Two presentations at ISD 2017, September 6th-8th

Two contributions from the Usability lab:

The article “Wizard of Oz in the Evolving Map of Design Research: Trying to Frame GUI Interaction Interview” by John Sören Pettersson, Malin Wik and Henrik Andersson presents and discusses GUI-ii based on Elisabeth Zanders four cardinal dimensions used to frame design practice and design research.

Abstract:
We present and discuss GUI-ii, Graphical User Interface interaction interview, a method used to remotely discuss, develop and test GUI prototypes with users and stakeholders. Examples of such sessions are presented to demonstrate that the main benefits of GUI-ii are that this way of co-designing allows for interaction-informed discussions around functions and user interfaces, where re-design and hands-on experience can be integrated and efficiently carried out remotely. Using a facilitation tool to enact GUI layout and responses allows participation and evaluation to take turns in participatory design processes in a productive way. We discuss this form of Participatory Design along the dimensions found in Sanders’ Map of Design Research. The discussion concludes that GUI-ii facilitates participation by relaxing demands for physical presence and by allowing people to participate from their own work environment while still making it easy for them to directly influence contents, structure and interaction.

Doctoral student Farzaneh Karegar and master student Daniel Lindegren began the evaluation of user interfaces for the CREDENTIAL Wallet App in January. Since then, several other tests have been conducted. The results from three test are compared in an article to ISD 2017: “Assessments of a Cloud-Based Data Wallet for Personal Identity Management” by Farzaneh Karegar, Daniel Lindegren, John Sören Pettersson and Simone Fischer-Hübner.

Abstract:
Within a project developing cloud technology for identity access management, usability tests of mockups of a mobile app identity provider were conducted to assess users’ consciousness of data disclosures in consent forms and flow of authentication data. Results show that using one’s fingerprint for giving consent was easy, but most participants had not a correct view of where the fingerprint data is used and what entities would have access to it. Familiarity with ID apps appeared to aggravate misunderstanding. In addition, participants could not well recall details of personal data releases and settings for disclosure options. An evaluation with a confirmation screen slightly improved recall rate. However, some participants voiced a desire to have control over their data and expressed a wish to manually select mandatory information. This can be a way of slowing users down and make them reflect more.

This paper won the Best Paper Award at the ISD 2017 conference.