Observation Assignment (Parts 1 & 2)
I did both parts of the observation assignment at the Astor Place Starbucks, looking first at all visable cell phone and laptop interactions, then in depth at the cell phone interactions. Here is a general layout of the Starbucks and places at which a cell phone, a laptop, or both, were used:
Although I was there for over an hour, not a single laptop user closed up and went home, so every laptop on the diagram represents at least an hour's worth of interaction; be it more or less consant. Since I saw no opening or closing of laptops, no setup or breakdown, most of the visable interactive cues were indistingushable from one another, being of three simple catagories:
1.) Typing (placing the hands on the horizontal extention of the machine and pressing down with some frequency)
2.) Mouse (moving of the right or left hand while clutching a palm sized device; also involves the pressing down of digits, most noticably the index finger of the operating hand)
3.) Optical (Interaction with the vertical part of the machine, mostly achieved with the eyes, and sometimes ears; accompanied often, but not always, by one or both of the afmorementioned types of interactivity)
These various catagories of interaction changed and combined at such a high frequency and irregularity that timing of the individual actions proved impossible.
As cell phone interactions seemed to allow for a more diverse and easier to specify interaction set, I chose these devices to serve as my in depth observations.
I chose to break down the cell phone interactions into several catagories as well:
1.) Phone-to-ear (those interactions in which the user held the phone up to their ear)
2.) Phone-to-finger (those interactions in which the user pressed buttons on the phone)
3.) Phone-to-eye (those interactions in which no buttons were pressed, and phone was not held up to ear, but phone was clearly the focus of the user)
On the diagram below, I have separated the cell phone actions into these catagories, along with the frequency of the various interactions:
I also tallied one other catagory, which I dubbed 'transient' interactions. Those being the interactions I witnessed from those either taking orders to go, or those who were standing in line and then sat somewhere hidden from my view.
Of these, I witnessed:
PE: 4
PF: 6
PI: 9
Without going to far into the interpretation of the actions, it may be useful to comment that all of the 'transient' interactions occurred while the user was standing, whilst all other noted interactions were done while the user was sitting.
As best as I could calculate, the average duration of the various forms of interaction (transient interactions included) was thus:
PE: 8.5 Minutes
PF: 3.0 Minutes
PE: < 1 Minute
Without making too many assumptions regarding the exact usage of each type, it would seem as though the PE method was used when the greatest amount of time was needed to complete the interaction, involved the most constant interaction with the device, and thus was used when large amounts of information needed to be input to the device.
The PF method was used for a much shorter amount of time on average, implying that the amount and complexity of input was less then that of the phone-to-ear method. The frequency of user input was also much more dispersed in most cases.
Finally, the PI method involved the least and most basic input (none), as well as the shortest interaction time. We might conclude then, that the information gained or exchanged in these interactions is of a very simple variety.
As for ease with which the device was used, it appeared that all subjects were quite familiar with the layout of their cell phone, regardless of the type of interaction that was occurring. Although no 'failed' interactions were noted, subjects of the PF variety seemed to show the most distress either before or after their interaction. PE users sometimes showed negative reactions, though no notably change in their interaction with the device occurred. PI users, perhaps due to the short span of their interactions, did not typically display any significant reaction during or after their cell phone use.
All subjects were also, quite interestingly, acutely aware of where they kept the device when not in use. A fair number of seated subjects (six) actually kept their phone on the table whether it was in use or not. Of the transient users, an additional five users kept their phone in hand throughout my observation of them (notably shorter for the transient group).
In summary, this observation has been a most interesting and enlightening way to disect human/digital relations, and to look at how we deal with devices on a daily basis. I would have perhaps enjoyed looking at a less-familiar device, so that some failed interactions may have occurred, and perhaps led to some basic criticism of the device itself. However, being able to abstract the usability from the actual use is a valuable tool for evaluating the success of a design, and will surely come in handy in the future.
Although I was there for over an hour, not a single laptop user closed up and went home, so every laptop on the diagram represents at least an hour's worth of interaction; be it more or less consant. Since I saw no opening or closing of laptops, no setup or breakdown, most of the visable interactive cues were indistingushable from one another, being of three simple catagories:
1.) Typing (placing the hands on the horizontal extention of the machine and pressing down with some frequency)
2.) Mouse (moving of the right or left hand while clutching a palm sized device; also involves the pressing down of digits, most noticably the index finger of the operating hand)
3.) Optical (Interaction with the vertical part of the machine, mostly achieved with the eyes, and sometimes ears; accompanied often, but not always, by one or both of the afmorementioned types of interactivity)
These various catagories of interaction changed and combined at such a high frequency and irregularity that timing of the individual actions proved impossible.
As cell phone interactions seemed to allow for a more diverse and easier to specify interaction set, I chose these devices to serve as my in depth observations.
I chose to break down the cell phone interactions into several catagories as well:
1.) Phone-to-ear (those interactions in which the user held the phone up to their ear)
2.) Phone-to-finger (those interactions in which the user pressed buttons on the phone)
3.) Phone-to-eye (those interactions in which no buttons were pressed, and phone was not held up to ear, but phone was clearly the focus of the user)
On the diagram below, I have separated the cell phone actions into these catagories, along with the frequency of the various interactions:
I also tallied one other catagory, which I dubbed 'transient' interactions. Those being the interactions I witnessed from those either taking orders to go, or those who were standing in line and then sat somewhere hidden from my view.
Of these, I witnessed:
PE: 4
PF: 6
PI: 9
Without going to far into the interpretation of the actions, it may be useful to comment that all of the 'transient' interactions occurred while the user was standing, whilst all other noted interactions were done while the user was sitting.
As best as I could calculate, the average duration of the various forms of interaction (transient interactions included) was thus:
PE: 8.5 Minutes
PF: 3.0 Minutes
PE: < 1 Minute
Without making too many assumptions regarding the exact usage of each type, it would seem as though the PE method was used when the greatest amount of time was needed to complete the interaction, involved the most constant interaction with the device, and thus was used when large amounts of information needed to be input to the device.
The PF method was used for a much shorter amount of time on average, implying that the amount and complexity of input was less then that of the phone-to-ear method. The frequency of user input was also much more dispersed in most cases.
Finally, the PI method involved the least and most basic input (none), as well as the shortest interaction time. We might conclude then, that the information gained or exchanged in these interactions is of a very simple variety.
As for ease with which the device was used, it appeared that all subjects were quite familiar with the layout of their cell phone, regardless of the type of interaction that was occurring. Although no 'failed' interactions were noted, subjects of the PF variety seemed to show the most distress either before or after their interaction. PE users sometimes showed negative reactions, though no notably change in their interaction with the device occurred. PI users, perhaps due to the short span of their interactions, did not typically display any significant reaction during or after their cell phone use.
All subjects were also, quite interestingly, acutely aware of where they kept the device when not in use. A fair number of seated subjects (six) actually kept their phone on the table whether it was in use or not. Of the transient users, an additional five users kept their phone in hand throughout my observation of them (notably shorter for the transient group).
In summary, this observation has been a most interesting and enlightening way to disect human/digital relations, and to look at how we deal with devices on a daily basis. I would have perhaps enjoyed looking at a less-familiar device, so that some failed interactions may have occurred, and perhaps led to some basic criticism of the device itself. However, being able to abstract the usability from the actual use is a valuable tool for evaluating the success of a design, and will surely come in handy in the future.
posted by Ben at Monday, September 18, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home