Usefulness is defined as the ability to achieve a goal by using the system. Usefulness can be divided into utility and usability. Utility refers to the functionality of a system, and usability to the ability to make use of that functionality (Nielsen 1995).
The usability of a system is determined by the usability of both the underlying system engineand the contents and structure of the information base. Usability has been associated with fiveattributes: ease of learning, efficiency, easy to remember, consistency (few errors) and pleasantness of use (Nielsen 1995).
A critical approach to an adaptive user interface design.Teija Vainio. Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: teija.vainio@uta.fi
Mikko Ahonen. Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: mikko.ahonen@uta.fi
Learning With Mobile Devices: Reserch and Development. a book of papers, edited by Jill Attewell and Carol Savill-Smith. Learning and Skills Development Agency, Regent Arcade House19–25 Argyll Street, London W1F 7LS. pg 189-192
Nielsen J (1995). Multimedia and hypertext. the internet and beyond. Boston: AP Professional, 280–281.
Showing posts with label Ahonen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ahonen. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Aug 26 - Vainio & Ahonen, A critical approach to an adaptive user interface design
A critical approach to an adaptive user interface design.
Teija Vainio. Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: teija.vainio@uta.fi
Mikko Ahonen. Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: mikko.ahonen@uta.fi
Learning With Mobile Devices: Reserch and Development. a book of papers, edited by Jill Attewell and Carol Savill-Smith. Learning and Skills Development Agency, Regent Arcade House19–25 Argyll Street, London W1F 7LS. pg 189-192
Abstract:
In our study we present a critical approach to usability issues and usability evaluation particularly involving adaptive user interface design for mobile learning environments. We describe some design challenges for adaptive user interfaces and key usability issues in the MOBIlearn project. In addition, we compare these challenges in three different learning contexts.
Our hypothesis is that the concept of ‘learning’ is not clearly defined in most usability studies. Additionally, the influences of different learning contexts are not considered enough in usability evaluation. Our aim is to develop mobile systems that are adaptable to more than one learning context.
This paper introduces one approach to a user interface design in the MOBIlearn project, eg adaptive human interface design. Our work aims to design user interfaces that take account
of different kind of users, contexts, content and devices.
..the learning itself is different in each of these contexts: the first is focused on blended, formal learning, the second more on informal learning and the last on lifelong learning.
Studies of web-based educational systems and mobile learning environments have recently started to focus on systems described as adaptive. Adaptive systems can be seen as an alternative to the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach (Brusilowsky et al. 2000).
In many cases adaptation is seen as a part of contextawareness in mobile applications and systems.
Adaptivity refers to a system that adapts itself according to the user. Furthermore, adaptability refers to a system where the users have to change the system behaviour.
Adaptive user interfaces can be focused on, for example, information or content-based filtering,
recommendation, social or collaborative filtering, or optimising (Langley 1999).
Since the learning systems with mobile devices are expected to be used for the short-term, we argued that it might be better let the system adapt itself (adaptivity) to the user rather than forcing the users to change the system behaviour (adaptability).
We see adaptive user interface design as a vital part of the usability design of an application or a service.
Usefulness is defined as the ability to achieve a goal by using the system. Usefulness can be divided into utility and usability. Utility refers to the functionality of a system, and usability to the ability to make use of that functionality (Nielsen 1995).
The usability of a system is determined by the usability of both the underlying system engine and the contents and structure of the information base. Usability has been associated with five
attributes: ease of learning, efficiency, easy to remember, consistency (few errors) and pleasantness of use (Nielsen 1995).
Usability focuses on making applications easy for people to use. Accessibility on the other hand focuses on making applications equally easy for everyone to use, including people with a disability. ... In the context of mobile collaboration, access and accessibility are often more essential issues than ease of use (Ahonen 2003).
Vavoula and Sharples (2002) have inspected learning episodes and personal learning projects, and have developed the following criteria for lifelong learning organisers (LLOs): LLOs should be available and functional any time, during any day of the week.
My Comments: My PhD research may also go on "adaptive" concept; generalisation; one size fits all; one set of usability criteria fits all MLearn applications.
References to be considered for future reading:
MOBIlearn (2003). MOBIlearn EU IST project overview. At http://www.mobilearn.org/, accessed January 2004.
Nielsen J (1995). Multimedia and hypertext. the internet and beyond. Boston: AP Professional, 280–281.
Vavoula G, Sharples M (2002). Requirements for the design of lifelong learning organisers. S Anastopoulou, M Sharples, Vavoula (eds) MLearn 2002: Proceedings of the European Workshop on Mobile and Contextual Learning. Birmingham: 23–26.
Teija Vainio. Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: teija.vainio@uta.fi
Mikko Ahonen. Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: mikko.ahonen@uta.fi
Learning With Mobile Devices: Reserch and Development. a book of papers, edited by Jill Attewell and Carol Savill-Smith. Learning and Skills Development Agency, Regent Arcade House19–25 Argyll Street, London W1F 7LS. pg 189-192
Abstract:
In our study we present a critical approach to usability issues and usability evaluation particularly involving adaptive user interface design for mobile learning environments. We describe some design challenges for adaptive user interfaces and key usability issues in the MOBIlearn project. In addition, we compare these challenges in three different learning contexts.
Our hypothesis is that the concept of ‘learning’ is not clearly defined in most usability studies. Additionally, the influences of different learning contexts are not considered enough in usability evaluation. Our aim is to develop mobile systems that are adaptable to more than one learning context.
This paper introduces one approach to a user interface design in the MOBIlearn project, eg adaptive human interface design. Our work aims to design user interfaces that take account
of different kind of users, contexts, content and devices.
..the learning itself is different in each of these contexts: the first is focused on blended, formal learning, the second more on informal learning and the last on lifelong learning.
Studies of web-based educational systems and mobile learning environments have recently started to focus on systems described as adaptive. Adaptive systems can be seen as an alternative to the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach (Brusilowsky et al. 2000).
In many cases adaptation is seen as a part of contextawareness in mobile applications and systems.
Adaptivity refers to a system that adapts itself according to the user. Furthermore, adaptability refers to a system where the users have to change the system behaviour.
Adaptive user interfaces can be focused on, for example, information or content-based filtering,
recommendation, social or collaborative filtering, or optimising (Langley 1999).
Since the learning systems with mobile devices are expected to be used for the short-term, we argued that it might be better let the system adapt itself (adaptivity) to the user rather than forcing the users to change the system behaviour (adaptability).
We see adaptive user interface design as a vital part of the usability design of an application or a service.
Usefulness is defined as the ability to achieve a goal by using the system. Usefulness can be divided into utility and usability. Utility refers to the functionality of a system, and usability to the ability to make use of that functionality (Nielsen 1995).
The usability of a system is determined by the usability of both the underlying system engine and the contents and structure of the information base. Usability has been associated with five
attributes: ease of learning, efficiency, easy to remember, consistency (few errors) and pleasantness of use (Nielsen 1995).
Usability focuses on making applications easy for people to use. Accessibility on the other hand focuses on making applications equally easy for everyone to use, including people with a disability. ... In the context of mobile collaboration, access and accessibility are often more essential issues than ease of use (Ahonen 2003).
Vavoula and Sharples (2002) have inspected learning episodes and personal learning projects, and have developed the following criteria for lifelong learning organisers (LLOs): LLOs should be available and functional any time, during any day of the week.
My Comments: My PhD research may also go on "adaptive" concept; generalisation; one size fits all; one set of usability criteria fits all MLearn applications.
References to be considered for future reading:
MOBIlearn (2003). MOBIlearn EU IST project overview. At http://www.mobilearn.org/, accessed January 2004.
Nielsen J (1995). Multimedia and hypertext. the internet and beyond. Boston: AP Professional, 280–281.
Vavoula G, Sharples M (2002). Requirements for the design of lifelong learning organisers. S Anastopoulou, M Sharples, Vavoula (eds) MLearn 2002: Proceedings of the European Workshop on Mobile and Contextual Learning. Birmingham: 23–26.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Aug 25 - Ahonen, Accessibility Challenges with Mobile Lifelong Learning Tools...
Mikko AHONEN, Accessibility challenges with mobile lifelong learning tools and related collaboration. University of Tampere, Hypermedia Laboratory. mikko.ahonen@uta.fi
Usability focuses on making applications and websites easy for people to use.
Accessibility focuses on making them equally easy for everyone to use,
including people with a disability. (WAI, 2003)
When mobile tools exchanges data with other devices via a potentially unreliable or narrow communication line, as in wireless communications, user interfaces for management of database communications of mobile tools are required to meet user's needs such as fast response, high usability, reliability and easy-to-use features. Standardizing these new user-interfaces will be very beneficial and convenient for mobile users.
When Blanchard (2001) took a look at usability standards like ISO 13407
HUMAN CENTRED DESIGN PROCESSES FOR INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS, he noticed that
focus is on usability and not accessibility per se and there were no statements
requiring systems to be accessible.
Ahonen's original interest on accessibility issues has come up in the development of
evaluation criteria for mobile learning solutions. Action: Read about more of Ahonen's works.
Churchill and Wakeford (2002, 173) have foreseen this challenge area:
“Experience of mobility is embedded in an experience of temporality which includes mutually negotiated rhythms of contact, availability and accessibility.”
They have suggested a following design framework for collaboration on the move with two dimensions:
1. Tight versus Loose Mobility
2. Close versus Distant Information
References that I may want to read further in the future:
Ahonen, M. (2003) Mobility, Accessibility and Learning. Keynote Speech in Mlearn 2003 Conference. London.
Blanchard, H. E. (2001). International standards: Their scope, quality, and impact. In M. J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.) Systems, social and internationalization design aspects of human-computer interaction. pp. 537-540. Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ.
Churchill, E. & Wakeford, N. (2002) Framing Mobile Collaborations and Mobile Technologies. In Brown, B., Green, N. & Harper, R. (Eds.) Wireless World. Social and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age. Springer. London.
ISO (2003) ISO/IEC 18021, Information technology - User interfaces for Mobile tools for management of database communications in a client-server model. First Edition. International standard specification. Available online.
Vavoula, G. & Sharples, M. (2002) Requirements for the Design of Lifelong Learning Organisers. Mlearn 2002 Conference Proceedings. London.
WAI (2003) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Guidelines working document. World Wide Web Consortium. Online: http://www.w3.org/WAI/
Usability focuses on making applications and websites easy for people to use.
Accessibility focuses on making them equally easy for everyone to use,
including people with a disability. (WAI, 2003)
When mobile tools exchanges data with other devices via a potentially unreliable or narrow communication line, as in wireless communications, user interfaces for management of database communications of mobile tools are required to meet user's needs such as fast response, high usability, reliability and easy-to-use features. Standardizing these new user-interfaces will be very beneficial and convenient for mobile users.
When Blanchard (2001) took a look at usability standards like ISO 13407
HUMAN CENTRED DESIGN PROCESSES FOR INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS, he noticed that
focus is on usability and not accessibility per se and there were no statements
requiring systems to be accessible.
Ahonen's original interest on accessibility issues has come up in the development of
evaluation criteria for mobile learning solutions. Action: Read about more of Ahonen's works.
Churchill and Wakeford (2002, 173) have foreseen this challenge area:
“Experience of mobility is embedded in an experience of temporality which includes mutually negotiated rhythms of contact, availability and accessibility.”
They have suggested a following design framework for collaboration on the move with two dimensions:
1. Tight versus Loose Mobility
2. Close versus Distant Information
References that I may want to read further in the future:
Ahonen, M. (2003) Mobility, Accessibility and Learning. Keynote Speech in Mlearn 2003 Conference. London.
Blanchard, H. E. (2001). International standards: Their scope, quality, and impact. In M. J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.) Systems, social and internationalization design aspects of human-computer interaction. pp. 537-540. Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ.
Churchill, E. & Wakeford, N. (2002) Framing Mobile Collaborations and Mobile Technologies. In Brown, B., Green, N. & Harper, R. (Eds.) Wireless World. Social and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age. Springer. London.
ISO (2003) ISO/IEC 18021, Information technology - User interfaces for Mobile tools for management of database communications in a client-server model. First Edition. International standard specification. Available online.
Vavoula, G. & Sharples, M. (2002) Requirements for the Design of Lifelong Learning Organisers. Mlearn 2002 Conference Proceedings. London.
WAI (2003) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Guidelines working document. World Wide Web Consortium. Online: http://www.w3.org/WAI/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
