Friday, July 18, 2014

HCII 2014 is over


We thank all participants of the HCII 2014 Conference, held in Crete, Greece, 22-27 June and look forward to welcoming you all again in Los Angeles, CA, USA for HCII 2015. 

The HCII 2014 conference was held under the auspices of 14 international boards comprising 342 members from 38 countries.

Close to 2.000 people from 73 countries attended this year’s conference.  In 244 sessions, 1476 papers were presented and 225 posters were displayed. 

This year’s keynote speaker was Dr. James R. (Jim) Lewis (IBM, USA). His speech, entitled "Usability: Lessons Learned ... and Yet to Be Learned", reviewed five of the persistent controversies in the field of usability, providing a historical perspective and a pragmatic assessment of their current status.  A companion article in the International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction is available at no charge for a limited period of time at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10447318.2014.930311#.U7WWdRDw_0o


One of the most outstanding features of the HCI International conferences is the variety of cultures and institutions that are represented by the contributing participants. With hundreds of papers and sessions to consider, it is truly challenging to choose an area that stood out in popularity and interest. Yet, there was a multitude of research on gestures and haptic interfaces, cognitive modeling, virtual reality and healthcare. This was the content of just some of the many well-attended sessions.

During the opening session of HCII 2014 sixteen awards were conferred. Fourteen awards were conferred to the best papers in each Affiliated Conference / Thematic Area. Among these fourteen best papers, one paper was selected as Best HCI International 2014 Conference paper. Finally, the Best Poster also received an award. For more information, please visit the conference website at: http://www.hcii2014.org/awards

Looking forward to seeing everyone at Los Angeles in 2015.


A.M.


Published in: HCI International NEWS - July 2014 - Number 66

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Book Review: Designing with the Mind in Mind


In the 14 chapters of this book the authors provide an excellent selection of topics and examples that constitutes necessary knowledge for everyone involved in designing user interfaces, and perhaps even all software engineers. 
The book starts by reviewing human perception (Chapter 1), followed by vision and visual perception, visual structure (chapter 2 and 3), color blindness (chapter 4), and peripheral vision (chapter 5).
Reading, attention, learning, decision making and aim movement are covered by focusing on areas that are really relevant to HCI and user interface design.
The book is easy to read for novice audiences, students and particularly practitioners. It is well illustrated with plenty of examples.
One missing topic might be a chapter on movement and touch, necessary for interaction design for touch screens.

Designing with the Mind in Mind: Simple Guide to Understanding User Interface Design Guidelines, by Jeff Johnson
Second Edition, Morgan Kaufmann is an imprint of Elsevier, Press, 2014, ISBN: 978-0-12-407914-4
https://www.elsevier.com/books/designing-with-the-mind-in-mind/johnson/978-0-12-407914-4 

HCI International NEWS - May 2014 - Number 65

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Douglas Engelbart passed away on July 3rd 2013.



Douglas Engelbart, who invented the first computer mouse and helped develop the PC user interface, passed away this July. Dr. Engelbart died at 88 at his home in Atherton, California. The New York Times obituary cited the cause of death as stated by his wife Karen was kidney failure.
Douglas Carl Engelbart was born in Portland, Oregon on Jan. 30th, 1925. He spending his childhood years on a farm in Portland, graduated from high school in 1942 and then proceeded to attend Oregon State College. According to the New York Times, “towards the end of World War II, he was drafted. He spent two years in the Navy, one of them in the Philippines, as a radar technician.
One day he was in a reading library on a small island when an article titled “As We May Think” caught his eye. The article, by Vannevar Bush, a physicist and inventor who oversaw the United States Office of Scientific Research and Development during the war, described a universal information retrieval system called Memex. The idea stuck with Dr. Engelbart, and he made it his life’s work. “
Without question Engelbart was one of the most influential people in the development and power of the personal computer.

A.M.
 __________________________________

For More about Douglas Engelbart …
“Computer Visionary Who Invented the Mouse,” nytimes.com, July 3rd 2013.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&

"From the archives: Douglas Engelbart's lasting legacy, 1999," the Mercury News, July 3, 013.

Remembering Douglas Engelbart,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 56 No. 9, Pages 24-25

-------------
 HCI International NEWS – September  2013 - Number 61

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Human Performance: Resident Physician’s Shorter Shift Increases Patient Risk


A recent study done by Johns Hopkins researchers concludes that “limiting the number of continuous hours worked by medical trainees failed to increase the amount of sleep each intern got per week, but dramatically increased the number of potentially dangerous handoffs of patients from one trainee to another”.

The researchers also found that, “the minimal number of patient handoffs between interns increased from three for those working 30 hours to as high as nine for those working 16-hour shifts. The more handoffs, the less continuity of care and the more room for medication and other treatment and communication errors, past research has shown. Meanwhile, the minimal number of different interns caring for a given patient during a three-day stay increased from three to as high as five. Whether or not, or in what way, that affects patient care or patient satisfaction is another unknown.”


Interestingly enough, this study also found that “although interns on the 16-hour limit schedule did sleep an average of three hours longer during the 48 hours encompassing their on-call period than those working 30-hour shifts, there was no difference in the amount of sleep they got across a week.”


"During each call period, the interns had 14 extra hours out of the hospital, but they only used three of those hours for sleeping."


Primary researcher Dr. Desai stated "we don't know if that's enough of a physiologically meaningful increase in sleep to improve patient safety".


Basic human factors knowledge suggests that human performance improves when the human body is in good physical condition—in this case sufficient sleep or a shorter shift—and allows for better decision-making and an improvement in safety and health.


However the study continues to suggest that the increases in the number of patient handoffs contribute to “the less continuity of care and the more room for medication and other treatment and communication errors”. If this is the case, shouldn’t the solution instead be one that consists of a better shift configuration, rather than reverting back to long shifts?


A.M.

-------------------------------
References
Reducing work hours for medical interns increases patient 'handoff' risks.
Doctor Fatigue Raises Car Accident Risk: Study, 12/26/2012.
------------------------
Published in

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Factory Fire in Bangladesh killed 112 workers: Who enjoys better working conditions?


Over the years, working conditions in manufacturing have tremendously
improved throughout western developed countries; although there is no
question that there is still a lot of improvement needed to be done. However
off-shoring the labor that is more intensive, physical, and oftentimes risky
to the countries that lack adequate occupational health and safety laws and
regulations is cheaper, and therefore more common even though it does not
implement preventive measure. The excessive danger of such manufacturing
jobs is put to the side, as companies take advantage of a population's
poverty which allow workers to accept any physical and hazardous condition
in order to feed themselves and their family.

The garment factory fire in Bangladesh, keep in mind that there are
approximately 4,000 factories in this country, is the most recent accident
related to this situation of occupational safety and health in countries
manufacturing the goods sold in western developed countries.

A witness shown on ABC news said "Our production manager ... pulled down the
collapsible gate on the third floor, forcing us to continue working."

The Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights
(http://www.globallabourrights.org) and press reported a variety of these
catastrophic working conditions in many countries and the effects on the
people surrounded by them. The incidents of human terror include a "Chinese
Guest Workers Flee Living Hell in Jordan" and Reminiscent of Slavery, Young
Women Flee, Running Away from the 93-Hour Work Week at the Rich Pine
Factory."

On the work conditions at the iPhone and iPad plants in China: "Employees
work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in
crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they
can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple's products, and
the company's suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and
falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that,
within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors." (New
York Times)

Relating to the ".working children in Pakistan is probably somewhere between
2 and 19 million...", "child weavers suffer work-related injuries and
illnesses, such as injuries due to sharp instruments, respiratory tract
infections, and body aches" (United Sates Bureau of International Labor
Affairs).

The countless reports make me question the global concern about these
situations, especially among ergonomic and human factors communities. Should
we not pay more attention?

Abbas Moallem
===============
References
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-huma
n-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports?id=0646
http://www.dol.gov/ilab/media/reports/iclp/sweat/pakistan.htm#.ULfBGawX98E

Published in
The Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics International (AHFE) NEWS - December 2012- Number 35

Friday, October 19, 2012

Apple vs. Samsung verdict: Is this also a win for the Human Computer Interaction design community?


August 24th was a landmark victory for Apple vs. Samsung over patent-infringement. The jury found the majority of Samsung smartphones and tablets guilty of infringing on a number of Apple patents, and recommended that Apple be awarded $1.05 billion in damages. The patents Samsung infringed and violated include [1]
  • All phones and tablets on the screen bounce-back patent
  • Pinch and zoom patent with all but three devices
  • The front of the iPhone for all but one phone
  • The home screen for all phones
The victory of Apple reminds me of the Apple Computer, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation lawsuit in 1994 (lawsuit was filed in 1988, lasted four years and was affirmed for appeal in 1994) over a copyright infringement. At that time Apple was looking to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. However, Apple lost that lawsuit. The court also pointed out that many of Apple's claims failed on an originality basis. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."[2]
Since then GUI technology has changed, and patenting the user interface innovation is nothing more than patenting common sense. Indeed, discovering common sense or intuitive approach requires a lot of research and effort.
Thus two questions one might ask: 
  • Was the Apple vs. Microsoft ruling good for users? or
  • Is protecting innovation in GUI and visual design most beneficial for users?
Samsung, along with some analysts claim that the ruling will bring the price of the devices up for customers and customers will not benefit from innovations. 
Yet looking at the aftermath of Apple’s loss to Microsoft on the GUI lawsuit does not seem to confirm this prediction. In fact from 1994 to 2007 no significant innovations happened from a usability perspective and prices were not much affected.  Most cell phones were copying each other with the same basic interfaces and successive releases with minor changes forced the user to change their device every six months. The laptops continued to be the same old design and interface until the concept of the iPad was introduced.  
In user experience and human computer interaction, the discovery of a user friendly and intuitive design is not an easy task. Finding an “obvious” or “intuitive” way is easy to recognize but hard to find. It requires motivation, vision, perseverance and research to find the best solution for a product, something that requires money, time, and most importantly the belief that better user experiences can create product success in the marketplace.
It might be quite easy to copy the innovations of another and be successful, but one only achieves a real success when they invest and innovate user experiences that simplify and change the lives of millions people. Perhaps this new ruling will have encouraging effects for more innovations.
A. M.


-------------------------------------------------
[1] Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., C 11-1846 & C 12-0630
http://cand.uscourts.gov/lhk/applevsamsung

[2] Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994).http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/35/35.F3d.1435.93-16883.93-16869.93-16867.html

Published in ergonomics in design

Monday, April 9, 2012

“Consumer” versus “User” Behavior

Our behaviors as “consumers” are not necessarily the same as our behaviors as “users” of a product. Our behavior as a “consumer” when deciding whether to select and purchase a product is more driven by functionality rather than by the ease of use or usability. As a “consumer” we become more cost-oriented rather than comfort-oriented. Our decisions also tend to be more emotional instead of rational. For instance, we might make a decision merely based on the visual appeal, the packaging, or simply the brand name. As a "consumer", we sometimes become obsessed with the number of features in a product, even when we are aware of how unlikely it is that we will use all those features; how many of them will never be touched. Just take a look at your latest digital camera and consider how many of its features you have actually used, or even attempted to use. I remember a digital watch that came out a couple years ago which offered a feature where one was able to enter over 100 telephone numbers into it. Of course you would have to enter each number digit-by-digit with a pen since the enter button was so very small, and if by chance you were one of the few courageous people who did such a thing, you were still only an accident away from losing all of your data.

Our behavior changes to “user” immediately after we begin to interact with a product, a process starting from the moment we open the product packaging and ending on the day we replace it.

As a user, we interact with the product on a regular basis. We need to problem solve it when we have issues and work on maintaining it. These activities generally happen after the period that we can return the product, and so if the interaction and user experience is not satisfactory we are still obliged to live with our unhappiness until we can afford to replace it. This unhappiness will most certainly affect our decision to acquire the same brand or a similar product.

Consequently as “users” we are more comfort-oriented than functionality-based; we prefer the product that provides us with ease of use for the most important and frequently done tasks. We love error-free products as well as ones that are easy to maintain. We prefer being able to problem solve eventual issues by ourselves, rather than ever having a relationship with a customer support line—which we connect to long phone calls, spelling out our names multiple times, stating the case number serial again and again, completing pre and post call surveys, and so on until finally our support agent starts to investigate our problem and eventually helps us to solve it. Often times we even feel the agent is just as clueless as us, the only difference being their access to manual pages which they read robotically.

Users love a product that offers a better user experience, becoming more forgiving when the product does not always behave as expected. Users who like a product with good user experience will continue to buy the same brand as long as they are built with their type of user in mind.

A.M.

Published in: AHFEI NEWS
April 2012 - Number 31