Module Code : CT035-3-3- HCIAU

Intake Code : UC3F1805SE

Name : Joshua Jebaraj
Lecturer Name : MS AIDA ZAMNAH BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN
Hand in Date : 3rd December 2018
Part A :
Each team member is to select a topic and produce an ESSAY of not more than 1500 words

Topic : The HCI Challenges for developing a mobile app

Human-computer interaction (HCI) is the study of the interaction between humans and
computers . Such interaction is mainly done at the user interface. One of the major concerns of
professional practitioners in the field of HCI is the design of interactive computing systems for
human use. As a result, it is a basic goal of HCI designers to make computers more usable and
more receptive to the user’s needs. To provide the best possible interface within given
constraints, the HCI designers are supposed to develop systems that minimize the barrier
between the human’s cognitive model of what users want to accomplish and the computer’s
understanding of the users’ tasks. (DUNLOP, 2007) This also leads to the emerging
technological research in smartphones being used widely, among the citizens of the globe. This
emerging technology has made HCI researchers think out of the box on how to make this pocket
computer more user friendly for the human interactions.

Mobile devices play an important role in the modern society. They are being used by
people of all walks of life for various purposes. They can be found in the fields of education,
entertainment, medicine, communication service, military systems, and so on. Due to the
multidisciplinary nature of HCI, designing user interfaces for mobile devices poses several
interaction challenges . Some of these challenges are hardware-related, while the others
software-related. Owing to the fast development in the digital technology, the operation of
human-computer interface is becoming more and more complicated. Consequently, to catch up
with the speedy and fleeting transformation, the user of digital interactive products can only
keep on learning various operating interfaces, programming languages, and development
environments. (Hongwarittorrn, 2017) Nowadays, in our daily lives, we can hear more and
more people complaining about the bad design in interaction interface. Is this problem caused
by the bad design of the interactive products or by the shortage of users’ knowledge about the
logics of the human-machine interaction design? (DUNLOP, 2007)

Most researchers in HCI take interest in developing new design methodologies,

experiencing with new hardware devices, prototyping new software systems, and exploring
new paradigms for interaction. Designs in HCI aim to create user interfaces which can be
operated with ease and efficiency. Many digital products that require users to interact with
them to accomplish their tasks have not necessarily designed with the users in mind. The
designer always claims how usable the products are; however, an even more basic requirement
is that the interface should allow the user to carry out relevant tasks completely. In other words,
the design must be both usable and useful for the user and it must be a user-centred design.
Current mobile computing devices such as palmtop computers, Personal Digital Assistants
(PAD), and mobile phones have a problem in common—attempting to provide users with
powerful computing services and resources through small interfaces. As is usually the case
with mobile devices, limited screen size makes it difficult to efficiently present information
and help users navigate to and from the information they want. (DUNLOP, 2007) And since
mobile devices are often required to possess multiple functionalities, the convergence of
electronics, computing, and communication is becoming a must in the mobile industry. In
addition, because mobile devices need to operate with limited battery charge, how to deal with
the power consumption has also become one of the most important issues for system designers.
But that is mainly researched for the outer of a mobile device which indirectly affects the
usability of the device. (Hongwarittorrn, 2017)

Moving forward, applications on the mobile device also known as the shorter term
“Mobile apps” which also needs to be very persuasive and user friendly to be used. Therefore,
as we emerge in time, we can see that the number of times an application is updated is way
higher than normal. (Kraleva, 2017) Social media apps such as “Facebook” and “Instagram”
will update their looks of their UX only to make it easier for the user to use it. The problem
arises at the necessity of doing so. According to a researcher, User experience (UX) has been
defined as “the combined experience of what a user feels, perceives, thinks, and physically and
mentally reacts to before and during the use of a product or service”. Basically, an important
concept in UX is the process by which users form experiences since they first encounter the
product and as the product is used throughout a period (Reem Alnaniha, 2016). UX can be
explained by three characteristics. The first one is the holistic nature of UX. What is meant by
holistic nature is that UX encompasses a broad range of qualities and includes not only the
visual, tactile, auditory aspects of the system but also how the system functions under an
appropriate usage environment or context . The second characteristic is that UX focus is heavily
tilted towards user’s perspective. UX is often misunderstood for UI (user interface), as their
abbreviations are similar. UI tends to tilt towards computer side, and UI evaluations are often
subjected to quantitative measurement or usability testing. UX, in contrast, concerns how users
think, feel, and behave. The third characteristic is that UX has strategic value in firm’s
development of a product or service. UX has recently become an important topic worth
consideration by top executives. (Reem Alnaniha, 2016)
The goal of designing for UX is to encourage positive feelings (e.g., satisfying,
enjoyable, exciting, motivating, and fun) and minimizing negative feelings (e.g., boring,
frustrating, annoying, and cutesy) towards the product. Unlike usability goals, UX goals are
subjective qualities and concerned with how a product feels to a user. There were attempts to
utilize quantitative measurements to measure user’s emotion. The measurements were adopted
from medical applications, such as measuring pulse and blood pressure, or using facial
electromyography (EMG) and electroencephalography (EEG) to reflect computer frustration.
However, its validity in measuring user experience remains questionable. Although usability
and UX are different, they are not completely separated. In fact, usability is part of user
experience. For example, a product that is visually pleasing might evoke positive first-contact
experience; however, if its usability was inadequate, it could damage overall user experience.
Apart from usability, other core components of UX include useful and desirable content,
accessibility, credibility, visually pleasing, and enjoyment. (Hongwarittorrn, 2017)
One of the most important design philosophies in HCI is the universal design. It is the
process of creating products that can be accessed by as many people as possible, with the widest
possible range of abilities, operating within the widest possible range of situations. To make
products that can be used by everyone is impossible; however, designers can try to exclude as
few people as possible, by ensuring that the products are flexible and adaptable to individual
needs and preferences. To accomplish universal design goals, the understanding of user
diversity is needed. There are several dimensions of user diversity that differentiate groups of
users. (Reem Alnaniha, 2016)
The first dimension is disabilities. Much of experimental research has been conducted
to understand how disabilities affect interaction with technology. The main efforts of studies
were to study the users themselves, their requirements for interaction, appropriate modalities,
interactive devices, and techniques to address their needs. The research includes visual
impairments, auditory impairments, motor and physical impairments, and cognitive
impairments. Visual impairments greatly affect human interaction with technology, as human
relies on vision to operate computer systems. Visual impairments encompass a wide range of
vision problems related to acuity, accommodation (ability to focus on objects at different
distances from the eyes), illumination adaption, perception of depth, and color vision. Minor
visual impairments can usually be addressed by magnifying the size of interactive elements,
increasing color contrast, or selecting appropriate color combinations for color-blinded users.
Unlike visual impairments, blindness refers to a complete or nearly complete vision loss . Blind
users benefit from audio and haptic modality for input and output. They are supported by screen
readers, speech input and output, and Braille displays. Auditory impairments (or hearing
impairments) can also affect interaction with technology. The impairments may vary in degree,
from slight to severe. Majority of people with hearing impairments have lost their hearing
usually through aging. They have partially lost perception of frequency (cannot discriminate
between pitches), intensity (need louder sounds), signal to noise (distracted by background
noise), and complexity (can hardly perceive speech). Some people were prelingually deaf,
either were born deaf or had lost their hearing before they can speak . Some strategies to address
hearing impairments are to provide subtitles or captions to auditory contents or to provide sign-
language translation of the contents . Motor and physical impairments interfere with interaction
with technology. (Hongwarittorrn, 2017)Although causes and severity of motor impairments
vary, the common problems faced by individuals with motor impairments include poor muscle
control, arthritis, weakness and fatigue, difficulty in walking, talking, and reaching objects,
total or partial paralysis, lack of sensitivity, lack of coordination of fine movement, and lack of
limbs. The main strategy to address motor impairments is to minimize movement and physical
effort required for input, for instance, using text prediction, voice input, switch control devices,
and eye-tracking. Besides the aforesaid impairments, cognitive impairments can also limit
user’s interaction with technology. Cognitive impairments can be the result of brain injury,
Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, dyslexia, Down’s syndrome, and stroke. Cognitive
disabilities limit user’s capacities to think, to remember (either long-term or short-term), to
sequence thoughts and actions, and to understand symbols. The strategies are to keep user
interface simple, provide simple methods for remembering, provide continuous feedback about
position in the system, provide longer time to complete task, and support user’s attention
(Hongwarittorrn, 2017)
4.0 Evaluation & Testing

Evaluation

A central activity involved in the user-cantered design process is usability evaluation. Cost-
effective evaluation is such type of tools which fully support the usability evaluation’s,
however, are still limited. The aim of the evaluation is to introduce a web-based, resource-
supported, interactive evaluation toolkit, which guides evaluation planners through the various
activities involved in planning and conducting usability evaluations. The stages of the DECIDE
framework provide the basis for the design of this toolkit, which currently supports two
evaluation methods: heuristic evaluation for websites and standard questionnaires.

4.1 DECIDE FRAMEWORK

The stages in DECIDE framework are as follows:

• Determine the goals the evaluation addresses.

• Explore the specific questions to be answered.
• Choose the evaluation paradigm and techniques to answer the questions.
• Identify the practical issues.
• Decide how to deal with the ethical issues.
• Evaluate, interpret and present the data.

4.1.1 Determine the goals the evaluation addresses.

The main and high-level goals of developing this app are: Fun Pages, Help, Home, Informative,
Ticketing, Tracking and for every goal we have used metaphors. Example: In Registration
menu we have posted a picture which tells the user that this is the way to go to register yourself.
In Ticketing and all the menu it is easily recognized that what the menu will do? All the
interface having same background color and the buttons are on the same place. There is a
master page which is related to each and every goal.
4.1.2 Explore the specific questions to be answered.

In order to make goals operational, questions that must be answered to satisfy them have to be
identified. For example, the goal of finding out that:

1. Is the app user friendly?

2. Is the app flowing with consistency?
3. What is the possibility that the feedback of the app will give the unwanted result?
4. Is the user interface to the app so poor that it is hard to use?
5. Is the system difficult to navigate?
6. Is the terminology confusing because it is inconsistent?
7. Is the response time too slow?
8. Is the feedback confusing or maybe insufficient?
9. Whether the app is given proper feedback or not?

4.1.3 Choose the evaluation paradigm and techniques to answer the questions.

After identified the goals and main questions, the next step is to choose the evaluation paradigm
and techniques. The evaluation paradigm determines the kinds of techniques that are used.
Practical and ethical issues must also be considered and tradeoffs made. We have selected the
Usability testing paradigms for evaluation. We have taken some user and they are allowed to
perform some task. We watched them carefully, write everything about their key presses are
logged and their expressions. We calculate their performance time and on the basis of this
testing we came to know that how perfect is our Petrosains App. All the data is used to calculate
performance times, identify errors. It is very useful to work on that subject on which the user
failed. It is the easiest testing to recover and make the app perfect.
4.1.4 Identify the practical issues.

There are many practical issues to consider when doing any kind of evaluation and it is
important to identify them before starting. Some issues that should be considered include users,
facilities and equipment, schedules and budgets, and evaluators‘ expertise. Depending on the
availability of resources, compromises may involve adapting or substituting techniques. The
main issues are:
1. Project is on time
2. Users are available
3. Project is within the budget.
4. Facilities
5. Equipment related to the project must be available on time.
6. Expert person availability.

4.1.5 Decide how to deal with the ethical issues.

• Users will be treated politely

• If any user participates, keeping in mind that what should they expect.
• Their Information will be confidential. Any payment offered should also be clearly
stated.
• Pay users.
• Avoid including quotes or descriptions that inadvertently reveal a testers identity.
• Ask users permission in advance to quote them, promise them anonymity, and offer to
show them a copy of the report before it is distributed

4.1.6 Evaluate, interpret and present the data.

Choosing the evaluation paradigm and techniques to answer the questions that satisfy the
evaluation goal is an important step. So it is important to identifying the practical and ethical
issues to be resolved. However, decisions are also needed about what data to collect, how to
analyse it, and how to present the findings to the development team. To a great extent the
technique used determines the type of data collected, but there are still some choices. For
example, should the data be treated statistically? If qualitative data is collected, how should it
be analysed and represented? Some general questions also need to be asked:
 • Is the technique reliable?
• Will the approach measure what is intended, i.e., what is its validity?
• Are biases creeping in that will distort the results?
• Are the results generalizable, i.e., what is their scope?
• Is the evaluation ecologically valid or is the fundamental nature of the process being
changed by studying it?

4.2 The details on Hueristic Evaluation performed

In the field of human-computer interaction (HCI), one of the most popular inspection-based
methods for evaluating usability is the Heuristic Evaluation (HE) as described originally by
Nielsen and Molich and later refined by Nielsen. Promoted for its cost efficiency and ease of
implementation, the HE method consists of one or more experienced evaluators (3-5
recommended) applying an established set of guidelines (or heuristics) as they review a given
system. A heuristic is a guideline or general principle or rule of thumb that can guide a design
decision or be used to critique a decision that has already been made To aid the evaluators in
discovering usability problems, there is a list of 10 heuristics which was used to generate ideas
for this app:

1. Visibility of system status: The system should always keep users informed about what is
going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.
2. Match between system and the real world: The system should speak the users' language,
with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms.
Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.
3. User control and freedom: Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need
a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through
an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.
4. Consistency and standards: Users should not have to wonder whether different words,
situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.
5. Error prevention: Even better than good error messages is a careful design which
prevents a problem from occurring in the first place.
6. Recognition rather than recall: Make objects, actions, and options visible. The user
should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another.
 Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever
appropriate.
7. Flexibility and efficiency of use: Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often
speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both
inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.
8. Aesthetic and minimalist design: Dialogues should not contain information which is
irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the
relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility.
9. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors: Error messages should be
expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively
suggest a solution.
10. Help and documentation: Even though it is better if the system can be used without
documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such
information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be
carried out, and not be too large. Types of Help and documentation
• Quick reference: It is used as a reminder to the user of the details of tools the user is
basically familiar with and has used before. It can be used to remind the user of the
syntax of the command
• Task – specific help: It is required when we encountered a problem in performing a
particular task or if we are uncertain how to apply the tool to his particular problem. It
is direct related to what is being done.
4.3 The details on the usability testing performed

Usability testing is a method used to evaluate how easy a website is to use. The tests take place
with real users to measure how ‘usable’ or ‘intuitive’ a website is and how easy it is for users
to reach their goals. The key difference between usability testing and traditional testing (bug
testing, acceptance testing etc.) is that usability testing takes place with actual users or
customers of the product. Whilst traditional testing might be undertaken by a developer,
designer or project manager, usability testing removes any bias by collecting feedback direct
from the end user. There are various types of usability testing. As for this development, we
chose to use comparative usability testing & usability evaluation.

4.3.1 Comparative Usability Testing

Used to compare the usability of one app with another. Comparative tests are commonly used
to compare a system against peer or competitor sites, however it can also be used to compare
two designs to establish which provides the best user experience. As for Petrosains app, there
are predecessor apps, but we compared it to a relevantly close apps with same features,
Musement. Similar to the app we designing, Musement provides features such as booking
tickets for places and also providing news about the places that you want to visit as well going
around with the hottest news that is happening. The only vast difference between these two
apps are the usage of it, as Musement provides a broader scope for the purchases as in there is
no limit to where you’re headed to, as for this app, it only limits to the vicinity of Petrosains
KLCC.

4.3.2 Usability Evaluation

This is a test of a new or updated service either pre or post-launch. This usability test introduces
users to the new design to ensure it is intuitive to use and provides a positive user experience.
The aim of the usability evaluation is to ensure any potential issues are highlighted and fixed
before the product is launched. We brought the app to have the LIVE test with users around
Petrosains KLCC.
4.4 Evaluation of the whole project
The system is evaluated properly so it is going to more successful & will be able to compete in
the market. The main impacts of the results are:

1. The Interface of the system is consistent. So user will easily like the system.
2. All the buttons and tools have the proper feedback. So it is easy to handle the System.
3. Perfect metaphors make the system more memorable.
4. Visibility is perfect.
5. System is error free.

.
References

DUNLOP, M., 2007. The Challenge of Mobile Devices for Human, Glassgow, UK: Department
of Computing Science.

Hongwarittorrn, L. P. a. N., 2017. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. Usability Studies

on Mobile User Interface Design Patterns: A Systematic Literature Review, 2017(2), pp. 22 -
23.

Kraleva, R., 2017. Designing an Interface For a Mobile Application, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria:
South-West University “Neofit Rilski”.

Reem Alnaniha, O. O., 2016. Mapping HCI Principles to Design Quality of Mobile User.
Procedia Computer Science 94 ( 2016 ), 23(11), p. 75 – 82.