diy mobile usability testing - sxsw interactive 2012
DESCRIPTION
This is our DIY Mobile Usability Testing presentation in its SXSW Interactive 2012 incarnation.TRANSCRIPT
Thanks for coming!
Bernard, packet core engineer at NSN
Belén, interaction designer at Intel’s OTC
#SXdiymut
usability testinga process that employs people as testing participants who are representative of the target audience to evaluate the degree to which a product meets specific usability criteria.
Handbook of usability testing 2nd Ed., J. Rubin and D. Chisnell
usability testinga process that employs people as testing participants who are representative of the target audience to evaluate the degree to which a product meets specific usability criteria.
Handbook of usability testing 2nd Ed., J. Rubin and D. Chisnell
please, stand up
take out your cellphone
sit down if you don’t have a US cellphone
with a data plan
sit down if you don’t like beer
sit down if you are absolutely terrified by the idea of being our
test subject
why recording?
memory aid
powerful communication tool
reactions
actions
dut = mut
where:
dut = desktop usability testingmut = mobile usability testing
dut = mut
where:
dut = desktop usability testingmut = mobile usability testing
dut = mut + afec
afec = a few extra challenges
which phone?
which context?
which connection?
which phone?
which context?
which connection?
web task success rates
feature phones 38%
smartphones 55%
touch phones 75%
Mobile usability, J. Nielsen’s Alertbox 20 Jul 2009http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability-study-1.html
web task success rates
feature phones 38%
smartphones 55%
touch phones 75%
Mobile usability, J. Nielsen’s Alertbox 20 Jul 2009http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability-study-1.html
web task success rates
feature phones 38%
smartphones 55%
touch phones 75%
Mobile usability, J. Nielsen’s Alertbox 20 Jul 2009http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability-study-1.html
web task success rates
feature phones 38%
smartphones 55%
touch phones 75%
Mobile usability, J. Nielsen’s Alertbox 20 Jul 2009http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability-study-1.html
web task success rates
feature phones 38%
smartphones 55%
touch phones 75%
Mobile usability, J. Nielsen’s Alertbox 20 Jul 2009http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability-study-1.html
web task success rates
feature phones 38%
smartphones 55%
touch phones 75%
Mobile usability, J. Nielsen’s Alertbox 20 Jul 2009http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability-study-1.html
web task success rates
feature phones 38%
smartphones 55%
touch phones 75%
Mobile usability, J. Nielsen’s Alertbox 20 Jul 2009http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability-study-1.html
web task success rates
feature phones 38%
smartphones 55%
touch phones 75%
Mobile usability, J. Nielsen’s Alertbox 20 Jul 2009http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability-study-1.html
web task success rates
feature phones 38%
smartphones 55%
touch phones 75%
Mobile usability, J. Nielsen’s Alertbox 20 Jul 2009http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability-study-1.html
web task success rates
feature phones 38%
smartphones 55%
touch phones 75%
Mobile usability, J. Nielsen’s Alertbox 20 Jul 2009http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability-study-1.html
handset usability affects test results
remember ...
test with participants’ own phones
if not possible, include training and warm-up tasks
which phone?
which context?
which connection?
It’s Worth the Hassle! The Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Mobile Systems in the FieldC.M. Nielsen, M. Overgaard, M.B. Pedersen, J. Stage, S. Stenild - NordiCHI 2006
field vs. lab
It’s Worth the Hassle! The Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Mobile Systems in the FieldC.M. Nielsen, M. Overgaard, M.B. Pedersen, J. Stage, S. Stenild - NordiCHI 2006
field vs. lab
0 0
The results show that the added value of conducting usability evaluations in the field is very little and that recreating central aspects of the use context in a laboratory setting enables the identification of the same usability problem list.Is it Worth the Hassle? Exploring the Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Context-Aware Mobile Systems in the Field, J. Kjeldskov, M. B. Skov, B. S. Als, R. T. Høegh, 2004
The results show that the added value of conducting usability evaluations in the field is very little and that recreating central aspects of the use context in a laboratory setting enables the identification of the same usability problem list.Is it Worth the Hassle? Exploring the Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Context-Aware Mobile Systems in the Field, J. Kjeldskov, M. B. Skov, B. S. Als, R. T. Høegh, 2004
0 1Field Lab
according to our study there was no difference in the number of problems that occurred in the two test settings. Our hypothesis that more problems would be found in the field was not supported
Usability Testing of Mobile Applications: A Comparison between Laboratory and Field TestingA. Kaikkonen, T. Kallio, A. Kekäläinen, A. Kankainen, M. Cankar - Journal of Usability Studies, 2005
according to our study there was no difference in the number of problems that occurred in the two test settings. Our hypothesis that more problems would be found in the field was not supported
Usability Testing of Mobile Applications: A Comparison between Laboratory and Field TestingA. Kaikkonen, T. Kallio, A. Kekäläinen, A. Kankainen, M. Cankar - Journal of Usability Studies, 2005
0 2Field Lab
evaluations conducted in field settings can reveal problems not otherwise identified in laboratory evaluations
It’s Worth the Hassle! The Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Mobile Systems in the FieldC.M. Nielsen, M. Overgaard, M.B. Pedersen, J. Stage, S. Stenild - NordiCHI 2006
evaluations conducted in field settings can reveal problems not otherwise identified in laboratory evaluations
It’s Worth the Hassle! The Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Mobile Systems in the FieldC.M. Nielsen, M. Overgaard, M.B. Pedersen, J. Stage, S. Stenild - NordiCHI 2006
1 2Field Lab
The analyses of the comparison between usability testing done in two different settings revealed that there were many more types and occurrences of usability problems found in the field than in the laboratory. Those problems discovered tend to be critical issues.
Usability Evaluation of Mobile Device: a Comparison of Laboratory and Field TestsH.B Duh, G. C. B. Tan, V. H. Chen, MobileHCI 2006
The analyses of the comparison between usability testing done in two different settings revealed that there were many more types and occurrences of usability problems found in the field than in the laboratory. Those problems discovered tend to be critical issues.
Usability Evaluation of Mobile Device: a Comparison of Laboratory and Field TestsH.B Duh, G. C. B. Tan, V. H. Chen, MobileHCI 2006
2 2Field Lab
It’s Worth the Hassle! The Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Mobile Systems in the FieldC.M. Nielsen, M. Overgaard, M.B. Pedersen, J. Stage, S. Stenild - NordiCHI 2006
field vs. lab
It’s Worth the Hassle! The Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Mobile Systems in the FieldC.M. Nielsen, M. Overgaard, M.B. Pedersen, J. Stage, S. Stenild - NordiCHI 2006
field vs. lab
EXPERTS DISAGREE
... but they all agree
evaluations in the field (are) more complex and time-consumingIt’s Worth the Hassle! The Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Mobile Systems in the FieldC.M. Nielsen, M. Overgaard, M.B. Pedersen, J. Stage, S. Stenild - NordiCHI 2006
... but they all agree
testing in the field requires double the time in comparison to the laboratoryUsability Testing of Mobile Applications: A Comparison between Laboratory and Field TestingA. Kaikkonen, T. Kallio, A. Kekäläinen, A. Kankainen, M. Cankar - Journal of Usability Studies, 2005
... but they all agree
field-based usability studies are not easy to conduct. They are time consuming and the added value is questionable.Is it Worth the Hassle? Exploring the Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Context-Aware Mobile Systems in the Field, J. Kjeldskov, M. B. Skov, B. S. Als, R. T. Høegh, 2004
testing in the lab is better than no testing
remember ...for most software, lab testing is fine
if you must do field testing
do it late
plan and run pilot tests
be prepared (like the Scouts)
which phone?
which context?
which connection?
remember ...
do not test over wi-fi
cover participants’ data costs
where:
dut = desktop usability testingmut = mobile usability testingafec = a few extra challenges
dut = mut + afec
where:
dut = desktop usability testingmut = mobile usability testingafec = a few extra challenges
dut = mut + afec tsdohoeaygtrtwt( )
where:
dut = desktop usability testingmut = mobile usability testingafec = a few extra challenges
dut = mut + afec
tsdohoeaygtrtwt = the small detail of how on earth are you going to record the whole thing
tsdohoeaygtrtwt( )
why recording?
memory aid
powerful communication tool
4 approaches to the small detail of how on earth
are you going to record the whole thing
.
1. wearable equipment
Methods and techniques for field-based usability testing of mobile geo-applications, I. Delikostidis (2007) International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (Enschede, The Netherlands)
.
1. wearable equipment
Methods and techniques for field-based usability testing of mobile geo-applications, I. Delikostidis (2007) International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (Enschede, The Netherlands)
.
1. wearable equipment
Methods and techniques for field-based usability testing of mobile geo-applications, I. Delikostidis (2007) International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (Enschede, The Netherlands)
.
1. wearable equipment
Methods and techniques for field-based usability testing of mobile geo-applications, I. Delikostidis (2007) International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (Enschede, The Netherlands)
Will Laboratory Test Results be Valid in Mobile Contexts?, A. Kaikkonen, A. Kekäläinen, M. Cankar, T. Kallio, A. Kankainen and A Field Laboratory for Evaluating in Situ, R. T. Høegh, J. Kjeldskov, M. B. Skov, J. Stage, 2011
906
�������������� ���� ������� �������������� ����� ����
Field tests are vulnerable to unexpected events, such as rain or bus schedules. These risks should be listed before the test is run with actual test us-ers. Since the environment cannot be controlled in the same way as the laboratory, the researchers should also have a backup plan or recruit an extra user, just in case. Running a pre-test or a pilot is ����������������������������������������������to reduce the risks due to the technology used, but ��������������������������������������������������analysis of the results. If the user moves around during the test, for example, is there a location where the lighting makes it impossible to see the text on a screen, or the surrounding noise blocks ���� ���� ������������ ��� ���� ������ ��� ���� �����focuses on software rather than hardware issues, these kinds of environmental disturbances may
make it impossible to get any meaningful results from the test.
There are several test planning issues that ������������������ ����������������������������than a laboratory test—particularly if multiple moderators run the test or the tests are outsourced. Examples of these issues are moderator prompt-ing, timing between questions, how to react to external interruptions, and to what extent test user ������������������������������������������ ����less predictable, specifying these details takes additional effort.
It is important to be open about the nature of the test when recruiting users. Some users may not be willing to participate when they hear the test will take place in a public location—it hap-pened with a few users. Facing this issue while
������������ ���������������������
Table 1. Differences between locations
Laboratory Field
Total test time per user, average 35 min. 45 min.
Instructions and preparations per user, estimated time 10 min. 20 min.
All user interface problems found Yes Yes
Users easily understood the application concept Yes No
User behaviour can be observed in a natural environment No Yes
Environment can be fully controlled Yes No
Suitable for usability testing Yes Yes
Suitable for testing a concept or service idea With restrictions Yes
�(!04%2������� ),,��!"/2!4/29��%34��%35,43�"%��!,)$�).��/"),%��/.4%843����!.$"//+�/&��%3%!2#(�/.��3%2��.4%2&!#%��%3)'.�!.$��6!,5!4)/.�&/2��/"),%��%#(./,/'9������ ������������2%0!2%$�&/2�"%,%.�"!22/3�0%.!�).4%,�#/-���%,%.��!22/3��%.!�/092)'(4��������()3�$/7.,/!$�&),%�)3�-!$%�!6!),!",%�&/2�0%23/.!,�53%�/.,9�!.$�)3�35"*%#4�4/�4(%��%2-3�/&��%26)#%���.9�/4(%2�53%�2%15)2%3�02)/2�72)44%.�#/.3%.4�&2/-�4(%�#/092)'(4�/7.%2��.!54(/2):%$�53%��2%02/$5#4)/.�!.$�/2�$)342)"54)/.�!2%�342)#4,9�02/()")4%$�!.$�6)/,!4%�!00,)#!",%�,!73���,,�2)'(43�2%3%26%$�
993
��� ������������������������ ��� ��� ��
��������������� ���� ����� ������������ ���� ����capture as described above, but now weights only 2 kg and measures only 18x14x25 cm, making it �� ������������������������������� ��������������for longer periods of time. Powered by only one ���� ��������� ����� ��� �������� ��� �������� ����approximately 2.5 hours before the battery must be swapped with a spare one.
FUTURE TRENDS
����������������������������� ������������������for evaluating mobile technology use and usability in situ focus primarily on improving the quality,
reliability, and size of the cameras attached to the mobile device. As wireless video technology matures and becomes more widespread, an emer-gence of cheap high-end wireless video cameras matching the professional standard of the wireless ������������������������������������������������laboratory are likely to be seen. Broadcast qual-ity interference-free wireless video technologies exist today, but are still rather expensive and not ������������� ����� ��������������������
Coming from another area of application, new camera technologies are also emerging within �����������������������������������������-low video signals to be transferred digitally via wireless network connections rather than over an
Figure 10. Video recording with third-person view of participants and close-up view of PDA. Note that the camera focused on the device screen is turned 90 degrees to optimize use of the Picture-in-Picture view.
�����������������������������������������!�� �������� ������������� ������� ������������������������cm—containing video and audio receivers, Picture-in-Picture unit, hard disk recorder, and battery.
�' /3$1�����������($+#�� !.1 3.17�%.1��5 +4 3(-&�(-��(34��� -#!..*�.%��$2$ 1"'�.-��2$1��-3$1% "$��$2(&-� -#��5 +4 3(.-�%.1��.!(+$��$"'-.+.&7������ ������������1$/ 1$#�%.1�!$+$-�! 11.2�/$- �(-3$+�".,���$+$-�� 11.2��$- �./71(&'3��������'(2�#.6-+. #�%(+$�(2�, #$� 5 (+ !+$�%.1�/$12.- +�42$�.-+7� -#�(2�24!)$"3�3.�3'$��$1,2�.%��$15("$���-7�.3'$1�42$�1$04(1$2�/1(.1�61(33$-�".-2$-3�%1.,�3'$�"./71(&'3�.6-$1��- 43'.1(8$#�42$��1$/1.#4"3(.-� -#�.1�#(231(!43(.-� 1$�231("3+7�/1.'(!(3$#� -#�5(.+ 3$� //+(" !+$�+ 62���++�1(&'32�1$2$15$#�
1. wearable equipment
allows testing in the field
but ...
difficult and time-consuming to set up
intrusive, uncomfortable and heavy
Mobiola Screen Capture for Blackberry 4.2+ and Symbian S60 v3http://www.shapeservices.com/en/products/details.php?product=capture&platform=none#
2. screen capture
2. screen capture
Remote
Mac, Linux and mobile environments such as Android, Symbian, iPhone OS and Windows Mobile.
It runs on both PC,
2. screen capture
Remote
Remote
Remote
Remote
provides high quality screen recording
but participants won’t appreciate you installing stuff on their phones
no application will support all platforms
http://www.shapeservices.com/en/products/details.php?product=capture&platform=none
no application will support all platforms
http://www.ovostudios.com/
Ovo Studios screen capture application for iOShttp://www.ovostudios.com/
Ovo Studios screen capture application for iOShttp://www.ovostudios.com/
fingers are not captured ...
.. and that is a big deal
Why AirPlay mirroring is the Biggest Thing to Happen to User Research in 2011http://www.remoteresear.ch/airplay/
.. and that is a big deal
Why AirPlay mirroring is the Biggest Thing to Happen to User Research in 2011http://www.remoteresear.ch/airplay/
Obviously, think aloud is critical because I cannot see how the participant is interactingwith his fingers on the touch screen.
I can see using the mirroring in a lab setting to get the signal from the iPadto the observation room though you still won’t see the physical interactionwith the device, like you would with a device mounted camera (e.g. Noldus).
.. and that is a big deal
iPad usability testing - our equipmenthttp://www.cxpartners.co.uk/cxblog/ipad_usability_testing_-_our_equipment/
.. and that is a big deal
iPad usability testing - our equipmenthttp://www.cxpartners.co.uk/cxblog/ipad_usability_testing_-_our_equipment/
Recently, we’ve questioned the value of capturing the device screen. It doesafter all end up being a video of the screen changing but with no senseof the participant interacting with it.
3. document cameras
Handheld Usability (page 174), S. Weiss (2002)
Towards the Perfect Infrastructure for Usability Testing on Mobile DevicesR. Schusteritsch, C.Y. Wei, M. LaRosa - Google (CHI 2007)
Photo from Nielsen Norman Mobile Usability workshop handout (London, 22 May 2009)
both video streams fed onto a laptop and recorded with Morae
webcam records participant’s face
document camera with autofocus controlled remotely from a laptop records screen and fingers
Nielsen Norman
Elmo TT-02RX Teachers Tool
http://www.usertesting.com/mobile/ Remote
usertesting.com
good recording quality and easy to set up
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644591-REG/Elmo_1304.html
but it’s not particularly cheap
Elmo TT-12 Document Camera (accessed March 4th 2012)http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843500-REG/Elmo_1331_TT_12_Interactive_Document_Camera.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644591-REG/Elmo_1304.htmlIPEVO Point 2 View USB Document Cam (accessed March 4th 2012)http://www.ipevo.com/prods/Point-2-View-USB-Camera Chea
p
participants must keep within the camera range
phone must lay on a desk or be hold at a flat angle
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zabriskiepoint/2806511301/sizes/m/in/photostream/
4. mounted devices
4. mounted devices
ready-made
4. mounted devices
DIY
ready-made
Mobile Device Camera by Noldus http://www.noldus.com/human-behavior-research/accessories/mobile-device-camera-mdc#
Mobile Device Camera by Tracksys http://www.tracksys.co.uk/product-details.php?id=9
4a. ready-made mounted devices
Ovo Studios device camerahttp://www.ovostudios.com/devicecamera.asp
Little Springs Designhttp://www.littlespringsdesign.com/blog/2008/Jun/usability-testing-for-mobile-devices-2/
4b. DIY mounted devices
Little Springs Designhttp://www.littlespringsdesign.com/blog/2008/Jun/usability-testing-for-mobile-devices-2/
Nick Bowmast http://www.bowmast.com/mob-device-cam/
Usability Scienceshttp://www.usabilitysciences.com/services/lab-based-usability-testing/mobile-usability-testing
Google Towards the Perfect Infrastructure for Usability Testing on Mobile Devices, R. Schusteritsch, C.Y. Wei, M. LaRosa - Google (CHI 2007)
4b. DIY mounted devices
Little Springs Designhttp://www.littlespringsdesign.com/blog/2008/Jun/usability-testing-for-mobile-devices-2/
Nick Bowmast http://www.bowmast.com/mob-device-cam/
Usability Scienceshttp://www.usabilitysciences.com/services/lab-based-usability-testing/mobile-usability-testing
Google Towards the Perfect Infrastructure for Usability Testing on Mobile Devices, R. Schusteritsch, C.Y. Wei, M. LaRosa - Google (CHI 2007)
4b. DIY mounted devices are blooming!!
by curiouslee
natural interaction with the phone
but they are not cheap
http://www.godigi.com/products/DigiZoom-MDC.html
Mr Tappy, a kit for filming handheld devices (accessed March 10th 2012)http://www.mrtappy.com Chea
p
messy to build
http://www.littlespringsdesign.com/blog/2008/Jun/usability-testing-for-mobile-devices-2/
and ...
if bulky they can prevent single-hand use
if heavy they can become tiring during long tests
easy to put togethercheaprepeatableallows holding the deviceallows one-handed usesupports all form factorsruns tests with participants’ phonescaptures screen, face and fingersgives enough video quality
wearable equipment
screen capture
applications
document cameras
mounted devices
ready-made
mounted devices
DIY
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face & fingers
gives enough video quality
wearable equipment
screen capture
applications
document cameras
mounted devices
ready-made
mounted devices
DIY
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face & fingers
gives enough video quality
wearable equipment
screen capture
applications
document cameras
mounted devices
ready-made
mounted devices
DIY
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face & fingers
gives enough video quality
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/07/the-pencil-ipad-stand-smart-enough-to-impress-a-new-yorker/
the spirit
the ingredients
two meccano trunions (part no. A126)
two 5 and 6-hole meccano strips (part nos. 5 & 4)
one 11-hole meccano strip (part no. 2)
six meccano screws & nuts (part nos. 69 & 37h)
one 13-20mm jubilee clip
one HUE HD webcam
a second USB webcam
a USB male to female extension cable
blu tack (I think you call it mounting putty)
an allen key
a meccano wrench
a screwdriver
a Windows computer
screen recording software
You just moved to Austin, to an old, big house in Pemberton Heights. You love it, but there is a problem: mice and rats. The house is infested!
Go to www.austintexas.gov and find out how to let the local authorities know about the infestation.
a task
how was that?
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
15-model Meccano set 14.99
Hue HD webcam 34.95
Philips webcam 24.32
additional Meccano parts 4.01
blu tack 0.98
jubilee clips (x2) 1.99
USB cable 8.99
screwdriver 6.29
CamStudio 0.00
total (in GBP) 96.52
in USD: 151.25
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
weight: 125 grams
weight: 125 gramsan iPhone weighs 137 grams
an iPad weighs 680 grams
I weigh 55,000 grams
a blue whale weighs 136,400,000 grams
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
b&b’s
easy to put together
cheap
repeatable
allows holding the device
allows one-handed use
supports all form factors
runs tests with participants’ phones
captures screen, face and fingers
gives enough video quality
we expect much of our buildings: they need to have firm foundations, solid structures, pleasing aesthetics. We should expect the same of emerging mobile systems.
Mobile Interaction Design, M. Jones and G. Marsden (2005)
[email protected]@runningwithbulls.com
@belenpena @bernardtyers
http://belenpena.posterous.comhttp://www.runningwithbulls.com