Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: QWERTY, mouse, and novel input

Expand Messages
  • Ron Vutpakdi
    ... I have (as far as usability and design goes). But, then again, I m also on another list where there are occasional flashes of usability is irrelevant
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 7, 2005
      --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Desilets, Alain"
      <alain.desilets@n...> wrote:
      > -- Alain:
      > Interesting...
      >
      > I have not read anything on this list that to my eyes, questioned the
      > relevance of either U* or Agile.

      I have (as far as usability and design goes). But, then again, I'm
      also on another list where there are occasional flashes of "usability
      is irrelevant" from the interaction designers on the list. In both
      cases, I see it as a mixture of infantile "us vs. them," "I know
      everything so I don't need you," "this sandbox is not big enough for
      the two of us," or "you don't get to play in my sandbox" attitudes.

      It's harder to get to the point of working together well if one starts
      with that attitude. Respect and valuing what everyone can bring to
      the table is what teams need to use everyone's strengths.

      I have worked on non-agile and agilish projects. And, I like to think
      of myself as being a fairly agile designer / usability guy since I
      adapt what I do to meet what the teams want/need/can handle. But,
      things work best when the teams adapt as well.

      Ron
    • Desilets, Alain
      ... From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Vutpakdi Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 2:33 PM I have
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 7, 2005
        -----Original Message-----
        From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Vutpakdi
        Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 2:33 PM
        I have (as far as usability and design goes). But, then again, I'm also
        on another list where there are occasional flashes of "usability is
        irrelevant" from the interaction designers on the list.

        -- Alain:
        For sure, you get the occasional posting of this sort on all lists
        (including this one).

        My point is that this list does not exhibit more of those types of
        messages than your average mailing list.

        Therefore, if you come to this list and feel that your discipline (be it
        U* or Agile development) is being dismissed, you are probably not coming
        to it with an open mind.
        ----
      • Desilets, Alain
        Therefore, if you come to this list and feel that your discipline (be it U* or Agile development) is being dismissed, you are probably not coming to it with an
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 7, 2005
          Therefore, if you come to this list and feel that your discipline (be it
          U* or Agile development) is being dismissed, you are probably not coming
          to it with an open mind.

          -- Alain:
          BTW: in the above I didn't mean you, Ron Vutpakdi (I know you have an
          open mind ;-)). I meant the generic you, as in "if someone comes to this
          list and feels etc..."
          -----
        • Ron Vutpakdi
          ... Darn, just before I was going fire off an angry reply. ;-) Seriously, I think that part of this discussion highlights what I ve thought for many years
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 7, 2005
            --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Desilets, Alain"
            <alain.desilets@n...> wrote:
            >
            > Therefore, if you come to this list and feel that your discipline (be it
            > U* or Agile development) is being dismissed, you are probably not coming
            > to it with an open mind.
            >
            > -- Alain:
            > BTW: in the above I didn't mean you, Ron Vutpakdi (I know you have an
            > open mind ;-)). I meant the generic you, as in "if someone comes to this
            > list and feels etc..."
            > -----
            >
            Darn, just before I was going fire off an angry reply. ;-)

            Seriously, I think that part of this discussion highlights what I've
            thought for many years (starting back when I was primarily a
            developer): the hardest part of software development (in a team) isn't
            the technology, the architecture, or the interaction design: it's the
            people aspect of working in a team and working with those outside of
            the team proper.

            Seems to me that cross cultural communication and understanding is one
            of the biggest challenges where the "cross cultural" could be the
            result of different disciplines, cultures, languages, locations,
            and/or previous experiences. I'm currently slamming my head against
            this particular brick wall. Most of the developers that I'm working
            with are in Scotland and have never worked with an interaction
            designer before. So I've got the discipline, location, culture, and
            previous experience divide to bridge (some would also argue that
            Scottish English counts as a different language than American English
            :-) ).

            More face to face time and experience working together would really help.

            On a more relevant note, how many people here have worked on an agile
            development team split across 6+ time zones? Any suggestions? We
            really need the equivalent of a shared team room where we can put up
            task/story cards and such, and SharePoint (uggh) just isn't cutting it.

            I thought about trying to do a virtual one in Canvas, but that limits
            who can effectively update the "wall".

            Ron
          • Jade Ohlhauser
            And here I thought you had stopped following this list, Robin :) * I think a challenge to this discussion is that the knowledge a lot of people desire is about
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 7, 2005
              And here I thought you had stopped following this list, Robin :) *
               
              I think a challenge to this discussion is that the knowledge a lot of people desire is about the details. I personally believe it's not the big ideas that make the most difference on real world projects, it's the hundreds of little things.
               
              Let me put it another way. A while ago I was at the (good) CANUX conference in Banff (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/creativecanux/). There was various presentations on various subjects, but the ones that really stood out for me were the case studies. I saw their analysis studies, their interesting life-size cardboard personas covered in multi-color post-its, etc. To me those "facts" were more interesting and more useful than the academic arguments.
               
              Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions for this list re: that.
               
              Anyway, Ron said:
               
              "... the hardest part of software development (in a team) isn't
              the technology, the architecture, or the interaction design: it's the
              people aspect of working in a team and working with those outside of
              the team proper."
              I agree, one topic I'd enjoy going into deeper is documentation. At our shop documentation and mockups/prototypes are a key part of the relationship between usability and development and the agileness of both. We started down this road with the wiki discussion. Anyone else?
               
              Jade Ohlhauser
              Product Manager
              RPM Software                                 
              www.rpmsoftware.com 403-265-6727 x704
               
               
               
               
              * Disclaimer: we worked together for a year and a half, but it felt much longer (in a good way)
               
               


              From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dymond, Robin
              Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:36 AM
              To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [agile-usability] QWERTY, mouse, and novel input

              Well, you won't find me trading my mouse for a touch screen and a chop
              stick any time soon!

              I agree with Larry, our systems are built within a context, the idea of
              building an enterprise app with something other than a keyboard and
              mouse is quixotic.

              How come no one in this group is discussing ideas on integrating
              usability and agile?

              Agile is rapidly gaining adoption across the software industry, for
              example Microsoft has recently become a strong proponent of Scrum and is
              promoting it with their development tools. How are you integrating agile
              methods with usability ideas on a daily basis? Are you? Or do you have
              waterfall processes, in which the IAs do usability as part of the
              "Design" process, with mockups from photoshop, that may or may not
              become actual software?

              This group has been a bit of a disappointment. I think there is lots of
              work to be done. Usability practitioners will benefit from better
              integration with agile teams building better software quickly. But teams
              will adopt Agile with or without usability practitioners or their ideas
              on board.

              But maybe, with all of the good feedback agile teams get from working
              closely with a customer, usability is inherent, and IAs are largely
              irrelevant for most projects?

              Thoughts?

              Robin Dymond

              -----Original Message-----
              From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joshua Seiden
              Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:45 PM
              To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [agile-usability] QWERTY, mouse, and novel input


              Larry wrote:

              > Interestingly, both the keyboard and mouse have been roundly
              > criticized, yet have proved surprisingly robust as general purpose HMI

              > devices. Research has found that nothing else works quite as well for
              > so many purposes under so many conditions, although other mechanisms
              > may be better in highly specific circumstances.

              And:

              > Bill Buxton distinguishes imitating physical reality in
              > GUI design from using externally learned skills and
              > associations within the framework of effective interaction
              > idioms.


              Josh replies: Buxton also said (at your last forUSE conference)
              something
              like this: as long as we are interacting with the computer using a
              mouse, we
              are interacting with the world using the equivalent of the point of a
              single
              chopstick. That gives us the manipulative power of a fruitfly!

              To be fair, this was in the context of a discussion of the limits of
              general
              purpose devices and general purpose computing.

              JS






              Yahoo! Groups Links







              The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary
              to Capital One and/or its affiliates. The information transmitted herewith
              is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is
              addressed.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
              you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination,
              distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
              upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
              communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
              from your computer.

            • Desilets, Alain
              Seriously, I think that part of this discussion highlights what I ve thought for many years (starting back when I was primarily a developer): the hardest part
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 7, 2005
                Seriously, I think that part of this discussion highlights what I've
                thought for many years (starting back when I was primarily a
                developer): the hardest part of software development (in a team) isn't
                the technology, the architecture, or the interaction design: it's the
                people aspect of working in a team and working with those outside of the
                team proper.

                Seems to me that cross cultural communication and understanding is one
                of the biggest challenges where the "cross cultural" could be the result
                of different disciplines, cultures, languages, locations, and/or
                previous experiences. I'm currently slamming my head against this
                particular brick wall. Most of the developers that I'm working with are
                in Scotland and have never worked with an interaction designer before.
                So I've got the discipline, location, culture, and previous experience
                divide to bridge (some would also argue that Scottish English counts as
                a different language than American English
                :-) ).

                More face to face time and experience working together would really
                help.

                -- Alain:
                Righto. To quote from the Agile manifesto:

                "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools"

                This is the only way to bridge the various culture gaps involved in a
                software project.
                ----









                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • Larry Constantine
                ... we ... single ... On many occasions while sharing dimsum I have been impressed by what can be accomplished with chopsticks. ;-) --Larry Constantine, IDSA
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 8, 2005
                  > Josh replies: Buxton also said (at your last forUSE conference) something
                  > like this: as long as we are interacting with the computer using a mouse,
                  we
                  > are interacting with the world using the equivalent of the point of a
                  single
                  > chopstick. That gives us the manipulative power of a fruitfly!

                  On many occasions while sharing dimsum I have been impressed by what can be
                  accomplished with chopsticks. ;-)

                  --Larry Constantine, IDSA
                • Larry Constantine
                  ... Another interesting example. Audio noting to the chart, whether supported by speech-to-text software or human transcription is a must-have function in
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 8, 2005
                    Ron Vutpakdi wrote:

                    > Just as an aside: the doctors and psychologists that I know who use
                    > speech to text for dictation do so because it's faster for them to
                    > dictate reports rather than typing (not that they can't type). They
                    > can do so while walking around or even just sitting at their desk, but
                    > speaking is faster than typing.
                    >
                    > In their cases, with a special dictionary and training, the
                    > recognition is generally better than 95% since the vocabulary used is
                    > considerably more limited than full speech.
                    >
                    > Many doctors and psychologists still dictate reports/evaluations to a
                    > phone service which then uses a person to transcribe the reports.

                    Another interesting example. Audio noting to the chart, whether supported by
                    speech-to-text software or human transcription is a must-have function in
                    modern medical informatics, but that does not mean it is truly efficient or
                    sufficiently reliable to meet real medical practice objectives. Because of
                    the high potential for errors (95% accuracy sounds good until you turn it
                    around: 1 out of 20 words is wrong), transcribed audio does not become part
                    of the legal patient record until the dictating clinician reviews and signs
                    off on the transcription. Reviewing for errors and correcting is a somewhat
                    tedious process and itself quite error prone, particularly as clinicians
                    typically do so at a later time when the context is no longer fresh in their
                    heads. Transcribed audio, even after review, correction, and sign-off, has a
                    significantly higher error rate than directly entered notes and orders.

                    I don't know if the analysis has been done in medical settings, but in other
                    contexts, when all activities in the process are taken into
                    account(including slowed speech, repetition and correction on the fly,
                    review and editing), the effective total throughput is almost invariably
                    less than even slow direct keyboard entry. We can process up to about 400
                    wpm when heard and rapid speech clocks at nearly 200 wpm, although 120-160
                    is considered tops for persuasive communication. The best commercial
                    "trained" speech-to-text systems are typically only good to about 100 wpm.
                    But, users typically find they can spend as much time correcting errors as
                    dictating (some report as much as 2-3 times). So effective throughput drops
                    to well within the range of typical typing (30-60 wpm).

                    That said, it can still be more efficient use of the clinician's time if
                    notes and orders can be dictated while moving between patients or while
                    riding the subway. (Although HIPAA compliance may become an issue in the
                    latter case.)

                    I think audio notes and orders could actually diminish in use over time, at
                    least in the short run, because the new generation of clinicians has grown
                    up with computers. My personal physician does all his own notes and orders
                    directly into the medical system, typing away at 100+ words/minute. When I
                    commented, he mentioned growing up with computers and video games, then
                    added that being a musician also helped!

                    --Larry Constantine, IDSA
                  • Desilets, Alain
                    I don t know if the analysis has been done in medical settings, but in other contexts, when all activities in the process are taken into account(including
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 8, 2005
                      I don't know if the analysis has been done in medical settings, but in
                      other contexts, when all activities in the process are taken into
                      account(including slowed speech, repetition and correction on the fly,
                      review and editing), the effective total throughput is almost invariably
                      less than even slow direct keyboard entry. We can process up to about
                      400 wpm when heard and rapid speech clocks at nearly 200 wpm, although
                      120-160 is considered tops for persuasive communication. The best
                      commercial "trained" speech-to-text systems are typically only good to
                      about 100 wpm. But, users typically find they can spend as much time
                      correcting errors as dictating (some report as much as 2-3 times). So
                      effective throughput drops to well within the range of typical typing
                      (30-60 wpm).

                      -- Alain:
                      In one of the projects I worked on (computer-assisted transcription of
                      the debates at the House of Commons of Canada), we did some WOZ
                      experiments with professional transcribers and found that we broke even
                      when the speech recognition system had an accuracy of around 85%. In
                      other words, when accuracy was above 85%, it took less time to correct
                      errors in the transcription than to transcribe from scratch for the raw
                      audio.
                      ----
                    • elise_urbanek
                      ... From a linguistics point of view, FYI, they re considered different varieties of the same language. :)
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 25, 2005
                        --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Vutpakdi" <vutpakdi@a...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Darn, just before I was going fire off an angry reply. ;-)
                        >
                        > Seriously, I think that part of this discussion highlights what I've
                        > thought for many years (starting back when I was primarily a
                        > developer): the hardest part of software development (in a team) isn't
                        > the technology, the architecture, or the interaction design: it's the
                        > people aspect of working in a team and working with those outside of
                        > the team proper.
                        >
                        > Seems to me that cross cultural communication and understanding is one
                        > of the biggest challenges where the "cross cultural" could be the
                        > result of different disciplines, cultures, languages, locations,
                        > and/or previous experiences. I'm currently slamming my head against
                        > this particular brick wall. Most of the developers that I'm working
                        > with are in Scotland and have never worked with an interaction
                        > designer before. So I've got the discipline, location, culture, and
                        > previous experience divide to bridge (some would also argue that
                        > Scottish English counts as a different language than American English
                        > :-) ).


                        From a linguistics point of view, FYI, they're considered different
                        'varieties' of the same language. :)
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.