Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4550Commenced Publication in 1973Founding and Former Series Editors:Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van Leeuwen

Editorial Board

David HutchisonLancaster University, UK

Takeo KanadeCarnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Josef KittlerUniversity of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Jon M. KleinbergCornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Friedemann MatternETH Zurich, Switzerland

John C. MitchellStanford University, CA, USA

Moni NaorWeizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

Oscar NierstraszUniversity of Bern, Switzerland

C. Pandu RanganIndian Institute of Technology, Madras, India

Bernhard SteffenUniversity of Dortmund, Germany

Madhu SudanMassachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, USA

Demetri TerzopoulosUniversity of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Doug TygarUniversity of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

Moshe Y. VardiRice University, Houston, TX, USA

Gerhard WeikumMax-Planck Institute of Computer Science, Saarbruecken, Germany

Julie A. Jacko (Ed.)

Human-ComputerInteraction

Interaction Designand Usability

12th International Conference, HCI International 2007Beijing, China, July 22-27, 2007Proceedings, Part I

13

Volume Editor

Julie A. JackoGeorgia Institute of Technologyand Emory University School of Medicine901 Atlantic Drive, Suite 4100, Atlanta, GA 30332-0477, USAE-mail: jacko@hsi.gatech.edu

Library of Congress Control Number: 2007929779

CR Subject Classification (1998): H.5.2, H.5.3, H.3-5, C.2, I.3, D.2, F.3, K.4.2

LNCS Sublibrary: SL 2 Programming and Software Engineering

ISSN 0302-9743ISBN-10 3-540-73104-0 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New YorkISBN-13 978-3-540-73104-7 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material isconcerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,reproduction on microfilms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publicationor parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965,in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations are liableto prosecution under the German Copyright Law.

Springer is a part of Springer Science+Business Media

springer.com

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007Printed in Germany

Typesetting: Camera-ready by author, data conversion by Scientific Publishing Services, Chennai, IndiaPrinted on acid-free paper SPIN: 12077908 06/3180 5 4 3 2 1 0

Foreword

The 12th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, HCI Interna-tional 2007, was held in Beijing, P.R. China, 22-27 July 2007, jointly with the Sym-posium on Human Interface (Japan) 2007, the 7th International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, the 4th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, the 2nd International Confer-ence on Virtual Reality, the 2nd International Conference on Usability and Interna-tionalization, the 2nd International Conference on Online Communities and Social Computing, the 3rd International Conference on Augmented Cognition, and the 1st International Conference on Digital Human Modeling.

A total of 3403 individuals from academia, research institutes, industry and gov-ernmental agencies from 76 countries submitted contributions, and 1681 papers, judged to be of high scientific quality, were included in the program. These papers address the latest research and development efforts and highlight the human aspects of design and use of computing systems. The papers accepted for presentation thor-oughly cover the entire field of Human-Computer Interaction, addressing major ad-vances in knowledge and effective use of computers in a variety of application areas.

This volume, edited by Julie A. Jacko, contains papers in the thematic area of Human-Computer Interaction, addressing the following major topics:

Interaction Design: Theoretical Issues, Methods, Techniques and Practice Usability and Evaluation Methods and Tools Understanding Users and Contexts of Use Models and Patterns in HCI

The remaining volumes of the HCI International 2007 proceedings are:

Volume 2, LNCS 4551, Interaction Platforms and Techniques, edited by Julie A. Jacko

Volume 3, LNCS 4552, HCI Intelligent Multimodal Interaction Environments, edited by Julie A. Jacko

Volume 4, LNCS 4553, HCI Applications and Services, edited by Julie A. Jacko Volume 5, LNCS 4554, Coping with Diversity in Universal Access, edited by

Constantine Stephanidis Volume 6, LNCS 4555, Universal Access to Ambient Interaction, edited by Con-

stantine Stephanidis Volume 7, LNCS 4556, Universal Access to Applications and Services, edited by

Constantine Stephanidis Volume 8, LNCS 4557, Methods, Techniques and Tools in Information Design,

edited by Michael J. Smith and Gavriel Salvendy Volume 9, LNCS 4558, Interacting in Information Environments, edited by Mi-

chael J. Smith and Gavriel Salvendy Volume 10, LNCS 4559, HCI and Culture, edited by Nuray Aykin

VI Foreword

Volume 11, LNCS 4560, Global and Local User Interfaces, edited by Nuray Aykin Volume 12, LNCS 4561, Digital Human Modeling, edited by Vincent G. Duffy Volume 13, LNAI 4562, Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics,

edited by Don Harris Volume 14, LNCS 4563, Virtual Reality, edited by Randall Shumaker Volume 15, LNCS 4564, Online Communities and Social Computing, edited by

Douglas Schuler Volume 16, LNAI 4565, Foundations of Augmented Cognition 3rd Edition, edited

by Dylan D. Schmorrow and Leah M. Reeves Volume 17, LNCS 4566, Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Com-

puters, edited by Marvin J. Dainoff I would like to thank the Program Chairs and the members of the Program Boards

of all Thematic Areas, listed below, for their contribution to the highest scientific quality and the overall success of the HCI International 2007 Conference.

Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers Program Chair: Marvin J. Dainoff

Arne Aaras, Norway Pascale Carayon, USA Barbara G.F. Cohen, USA Wolfgang Friesdorf, Germany Martin Helander, Singapore Ben-Tzion Karsh, USA Waldemar Karwowski, USA Peter Kern, Germany Danuta Koradecka, Poland Kari Lindstrom, Finland

Holger Luczak, Germany Aura C. Matias, Philippines Kyung (Ken) Park, Korea Michelle Robertson, USA Steven L. Sauter, USA Dominique L. Scapin, France Michael J. Smith, USA Naomi Swanson, USA Peter Vink, The Netherlands John Wilson, UK

Human Interface and the Management of Information Program Chair: Michael J. Smith

Lajos Balint, Hungary Gunilla Bradley, Sweden Hans-Jrg Bullinger, Germany Alan H.S. Chan, Hong Kong Klaus-Peter Fhnrich, Germany Michitaka Hirose, Japan Yoshinori Horie, Japan Richard Koubek, USA Yasufumi Kume, Japan Mark Lehto, USA Jiye Mao, P.R. China

Robert Proctor, USA Youngho Rhee, Korea Anxo Cereijo Roibs, UK Francois Sainfort, USA Katsunori Shimohara, Japan Tsutomu Tabe, Japan Alvaro Taveira, USA Kim-Phuong L. Vu, USA Tomio Watanabe, Japan Sakae Yamamoto, Japan Hidekazu Yoshikawa, Japan

Foreword VII

Fiona Nah, USA Shogo Nishida, Japan Leszek Pacholski, Poland

Li Zheng, P.R. China Bernhard Zimolong, Germany

Human-Computer Interaction

Program Chair: Julie A. Jacko

Sebastiano Bagnara, Italy Jianming Dong, USA John Eklund, Australia Xiaowen Fang, USA Sheue-Ling Hwang, Taiwan Yong Gu Ji, Korea Steven J. Landry, USA Jonathan Lazar, USA

V. Kathlene Leonard, USA Chang S. Nam, USA Anthony F. Norcio, USA Celestine A. Ntuen, USA P.L. Patrick Rau, P.R. China Andrew Sears, USA Holly Vitense, USA Wenli Zhu, P.R. China

Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics Program Chair: Don Harris

Kenneth R. Boff, USA Guy Boy, France Pietro Carlo Cacciabue, Italy Judy Edworthy, UK Erik Hollnagel, Sweden Kenji Itoh, Japan Peter G.A.M. Jorna, The Netherlands Kenneth R. Laughery, USA

Nicolas Marmaras, Greece David Morrison, Australia Sundaram Narayanan, USA Eduardo Salas, USA Dirk Schaefer, France Axel Schulte, Germany Neville A. Stanton, UK Andrew Thatcher, South Africa

Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction

Program Chair: Constantine Stephanidis

Julio Abascal, Spain Ray Adams, UK Elizabeth Andre, Germany Margherita Antona, Greece Chieko Asakawa, Japan Christian Bhler, Germany Noelle Carbonell, France Jerzy Charytonowicz, Poland Pier Luigi Emiliani, Italy Michael Fairhurst, UK Gerhard Fischer, USA Jon Gunderson, USA Andreas Holzinger, Austria

Zhengjie Liu, P.R. China Klaus Miesenberger, Austria John Mylopoulos, Canada Michael Pieper, Germany Angel Puerta, USA Anthony Savidis, Greece Andrew Sears, USA Ben Shneiderman, USA Christian Stary, Austria Hirotada Ueda, Japan Jean Vanderdonckt, Belgium Gregg Vanderheiden, USA Gerhard Weber, Germany

VIII Foreword

Arthur Karshmer, USA Simeon Keates, USA George Kouroupetroglou, Greece Jonathan Lazar, USA Seongil Lee, Korea

Harald Weber, Germany Toshiki Yamaoka, Japan Mary Zajicek, UK Panayiotis Zaphiris, UK

Virtual Reality

Program Chair: Randall Shumaker

Terry Allard, USA Pat Banerjee, USA Robert S. Kennedy, USA Heidi Kroemker, Germany Ben Lawson, USA Ming Lin, USA Bowen Loftin, USA Holger Luczak, Germany Annie Luciani, France Gordon Mair, UK

Ulrich Neumann, USA Albert "Skip" Rizzo, USA Lawrence Rosenblum, USA Dylan Schmorrow, USA Kay Stanney, USA Susumu Tachi, Japan John Wilson, UK Wei Zhang, P.R. China Michael Zyda, USA

Usability and Internationalization

Program Chair: Nuray Aykin

Genevieve Bell, USA Alan Chan, Hong Kong Apala Lahiri Chavan, India Jori Clarke, USA Pierre-Henri Dejean, France Susan Dray, USA Paul Fu, USA Emilie Gould, Canada Sung H. Han, South Korea Veikko Ikonen, Finland Richard Ishida, UK Esin Kiris, USA Tobias Komischke, Germany Masaaki Kurosu, Japan James R. Lewis, USA

Rungtai Lin, Taiwan Aaron Marcus, USA Allen E. Milewski, USA Patrick O'Sullivan, Ireland Girish V. Prabhu, India Kerstin Rse, Germany Eunice Ratna Sari, Indonesia Supriya Singh, Australia Serengul Smith, UK Denise Spacinsky, USA Christian Sturm, Mexico Adi B. Tedjasaputra, Singapore Myung Hwan Yun, South Korea Chen Zhao, P.R. China

Online Communities and Social Computing

Program Chair: Douglas Schuler

Chadia Abras, USA Lecia Barker, USA Amy Bruckman, USA

Stefanie Lindstaedt, Austria Diane Maloney-Krichmar, USA Isaac Mao, P.R. China

Foreword IX

Peter van den Besselaar, The Netherlands

Peter Day, UK Fiorella De Cindio, Italy John Fung, P.R. China Michael Gurstein, USA Tom Horan, USA Piet Kommers, The Netherlands Jonathan Lazar, USA

Hideyuki Nakanishi, Japan A. Ant Ozok, USA Jennifer Preece, USA Partha Pratim Sarker, Bangladesh Gilson Schwartz, Brazil Sergei Stafeev, Russia F.F. Tusubira, Uganda Cheng-Yen Wang, Taiwan

Augmented Cognition Program Chair: Dylan D. Schmorrow

Kenneth Boff, USA Joseph Cohn, USA Blair Dickson, UK Henry Girolamo, USA Gerald Edelman, USA Eric Horvitz, USA Wilhelm Kincses, Germany Amy Kruse, USA Lee Kollmorgen, USA Dennis McBride, USA

Jeffrey Morrison, USA Denise Nicholson, USA Dennis Proffitt, USA Harry Shum, P.R. China Kay Stanney, USA Roy Stripling, USA Michael Swetnam, USA Robert Taylor, UK John Wagner, USA

Digital Human Modeling Program Chair: Vincent G. Duffy

Norm Badler, USA Heiner Bubb, Germany Don Chaffin, USA Kathryn Cormican, Ireland Andris Freivalds, USA Ravindra Goonetilleke, Hong Kong Anand Gramopadhye, USA Sung H. Han, South Korea Pheng Ann Heng, Hong Kong Dewen Jin, P.R. China Kang Li, USA

Zhizhong Li, P.R. China Lizhuang Ma, P.R. China Timo Maatta, Finland J. Mark Porter, UK Jim Potvin, Canada Jean-Pierre Verriest, France Zhaoqi Wang, P.R. China Xiugan Yuan, P.R. China Shao-Xiang Zhang, P.R. China Xudong Zhang, USA

In addition to the members of the Program Boards above, I also wish to thank the

following volunteer external reviewers: Kelly Hale, David Kobus, Amy Kruse, Cali Fidopiastis and Karl Van Orden from the USA, Mark Neerincx and Marc Grootjen from the Netherlands, Wilhelm Kincses from Germany, Ganesh Bhutkar and Mathura Prasad from India, Frederick Li from the UK, and Dimitris Grammenos, Angeliki

X Foreword

Kastrinaki, Iosif Klironomos, Alexandros Mourouzis, and Stavroula Ntoa from Greece.

This conference could not have been possible without the continuous support and advise of the Conference Scientific Advisor, Prof. Gavriel Salvendy, as well as the dedicated work and outstanding efforts of the Communications Chair and Editor of HCI International News, Abbas Moallem, and of the members of the Organizational Board from P.R. China, Patrick Rau (Chair), Bo Chen, Xiaolan Fu, Zhibin Jiang, Congdong Li, Zhenjie Liu, Mowei Shen, Yuanchun Shi, Hui Su, Linyang Sun, Ming Po Tham, Ben Tsiang, Jian Wang, Guangyou Xu, Winnie Wanli Yang, Shuping Yi, Kan Zhang, and Wei Zho.

I would also like to thank for their contribution towards the organization of the HCI International 2007 Conference the members of the Human Computer Interaction Laboratory of ICS-FORTH, and in particular Margherita Antona, Maria Pitsoulaki, George Paparoulis, Maria Bouhli, Stavroula Ntoa and George Margetis.

Constantine Stephanidis General Chair, HCI International 2007

HCI International 2009

The 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, HCI Interna-tional 2009, will be held jointly with the affiliated Conferences in San Diego, Califor-nia, USA, in the Town and Country Resort & Convention Center, 19-24 July 2009. It will cover a broad spectrum of themes related to Human Computer Interaction, in-cluding theoretical issues, methods, tools, processes and case studies in HCI design, as well as novel interaction techniques, interfaces and applications. The proceedings will be published by Springer. For more information, please visit the Conference website: http://www.hcii2009.org/

General Chair Professor Constantine Stephanidis

ICS-FORTH and University of Crete Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Email: program@hcii2009.org

Table of Contents

Part 1: Interaction Design: Theoretical Issues,Methods, Techniques and Practice

Design Principles Based on Cognitive Aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Hiroko Akatsu, Hiroyuki Miki, and Naotsune Hosono

Redesigning the Rationale for Design Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Michael E. Atwood and John Horner

HCI and the Face: Towards an Art of the Soluble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Christoph Bartneck and Michael J. Lyons

Towards Generic Interaction Styles for Product Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Jacob Buur and Marcelle Stienstra

Context-Centered Design: Bridging the Gap Between Understandingand Designing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Yunan Chen and Michael E. Atwood

Application of Micro-Scenario Method (MSM) to User Research forthe Motorcycles Informatization - A Case Study for the InformationSupport System for Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Hiroshi Daimoto, Sachiyo Araki, Masamitsu Mizuno, andMasaaki Kurosu

Incorporating User Centered Requirement Engineering into AgileSoftware Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Markus Duchting, Dirk Zimmermann, and Karsten Nebe

How a Human-Centered Approach Impacts Software Development . . . . . 68Xavier Ferre and Nelson Medinilla

After Hurricane Katrina: Post Disaster Experience Research Using HCITools and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Catherine Forsman

A Scenario-Based Design Method with Photo Diaries and PhotoEssays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Kentaro Go

Alignment of Product Portfolio Definition and User Centered DesignActivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Ron Hofer, Dirk Zimmermann, and Melanie Jekal

XIV Table of Contents

A New User-Centered Design Process for Creating New Value andFuture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Yasuhisa Itoh, Yoko Hirose, Hideaki Takahashi, and Masaaki Kurosu

The Evasive Interface The Changing Concept of Interface and theVarying Role of Symbols in HumanComputer Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Lars-Erik Janlert

An Ignored Factor of User Experience: FEEDBACK-QUALITY . . . . . . . 127Ji Hong and Jiang Xubo

10 Heuristics for Designing Administrative User Interfaces ACollaboration Between Ethnography, Design, and Engineering . . . . . . . . . 133

Luke Kowalski and Kristyn Greenwood

Micro-Scenario Database for Substantializing the CollaborationBetween Human Science and Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Masaaki Kurosu, Kentaro Go, Naoki Hirasawa, and Hideaki Kasai

A Meta-cognition Modeling of Engineering Product Designer in theProcess of Product Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Jun Liang, Zu-Hua Jiang, Yun-Song Zhao, and Jin-Lian Wang

User Oriented Design to the Chinese Industries Scenario and ExperienceInnovation Design Approach for the Industrializing Countries in theDigital Technology Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

You Zhao Liang, Ding Hau Huang, and Wen Ko Chiou

Emotional Experiences and Quality Perceptions of InteractiveProducts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Sascha Mahlke and Gitte Lindgaard

CRUISER: A Cross-Discipline User Interface and SoftwareEnginee ring Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Thomas Memmel, Fredrik Gundelsweiler, and Harald Reiterer

Interface Between Two Disciplines - The Development of Theatre as aResearch Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Maggie Morgan and Alan Newell

Aspects of Integrating User Centered Design into Software EngineeringProcesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Karsten Nebe and Dirk Zimmermann

Activity Theoretical Analysis and Design Model for Web-BasedExperimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Anh Vu Nguyen-Ngoc

Table of Contents XV

Collaborative Design for Strategic UXD Impact and Global ProductValue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

James Nieters and David Williams

Participatory Design Using Scenarios in Different Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . 223Makoto Okamoto, Hidehiro Komatsu, Ikuko Gyobu, and Kei Ito

Wizard of Oz for Multimodal Interfaces Design: DeploymentConsiderations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Ronnie Taib and Natalie Ruiz

Extreme Programming in Action: A Longitudinal Case Study . . . . . . . . . 242Peter Tingling and Akbar Saeed

Holistic Interaction Between the Computer and the Active HumanBeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Hannu Vanharanta and Tapio Salminen

The Use of Improvisational Role-Play in User Centered DesignProcesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

Yanna Vogiazou, Jonathan Freeman, and Jane Lessiter

Quantifying the Narration Board for Visualising Final Design Conceptsby Interface Designers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Chui Yin Wong and Chee Weng Khong

Scenario-Based Installability Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283Xiao Shanghong

A Case Study of New Way to Apply Card Sort in Panel Design . . . . . . . . 289Yifei Xu, Xiangang Qin, and Shan Shan Cao

Design Tools for User Experience Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298Kazuhiko Yamazaki and Kazuo Furuta

Axiomatic Design Approach for E-Commercial Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308Mehmet Mutlu Yenisey

Development of Quantitative Metrics to Support UI DesignerDecision-Making in the Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

Young Sik Yoon and Wan Chul Yoon

Scenario-Based Product Design, a Real Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325Der-Jang Yu and Huey-Jiuan Yeh

Designing Transparent Interaction for Ubiquitous Computing: Theoryand Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Weining Yue, Heng Wang, and Guoping Wang

XVI Table of Contents

Understanding, Measuring, and Designing User Experience: The CausalRelationship Between the Aesthetic Quality of Products and UserAffect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

Haotian Zhou and Xiaolan Fu

Enhancing User-Centered Design by Adopting the TaguchiPhilosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

Wei Zhou, David Heesom, and Panagiotis Georgakis

A Requirement Engineering Approach to User Centered Design . . . . . . . . 360Dirk Zimmermann and Lennart Grotzbach

Part 2: Usability and Evaluation Methods and Tools

Design Science-Oriented Usability Modelling for SoftwareRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373

Sisira Adikari, Craig McDonald, and Neil Lynch

Prototype Evaluation and User-Needs Analysis in the Early Design ofEmerging Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

Margarita Anastassova, Christine Megard, andJean-Marie Burkhardt

Long Term Usability; Its Concept and Research Approach - The Originof the Positive Feeling Toward the Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

Masaya Ando and Masaaki Kurosu

General Interaction Expertise: An Approach for Sampling in UsabilityTesting of Consumer Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

Ali Emre Berkman

Are Guidelines and Standards for Web Usability Comprehensive? . . . . . . 407Nigel Bevan and Lonneke Spinhof

The Experimental Approaches of Assessing the Consistency of UserInterface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420

Yan Chen, Lixian Huang, Lulu Li, Qi Luo, Ying Wang, and Jing Xu

Evaluating Usability Improvements by Combining Visual and AudioModalities in the Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

Carlos Duarte, Lus Carrico, and Nuno Guimaraes

Tool for Detecting Webpage Usability Problems from Mouse ClickCoordinate Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438

Ryosuke Fujioka, Ryo Tanimoto, Yuki Kawai, and Hidehiko Okada

A Game to Promote Understanding About UCD Methods andProcess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446

Muriel Garreta-Domingo, Mag Almirall-Hill, and Enric Mor

Table of Contents XVII

DEPTH TOOLKIT: A Web-Based Tool for Designing and ExecutingUsability Evaluations of E-Sites Based on Design Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

Petros Georgiakakis, Symeon Retalis, Yannis Psaromiligkos, andGeorge Papadimitriou

Evaluator of Users Actions (Eua) Using the Model of AbstractRepresentation Dgaui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463

Susana Gomez-Carnero and Javier Rodeiro Iglesias

Adaptive Evaluation Strategy Based on Surrogate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472Yi-nan Guo, Dun-wei Gong, and Hui Wang

A Study on the Improving Product Usability Applying the KanosModel of Customer Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482

Jeongyun Heo, Sanhyun Park, and Chiwon Song

The Practices of Usability Analysis to Wireless Facility Controller forConference Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490

Ding Hau Huang, You Zhao Liang, and Wen Ko Chiou

What Makes Evaluators to Find More Usability Problems?: AMeta-analysis for Individual Detection Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499

Wonil Hwang and Gavriel Salvendy

Evaluating in a Healthcare Setting: A Comparison Between Concurrentand Retrospective Verbalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508

Janne Jul Jensen

Development of AHP Model for Telematics Haptic InterfaceEvaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517

Yong Gu Ji, Beom Suk Jin, Jae Seung Mun, and Sang Min Ko

How to Make Tailored User Interface Guideline for SoftwareDesigners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527

Ilari Jounila

Determining High Level Quantitative Usability Requirements: A CaseStudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536

Niina Kantola and Timo Jokela

Why It Is Difficult to Use a Simple Device: An Analysis of a RoomThermostat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544

Sami Karjalainen

Usability Improvements for WLAN Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549Kristiina Karvonen and Janne Lindqvist

A New Framework of Measuring the Business Values of Software . . . . . . . 559In Ki Kim, Beom Suk Jin, Seungyup Baek, Andrew Kim,Yong Gu Ji, and Myung Hwan Yun

XVIII Table of Contents

Evaluating Usability Evaluation Methods: Criteria, Method and a CaseStudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

P. Koutsabasis, T. Spyrou, and J. Darzentas

Concept of Usability Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579Masaaki Kurosu

How to Use Emotional Usability to Make the Product Serves aNeed Beyond the Traditional Functional Objective to Satisfy theEmotion Needs of the User in Order to Improve the ProductDifferentiator - Focus on Home Appliance Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

Liu Ning and Shang Ting

Towards Remote Empirical Evaluation of Web Pages Usability . . . . . . . . 594Juan Miguel Lopez, Inmaculada Fajardo, and Julio Abascal

Mixing Evaluation Methods for Assessing the Utility of an InteractiveInfoVis Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604

Markus Rester, Margit Pohl, Sylvia Wiltner, Klaus Hinum,Silvia Miksch, Christian Popow, and Susanne Ohmann

Serial Hanging Out: Rapid Ethnographic Needs Assessment in RuralSettings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614

Jaspal S. Sandhu, P. Altankhuyag, and D. Amarsaikhan

Effectiveness of Content Preparation in Information TechnologyOperations: Synopsis of a Working Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624

A. Savoy and G. Salvendy

Traces Using Aspect Oriented Programming and InteractiveAgent-Based Architecture for Early Usability Evaluation: BasicPrinciples and Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632

Jean-Claude Tarby, Houcine Ezzedine, Jose Rouillard,Chi Dung Tran, Philippe Laporte, and Christophe Kolski

Usability and Software Development: Roles of the Stakeholders . . . . . . . . 642Tobias Uldall-Espersen and Erik Frkjr

Human Performance Model and Evaluation of PBUI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652Naoki Urano and Kazunari Morimoto

Developing Instrument for Handset Usability Evaluation: A SurveyStudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662

Ting Zhang, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, and Gavriel Salvendy

Table of Contents XIX

Part 3: Understanding Users and Contexts of Use

Tips for Designing Mobile Phone Web Pages for the Elderly . . . . . . . . . . . 675Yoko Asano, Harumi Saito, Hitomi Sato, Lin Wang, Qin Gao, andPei-Luen Patrick Rau

The Role of Task Characteristics and Organization Culture inNon-Work Related Computing (NWRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681

Gee-Woo Bock, Huei-Huang Kuan, Ping Liu, and Hua Sun

Searching for Information on the Web: Role of Aging and ErgonomicQuality of Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691

Aline Chevalier, Aurelie Dommes, Daniel Martins, andCecile Valerian

Creating Kansei Engineering-Based Ontology for Annotating andArchiving Photos Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 701

Yu-Liang Chi, Shu-Yun Peng, and Ching-Chow Yang

Influence of Avatar Creation on Attitude, Empathy, Presence, andPara-Social Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711

Donghun Chung, Brahm Daniel deBuys, and Chang S. Nam

Sambad- Computer Interfaces for Non-literates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721Sagun Dhakhwa, Patrick A.V. Hall, Ganesh Bahadur Ghimire,Prakash Manandhar, and Ishwor Thapa

The Balancing Act Between Computer Security and Convenience . . . . . . 731Mayuresh Ektare and Yanxia Yang

What Makes Them So Special?: Identifying Attributes of HighlyCompetent Information System Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736

Brenda Eschenbrenner and Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah

User Acceptance of Digital Tourist Guides Lessons Learnt from TwoField Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746

Bente Evjemo, Sigmund Akselsen, and Anders Schurmann

Why Does IT Support Enjoyment of Elderly Life? - Case StudiesPerformed in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756

Kaori Fujimura, Hitomi Sato, Takayoshi Mochizuki, Kubo Koichiro,Kenichiro Shimokura, Yoshihiro Itoh, Setsuko Murata, Kenji Ogura,Takumi Watanabe, Yuichi Fujino, and Toshiaki Tsuboi

Design Effective Navigation Tools for Older Web Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765Qin Gao, Hitomi Sato, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, and Yoko Asano

Out of Box Experience Issues of Free and Open Source Software . . . . . . . 774Mehmet Gokturk and Gorkem Cetin

XX Table of Contents

Factor Structure of Content Preparation for E-Business Web Sites: ASurvey Results of Industrial Employees in P.R. China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784

Yinni Guo and Gavriel Salvendy

Streamlining Checkout Experience A Case Study of Iterative Designof a China e-Commerce Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796

Alice Han, Jianming Dong, Winnie Tseng, and Bernd Ewert

Presence, Creativity and Collaborative Work in VirtualEnvironments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802

Ilona Heldal, David Roberts, Lars Brathe, and Robin Wolff

Users Interact Differently: Towards a Usability- Oriented UserTaxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812

Fabian Hermann, Iris Niedermann, Matthias Peissner,Katja Henke, and Anja Naumann

Reminders, Alerts and Pop-ups: The Cost of Computer-InitiatedInterruptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818

Helen M. Hodgetts and Dylan M. Jones

The Practices of Scenario Study to Home Scenario Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 827Yung Hsing Hu, Yuan Tsing Huang, You Zhao Liang, andWen Ko Chiou

Effects of Time Orientation on Design of Notification Systems . . . . . . . . . 835Ding-Long Huang, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, Hui Su, Nan Tu, andChen Zhao

Being Together: Users Subjective Experience of Social Presence inCMC Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844

Ha Sung Hwang and SungBok Park

Age Differences in Performance, Operation Methods, and WorkloadWhile Interacting with an MP3 Player . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854

Neung Eun Kang and Wan Chul Yoon

A Usability Test of Exchanging Context in a Conference Room ViaMobile Device Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862

Doyoon Kim, Seungchul Shin, Cheolho Cheong, and Tack-Don Han

Conceptual and Technical Issues in Extending Computational CognitiveModeling to Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872

Alex Kirlik

Mental Models of Chinese and German Users and Their Implicationsfor MMI: Experiences from the Case Study Navigation System . . . . . . . . . 882

Barbara Knapp

Table of Contents XXI

Usability Test for Cellular Phone Interface Design That Controls HomeAppliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891

Haeinn Lee

Validating Information Complexity Questionnaires Using Travel WebSites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901

Chen Ling, Miguel Lopez, and Jing Xing

Maximizing Environmental Validity: Remote Recording of DesktopVideoconferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911

Sean Rintel

The Impact of Moving Around and Zooming of Objects on UsersPerformance in Web Pages: A Cross-Generation Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921

Hitomi Sato, Kaori Fujimura, Lin Wang, Ling Jin, Yoko Asano,Masahiro Watanabe, and Pei-Luen Patrick Rau

Entelechy and Embodiment in (Artistic) Human-ComputerInteraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929

Uwe Seifert and Jin Hyun Kim

Predicting Perceived Situation Awareness of Low Altitude Aircraft inTerminal Airspace Using Probe Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939

Thomas Z. Strybel, Kim-Phuong L. Vu, John P. Dwyer,Jerome Kraft, Thuan K. Ngo, Vanessa Chambers, andFredrick P. Garcia

Co-presence in Shared Virtual Environments: Avatars Beyond theOpposition of Presence and Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949

Jan Soffner and Chang S. Nam

Using Memory Aid to Build Memory Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959Quan T. Tran, Elizabeth D. Mynatt, and Gina Calcaterra

Perception of Movements and Transformations in Flash Animations ofOlder Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966

Lin Wang, Hitomi Sato, Ling Jin, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, andYoko Asano

Studying Utility of Personal Usage-History: A Software Tool forEnabling Empirical Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976

Kimmo Wideroos and Samuli Pekkola

Enable the Organization for UCD Through Specialist and ProcessCounseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985

Natalie Woletz and Susanne Laumann

User Response to Free Trial Restrictions: A Coping Perspective . . . . . . . . 991Xue Yang, Chuan-Hoo Tan, and Hock-Hai Teo

XXII Table of Contents

A Study on the Form of Representation of the Users MentalModel-Oriented Ancient Map of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001

Rui Yang, Dan Li, and Wei Zhou

Towards Automatic Cognitive Load Measurement from SpeechAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011

Bo Yin and Fang Chen

Attitudes in ICT Acceptance and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021Ping Zhang and Shelley Aikman

Part 4: Models and Patterns in HCI

Using Patterns to Support the Design of Flexible User Interaction . . . . . . 1033M. Ceclia C. Baranauskas and Vania Paula de Almeida Neris

Model-Based Usability Evaluation - Evaluation of Tool Support . . . . . . . . 1043Gregor Buchholz, Jurgen Engel, Christian Martin, and Stefan Propp

User-Oriented Design (UOD) Patterns for Innovation Design at DigitalProducts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053

Chiou Wen-Ko, Chen Bi-Hui, Wang Ming-Hsu, and Liang You-Zhao

Formal Validation of Java/Swing User Interfaces with the Event BMethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062

Alexandre Cortier, Bruno dAusbourg, and Yamine At-Ameur

Task Analysis, Usability and Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072David Cox

ORCHESTRA: Formalism to Express Static and Dynamic Model ofMobile Collaborative Activities and Associated Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082

Bertrand David, Rene Chalon, Olivier Delotte, andGuillaume Masserey

Effective Integration of Task-Based Modeling and Object-OrientedSpecifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092

Anke Dittmar and Ashraf Gaffar

A Pattern Decomposition and Interaction Design Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 1102Cunhao Fang, Pengwei Tian, and Ming Zhong

Towards an Integrated Approach for Task Modeling and HumanBehavior Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109

Martin Giersich, Peter Forbrig, Georg Fuchs, Thomas Kirste,Daniel Reichart, and Heidrun Schumann

A Pattern-Based Framework for the Exploration of DesignAlternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119

Tibor Kunert and Heidi Kromker

Table of Contents XXIII

Tasks Models Merging for High-Level Component Composition . . . . . . . . 1129Arnaud Lewandowski, Sophie Lepreux, and Gregory Bourguin

Application of Visual Programming to Web Mash Up Development . . . . . 1139Seung Chan Lim, Sandi Lowe, and Jeremy Koempel

Comprehensive Task and Dialog Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1149Vctor Lopez-Jaquero and Francisco Montero

Structurally Supported Design of HCI Pattern Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1159Christian Martin and Alexander Roski

Integrating Authoring Tools into Model-Driven Development ofInteractive Multimedia Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1168

Andreas Pleu and Heinrich Humann

A Survey on Transformation Tools for Model Based User InterfaceDevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178

Robbie Schaefer

A Task Model Proposal for Web Sites Usability Evaluation for theErgoMonitor Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188

Andre Luis Schwerz, Marcelo Morandini, and Sergio Roberto da Silva

Model-Driven Architecture for Web Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198Mohamed Taleb, Ahmed Seffah, and Alain Abran

HCI Design Patterns for PDA Running Space StructuredApplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1206

Ricardo Tesoriero, Francisco Montero, Mara D. Lozano, andJose A. Gallud

Task-Based Prediction of Interaction Patterns for Ambient IntelligenceEnvironments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216

Kristof Verpoorten, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx

Patterns for Task- and Dialog-Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1226Maik Wurdel, Peter Forbrig, T. Radhakrishnan, and Daniel Sinnig

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1237

Part I

Interaction Design: Theoretical Issues, Methods, Techniques and Practice

J. Jacko (Ed.): Human-Computer Interaction, Part I, HCII 2007, LNCS 4550, pp. 310, 2007. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Design Principles Based on Cognitive Aging

Hiroko Akatsu1, Hiroyuki Miki1, and Naotsune Hosono2

1 Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd. 1-16-8 Chuou Warabi-shi, Saitama, 335-8510 Japan

akatsu232@oki.com, hmiki@cf.netyou.jp 2 Oki Consulting Solutions Co., Ltd.

hosono903@oki.com

Abstract. This study proposes the design principles considering the balance of simplicity and helpfulness based on cognitive aging. Due to the increase of the aging population, various equipments are required to better assist the elderly users. ATMs (Automatic Teller Machine) have always been considered to be equipment that is difficult for the elderly users. Then this paper discusses a new ATM interface design considering the principles. The effectiveness of the new design was examined by comparing it with a conventional ATM. The usability test results favored the new ATM design, and it is consequently accepted by many elderly users.

Keywords: cognitive aging, design principles, elderly users, ATM.

1 Introduction

Due to the increase of the aging population, various equipments are required to better assist the elderly users [1]. Although most assistances are designed with consideration for the special needs of the elderly, they are often limited to perceptive characteristics, such as stronger contrasts or larger characters on the display, and physical characteristics such as the big buttons. The problem is that most elderly users cannot operate the ATMs on such perceptive characteristics alone [2]. ATMs havent taken sufficient assistances against cognitive aging and behavioral characteristics that are definite influences on operation.

This research proposes the design principles considering the balance of simplicity and helpfulness based on cognitive aging by using the ATM case. The elderly users tend to read all screen information, so a simple design is important. However, the design for the complicated steps requires not only simplicity, but also helpfulness. Therefore the new ATM based the principles was designed. The effectiveness of the new design was examined by comparing it with a conventional ATM.

4 H. Akatsu, H. Miki, and N. Hosono

2 Influences of Interaction Equipments by Cognitive Aging

2.1 Issues

It is important to consider not only the perceptive and physical characteristics, but a comprehensive consideration including cognitive behavioral characteristics that are definite influences on operation should also be taken into account (Figure1).

longer response time

Decreased sensibility

Cataracta senilis

Decreased vision

Decline in memory

Diminished attention

Hard to understand all the information at once.

Hesitate to take initiatives

Hard to notice the screen changes

Aged-Changes The elderly users characteristicswhen they operate various equipments

Slow operations through confirmations

Repeat similar errors

Cognitive aging

PerceptivePhysical characteristics

Cognitive behavioral characteristics

longer response time

Decreased sensibility

Cataracta senilis

Decreased vision

Decline in memory

Diminished attention

Hard to understand all the information at once.

Hesitate to take initiatives

Hard to notice the screen changes

Aged-Changes The elderly users characteristicswhen they operate various equipments

Slow operations through confirmations

Repeat similar errors

Cognitive aging

PerceptivePhysical characteristics

Cognitive behavioral characteristics

Fig. 1. Cognitive aging

The elderly user's characteristics were found by usability tests of various equipment as presented below [3].

1) Longer Response Time than Younger Users The time required for entries was quite long when using the 50 character keys, which involved the time to insert a passbook or cash and the overall time responding to individual items. This often resulted in a time-out, meaning many of the elderly needed to repeat the procedure from the beginning. A comparison of the average times needed for each task revealed that the group of elderly users took twice as long as the group of university students for withdrawal operations and three times as long for fund transfers.

It was found by repeating the same operations, such as entering one's name using the 50 character keys, however, the elderly people also learned the operation, and this resulted in a shortening of time for such tasks.

Design Principles Based on Cognitive Aging 5

2) Difficulties Collecting all the Information in a Short Time Under certain conditions, they experienced difficulties in collecting all the necessary information at once, such as being able to read only a portion of the messages displayed on the screen.

3) Excessive Response to Voice Messages In general the voice message prompts prevented the elderly from forgetting to press a key (example: A voice message such as Please verify the amount and press the 'Confirm' key if the amount is correct). However, when a voice message prompting them to enter your name was given at a time after the name was entered, the elderly proceeded to enter the name again, even though the name entry had just been completed.

4) Recurrence of the Same Errors It was found when an operational error was once made, then there was a tendency to repeat the same error. It appears that it is difficult for the elderly to determine what status they are currently in or how the operation was done previously, therefore, making it difficult for themselves to avoid the same errors.

5) They Tend to Respond to Items that are Easily seen or can be Touched Directly by Hand (example: hardware keys)

6) They Hardly Notice the Changes to Information Displayed on the Screen

7) They cannot always extract the necessary information (or they will try to read all the information, but will get tired on the way through and are unable to finish the reading).

8) They will not take any initiatives on their own (or they will just follow the orders when they are asked to push keys, for example).

2.2 Ease of Use and Cognitive Aging: A Three-Layered Factor Model

By sorting out the problems of the elderly obtained through various experiments, it appears that the three factors as shown in Figure 2 overlap each other in a complex manner, causing the phenomena that the elderlycannot use equipment.

The three factors are;

(a) Factors Associated with the Deterioration of the Cognitive Capacity of the Elderly Users

Factors that are the basis for the inability to use equipment are the deterioration of the cognitive function, which occurs by aging. As reported by researches in the field of experimental cognitive psychology, the deterioration of capabilities due to aging is considered to have a clear influence on the matter.

6 H. Akatsu, H. Miki, and N. Hosono

(b) Factors Relevant to the Lack of Knowledge and Mental Models (for Equipment and Systems)

A mental model is an image that a user puzzles how equipment should be used. It is believed that the lack of such knowledge is accelerating the effects of cognitive aging outlined in (a) of figure 2, delaying the understanding on the operations of equipment. Such problems arise from the rapid acceleration in the advancement of IT equipments. This brings difficulties for the elderly in the future. So long as new technologies are being developed at all times, however, it is believed that new problems, which are different from those today, will appear continuously.

(c) Factors Relevant to Attitude (cultural and social values) The elderly users seem to have an attitude of not even wanting to try to use the equipment from the start by selecting methods and means that are beyond their familiarity (example: Using a teller rather than an ATM), as they do not want to be seen as being incapable. This factor is a problem for manufacturers. Still, as mentioned before, with the branches of many banks being consolidated and reduced in number, it is believed that there will be an increasing number of situations in the future when the elderly are forced to use ATMs, which are eventually difficult for them to use. As our agenda for the future, it is essential to broaden the scope of usability research and to conduct studies from other perspectives, such as what needs to be done to enable the elderly to use the equipment.

It is necessary to consider that a cause of one issue is not only by one factor but also by three factors. Then the design principles are based on cognitive aging considering the three factors. Consequently the new ATM design for the elderly users by the design principles is proposed. Afterward the effectiveness of the new design was compared with a conventional ATM.

(a) Factors associated with the deterioration of cognitive capabilities of the elderly

Deterioration of inhibition functions. Decrease in short-term memory capacity. Delays in comprehension.

(b) Factors associated with a lack of knowledge and mental models

Knowledge and mental models concerning particular modes of operation of equipment.

Knowledge relative to the concept of the information itself.

(c) Factors associated with attitudes

Negative attitude by using the equipment Values, knowledge and framework for each generation. Select methods and means to effectively sustain their own

capabilities.

(a) Factors associated with the deterioration of cognitive capabilities of the elderly

Deterioration of inhibition functions. Decrease in short-term memory capacity. Delays in comprehension.

(b) Factors associated with a lack of knowledge and mental models

Knowledge and mental models concerning particular modes of operation of equipment.

Knowledge relative to the concept of the information itself.

(c) Factors associated with attitudes

Negative attitude by using the equipment Values, knowledge and framework for each generation. Select methods and means to effectively sustain their own

capabilities.

Fig. 2. Ease of use and cognitive aging: A three-layered factor model (The material was touched up and corrected by Harada and Akatsu[3])

Design Principles Based on Cognitive Aging 7

3 Design Principles and ATM Design

Through consideration of elderly users characteristics above, the following design principles were clarified.

A new ATM design that balances simplicity and helpfulness based on cognitive aging is proposed.

1) Just One Operation Requires at One Screen ATM design example: the elderly users can perform the banking transaction in a step-by-step manner.

2) The Screen Switch Must be Noticed ATM design example: blinking buttons and screen switch by side slide at a time of page renewal (Figure3).

3) The Operation Flow also Must be Comprehensible ATM design example: The conventional ATM demands two operations of input and confirmation. The new ATM divides them into two pieces of an input screen and confirmation screen. As a result, the elderly users could use it with confident input operation and confirmation (see Figure 4).

4) The Screen Information Must be Easy to Read (sufficient font size and contrast)

5) Screen Information must be Simple as Possible The announcements generally support the operation. However, sometimes the announcements hinder the operation due to inappropriate timing and contents. Hence the following points were considered.

6) The Same Content as the Announcement Must be Displayed on the Screen

7) The Announcement Must be Done at the Time Just Before Changing to the Next Screen, and it must not Repeat

8) The Announcements of Feedback Massage can be Done by the Handset Phone

Fig. 3. Screen switch by side slide

8 H. Akatsu, H. Miki, and N. Hosono

Conventional ATM

Input Screen Confirmation Screen

Please enter the amountto remit.

The amount is 65,000 yen

Is it OK?

New ATM for elderly users

Please enter the amount to remit.Next then please confirm.

Next

amount Clear

cancel

confirm

YesClear

Conventional ATM

Input Screen Confirmation Screen

Please enter the amountto remit.

The amount is 65,000 yen

Is it OK?

New ATM for elderly users

Please enter the amount to remit.Next then please confirm.

Next

amount Clear

clearamount

cancel

confirm

YesClear

Fig. 4. Input screen and Conformation screen

4 ATM Usability Testing

The effectiveness of the new ATM design for the elderly users was compared with conventional one.

4.1 Methods

At first the test participants were instructed to express vocally, what they were thinking while operating an ATM simulator (Think Aloud Method). Then, the collected data (every behavior and speech of the test participants) were Protocol Analyzed.

4.2 Test Participants

The test participants were six elderly users (three males and three females, aged between 68 and 75). They have never used an ATM before.

4.3 Experimental Equipments

As an intended system, the ATM simulator was prepared (a personal computer and a touch display were installed in a paper model housing), and ordinary transaction

Design Principles Based on Cognitive Aging 9

operations were then to be performed. A video camera, a tiepin- type small microphone, recording equipment, etc., were prepared as recording media.

4.4 Experimental Procedures

Each test was conducted by the individual participants. First, an explanation of the usability test objectives, an explanation for the use of the equipment, practice of the thought utterance method and preliminary questionnaire survey concerning the use of ATM were conducted prior to performing the tasks. A follow-up questionnaire survey was conducted once after the tasks had been completed, and additional interviews were also conducted. The prepared two tasks were (1) withdrawal using a cash card, and (2) money transfer.

4.5 Results and Considerations

1) Decreased Number of Time-outs from Operational Errors It was found that most time-outs of an ATM operation occur when the elderly users become confused and are uncertain of what to do next. When a time-out occurs, the display is usually returned to the top screen and wipes out any previous efforts by the users.

The number of time-outs of each user experienced during a money transfer task. As a whole, the new ATM design was found to decrease the number of time-out occurrences to less than half when compared with a conventional ATM.

On the conventional ATM, the time-outs mainly occurred during the money transfer operation, entering the first letter of the bank branch name and selecting a bank branch from a list. On the other hand, the new ATM time-outs were found to occur during the name input using the Japanese character list.

Consequently it can be said that the new ATM solved the issues of usability even though there are still some problems left with the name input.

2) Less Cognitive Load The six users were interviewed after the experimental evaluation. They admitted that the new ATM was easier to use and the most part were satisfied. From the comments made by the users, it is surmised that accumulation of useful tips on each screen page and overall effort to reduce cognitive load were effective.

3) Number of Operational Steps and Operational Confidence

There is a trade off between simplifying one screen page information and the additional number of page operations. In the elderly user mode, additional screen pages are added, so that the operations can be performed easier and with their confidence. Operational rhythm is enhanced with subsidiary announcements to make the additional steps less noticeable. Interview results by the test participants showed they preferred simple usability even if several steps are added.

Judging by the results of the usability test, the proposed principles were confirmed its effectiveness.

10 H. Akatsu, H. Miki, and N. Hosono

5 Conclusion

This paper proposed to design a new ATM interface particularly reflecting the requirements of cognitive aging. Experimental evaluation shows a lower number of operational puzzlement and errors when compared with the conventional ATM. The elderly users appreciated the step-by-step operations, which were more in line with their input pace.

Therefore the proposed principles were confirmed its effectiveness. As for the principles , not only the ATM but also other equipments will be applicable.

References

1. Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A., et al.: Designing for older adults: Principles and Creative Factors Approaches, CRC Press (2004)

2. Kyoyou-Hin Foundation: Inconvenience list such as the elderly people (1999) 3. Harada, T.E., Akatsu, H.: What is Usability - A Perspective of Universal Design in An

Aging Society. In: Cognitive Science of Usability, Kyoritsu Publisher (2003)

J. Jacko (Ed.): Human-Computer Interaction, Part I, HCII 2007, LNCS 4550, pp. 1119, 2007. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Redesigning the Rationale for Design Rationale

Michael E. Atwood and John Horner

College of Information Science and Technology Drexel University

Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA {atwood, jh38} @drexel.edu

Abstract. One goal of design rationale systems is to support designers by providing a means to record and communicate the argumentation and reasoning behind the design process. However, there are several inherent limitations to developing systems that effectively capture and utilize design rationale. The dynamic and contextual nature of design and our inability to exhaustively analyze all possible design issues results in cognitive, capture, retrieval, and usage limitations. In addition, there are the organizational limitations that ensue when systems are deployed. In this paper we analyze the essential problems that prevent the successful development and use of design rationale systems. We argue that useful and effective design rationale systems cannot be built unless we carefully redefine the goal of design rationale systems.

Keywords: Design rationale, theories of design, interactive systems design.

1 Introduction

Over the past two decades, much has been written about design rationale. That design rationale has remained an active research area within the human-computer interaction (HCI) community for an extended time indicates that researchers see it as an attractive and productive area for research. We share this enthusiasm for research on design rationale. But, at the same time, we have little confidence that useful and usable design rationale systems will ever be built. And, should they ever be built, we have little confidence that they will be used. The only solution we see to successful research on design rationale is to carefully define the rationale underlying design rationale.

Our motivation in writing this paper is derived from two questions. First, since we dont have a common understanding of what design is, how can we have a common understanding of what design rationale is? Second, why is the collection of papers that describe design rationale systems so much larger than the collection that describe design rationale successes?

2 How Does Design Rationale Relate to Design?

In order to get a better picture of the different views of design, we will use an author co-citation analysis initially reported in Wania, Atwood, and McCain [1].

12 M.E. Atwood and J. Horner

PARTICIPATORY

C

DESIGN

DESIGN

USERCENTERED

COGNITIVE

COGNITIVE

Fig. 1. Design Communities

Wania et al reported a bibliometric cocitation analysis of the HCI literature over much of the past two decades. From this analysis, shown in Figure 1, seven major approaches to design were identified.

It is important to note that the Design Rationale cluster spans across much of the map, almost connecting one side to the other. Two points are worth noting here. First, design rationale is not a tool that other design communities use as much as it is a research area of its own; that is why is appears here as a separate cluster, Second, the design rationale community does not have a great deal of commonality in interest. The authors in the Design Rationale cluster all seem to be boundary spanners. Each author in this cluster is located very close to another cluster. This suggests that design rationale may mean different things to the different researchers and practitioners within this community.

2.1 Why Do the Papers Describing Systems Outnumber Those Describing Successes?

In analyzing the papers that describe design rationale systems, we will look at two end-points. In 1991, a special issue of the journal Human-computer interaction presented six papers on design rationale. Of these six, only one reported any data on system use and this data indicated only that one design rationale system was usable; there was no data supporting a claim that is was useful. In 2006, an edited text [2] presented twenty papers on design rationale. Of these twenty, only one reported data on system usability; no data on usefulness was presented. Clearly, the number of papers describing design rationale systems is much larger then the number reporting design rationale successes.

In order to understand why design rationale is not seen as a tool for designers and why successes are so rare, we will begin with a common view of design rationale. In Figure 2, we show the flow of information in most design rationale systems. Initially, designers consider alternatives to design issues they are facing [3]. Then, they store the rationale for their decisions in a design rationale system. At a later time, another design can browse the design rationale system to review earlier decisions and potentially to apply these earlier decisions to the current design. All of this, of course, sits in some organizational context.

Redesigning the Rationale for Design Rationale 13

DR System

Artifact BArtifact A

Organizational Setting

1 4

2 3

Fig. 2. Barriers to Effective Design Rationale Systems

Overall, design rationale systems are intended to support communication, reflection, and analysis in design. Design rationale systems are intended to support the communication of design decisions to others, to support reflecting on design options, and to support analyzing which option to select. But, referring back to Figure 2, the goal of transmitting information to future designers detracts from the goal of doing good designs today! Simply put, a designers cognitive energy can be focused on solving todays problems or on recording information to be used in the future. But, doing one detracts from the other. We argue that the main use of rationale of design rationale systems is to support todays design. In essence, this brings design rationale back to its starting point (e.g.,[4]).

3 The Essential Barriers

For each of the activities shown in Figure 2, we list the essential problems that inhibit the success of design rationale systems. We use the term essential in the same way that Brooks [5] did; essential problems are inherent in the nature of the activity in contrast to accidental problems that are problems for today but which are not inherent and may well be solved by future technological advances.

After analyzing these essential problems, we return to two additional questions. In order to better understand what the rationale for design rationale should be we must ask what do designer do? And then what should the goal of design rationale be?

3.1 Cognitive Barriers

Designers must focus their cognitive energy on the problem at hand. Imposing inappropriate constraints or introducing irrelevant information into design activities can have detrimental effects.

Satisficing, Not Optimization. People have a limited capacity to process information. This limitation can hinder the effectiveness of design rationale. Simon [6] states that we are bounded by our rationality and cannot consider all possible

14 M.E. Atwood and J. Horner

alternatives. Therefore, people choose satisfactory rather than optimal solutions. Since we are bounded by the amount of information we can process, design rationale is necessarily incomplete.

Unintended Consequences. It is important to recognize the potential for unintended consequences, especially in systems where the risks are high [6]. In these situations, designers may want to ensure that they have exhaustively covered the design space so as to minimize the risk for unanticipated effects. The key question in this type of query is what are we missing? Design rationale is a potential solution to help designers identify issues that they may have otherwise left unconsidered. Systems could allow designers to search for similar projects or issues to identify issues that were considered in those projects.

Collaboration Hampers Conceptual Integrity. One mechanism to more exhaustively analyze the design space is to use collaboration in the design process [7]. However, in any collaborative design context, maintaining conceptual integrity is important to keep the design project focused [5]. More people are capable of considering more ideas, but this adds complexity and effort in keeping persons on the design team up to speed. It also increases the effort of integrating diverse perspectives.

3.2 Capture Barriers

There are many different situations in which design rationale may not be captured. In some cases, the omission is unintentional. In others, it is quite intentional. We consider both below.

Work-benefit Disparity. Complex design is normally a group activity, and tools to support designers can therefore be considered a type of groupware. Grudin [8] describes several problems involved in developing groupware. Specifically, one of the obstacles he discusses is of particular interest to design rationale systems. He contends that there should not be a disparity between who incurs the cost and who receives the benefit. If the focus of design rationale is placed only on minimizing the cost to later users, it can add significant costs to the original designers. A major shortcoming in design rationale is the failure to minimize the cost to the original designers. Gruber and Russell [9] contend that design rationale must go beyond the record and replay paradigm and collect data that can benefit later users, while also not being a burden on designers.

Context Is Hard to Capture. Design rationale may be considered, but unintentionally not recorded by the capture process. There are several reasons why considerations could be unintentionally omitted from design rationale. If the design rationale capture takes place outside of the design process, it is possible that contextual cues may not be present, and designers may not recall what they deliberated upon, or designers may not be available at the time the rationale is captured.

For these reasons, it would appear that rationale should be captured in the context of design. However, it is not always possible or advantageous to capture rationale in

Redesigning the Rationale for Design Rationale 15

the design context. Grudin [10] notes that in certain development environments, exploring design space can be detrimental because it diverts critical resources. Additionally, many design decisions are considered in informal situations, where capturing the rationale is infeasible [11]. Tracking the location of where the rationale was recorded, the persons present at the time of design rationale capture, their roles and expertise, and the environmental context of the capture can help reviewers infer why specific information was considered.

Designers Should Design, Not Record Rationale. Tacit knowledge [12] is a term used to describe things that we know, but are not able to bring to consciousness. It is possible that design rationale may unintentionally be omitted because a designer may not be able to explicate their tacit knowledge. Designers may not be able or willing to spend the energy to articulate their thoughts into the design rationale system, especially when they reach breakdowns, and are focusing on understanding and resolving the problem at hand. Conklin and Bergess-Yakemovic [7] state that designers focus should be on solving problems and not on capturing their decisions. During routine situations, designers react to problems as they arise without consciously thinking about them.

Recording Rationale Can Be Dangerous! Sharing knowledge can be detrimental to designers, especially if the information they share could potentially be used against them. Designers may be hesitant to simply give away knowledge without knowing who will use it or how it will be used. Rewarding knowledge sharing is a challenging task that involves creating tangible rewards for intangible ideas. This is especially difficult considering that there is often no way to evaluate which ideas resulted in the success or failure of an artifact.

In certain contexts, there are privacy and security concerns with the design rationale. For instance, organizations may want to keep their rationale secure so that competing organizations cannot gain a competitive advantage. Similarly, there may be political repercussions or security breaches if policy makers make their rationale available to the public. For example, designers may not want to document all of their considerations because politically motivated information could be held against them. There are also situations where people working outside the specified work procedures may not want to document their work-arounds in fear that it will be detrimental to them. Designers may not want to capture rationale that could be viewed as detrimental to themselves or certain other people, and therefore will intentionally omit certain rationale. Additionally, individual designers may not want their design considerations to be available for post-hoc scrutiny.

3.3 Retrieval Barriers

Karsenty [13] evaluated design documents and found that design rationale questions were by far the most frequent questions during design evaluation meetings. However, only 41% of the design rationale questions were answered by the design rationale documentation. The reasoning for the discrepancy between the needed and captured design rationale is broken into several high-level reasons, including analysts not capturing questions, options, or criteria; the inadequacy of the design rationale method; and the lack of understanding. Other literature has focused on several issues

16 M.E. Atwood and J. Horner

that contribute to this failure, including inappropriate representations [14,15] the added workload required of designers [7,10] exigent organizational constraints [11] and contextual differences between the design environment at the time when the rationale is captured and the time when it is needed [9].

Relevance Is Situational. Initial designers and subsequent users of rationale may have different notions of what is relevant in a given design context. Wilson [16] describes relevance as a relationship between a user and a piece of information, and as independent of truth. Relevance is based on a users situational understanding of a concern. Moreover, he argues that situational relevance is an inherently indeterminate notion because of the changing, unsettled, and undecided character of our concerns. This suggests that the rationale constructed at design time may not be relevant to those reviewing the rationale at a later time in a different context. When rationale is exhaustively captured, there is an additional effort required to capture the information. And, when too little information is captured, the reviewers questions remain unanswered.

Belkin [17] describes information retrieval as a type of communication whereby a user is investigating their state of knowledge with respect to a problem. Belkin contends that the success of the communication is dependent upon the extent to which the anomaly can be resolved based on the information provided, and thus is controlled by the recipient. This suggests that designers cannot recognize the relevance of rationale until a person queries it. And, later uses may not be able to specify what information will be most useful, but rather will only recognize that they do not have the necessary knowledge to resolve a problem.

Indexing. A more structured representation can make it more difficult to capture design ideas, but can facilitate indexing and retrieval. One problem is that there is an inherent tradeoff between representational flexibility and ease of retrieval. Unstructured text is easier to record, but more difficult to structure in a database. One solution is to push the burden on to those who are receiving the benefit [8] which would be the retrievers in this case. However, if the potential users of the rationale find the system to be too effortful, then it will go unused. Then, designers will not be inclined to spend time entering design rationale into a system that will not be used.

3.4 Usage Barriers

People reviewing design rationale have a goal and a task at hand that they hope the design rationale will support. Often, these people are also involved in designing. If this is the case, the reviewers may not know whether retrieved rationale is applicable to their current problem.

The Same Problem in a Different Context Is a Different Problem. Because design problems are unique, even rationale that successfully resolved one design problem may not be applicable to a different problem. In addition to the problem of accurately and exhaustively capturing rationale, recognizing the impact of rationale can be a difficult task.

Understanding rationale tied to one problem could help resolve similar problems in the future. However, design is contextual, and external factors often interact with the

Redesigning the Rationale for Design Rationale 17

design activity in a complex and unexpected manner. Reviewers of rationale are interested in understanding information to help them with their task-at-hand, and without understanding the context of those problems, utilization of the information becomes difficult. The inherent problem of identifying the impact of rationale across different design problems adds a net cost to utilizing rationale, decreasing the overall utility in the design process.

Initiative Falls on the User. Design rationale systems are passive rather than active. The initiative to find relevant rationale falls on the user. The system does not suggest it; it is the users responsibility to retrieve it.

3.5 Organizational Barriers

As Davenport and Prusak warn in their book [18] if you build it, they may not come." Being able to build a system is only an initial step; the gold standard against which success is measured, however, is whether people will accept and use it.

Designers dont Control the Reward Structure of Users. As system builders, we do not have much control over the personal reward systems of the individual users and management mandate that many [18,19] recommend will enhance usage of the technology, and therefore we can not motivate our users as such. Therefore, we must rely on other factors.

Informal Knowledge is Difficult to Capture. Design Rationale tools must support both formal and informal knowledge, making the system flexible enough so that broad content types were supported [20]. They must support multiple levels of organization of content and design systems so that knowledge can be structured at any time after it is entered [21].

4 Conclusions

In this paper, we have explored the role of design rationale research within the broader design community. And, we have looked into a number of barriers that impede design rationale as an effective tool for reflection, communication, and analysis. The barriers were discussed in terms of cognitive, capture, retrieval, usage, and organizational limitations.

At one level, the intent of design rationale is to transmit information from a designer working at one time and in one context to another designer working in another time and context. This is the most frequently-cited goal in design rationale research. But, is this the ultimate goal of design rationale? We argue that it is not. The goal of research on design rationale is to improve the quality of designs. There are fundamental barriers to developing information systems that support asynchronous communication among designers working on different design problems. Therefore, design research should focus on supporting designers who better understand the context of their unique problems.

18 M.E. Atwood and J. Horner

The goal of research on design rationale is to improve the quality of designs. There are fundamental barriers to developing computer systems that support communication among designers working on design problems. Therefore, the focus of design rationale should be on identifying what tools are most appropriate for the task. Using less persistent modes of communication, putting a greater emphasis on supporting design processes rather than design tools, and creating systems that are optimized for a single purpose are necessary steps for improving design.

References

1. Wania, C., McCain, K., Atwood, M.E.: How do design and evaluation interrelate in HCI research? In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Designing Interactive systems, June 26-28, 2006, University Park, PA, USA (2006)

2. Dutoit, McCall, Mistrik, Paech. (eds.) Rationale Management in Software Engineering. Springer Heidelberg

3. Horner, J., Atwood, M.E.: Design rationale: the rationale and the barriers. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles (2006)

4. Rittel, H., Weber, M.: Planning Problems are Wicked Problems. In: Cross, N. (ed.) Developments in design methodology, pp. 135144. Wiley, Chichester; New York (1984)

5. Brooks, F.P.: The mythical man-month: essays on software engineering. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading, Mass (1995)

6. Simon, H.A.: The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. 1996. Tenner, E. Why things bite back: technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York, Knopf (1996)

7. Conklin, E., Bergess-Yakemovic, K.: A process oriented approach to design rationale. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)

8. Grudin, J.: Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM 37(1), 92105 (1994)

9. Gruber, T., Russell, D.: Generative Design Rationale. Beyond the Record and Replay Paradigm. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) esign rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)

10. Grudin, J.: Evaluating opportunities for design capture. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)

11. Sharrock, W., Anderson, R.: Synthesis and Analysis: Five modes of reasoning that guide design. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)

12. Polanyi, M.: The tacit dimension. Doubleday, Garden City, NY (1966) 13. Karsenty, L.: An empirical evaluation of design rationale documents. In: Proceedings of

the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 150156. ACM Press, New York (1996)

14. Lee, J., Lai, K.: Whats in design rationale? In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)

15. MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., Moran, T.: Questions, Options, Criteria: Elements of design space analysis. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)

16. Wilson, P.: Situational Relevance. Information Stor. Retrieval 9, 457471 (1973)

Redesigning the Rationale for Design Rationale 19

17. Belkin, N.: Anomalous States of Knowledge as a Basis for Information Retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science 5, 133143 (1980)

18. Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L.: Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts (1998)

19. Orlikowski, W.J., Hofman, J.D.: An Improvisational Model for Change Management: The Case of Groupware Technologies, Sloan Management Review/Winter, pp. 1121 (1997)

20. Davenport, T.H.: Saving ITs Soul: Human-Centered Information Management, Harvard Business Review: Creating a System to Manage Knowledge, 1994, product #39103, pp. 3953 (1994)

21. Shipman, F., McCall, R.: Incremental Formalization with the Hyper-Object Substrate. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (1999)

J. Jacko (Ed.): Human-Computer Interaction, Part I, HCII 2007, LNCS 4550, pp. 2029, 2007. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

HCI and the Face: Towards an Art of the Soluble

Christoph Bartneck1 and Michael J. Lyons2

1 Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands christoph@bartneck.de

2 ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication Labs, 2-2-2 Hikaridai, Seika-cho, Soraku-gun, Kyoto 619-0288, Japan michael.lyons@gmail.com

Abstract. The human face plays a central role in most forms of natural human interaction so we may expect that computational methods for analysis of facial information and graphical and robotic methods for synthesis of faces and facial expressions will play a growing role in human-computer and human-robot interaction. However, certain areas of face-based HCI, such as facial expression recognition and robotic facial display have lagged others, such as eye-gaze tracking, facial recognition, and conversational characters. Our goal in this paper is to review the situation in HCI with regards to the human face, and to discuss strategies which could bring more slowly developing areas up to speed.

Keywords: face, hci, soluble, recognition, synthesis.

1 Introduction

The human face is used in many aspects of verbal and non-verbal communication: speech, the facial expression of emotions, gestures such as nods, winks, and other human communicative acts. Subfields of neuroscience, cognitive science, and psychology are devoted to study of this information. Computer scientists and engineers have worked on the face in graphics, animation, computer vision, and pattern recognition. A widely stated motivation for this work is to improve human computer interaction. However, relatively few HCI technologies employ face processing (FP). At first sight this seems to reflect technical limitations to the development of practical, viable applications of FP technologies.

This paper has two aims: (a) to introduce current research on HCI applications of FP, identifying both successes and outstanding issues, and (b) to propose, that an efficient strategy for progress could be to identify and approach soluble problems rather than aim for unrealistically difficult applications. While some of the outstanding issues in FP may indeed be as difficult as many unsolved problems in artificial intelligence, we will argue that skillful framing of a research problem can allow HCI researchers to pursue interesting, soluble, and productive research.

For concreteness, this article will focus on the analysis of facial expressions from video input, as well as their synthesis with animated characters or robots. Techniques for automatic facial expression processing have been studied intensively in the pattern

HCI and the Face: Towards an Art of the Soluble 21

recognition community and the findings are highly relevant to HCI [1, 2]. Work on animated avatars may be considered to be mature [3], while the younger field of social robotics is expanding rapidly [4-6]. FP is a central concern in both of these fields, and HCI researchers can contribute to and benefit from the results.

2 HCI and the Face

Computer scientists and engineers have worked increasingly on FP, from the widely varying viewpoints of graphics, animation, computer vision, and pattern recognition. However, an examination of the HCI research literature indicates that activity is restricted to a relatively narrow selection of these areas. Eye gaze has occupied the greatest share of HCI research on the human face (e.g. [7]). Eye gaze tracking technology is now sufficiently advanced that several commerical solutions are available (e.g. Tobii Technology [8]). Gaze tracking is a widely used technique in interface usability, machine-mediated human communication, and alternative input devices. This area can be viewed as a successful, sub-field related to face-based HCI.

Numerous studies have emphasized the neglect of human affect in interface design and argued this could have major impact on the human aspects of computing [9]. Accordingly, there has been much effort in the pattern recognition, AI, and robotics communities towards the analysis, understanding, and synthesis of emotion and expression. In the following sections we briefly introduce the areas related to analysis and synthesis, especially by robots, of facial expressions. In addition, we shar