TIII CLOSING EVENT18 September 2014

Jorick Vissers David Geerts

AGENDA

• WP 2.1 Sota study existing labs

• WP 2.5 Development of a TUI UX evaluation method

• WP 4.3 Supervising student cases with companies/organisations

• WP 5.3 Giving workshops, seminars for the development of TIII

• WP 5.1 Publications

WP 2.1 SOTA LABS

WP 2.1 SOTA LABS2 objectives:

• What approaches do existing organisations/labs use for sustainability?

• Where should the TIII lab conjoin or complement?

Labs within the 4 domains of TIII:

1. FabLabs (shape + technology)

2. UX labs + consultancies (User)

3. Living Labs (user, software, technology)

4. Research groups

5. Other

WP 2.1 SOTA LABS

Questions per lab:

• What are they doing?

• What is their focus?

• Which approach/method do they use?

• Infrastructure

• Who do they work for?

• Forms of income

WP 2.1 SOTA LABSConlusions

Inclusion of existing FabLabs in the TIII network

Accessible UX labs are rather limited

2 options:

• Creating a TIII UX lab

• Hiring UX expert to utilise the limited accessible UX labs

Living labs seem profitable, but are limited and confined in focus to specific domains. Solution: adjusted TIII living lab

Research groups = diverse exchange of knowledge Possible risk: funding through projects

Adding UX consultancies to TIII network = offering companies deeper levels of expertise within specific design phases

WP 2.1 SOTA LABSLab matrix

Visual overview per phase on where we can utilise services/support from other labs and which services/support is still missing.

A variety of labs/organisations is active, within each phase of the TIII roadmap. (cooperation)

The TIII platform could complement by providing independent support to the affiliated companies within the final phase (preparing for production).

WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION METHOD

WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION METHOD

Objective of the method

Evaluate user experience of early TUI prototypes

!

Tangible User Interface = Physical + Interaction

1) Evaluate the physical aspects of TUIs

2) Evaluate interactive aspects of TUIs

!

How do physical aspects influence UX during interaction with TUI prototypes?

WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION METHOD

Apparatus

Interactive dice as a TUI

Interaction: Dice+ & tablet board game

Physical aspects: various physical casings

WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION METHOD

Phases of the method:

1. Exploration

2. Differentiation

3. Interaction

4. Combining physical & interactive experience

Participants:

9 participants (4 women, 5 men)

Age between 24 and 34 years old

WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION METHOD

1. Exploration

Goal

• Giving participants an overview of all prototypes

• Stimulating participants to describe their physical experience with their own words.

Focus = physical aspects

Procedure

• Participants explore the prototypes in a hands-on way

• No introduction or instructions (first impressions)

• ‘Think Aloud’ to verbalise their physical experiences

WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION METHOD

2. Differentiation

Goal

• Eliciting words used by participants to describe their physical experience

Focus = physical aspects

Procedure

• Present the prototypes in series of three

• Participants make a differentiation between these three prototypes

• Differentiation is converted into constructs and contrasts

• Repeat until all prototypes are mutually compared

Contrast B1

Contrast B2 Construct A2

Construct A3 Contrast B3

Construct A1

WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION METHOD

3. Evaluating interaction

Goal:

• How do users experience interaction with the different prototypes?

Focus = interactional aspects

Procedure:

Participants interact with all of the prototypes one by one (in random sequences) and are asked to ‘Think Aloud’ to share their experiences.

WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION METHOD

4. Combining physical & interactive experience

Goal:

• Creating a qualitative link between users’ physical and interactive experience

• Focus = physical + interactional aspects

Procedure:

• Participants divide construct/contrast according to preference (based on both physical + interactive experience)

• Participants mark each prototype with the applicable constructs or contrasts

• Finally, participants rank the prototypes, based on both physical and interactive experience

Construct A1

Construct A2

Construct A3

Construct A3

X

X

X

0

0

0

0

X

0

0

0

0

X

X

X

X

0

0

X

0

0

X

X

X

Preferred0

Contrast B1

Contrast B2

Contrast B3

Contrast B3

Not preferredX

3 421 5 6

WP 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF A TUI UX EVALUATION METHOD

4. Combining physical & interactive experience

Outcome:

Qualitative data about the influence of different physical aspects (shape, weight, texture, material, size) on the user’s overall experience with a Tangible User Interface

Construct A1

Construct A2

Construct A3

Construct A3

X

X

X

0

0

0

0

X

0

0

0

0

X

X

X

X

0

0

X

0

0

X

X

X

Preferred0

Contrast B1

Contrast B2

Contrast B3

Contrast B3

Not preferredX

3 421 5 6

WP 4.3 SUPERVISING STUDENT CASES WITH COMPANIES/ORGANISATIONS

Guest lecture on user research and UX evaluation methods

!

!

Supporting students in collaboration with VRT

WP 5.3 GIVING WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIII

Presenting the TUI UX evaluation method for the consortium

Workshop with CUO | Social Spaces for the development of TUI UX evaluation method

WP 5.1 PUBLICATIONS

Currently finishing full paper submission for CHI 2015 conference in Seoul

WiP paper presented by poster at TEI 2014 conference in Munich

Workshop participation CHI 2014on tactile user experience evaluation methods