Fundamentals of Human Centered Design

Weekly Reflection I

What is Human Centered Design? Does it relate to Human Computer Interaction? What are User Interface, User Experience and Interaction Design; and how do they play a part in these fields? My understanding of each of these terms was based on the little research I did as I picked HCD as my major, involving a lot of my personal assumptions. The need to answer these questions in depth and discussion was a good way of beginning this course, the Fundamentals of Human Centered Design, to be able to keep definite rules in mind while designing a product/system or service relating to this field. After being a part of the discussions in class, the way I understand it is that Human Centered Design is problem solving approach that falls under the larger umbrella of Design as a whole, where the aspect of human emotions and subjectivity are accounted for and dealt with (which makes it different than general design processes). It may or may not involve the use of Human-Computer Interaction, given that a solution can be off technology; but then usually technology can make things faster and easier. HCI involves research through cognitive sciences (psychology, philosophy, linguistics and computer modelling) and user research. User Interface, Experience and Interaction design also may/may not use HCI while designing, but the aspect of Researching the audience and human behaviour from HCI can also make things more efficient. User Interface design, in my understanding, deals with designing interfaces and the interactions with them efficient and natural to the user in order to maximise usability of the interface and the experience that it imparts to the user. User Experience Design is a process meant to enhance user satisfaction, could be thought out for while the device/system/service being used or after. Interaction Design, in my opinion falls under both UI and UX design because there is a constant need for interaction in order to get a system/service or product to function. The examples being discussed in class felt like attempts to distinguish between business agendas and schemes in that favour the user base. The example of toothpaste and its diameter affecting its sales was an interesting way of interpretation, but it left me confused with its relevance with the ongoing discussion; User Experience. I feel that a lot of this goes hand in hand with engineering, with the way products and designs emerge for the world to use. The only exception we make as human centered designers is that we tend to keep in mind the consequences of everything at hand. The medium for development remains the same for all, the technology prevailing in the world and the power to tweak it as per needs. It is sad that the world doesn’t acknowledge this in the same way, since they’ve only seen engineering emerge as a strong and upcoming, well off field of working and contributing to the society. My personal inclination lies towards learning how to manipulate interactive designs (screen-based, mostly), customising them and getting things done. And while that interest is subject to change when I strike off my likes and dislikes through the next two years, I think it is good to have realised in week 1 that every one of the terms falling under HCD have been coined and used with a lot of depth and detail, and cannot just be thrown away in conversation.

Weekly Reflection II

Design of everyday things by Don Norman touched upon the very fundamentals of design, which we’ve all been aware of but I personally had no idea what they were called, or the level of their importance. While affordances and signifiers felt slightly confusing, the following link was really helpful in making things clearer.

https://socialinsilico.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/7-fundamentals-of-design-and-how-they- apply-to-online-spaces/

Affordance is basically what an object has to offer to a user, what it can do. Perceived affordances are what one thinks an object can do. Signifiers explain in detail what the object can do. While affordances are seen as the property of the object, signifiers tend to make this understanding better. Constraints happen to be restrictions on an object or a system that allow the user to determine a course of action by limiting the possible actions available to the user. It is of four kinds- Physical (size and shape), cultural (socially acceptable), semantical (relying on the meaning of the situation) and logical. Mapping is the relationship between the elements of two sets of things. (Eg- the setting up the buttons with the placement of bulbs in the room, clockwise rotation of a steering turns the car right). Feedback is a way of communicating the results of an action to the user. Lastly, conceptual model is a highly simplified explanation of how something works. It can be based on what a person already knows to be able to communicate something more efficiently, using the aspect of familiarity. The understanding of these concepts was critical to begin controversy mapping for waste management in Srishti. We began brainstorming how the system works, or more like how we think it works and our very initial idea was highly based on assumptions. We figured the only way to understand the system better was by asking people who are directly involved with the functioning of the system. We ruled out us as students because for us, we already have the campus clean as and when we need it and are never really affected by the problems being caused. We tried looking at it from the perspective of the janitorial staff, because they silently observe how things are being done and take care of things by the end of the day. We mapped a comparative map between an ideal working of the system and its present working, which showed us where the system goes wrong, and ultimately, the causes of conflict. I liked this approach because it brought us insights in a very procedural manner.

Weekly Reflection III

This week has put us to focus mostly on our final assessment, where we come up with an addition (system, service or device) that makes the Waste Management System in Srishti more efficient for our chosen stakeholder- the Janitorial Staff. Looking back into the affordance and empathy maps we made previously, we could understand the problem in depth and could all agree as a group on the fact that along with a poorly executed waste segregation system for wet and dry waste, our chosen stakeholder also faces a constant probe of deciding what can/cannot be discarded from the studios and workshops. There are a lot of printouts, both one and two sided and leftover projects that can very much be reused.

These just lie around in classrooms for various reasons- till the evaluation deadline, discarded, stored- and there is no way the janitorial staff can know what needs to be done with it. A lot of these projects

also use expensive material that need not be discarded, can be reused. We decided to devise an elaborate extension of a dustbin, which combines the utility of a bin and organizers, where such projects can be dismantled and used by the students. In this way they are not only reusing, but also not generating additional waste in the process of making their projects. While this is possible without the need of our proposal, one can never know for sure whether something is available for usage since it doesn’t belong to them. Along with that also comes the additional effort of dismantling another’s work for their need, one would rather buy new material to work with. With this organizer, everything is placed within labelled designated spaces and acts as a better approachable spot for using those materials again. This seems to be pretty student oriented, but we here are also making the janitorial staff’s work easier by eliminating their situation of having to decide so their work can be less stationery and more cleanliness oriented. Their only job here would be to ensure none of those storage spaces are overflowing or looking messy, and they can put their energies to the general cleanliness of the campus. The biggest challenge I personally faced the first day this week was the lack of coming up with concrete ideas. Each of my directions was channelizing to just this idea mentioned above which essentially counts as one. The feedback we received convinced us to take a step back and look into a way of indicating to the janitorial staff about what the projects lying around are kept there for- a way they can decipher what needs to be done with it without having to second guess themselves. The next day we tried looking beyond organization of material and tried to think of ways of getting a project or belonging somehow communicate who it belongs to and when it can be discarded in the absence of the owner of the belonging. The most basic ways of doing so- from what we could think of were labels made with papers or flags, color coded to indicate whether it is okay to throw. We realized that there isn’t a need to communicate exactly why a thing is placed where it is because all that our janitorial staff needs to know is whether or not it can be thrown. However, the use of paper to indicate seemed like addition to existing waste and these labels are also likely to fly or fall. We also didn’t want to use very extensive technology considering our janitorial staff may not be able to operate. The simple act of pointing to a QR code to retrieve information seemed like an idea that could help with our problem at hand and we ideated to use it to our advantage.