Design of multimodal systems

Recently I found an interesting journal article titled Human Factors (HF): Multimodal interaction, communication and navigation guidelines. It has defined a set of metaprinciples and design principles for multimodal systems. For elaboration and examples of these see page 17-21 in the document.

Metaprinciples

1. Use multimodal presentation of information to allow users with different preferences and abilities to interpret data in their preferred way.
2. Use multimodal interpretation to allow users to interact with a system following their individual preferences and suited to their special needs.

Design principles

1. The range of available modalities should be offered in the different modalities.
2. It should be possible to choose different presentations modalities using any of the available interaction modalities.
3. Individual modalities should be activated optionally.
4. Individual modalities should be scalable by the user.
5. Completeness of functionality/controls should be ensured in all available modalities.
6. Modalities should only be switched at logically sensible situations in the dialogue.
7. The user-specific modality setting should persist.
8. Adequate prompts should be offered in the chosen modality.
9. The same information should be expressed in different modalities.
10. The same style should be expressed in different modalities.
11. Dialogues should be aesthetically consistent in each and every modality.
12. Multimodality should not be stigmatizing.

 

Security and Usability

Like the graph under visualizes it is an issue that as a system gets more secure, it also becomes less usable.(Microsoft) However, can we with user centered design make this graph less steep?

 

Eye tracking on mobile devices

The research project (e-Me) that I am connected to at the Norwegian Computing Center have recently gotten the Tobii X60/X120 Mobile Device Testing Solution which enables you to do eye tracking on mobile devices. Because of my connection to e-Me I will get an introduction to the system and will have the opportunity to use it in my master, which I’m really excited about!

 

Shared Experience

W3C states that people with disabilities using computers have similar interaction limitations as people without disabilities who are using mobile devices. Both experience similar barriers when interacting with Web sites (source).

This is an comparison I haven’t thought about before, and that I find quite interesting! This means that by following the guidelines for mobile (MWBP) you will automatically avoid some issues regarding accessibility (WCAG) and vice versa.

 

Accessible mobile interfaces

Funka have designed and published a set of guidelines for developing of accessible mobile interfaces (in Swedish).

Funkas methodology was developed in close collaboration with the disability movement and all that we recommend is tested in reality. Our business is based on international guidelines for accessibility, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0). Funkas long experience of the availability of work and testing with users with different needs and conditions, with and without aids, shows that WCAG 2.0 is not enough. We have therefore developed the test criteria for points that are complementary to international regulations and the public sector through the EU decision to follow.

This is very relevant to my thesis even though Feide, which is an internal system for students and people in the educational sector, not is affected by the EU regulations, it is a technology used by more and more people and should ideally be accessible to everyone.

 

Password security meters

I have done a couple of interviews about peoples relationship to authentication and security.

Status seems to be that security is something that people are not too concerned about. People think typing in a password is stress and saves most of their passwords in the browser. They know that there is a risk not to have a screen lock on their phone, but trust their own ability to look after their device, and therefor feel that a screen lock is redundant.

So the question is: How can we give the users a correct image of the security?

Understanding the risk they faces with no security is essential. One attempt used to create an understanding of secure passwords have been to use a password security meter, which gives you an indication of how secure your password is.

However, during my interviews I experienced that people have more trust in their own ability to create secure passwords and don’t really trust password meters. It is no current standard of how to measure the security of a password. Because of this there are many different ways to do this measurement, and you get different results based on what meter you select. The interviews showed that people are not completely ignorant to them, but the password security meters are not very essential for the authentication method or password the users choose.

I have tested some password meters with the same password – password@?:-) as we can see they generated results all the way from very weak to very strong. And looking at this it understandable that people have trouble relying on them.

http://www.yetanotherpasswordmeter.com/

 

Startup Weekend Bergen (27.-29. jan)

This weekend I participated in the event Startup Weekend Bergen at The Hub. Startup Weekend is a concept that are spreading all over the world. «Startup Weekend is a global network of passionate leaders and entrepreneurs on a mission to inspire, educate, and empower individuals, teams and communities.»  In other words it gives people the opportunity to pitch an idea, gather a team and try to execute the idea in 54 hours. After that judging panel are voting on their favorite teams and the winners get prices that can support the project further.

 

Pilot interview

Today I did a pilot interview with one of the participants from the probe study. Went well, but I will reformulate and add some questions before I conduct the rest of the interviews.

All of the interviewees will be people that agreed to be contacted after the joining the probe study. So they already know what the project is about, however before the interview they have to sign a form describing among other things the project, the purpose of the interview, that the data will be anonymised and that they agree to the terms.

The interviews are still focusing on peoples understanding of security and how that affect their behavior in connection to authentication. I have separated the interview into two parts, starting with some initial questions about the interviewee, then some questions about their mobile and computer habits. The second part of the interview will be used to discuss some of the results from the probes. To facilitate the discussion I have printed out some graphs, some examples of different authentication methods and some of the context pictures that I received from the probes.

 

Data gathering: probes – results 1

I have handed in all of the probes that I made, and tried to analyze the result. I have been looking for patterns and results that stand out and seen if some of the results can help me answer the research question. (This is post describes only some of the results).

As mentioned in my las blog post the study included ten students from the department of informatics. The only requirement I had was that they owned a smart phone, some had an iPhone and some had an Android. This was a qualitative research with few participant, so the results cannot be used to generalize, but does give an impression of the trends among students.

 

Data gathering: probes

One of the methods I am using to gather data is cultural probes. Probes are supposed to work as an instrument to provoke a response from the participants.

Having said that, ‘cultural probe’ is actually a very good description of what these things are about. If you think about a probe as something you send off into the unknown — typically I use the analogy of a space probe like Voyager — it’s something that goes somewhere where we can’t go ourselves and transmits back data. So ‘probe’ is a very appropriate word. (Source)