on analyzing social media and interviewingReadings:
INTERIM CRITIQUE: Research findingsClass Activities:
Lecture: Working with wireframesReadings:
[ALL] Holtzblatt, K. Customer-Centered Design for Mobile Applications. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 9, 4 (2005), 227-237.
INTERIM CRITIQUE: personas and scenariosClass Activity:
Teams present their research findings and preliminary personas and preliminary scenarios of use. Personas need a rationale. Why are these the right personas based on your research findings and on your insights for what would motivate developers/managers. Scenarios need to include triggering events, description of action, and outcome from experience of use.
February 6/7Work Session
Lecture: Design languages and think aloudsReadings:
[ALL] Rheinfrank, J. and Evenson, S. Interaction Design Language. In Bringing Software to Design. T. Winograd (eds). ACM Press, 1996, 63-85.
Lecture: Animated TransitionsClass Activities:
INTERIM CRITIQUE: Updated DesignClass Activity:
Teams present their improved wireframes, preliminary design languages, and ideas for how they will employ animated transitions.
Lecture: The PitchClass Activities:
Lecture on how to pitch a design, work session.
Lecture: Design SpecificationsClass Activities:
INTERIM CRITIQUE: Practice PitchClass Activity:
Teams practice their project pitch, and class critiques details of the design.
Work SessionClass Activity:
FINAL CRITIQUE: Present Mobile DesignsClass Activities:
Lecture: Smart EnvironmentsReadings:
[ALL] Djajadiningrat, J.P., Gaver, W.W., Frens, J.W. (2000). Interaction Relabelling and Extreme Characters: Methods for Exploring Aesthetic Interactions. Proceedings of DIS 2000.
Lecture: Extreme UsersClass Activity:
Work session. Teams identify and interview 4-6 “extreme users” and begin research and synthesis for next week’s interim critique.
INTERIM CRITIQUE: Research FindingsClass Activities:
Lecture: Generative Design ResearchReadings:
Davidoff, Scott, Anind Dey, and John Zimmerman (2007): Rapidly Exploring Application Design through Speed Dating. Proc. Ubicomp, Springer: 429-446.
Lecture: Speed Dating and Needs ValidationClass Activity:
Work on prepping speed dating materials.
INTERIM CRITIQUE: Speed Dating MaterialsClass Activities:
INTERIM CRITIQUE: Speed Dating FindingsClass Activity:
Each team shares a 15-minute presentation where they discuss what they learned during speed dating and what they think their final design will be.
Work SessionClass Activity:
Work on prepping script and storyboard
INTERIM CRITIQUE: Script and StoryboardClass Activity:
Each team shares a 15-minute presentation where they read their script while showing their storyboards. Focus is on the narrative structure and effect.
Work SessionClass Activity:
Class Activity: work on finishing script and storyboard, filming, audio.
INTERIM CRITIQUE: Rough CutClass Activity:
Each team shows a rough cut of their video sketch. Focus on final tweaks.
FINAL CRITIQUE: Ubiquitous Computing PresentationsClass Activity:
Each team presents their final work, including the video.
Moggridge, B. Designing interactions, MIT press, (2007). (Chapter "Designing Interactions" pp. 647-662)
As We May Think, Vannevar Bush, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945
Rich Gold, The Plenitude: Creativity, Innovation, and Making Stuff (Simplicity: Design, Technology, Business, Life) (Chapter 2: The Four Creative Hats I've Worn, pp 5-31)
Jon Kolko (2011), Exposing the Magic of Design: A Practitioner's Guide to the Methods and Theory of Synthesis
Jon Kolko (2010), Thoughts on Interaction Design.
Dunne, A, & F Raby, Design Noir: The secret life of electronic objects, Birkhauser, 2001. (Sec 2 "Hertzian Space" pp. 15-43).(Sec 5 "The Secret Life of Electronic Objects" pp. 75-90).
Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber; "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning," pp. 155-169, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc., Amsterdam, 1973. [Reprinted in N. Cross (ed.), Developments in Design Methodology, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1984, pp. 135-144.]
Billinghurst, M., Kato, H. and Poupyrev, I. (2001). MagicBook: Transitioning between Reality and Virtuality.
Kuniavsky, Mike (2010), Smart Things: Ubiquitous Computing User Experience Design (Chapter 10)
Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers by Tom Igoe and Dan O'Sullivan (2004). (SELECTIONS)
Past, Present, and Future of User Interface Software Tools , Brad Myers, Scott E. Hudson, Randy Pausch, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, March 2000, pp. 3 - 28.
Stacey Kuznetsov and Eric Paulos, Rise of the Expert Amateur: DIY Projects, Communities, and Cultures, ACM NordiCHI, Reykjavík, Iceland, October 2010
Voyagers and Voyeurs: Supporting Asynchronous Collaborative Information Visualization, Jeffrey Heer, Fernanda Viegas, Martin Wattenberg, CHI 2007: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1029 - 1038.
John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 493-502.
Tracee Vetting Wolf, Jennifer A. Rode, Jeremy Sussman, and Wendy A. Kellogg. 2006. Dispelling "design" as the black art of CHI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems (CHI '06), Rebecca Grinter, Thomas Rodden, Paul Aoki, Ed Cutrell, Robin Jeffries, and Gary Olson (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 521-530
Universal Principles of Design, Revised and Updated: 125 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach through Design - William Lidwell (SELECTIONS )
Paul Dourish, Where the Action Is (chapters 1 & 2)
Norman, D. Emotional Design: Why We Love (Or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, 2004. (SELECIONS)
While there is a university-wide disciplinary committee which handles serious disciplinary matters referred to it, the responsibility for establishing disciplinary guidelines rests with each department. It is felt that the following set of rules can be uniformly and fairly applied in the Human-Computer Interaction Institute. First, cheating in any form is not permitted as an ethical or professional behavior and will not be tolerated. Cheating includes, but is not necessarily limited to:
Should any student be found guilty of cheating on a quiz, exam, homework or project, at minimum a zero grade will be recorded and then averaged in with the other grades (should there be any) for the term. Depending on the circumstances, and at the discretion of the instructor and the Department Head, the student may be failed in the course and may be expelled from the University. In any case, the University will be notified of any case of cheating or plagiarism. A repeated occurrence of cheating will be treated as an automatic failure (R grade) and expulsion from the University.
A subtler form of cheating arises in the form of plagiarism, which is defined as "passing off as one's own the ideas or works of another." Making use of reference material and failing to note (either at all or properly) the original source constitutes plagiarism. When two or more people work together on an individual project and each then turns in his/her individual report as though no collaboration was involved, this also is plagiarism. Simply rewriting another's words or thoughts, or rearranging another's materials, is in every sense plagiarism - unless the student properly and completely references such material, each and every time it is used and to the full extent of usage. Should a case of plagiarism arise, the initial responsibility for judging the seriousness of the offense will rest with the instructor. If the instructor feels that the student was simply sloppy in referencing the material used and plagiarized, a judgment of sloppy professionalism rather than cheating will be made. The grade for the paper, project or thesis will be lowered by at least one grade point. On the other hand, if the instructor feels that the student plagiarized flagrantly, and intentionally meant to mislead the instructor into thinking that the work was the student's own original work, the grade for the report, project or thesis will be recorded as zero.
It should be emphasized that any group collaboration that involves individual take-home projects, papers or theses should be carried out only with considerable discretion. That is, students are encouraged to discuss and collaborate among themselves on the various principles which are exposited in class or covered in the reading material, etc.; but any group discussion or collaboration which involves any specifics of take-home projects, papers or theses should be avoided - unless the ideas or efforts of others are properly noted. Put differently, when individual work and thinking is called for, group thinking and/or work is entirely inappropriate and is a form of plagiarism. In any case of cheating or plagiarism, the student may request a review of the instructor's decision by the department head, who will then make the final decision for the department. The student, of course, can appeal any faculty decision to the University Committee on Discipline. In a case of flagrant cheating by a graduate student on a thesis, the matter will be forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee for stronger action.