 Felly mae'r ddechrau i'r ddechrau, a ddim yn cwm ychydigion, i'r gychwyn ffeydd y Dynifelig, ond mae'r ddfflasiadau, mae'r ddifelig o'r ddifelig, a'i ddifelig i ddifelig ei ddim yn ei ddifelig... Felly mae'r ddifelig i ddifelig i ddifelig... Felly mae'n ddifelig i ddifelig ei ddifelig, ac yn gweithio i ddifelig yng Nghymru, nawr iddynt iiyechau fy nghydde etoethol gyda 7, ac mae godium ac 5 gwational Platform company nwas فx yma, sydd yn dal i ei hwnnŵr i'w teimlo tael commonPHwr,Ed aing客wyn, horse archwceler. I boastis arall yr selypa, yr edrych y byddwn yn oith maes y propygyn pwyllfa, ac eu tueth i linais a'r gwnaeddad gyda iechyd yn imieti! ..don't find it's one. So, that means we're going to go over our two-hour slot. Now, tell me who has lectures at one o'clock. Nobody. Who would stay after one o'clock for about a quarter of an hour or so if they were getting it all. Would enough people stay if they couldn't do that? So I'm okay to arrange it. If you're all going to not be alright your little dion. We're going over to be two hours kind of thing. Yeah? OK. So, also, take Howard. Directive under graduate studies would be coming along. imbryd y ddarparu. Rwy'n dweud y ddweud dros rwy'n ddweud, gan y dyfodol, a'i ddweud eich cyflwyn arall. Mae'n ddweud ei ddweud aeth yn ei ddweud i'u arddangos arall, a mae'n ddweud â'r ddweud i'r ardwstnig. Mae'n ddweud gan gweld cyflwyn imbryd â arddangos arall. Rhyw hwn yn ei ddweud yr artist. Aso ddifannwch chi'n gweithio y maes ar gyfer CYR byddai'n gwneud cyddor i'w wneud bwysig ac yma'n bwysig ar y gweld uchelchwyddiol A'r gweld yw'r gweld yw wedi cael ei gwybod yw'r bwysig cwrs yw cael ei gwybol ynians, byddau'n ei ddweud Yw'r gweld i'n gweld ar y maes yw'r bwysig Felly byddai'n gweithio'r ddim yn y gweld i'r bwysig The roadside URL is ocw.cs.manchester.acin.uk or slash ux. Also redirect from the syllabus pages. Get in bit more of me and interact with me. This questions we've talked about last week. Discussed last week. Let's go through the order. Part of our discussion. Now, hopefully you've actually done something new. What's interesting is the significance of Tornt's identity in your everyday life. Anybody got any ideas about that at all? Please. I have to stop being on people. I don't get the answer. Ac rydynent, na rydyn ni? Yn Mynd. Rydyn ni'n gwybod am y ddechgylch y leorwyr cmlwch i'r Arwyr? Beth, oedd. A'r Rydyn ni'n gwybod i'r rhannu oherwydd yn oedd unrhyw white teいdd, ac yn gwneud ag yr rhai cyfnod, yn dod yn rhan gŵr iawn y bynnag aethan. Rydyn ni'n wneud agor tro cyflwynau yn ddefnydddoch hyn. felly rydyn ni'n gwybod ar y roi, ac yn y rhaid i'r ddim yn y sprwydd. Excellent, excellent, well done, brilliant. Did all of you get that? Did all of you understand why it's significant in your everyday life? So it's significant in your everyday life because without this track being the test track you'd be listening to crap music on MP3. It wouldn't sound like it sounds because the algorithm that makes you sound like it just can replicate this with the wrong track with the warmth of the human voice that it didn't do before. That's why it's significant to your experience because without it your experience of listening to audio on an electronic computer or a device would be much less. Why is Tom's life significant in the user experience? Well of course that's a similar thing. The user experience is all about understanding what users need to actually have a good listening to their good experience and by proofing it with this track that's what you're getting, a better experience than you would otherwise. OK, so again, what properties of Tom's died that make it so significant? Now you've already answered this question, let's see if you can pick that out from the answer. Any ideas? In fact it's just been said, what do you mean? Lewis, so Lewis has just told us. Lewis has just told us why what properties make it significant. So somebody told me what properties make it significant. The range that it covers, OK, so the mega-hurt coverage is the range that it covers and because it's an akapau that makes a human voice, that's what makes it significant. It was just a standard musical instrument, it wouldn't be significant anymore because it could do that and create it anyway. Now the next part that I really want you to remember is this. It might be more difficult. What does significance of Tom's died represent? Good science. Why does it represent good science? Any ideas? Yes. Excellent. Absolutely right. So that's exactly what we're doing in science. We're looking for things to fail. We're looking to test things to destruction such that they fail. And if they don't fail, you can actually get that target and make it better. So basically it's looking for ways to make it fail so you can make it better and better and improve it. Excellent. Absolutely right. So that's exactly what we're doing in science. We're looking for things to fail. We're looking to test things to destruction such that they fail. And if they don't fail, we can know that this is scientifically valid or at least it's supported. In science, we can never prove anything. Well, empirical science, we can never prove anything. Now, we can disprove lots of things because we only need one instance of failure to disprove something. But we can't test all possible instances of something to prove it to be correct. So we can only support our assertion, our hypothesis. So he was looking at the way to destroy his encoding. And he thought, this thing here will never work. So how can I make it so let's try it? He wasn't thinking, he wasn't trying to get tracks that would support his hypothesis that anything through is brilliant and that will work. His algorithm is great. He was looking at ways to make it better to improve it but it failed him. And actually, it was a quote from which he was on the website, it was Wikipedia. And he says that, so the bit rates, the bit rates for most tracks sounded right before it tested seems like it was working on it. So that everything else sounded great. But when it played this, the voice sounded absolutely horrible. It sounded unintelligible. Everything else was great, but not this acrobatic track. So by making, by testing it to failure, so that it would be really difficult for his encoders to work, he didn't think, oh, this is great, the encoding will work and I can sell it to whatever. This is your failure. And it did fail. So in that failure, we made something better. And that's what we do in science. Failure makes us do things better. Okay. Do you all get now? Yes. I was just wondering, so all this kind of makes sense and it fits every bit of the discussion. But I was wondering, can we not focus on, once I am from a different perspective, in terms of how significant I really like, as in, for example, from the different background research, it turns out that she wrote the song about two separate days and she kind of picks in that. And that's just from points when we're together. You're not looking at the perspective of, you're looking at events that are occurring, but that a person is on focus on events that they're not actually directly involved in? Yes. We could. Yeah, that's good. And that's also something that you want to think about for your original thought stuff, part of the commitment of your exam. So yeah, we can think of those aspects. The point is that at some point we have to, and you should, in the work that you're doing, in your greater work, you should focus on those aspects. But we've only got, unfortunately, we've only got a small time frame to actually consider everything. So I'm trying to keep it sort of semi-technical. But that's definitely the thing that we should definitely be thought about. Yeah. Especially because of these time frames, certainly with components of user experience, like anthropology and ethnography and social science and sociology, those aspects are actually quite important. And in some cases, okay, so in software engineering, so this is the bit where you've got different components of different people's experience coming together. How does that affect, how does that relate to software engineering? How does that relate to any of your software engineering practice? Changes of requirements, but how might we model those requirements to a software engineer? So have you heard of personas? Anybody's heard of personas? Anybody's heard of scenarios? Yes, scenarios. A task analysis. Okay. What are you doing software engineer? What we do is to convey the information, to try and do the translation from that language to a software engineer's language, or so that we can look at a lot of general cases. What we do is we take fragments of people's experience that seem to work out for us and smish them together into a scenario such that we can better describe the experiences of people or what their requirements are. And this is the same task analysis because it's a compendium of stuff done on different days and different times. Sort of two of the software engineer. So actually you could say that grabbing these bits that Susan Vavers was trying to get to with these different parts from different days, smishing them together, she's giving a persona a sort of a scenario for a user experience, her experience of a diamond in this case. The reality is that we can think about that in software engineering terms if you want to. And that conversion, that linking up with the software engineering aspects and the more human aspects is something that you need to be thinking about for your individual thought. And in everyday life. Okay, let's move on. Oh, coursework. So first of all, who didn't enjoy this coursework? Come on, some people must not like it. Chill it, one, two, three, four, five. Good, that's good. Only by knowing where there's failure can anything be made better. So if you didn't like it and there's a real valid reason, apart from those who don't like it, then you need to email me so we can do something about it. Although in some ways it might not be for you to like. Who got something out of the actual reading part, reading this, reading the research paper and going through the data, who understood more, who thought it, who had a good learning experience if you like while doing it, you might not like it but you understood something. Okay, cool. And so, who really hated writing out this in 250 words? Yeah, everybody hates writing in 250 words because that's why I set it. Okay, it takes a lot to write it in 250 words. You really need to know it. But writing it in 1,000 words is easy because you know, it's 250 words, that's why it's happening. Okay? Okay, so, what's the quick discussion about this? Tell me what are the people of all of you actually, maybe the people who didn't like it most, what do you think I think the user experience is? We didn't like it. It's undefined. It's undefined, it's undefined. Okay, so, if you had to, I mean, saying it would go into, I mean, it's defined in some way because, you know, we've got groups which are called user experience groups and we've got people who call themselves user experience specialists. What is it to you? What do you think it is as a user? You're a computer scientist, you're a train computer scientist, two and a half years with a group of computer scientists, plus all the stuff we've done before. You should have an opinion on this. Tell me, what is that to you? No? Okay? At the back, you didn't like it. You're not really there, that's Alex, he's the one. He's a fourth wheel PhD student. He was on the list backwards and unconscious. He dreamed you out of this every night. Who else didn't like it? You liked the blanket. Oh, yeah. Okay, so you didn't like it. So tell me, what do you think user experience is now? It's the way someone feels about using a product or a service. A product or a service, okay? That's what it means to you. It's a simplest definition. Yeah? Okay, that's fine. It's a simple definition, that's okay. Anybody else who wants to venture, what do you mean to them? Yes? Yes. User experience is just a term that's not defined by what we're speaking about, what we're saying. It's like what we think it might mean to them. And then they all find it's good for finding each other to say that no, we're able to use queries to meet what it means to me. Right. Yeah. I guess one way I looked at it after the system of people is that, actually, user experience is also from, like, we have user experience with everything we do. Because, like I mentioned in the previous lecture, not everyone's brains are identical. In general, the way we think our experiences over the past over a year is to be different. And therefore influence the way we think differently. So even though we might have a general kind of idea of something in a similar way, we will still each have a kind of a smidgen of a difference. Things that we heal or the things we give importance to and things like that. Okay, and why is that important, the software engineering? I guess that's important because it's, I mean, think about the number of people who use computers, right? It's very hard to add very accurately capture a system or an interface, let's say, which would appeal to every single person. Or, like, based on what you aim to do is you aim to find an interface which would appeal to the majority whilst maybe hopefully adding maybe, especially, like, just maybe easier for other people to adapt to it or things like that. Okay, cool, that's good. So why did, before I read the paper, actually, Rudra, what I feel about the user experience as a termist, you know? And why is it an experience that leads to the emotional or any kind of a feeling to anything in your daily life or with a particular system anytime? Yeah. It's a very important analysis. I've seen user experience from the different sides during my placement where, what about the system is for, or good enough for everyone, is how you, how someone is perceived using that system. If someone is different, we have to change the perception of the whole thing or other things to come out as, oh, that thing is working. Before that, it was working. So that's a feeling or an emotional attachment that you have. That's where it's injective as well. That's very good, lettering. Yes. Absolutely. And those use cases can be modelled as personas, scenarios, use cases, task analysis. Okay. And you also said, oh, I can just say a second word to you. I'm going to read it. I'm going to say all of this to you. Anticipated. What all these things are trying to do is the scenarios, the scenarios of task analysis, we're trying to anticipate users and their needs. But we might be wrong. In fact, we're often wrong. Okay. But rather than this, we're software engineers. You might not all think it, but how many here are computer scientists here actually? I mean, I know we've got some people who have taken options, different options than that. Are you all doing computer science, software engineering or something else? Who's doing computer science? Who's a computer scientist? Humans said, I am a computer scientist. Hard call. Right. Okay. Okay. So all of you as computer scientists, you might not know it or might not think it. But you think markedly different to the rest of the population. Okay. And the reason why you think markedly different is because you are not trained to computer science, but it is in some way fit into who you are. Okay. And we can see this by the space we're becoming now and on computational thinking. Okay. Whereby computer scientists think differently to everyone what to do. Lot of things, most of the people. And that difference in thought allows them to tackle problems that are abstract that are more undefined. But it also means that you really aren't the best people to understand users because you're not really like them. Okay. No real users will actually choose a one next shell over a real human being. A real human being. Okay. Lot of computers scientists do because they think that's better. Okay. So that's why you need to also be aware that what you might think is good for the user experience. You need to get outside opinion because it might not be. Now I say it's true for mathematicians. You know, I'm not even going to get into mathematicians. But you know what I mean. So I don't know if it's interesting. Okay. So hopefully you've got the idea that user experience is something that's very, very new at the moment. Okay. It's quite nice that we're not really sure how it's going to fit together. But we do know it's got other things than just the standard kind of stuff to do with mainstream human computing interaction. Which is all about really measurements. Measurements of time to completion and task completion times. Okay. So let's get into a bit more of this lecture. How does UX emerge? Well, in general, it emerges from the HCI field, as we know. Now HCI is across the world anyway, as we spoke about last week in Scotland. Different fields which cover that same thing together. Now these fields, psychology, sociology, social science, computer science, these fields are all different from each other. And the thing about them is that in HCI we often use the methods in these fields, which say human-facing methods. Well, those methods might not be right. They might need modification. Okay. For us to use them correctly in computer science itself. So all you're finding, say for instance, psychology or sociologist or social scientist, they're mostly about testing. So they say the human are human. We're going to put some, we're going to make an intervention, and we're going to test that intervention in psychology. And that in psychology is normally single people in a lab-based scenario. Okay. Now social science is very much focused around surveys, questionnaires, very structured work. Okay. And those guys are interested in looking at large populations, giving them surveys and then getting some kind of quantitative information back. So information with numbers in it back. Whereas a sociologist and an anthropologist are not so worried about the numbers. They're worried about the qualitative work, what this actually means on more of an individual scale. Psychologists, and they'll do that in the wireless, if you like, institute. So they'll go out of the lab and do this. Now anthropology in the old days didn't used to go very far out of the lab or the research institution. It maybe used to be there, there was a type of anthropology called veranda ethnography of veranda anthropology, whereby you get some sort of, well, often rich, rich, I suppose let me capitalise as rich and bigoted man from Western Europe, North Western Europe. If they go to some place in Africa or wherever else it may be, sit on their veranda and say, come here and tell me everything. Okay. And that is really bankrupt. There's two main schools of anthropology and those are in ethnography, those are in Chicago and Manchester. And immunality, what we do now, what people do now, I suppose, is they go and sit and be with the actual populations. Okay. So they might, and they may be individual, indivisible from the groups that they're in. Okay. So that's very much in the field. Psychology is very much about asking people to come to your lab and testing them with stuff. So you might plug stuff in, plug them into stuff, or get them to understand better, well, get them to perform sets of tasks which are measurable. And then you come out with statistical outcomes. Okay. Computer science, what testing do we do in computer science? Mainly. You're all computer scientists. Somebody must know, surely. God, I hope you do by 2, 9 years into 3, 3 million degree. Oh, yeah. Oh, testing, right. What testing do we do? Functional testing. Functional testing. So, mainly the stuff we do is white box, white box testing, the shulings on this in software 2D, right? Yeah. Testing driven development. Does the function execute without bugs? That's it. If it does, it's good. Fit for purpose, next. Yeah. That's pretty much what we do. But we also do something different to the others because we create it. So we create stuff. Okay. We create the thing and then we test it. Now, how do we create it? Do we do anything beforehand? Don't know. Okay. So, UX is really practical HCI with benefits. You want to call it that. And this with benefits means that it's got this additional aspect of emotion, of aesthetics, of games, of fun, of things that are more emotional and intangible, which you wouldn't normally come across in psychology, sociology. You wouldn't normally come across it in computer science in general. Okay. And the HCI in general. So it's got this fun, it's got this emotional component which is difficult to model, difficult to quantify. And so it's annoying. The reason why it's difficult to quantify, and that makes it annoying for business, for people who want there to be an answer. We all want there to be an answer. One plus one is two. We want an answer. But when it's like, well, it could be, it might be. Don't know. We want 98% sure or 80% sure. What's good enough? So that's the problem. That's why some people don't like UX because it's got this intangible component and it seems to dilute the hard science of HCI. Okay. But I don't think that's the case really. It just means we know a bit more. Okay. So this is the main important part. So generally you should put a big page 43 because you should put a big star. Why is user experience important? It's important because at the moment, the most computer science, users are silent. Okay. They don't get involved emotionally. They might do a bit of requirements analysis, but I mean by the fact that I asked you, you're a software engineer, what kind of stuff have you done in this kind of domain in software engineering? There's not much. I know Robert's done some stuff with you about, you know, user modeling and that kind of thing. Okay. But that is not very much for all three or the two-and-a-half of the video, I don't think. So really users, even in our education, are silent. And if this course didn't run, this is its first year, this course didn't run, what would you know about users by the time you finish the three-year degree? Not much. Okay. So that's why it's important because users use your systems all the time, and then mostly at this point, they're silent. They don't get involved with it. Systems called forward to the user, not vice versa. Jeff Ruskin who designs the... Well, what did Jeff Ruskin design? Jeff Ruskin. What did he build? Did he build what handle he was going to build? Something. Anybody. So all Googling it, I can see, there's an un-googling to the back. He's like, come on, fast. Okay. So Jeff Ruskin, he designed the app all one and two and defined the interfaces for it. We all think it's Steve Jobson, no, no, it's Jeff Ruskin. Okay. He also worked on systems for the cat and cat. Okay. And he was a great... proponent of the thing called cognetics. Okay. Not the hippy weird cognetics, but actual cognetics. And here, what he's saying is that there's two ways of doing this. You can either create your system without any input to the user, without thinking about the user at all, or you can actually create it with some idea about the user. At some point, the user is going to have to conform to the system, but the amount of conformance that's required is all down to you. So then, if you design it with a user in mind, the user has to conform less and is therefore more efficient because it follows their process. Okay. That's what... that's the whole point. And that's the whole point of his work for Apple. Okay. Doing the work and getting the app on the user and the interface. The other thing about this experience, which you should know, maybe some of you can tell me, systems are less concerned with generalisability. So, these... these objective measures we've had from, say, usability and accessibility and these kind of things are all concerned and always go to HCI. They're all really concerned with generalisability. How general is this to the population? If I test 20 of you, will your experiences be the same as 100,000? So, therefore, I can only test a hoon, test 10 of you, but I know that this is how 100,000 people will work. We know this works in some cases. Who's in a fits law? Fits law one. Anybody want to mention what it's about? Fits law. No, so it's about the time it takes you to select a target when you're pointing, using the pointing device. And fit law works for everything. My... the mouse is made for it. Okay. So fit law is one example of this. But the thing about UX is, it's less concerned about this generalisability to the population. How do I know... Well, in our paper that we've just read, what makes me think that? Even though I think it's anyway, what makes me think it? Any ideas? Could it be the data in table two, page 46, which says at the top, fitting our most stable aspects of the person's character? That kind of thing. Okay, so these fitting aspects, these less stable aspects of the person's character, mean that you can't say that their experiences generalisable to the population very easily, because it might not be even generalisable to them beyond the five minutes they're experiencing for you. Okay. The systems are less concerned with measurable tangibles, and with more holistic approaches to this kind of work. It's a little bit faster now, because I'm conscious that the time is running out. So one of UX is exactly right. Is that right what you said before? What's your name, sorry? Andy. Andy said it's kind of untangible. We don't really know what it is, we don't really know what's going on, what's happening with it at the moment. And that's right. It's very still, very new. So, we just think these things. This is what we think modern UX experiences are. I think modern UX experiences will get to my definition at the end, but it's more than just tangible factors. Okay, so it's not just about what you can measure, what you can see, what you can create a metric for. It's more than just functionality. If you're going to do functionality testing, it's more than that. You need to do more than that to understand the feedback. Moments of engagement. So it means that this moment of engagement with some touch points are two different words that are using different parts of the process. But touch points of engagement means that we're not looking at a long-term engagement. It might just be a moment of engagement. You get a good or bad result and then that goes away again, even for the same user. A touch point is something whereby there can always think of. There's something that can always think of. It allows them to touch the system better than just a side ball of tech saying the design of the iPod. There's no reason why people wanted to get the iPod as opposed to some other kind of non-puffing way, but they did and they gave it for it. And because there's a touch point there, they touched with Apple, they touched with the design ethos, they touched with the aesthetic. Well, the actual sound production is pretty similar. Okay, slightly different but pretty similar. It's really the objectivity blended to subjectivity. Okay, so it doesn't look for both. And this thing is, well, it means... What does it mean for the people you're going to be working with? So what kind of people are you going to be working with if you're doing a user experience? Any ideas? Any ideas what? Yes? Everyone. Everyone. Everyone, that's good. Yeah, pretty much everyone. But let's narrow that down into a work setting. So what do we think? Yes? It depends on the which sector of the business you're working with. Is it a car industry or is it just within the car industry that's meant... If it's... Or a mid-flight entertainment system, there's totally different sectors in how you can capture a lot of segmented people that we would work with. That's true. But there's going to be some... So, generally, you're working with lots of different kinds of people. But just think some sort of training sectors, degrees, if you like, that these people are looking from. Yes, now, I'm going to get people's names wrong, but I... Right, tell me, in what... Did we handle that? Yeah, I was thinking my administration is a big area where basically people who aren't... who are trying to do something and want to do it quickly and they want the interface and the focus of the bit in between the fears at least hassles possible. So, I'll tell you how the administration does in the sector. Oh, okay, good, yeah. Now, that's just a way from just the general people into the technical people. Technical degrees. Well, not technical degrees. Yes. I don't know your name, but you're from Australia. Yeah. What's your name? Malcolm. You're going to be working with scientific people to please the medics? Yes. Scientific people who are in Netflix. That's true. And some of these people, let me get a bit further. Let me get it further. Some of the people who are working with are industrial designers. So, people who are software engineers are industrial designers. They design products, okay? Or they design industrial artifacts. So, the iPod itself wasn't developed by some software engineers and computer scientists. You know? It was developed by industrial engineers and industrial designers. It was developed by product designers. Okay? What other kind of people might be working with? Graphic designers. So, you want something to look nice. You want it to have the aesthetic. You're going to be working with graphic designers. So, these are kind of software engineers and also, and hardware engineers and electronic engineers, especially when you make these devices. So, you are going to be responsible for understanding the user experience and conveying what is required from the user and then testing what comes out of that at the end. And you're going to communicate with all those people. It's much harder than communicating with just one set of people at software engineers to do the translation between all of them and you. Okay? So, you've got to try and understand what's going on. So, yes. Sorry. Just a question in terms of communicating all this to different kinds of people. Is this communicating, finding a way to provide one definition, let's say, to provide all of them to capture the ideas or kind of tailor each one to each individual based on the subject. You start off with the most easy way to convey the information to them in a course-grave way. But, for instance, a persona or a scenario probably won't be much used to a graphic design because that's not why you do the way they think. So, they'll want a wireframe, maybe. Or something that's kind of drawn by you and then they take further. You shouldn't be doing the design. You shouldn't be doing the industrial design. Not product design but what you shouldn't be doing is trying to facilitate communication and let them know what the user needs are. Okay? And then testing it. You've also got to do with translation so certainly for things like... So, tell me, who understands what coding is? Coding. Who understands what coding is? A software engineer is... What? Jesus. Three people know how to code. Surely not. We all know what coding is, right? We all know how to code. Surely. We all know how to code. So, that being the case, would we know what coding is if we were anthropologists or ethnographers? The answer is yes. We know what coding is. We just wouldn't know what your kind of coding is. It's an anthropology ethnography. There's a process of a methodology called coding which means categorisation of industries. So, the categorisation that we use is something that we need to think about. So, think of something that we want to do. Oh, I'm going to use the coding now. I'm not going to... I'm not going to categorise those key points. So, that's a transformation we all need to make too. Okay, so, let's get on to this in a bit more detail. On to the paper. So, the first thing is who's with me in understanding why this might be a problem? Why will tableware in your notes why might that be a problem for our understanding of what people think your experience is as related in the law paper? It's only 57% of the 275 people from the four countries. They can't generalise it. Yes, yes. So, it's different backgrounds, different country backgrounds. Okay? Certain people have different ideas about what things are and what things need and how things are important. So, for instance, Finland. Why is Finland up there? Why do you think Finland's there? Nokia. Nokia, yes. Nokia. And also, it might be. I don't know. Let me have a great look. I'm not curious about this problem. No, I'm not. Why then America is a second? Lots of more user experience quickly in America. Also, this sort of stuff was done at various conferences and Boston is one of them, I presume in England one in Finland. So, you know, where you put the conference also dictates who you're going to get. So, this for start, you need to start with the critical. That all this in this paper might not be right because it only takes a very small subset of different nations, different nationalities, different people, different understandings. Yeah? Okay, so that's the first thing. Keep that in mind. Big critical. Second rule. That's the horrible slide, isn't it? That's not good for user experience. Okay, so what do we think? What do we see in these top three statements? You can see that it's in your notes page 46. So, let's stop it. 20 and more space aspects of a personal person. It curves in and is dependent on the context of the artefact that's being experienced. Those don't say artefact. They don't see software. They don't see interface. They say artefact. Okay? That's significant because it's more about the industrial and product designers of things than it necessarily does about computational resources within it, or the interface within it. Even if it's not particularly interface. And the prior exposure to an artefact is subsequently user experience. Right? So this bit here, you can take it, is something we know from usability anyway. It's learnability. Okay? So of course prior exposure shapes your experience. If there's a system you really hate using, you're going to dislike it even if you don't have to use it very often. Okay? But you have no idea when you first go to to form that opinion of mine like. If you don't make changes to that system to make it more likeable, it's highly likely that users are still going to take some convincing because they come with a preconception of the fact that it's English. Okay? They have this with Google, Microsoft Word's tool. It's not tool bar. I have no idea what they call it now, but it's kind of beyond the tool bar. It's tool fragment things that expand a bit at the top. Ribbon. Ribbon. Yeah, people, when that was introduced, hated it. And still, now that that's switching, give you two different options to make it more likeable. Yes. But doesn't that reflect the way everyone doesn't like changes? Well, it's not changed now. They didn't like changes at the start, but in the next version, it's still there, but now there's the option to change it back. So how many people would change it back? That would be an interesting question. I don't know how many people would change it back. So it might be people don't like changes, but also, and they come with a preconception but oftentimes, they like changes for the better if they can see there's a positive point. I don't know where they get to experience it. OK. It must be grounded, and we're going to do this. UX must be grounded in user-centered design. We're going to do user-centered design in two weeks. OK? I can spend two full courses talking to you about user-centered design and we're going to do it in two hours. OK? So that's why it's at the time of the week. And UX is based on how a person's perspective percews the characteristics of an art space but not on those characteristics per se. That's coming back to what you said. It's about the perception of whether it's going to be a good about experience, how it's going to be. You can change their experience by giving them a perception of that experience before they experience it. OK? So that's something we also need to think about. So you can see that getting down to the bottom here, people will never have comparable UX. Each and every interaction will have product results in a unique experience. OK? So you can see here that the response rate is high but it's down here. 2.572 will take 5. That's 5. It will take 4. Yeah? OK? So it's below half way. People don't do that. It only seems like they do. OK? So people think that actually there are some comparable experiences for how to do UX. If people didn't have comparable experiences, we'd never want to do it. Because what we're doing is if everybody was that individual, then why would we bother even thinking about designing something for a set of people? It's got to be sort of some kind of art. It's sort of common art. OK? It's just not so generalisable that we want to imagine. OK. So the thing on this table, on page 47, is I want to look at this. Key ideas about new experience. I might say to you in an exam what the three, what give me three key ideas about new experience. I might say that. OK? So put a little square on that. I want you to read these. So on page 48, quickly read these high definitions. Which we won't get to yet on the next slide. They read them. There's an example of something that makes kind of a bad story. Not too bad, but there's one thing that just makes me slightly bad. Just read them. Everybody's read them. What do they think that might be? Maybe you've got an idea. Let me know. I'm going to flick over to the results. The results are in your addendum, which is on your orange bit of paper. So on these graphs, D1, D2, D5. Tell me why it may be, it might be that D1 is the most preferred by industry. Somebody might be. Yes? It makes reference to the company. Exactly right. D1 is the only question that makes reference to the company. So it's quite likely it's likely that in some kind of Pleistodd way, somebody's going to think, oh yeah, a company. I'll have to company out in the industry if it's company. I'll have this one best. Because it mentions the company. So the terms of reference can often dictate how these things, how these surveys go. That's why surveys, I don't like them that much. I'll come out and say it now. I'm not a big fan of the survey. So this is what we say, D1. Now, totally, this one, D2. D2 wins. I'll look at it. So let's look at what D2 says. A consequence of the user's internal state, the characteristics that design them and the context within which the interaction occurs. Okay. So I think that's part of the definition actually. I think that can't be right. It's not exactly my definition, I can't be right. What do we think about D2? Do you like it out of all of these? Who? Put your hands up. Let's do a quick survey. Who likes D1 the best? Two. Okay. That's good. Two. Who likes D2 the best? One, two, three, four, five. Five. Okay. Well, I can see that my attempt to buy you by saying it was my favourite didn't work and looked inversely. Everybody wants to do what the lecturer likes. D3. One, two, three. D4. Three. D5. Two. Do you have equipment or equipment? Take half of it and put your hands up. Very bad indeed. Okay. So you can see that actually from what I can see, D3, the entire set of effects that is listed by the interaction is the one that most people like. Five people love that. Okay. Okay, that's good. That's very enough. We are slightly different from the herd. But only slightly different. In fact, academia, as you are, it's second. So that's good. Okay. We've got a slightly different view. I presume that a lot of these people from their backgrounds are going to be also at the conferences and the places where they've got these responses are going to be not just straight-in-put scientists. They're going to be proper designers, interaction designers, those kind of people, too. So that gives a big mix. Okay. I'm not going to bother about my mistakes and time-scouts problems because I want to give you a break for coffee before we get on to the stuff we've seen. But I do want you to look at this. You'll see that there's a difference between this and standard exercise. It's in your notes, obviously. So my view, my view is that it collects people, methods, tools and techniques together. Okay. And combines them for a practical application. Why am I telling you my view? Why does it matter? But why do you use it? She's a writer, isn't she? No. I don't care. I'm liking that one. Very practical. Right. You've got my house. Yes. You're the one here next to us talking about your experience. That's true. That's true. That's the best thing I can do. Yes. That's the best thing I can do. Also, be critical. I'm telling you this so that you know that when I'm talking to you about this, this is my view. I'm far more likely to give you a beginning of my view than some kind of sort of unbiased opinion of what it feels like. I've written these notes. So if my view is dictated how I've written these notes. So I could be wrong. Theoretically. I'm not. I could be. Okay. I don't think UX is practice. I think UX is practice in application. It's not primary research to me. Now, some people disagree with me. But I think it's a secondary theory because there's often aspects of the user experience that will emerge by doing it. Okay. It's umbrella term for multi-team dispersionism. It's observable. So I believe it is observable. We can see it. We can see it through biometrics. We can see it through brain scans. We can see it through lots of other aspects. The time it has been won. Okay. It describes a software artifact in a hosting way. And it's not a layer in a route to development. Some people see this as being one layer that you have to go through. Okay. One loop of the spiral design diagram. One little box in the waterfall. And it's not. It's everywhere. It's through all through. Okay. So then we've got my little view. And I say in the notes, 49, it may evolve. And it evolves. In the time it has been won. And it evolves. In the time I wrote it, to the time I gave this lecture, it evolved. Cos I don't like testing anymore. I think we're evaluating, not testing. Testing seems to be too rigid. Okay. So I think we're evaluating not just testing. There's a subtle difference which you'll get to when we talk about scientific methods. But you should know that. But this stuff evolves. Okay. It's amazing how much I can talk about, isn't it? What goes to next week? It's in the notes. Age 51. I'll be asking the questions. What's the key focus age? There are a lot of purpose of the UX specialist. What is the user experience? How do you apply it? If we're in only 100% correct answers, how do we decide what's right and wrong? What are the five key properties of the user experience that are in your notes? Now, to do for next week. So there's no misunderstanding. UX spots his discussion and will be in real video notes on building into our up to page 73. That's me again. You can come and see me Wednesdays Fridays or email me. Whatever. It's in contact stuff. Next. We've got 10 minutes. Being back here at 12. I don't want 30 seconds. Because we've got a lecture by a panel on what it's like to be a user experience person. Okay. Some of the terms that anyone is using, you might not know yet. That's okay. If you're really bothered or just wait for it to wash over you and connect them. Okay? See you in 10 minutes. That means 12 minutes.