Overview

Assigned readings are worth 5% of your overall course grade.

We expect to assign approximately five readings over the length of the quarter. Each assigned reading has a corresponding open-ended question that will be submitted and graded. We have set reading deadlines that give you the flexibility to read before or after the related lectures. Do whichever is best for your personal learning style.

Responses are expected to be at most a couple paragraphs. Their role is to get you engaged with and thinking about the material. They will be graded according to whether they provide evidence you understood and considered the material in responding.

We will make additional resources available for students to read as interested.

Assigned Readings

Reading 1: Contextual Inquiry

Read:

• Beyer and Holtzblatt (1997). Contextual Design. Chapter 3.

Due: Uploaded the night before section Friday, April 8, 2016.

After reading, consider how you might apply this approach to the project you proposed in Assignment 1c.

• Briefly, what is your proposal (e.g., two sentences).
• Who and what might you propose to observe in a contextual inquiry (e.g., two sentences).
• What focus might you bring to your observation, and why? (e.g., two or three sentences).
• Identify a pitfall that seems likely (e.g., getting caught in abstractions) (e.g., two or three sentences).
• Describe how you might avoid or attempt to correct for this pitfall in your inquiry (e.g., two or three sentences).

This reading thus serves as some practice planning a contextual inquiry before moving on to your primary project.

No more than one page of text in PDF format.

Submit via Canvas here:

https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/987987/assignments/3011029

Reading 2: Critique and Teamwork

Read:

• Cheng (2013). How to Survive a Critique: A Guide to Giving and Receiving Feedback
• Katzenbach and Smith (1993). The Discipline of Teams.
• Pausch. Tips for Working Successfully in a Group.

Due: Uploaded the night before section Friday, April 15, 2016.

After reading, please think back to your previous experiences working in groups, particularly an experience that could have been improved.

• Briefly describe the project and the group (e.g., two sentences).
• What went poorly in this group (e.g., two sentences)?
• From concepts discussed in these readings, what could have been done differently to improve the group experience (e.g., up to two paragraphs)?

These readings thus reflection on receiving feedback, prior group experiences, and how to maximize your success in this course.

No more than one page of text in PDF format.

Submit via Canvas here:

https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/987987/assignments/3016470

Reading 3: Prototyping Videos

Watch the rapid prototyping videos linked from Lecture 6 and Lecture 8, including the context from which they were linked.

• Lecture 6
• Lecture 8

Specifically, that is these videos:

• IDEO Deep Dive
• Mackay Stop Motion
• Mackay Stop Motion Result
• Document Interaction on Microsoft Surface
• Context Lens on Microsoft Surface
• Don’t Forget 1
• Don’t Forget 2
• Don’t Forget 3
• Buddy Map Backcountry
• Consumester
• Pickup
• Graffiti Karma
• ParkSmart
• Plantr

Optionally, check out these fun “vision of the future” videos:

• Starfire
• Knowledge Navigator
• A Day Made of Glass

Due: Uploaded the night before section .

After viewing, consider what approaches were more or less effective in these examples.

• In one paragraph, describe a technique you saw in these videos that was highly effective. Be specific, such that it is clear you watched the videos. Discuss why it was effective.
• In one paragraph, describe a technique you saw that was ineffective. Be specific, such that it is clear you watched the videos. Discuss why it was ineffective.

These videos thus support your reflection on how to effectively develop and illustrate a design. Techniques in these and other videos will also directly apply as you prepare a video later this quarter.

No more than one page of text in PDF format.

Submit via Canvas here:

https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/987987/assignments/3029582

Reading 4: Paper Prototyping and Usability Testing

Read:

• Rettig (1994). Prototyping for Tiny Fingers
• Snyder (2003). Paper Prototyping. Chapter 4.
• Snyder (2003). Paper Prototyping. Chapter 8.
• Gomoll (1992). Some Techniques for Observing Users.

Optionally, check out this video on paper prototyping:

• Nielsen Norman Group. Paper Prototyping: A How-To Video.

Due: Uploaded the night before section Friday, May 6, 2016.

After reading, consider how you might apply this approach in your paper prototyping and usability testing.

• Describe an specific idea or thought you might be able to apply in your paper prototyping and usability testing.
• Describe why this idea is non-obvious or how it well help ensure good results for your paper prototyping and usability testing.
• Describe what in the readings gave you this idea.

Your thoughts here should be specific. You are already required to do a paper prototype with usability testing, so that is obviously too high-level. Convey a specific idea that indicates you did the reading and thought about how to apply it in the context of your project.

This reading thus serves to get you thinking about these methods in the context of your project.

What actual techniques your team applies will depend on your larger decisions as a team. Nothing about this reading is intended to require that you actually apply the ideas you individually develop here.

No more than one page of text in PDF format.

Submit via Canvas here:

https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/987987/assignments/3039948

Reading 5: Research Paper

Due: Uploaded the night before section Tuesday, May 31 2016.

Researchers and designers often re-invent. Instead it is valuable to take advantage of what is already known. To do this, you need to find and understand prior results. Find and read a research paper related to your project. The paper does not necessarily have to describe an app or device. For example, the research paper may describing the results of surveys or interviews on how people currently track something related to your project.

We have discussed a number of research papers in this class from HCI-related conferences such as:

• CHI
• UIST
• UbiComp

But you might find a research paper in another related field, such as psychology or medicine. Some conferences at the intersection of technology and health include:

• AMIA
• PervasiveHealth

Many papers are available via the ACM Digital Library or on author websites.

The search tool for the ACM Digital Library is pretty terrible, so a better choice is typically Google Scholar.

These resources are easiest to access while on the UW network, but you can also access them off campus using the UW Libraries proxy.

• In one paragraph, summarize the findings of the research paper.
  • What were the main points of this paper?
  • Given the paper, do you believe those main points?
• In one paragraph, describe how the paper applies to your project.
  • After reading this paper, is there anything you wish you had done differently in your design?
  • Do you think you’ve designed something that’s improved upon what this paper discusses?

If you wish, you can do this assignment in pairs from your project team. If you do so, please both submit and include both of your names in the submission.

No more than one page of text in PDF format.

Submit via Canvas here:

https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/987987/assignments/3046595

Also submit a PDF of the research paper you read.

Submit via Canvas here:

https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/987987/assignments/3046597