[Ux] Draft minutes for 12 Feb 2013 telecon on PMT and PCP

Andrés Iglesias Pérez aiglesias at technosite.es
Wed Feb 13 18:54:01 EST 2013


Dear all,
Firstly, sorry for not attending to the last meeting, I've been so indulged by Christophe that now I'm used to receive the mail prior to every meeting I must attend and I missed this one.

Regarding the rating system, I'd like to bring back two wiki pages:

http://wiki.gpii.net/index.php/WP205_StartUp
http://wiki.gpii.net/index.php/WP204/WP205_Meeting_on_2012-06-22_12:00_UTC

where we wrote down what we've been talking about the "stars system". Yes, we talked about asking to the "frontend people" and about being able to deactivate the rating system by user choice.

One of the things I consider good for the stars system is its simplicity. For a user having to understand all the features behind Cloud4All may become too overwhelming, but just saying 1-5 how much does he like this concrete interaction is way simpler. And some mainstream applications, such as Skype or newspapers, are yet using it so maybe the user has some experience with giving this kind of feedback.

The other thing I consider good is our ability to know if the user is lost after the UI provided. If no feedback is provided AND no changes are made on the PCP, maybe the AT wasn't able to start, or we failed on the transformation. As this project is targeting accessibility issues, some interfaces are not just ugly or hard to use, they are plain impossible to use. That's another point to discuss when trying to ask the user her permission before applying the transformations. What happens when the initial UI was not accessible?

So for the extreme cases is easy. 5 stars -> so good that we could consider to give this transformations more often for near NPsets. 1 star -> so bad that the user has asked for help to someone to say to us that we did it wrong, and we need to deliver another UI just right now. 0 stars -> user lost. Going to idea mode, if we can associate a shaking with 1 star and we let the user know it, blind power users will provide precise and timely feedback.

And for the middle cases, a good strategy is to show a prompt (or its generic name when i want to say visual-auditory-haptic way to show some labels and receive some text) to ask for further advice (Were you angry with the colours? It was too much magnification? too few? ...according with the transformations we know we delivered) Again, skype is using this. We can even tweak the things a little bit (once a month, provide transformations moved to another point in the search space...just to know what happens...) to gain more knowledge.

After all, we're not going to deploy experts with the devices, right? :-D so we need to have a mechanism to cost a low amount of time to the user when giving us feedback . IMHO we're lucky to get a 2stars rating when the user is not satisfied with our first try...but we're trying to be the luckiest ones in the world if we deliver a UI that deserves 2stars and still expect that the user is going to loose 10 minutes making changes one by one to get a distance metric. Most probably he/she will just switch to another program that works better.

So, these are my arguments in favour of a stars system, but I will accept what you choose to design. We'll try to build it!

 "put it back the way it was", and "don't change this again" are good ideas to include to the rating system, at least after some usages of the same device with the same ATs installed by the same user. They're demanding an action, but they're also expressing a preference.

Kind regards,

--
Andrés Iglesias Pérez | Andres Iglesias Perez
Investigador  I+D+i | R&D Researcher
Departamento de I+D+i | R&D Department
Dirección de Tecnologías Accesibles e I+D+i | Accessible Technology and R&D&i Management
Technosite, Grupo Fundosa | Fundosa Group
C/ Albasanz, 16, 3ºB. 28037. Madrid. Spain
Tel:             +34 91.121.03.30
Fax: +34 91.375.70.51
aiglesias at technosite.es
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jess Mitchell <jessmitchell at gmail.com<mailto:jessmitchell at gmail.com>>
Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Ux] Draft minutes for 12 Feb 2013 telecon on PMT and PCP
To: "Melcher, Vivien" <Vivien.Melcher at iao.fraunhofer.de<mailto:Vivien.Melcher at iao.fraunhofer.de>>
Cc: ux at lists.gpii.net<mailto:ux at lists.gpii.net>


Dear All,

I'm so glad we've got this thread started. Boyan, you bring up some architectural questions about the "ecosystem" of user tools that I don't have an answer to, but I think they're really good observations that the architecture team will need to do some thinking and talking about. Claudia, you bring up an important point about how to determine what the priority preferences are for the user, bridging the gap between architecture and design. And Vivien reiterates the differences between the PCP and MM comm tool from the design perspective. All great observations that further show the importance of this list and these meetings!

I want to propose that the design team present some new frames in next Tuesday's call. We have been working on incorporating the team's feedback from the first meeting and have made some simplifications to the PCP. I think that in walking through those new frames we will hit on a number of the questions that were raised in yesterday's call and also perhaps shed some light on the next steps for thinking about what a MM comm tool will do and from there we can begin thinking of how to incorporate it into our design thinking of the full suite of tools.

So, I propose the following agenda:
- design team walks-through the latest designs
- the design team and the development team discuss the following points in an effort to gain some clarity:
        - automating the prioritization of preferences for the user
        - talk through the functionality we image a MM comm tool would add
        - talk about how the matchmakers will solve some of these issues (e.g. rating and ranking)
- and anything else anyone would like to add.

Christophe, thanks again for such great meeting notes!.

Looking forward to it,
Jess


On Feb 13, 2013, at 9:09 AM, "Melcher, Vivien" <Vivien.Melcher at iao.fraunhofer.de<mailto:Vivien.Melcher at iao.fraunhofer.de>> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> From a user's perspective I would separate the PCP from the MM communication tool in some way. Maybe the MMCT (Match Maker communication tool) is the extension of the PCP that can be faded in by a certain button. The PCP is more the basic tool for on-the-fly changes. This is what the average user needs to use Cloud4all in a proper way. The MMCT is more an expert panel and should therefore only be visible, if the expert user wants to use it.
>
> Best,
>
> Vivien
> Von: ux-bounces at lists.gpii.net<mailto:ux-bounces at lists.gpii.net> [ux-bounces at lists.gpii.net<mailto:ux-bounces at lists.gpii.net>]" im Auftrag von "Claudia Loitsch [claudia.loitsch at tu-dresden.de<mailto:claudia.loitsch at tu-dresden.de>]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2013 14:47
> An: Boyan Sheytanov; ux at lists.gpii.net<mailto:ux at lists.gpii.net>
> Betreff: Re: [Ux] Draft minutes for 12 Feb 2013 telecon on PMT and PCP
>
> Hello,
>
> I agree with Boyan that the PCP and the MM Communication Panel have many similarities. I don`t understand exactly what the minimal set of settings or options would be and what would be the difference to settings that are determined for a current context. Would a user define the minimal set of preferences that he/she wants to have always on top as for example widgets on android for brightness, GPS, connection, etc?  All other preferences have been determined for the current context by matchmaking might be than separately available for modification, rating and storing.
>
> Besides rating and modification of determined preferences, another opt-in user feedback feature (on matchmaking results or better on inferred and suggested preferences) result from the matchmaking concept: feedback on recommendation. The user should be informed if a new preference can be recommended based on his/her action or based on a context change. The user might wants a preview of the preference effect, reject a certain recommendation or recommendations at all.
>
> Best,
>
> Claudia
>
>
> Am 13.02.2013 13:11, schrieb Boyan Sheytanov:
>> Hey there,
>>
>> I'd like to put in some comments on the differences between the tools we discussed (see the PMT, PCP and Feedback to the Matchmaker section of the minutes).
>>
>> I think that the PCP and the MM Communication Panel as defined in the meeting minutes actually have a lot in common, so I am not confident we should separate them (at least from an architectural perspective). Both components:
>>      • Get an input on what settings or options to show. This might be coming from the user, matchmaker or somewhere else, but that doesn't matter as long as it follows a unified interface for communication (we need to define that).
>>      • Use Fluid UI Options to show controls for changing settings.
>>      • Allow the user to update a given setting in real time.
>>      • Allow the user to permanently save the changed settings to the preferences server.
>> In addition, the MM Communication Panel sends some results back to the matchmaker. So architecturally I believe these would still be a single component (whatever its name might be). I will let the design team weigh in on whether we need to separate them from a user perspective.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Best,
>> Boyan
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Christophe Strobbe <strobbe at hdm-stuttgart.de<mailto:strobbe at hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have published draft minutes of yesterday's telecon on the PMT and PCP
>> at
>> <http://wiki.gpii.net/index.php/User_Preferences_UX_Meeting_2013-02-12>.
>> Feel free to improve them if/where necessary.
>>
>> We didn't continue the discussion on the ideas for the PCP and the PMT
>> that IDRC presented last week, but I'm sure that our Canadian friends
>> would still appreciate feedback, especially after yesterday's discussion
>> about the "Matchmaker Communication Panel" (or whatever we call the MM
>> feedback mechanism).
>>
>> The next meeting will take place next Tuesday, 3 p.m. CET, using GoToMeeting.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>> --
>> Boyan Sheytanov
>> Lead Systems Engineer
>> Astea Solutions AD
>> www.asteasolutions.com<http://www.asteasolutions.com>
>>
>> The information in this e-mail and any accompanying files is intended only for the recipients named above. This message may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not download, copy, disseminate, distribute or use in any way the information in this e-mail. Any of these actions can be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Astea Solutions AD immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this e-mail and any copies of it.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ux mailing list
>>
>> Ux at lists.gpii.net<mailto:Ux at lists.gpii.net>
>> http://lists.gpii.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ux
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------
> Dipl.-Medieninf. Claudia Loitsch
>
> Technische Universität Dresden
> Institut für Angewandte Informatik
> Professur Mensch-Computer Interaktion
>
> Tel.: 0351/463 42025
> Fax: 0351/463 38491
>
> E-Mail:
> claudia.loitsch at tu-dresden.de<mailto:claudia.loitsch at tu-dresden.de>
> _______________________________________________
> Ux mailing list
> Ux at lists.gpii.net<mailto:Ux at lists.gpii.net>
> http://lists.gpii.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ux

_______________________________________________
Ux mailing list
Ux at lists.gpii.net<mailto:Ux at lists.gpii.net>
http://lists.gpii.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ux



--
Andrés Iglesias
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gpii.net/pipermail/ux/attachments/20130213/da36724f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Ux mailing list