 Okay, so if you want to get your handbook to not your handouts from the front, you can just click on which phone is course next. Okay, again the same thing as I said, it's me video at the back so if you don't want to get your handbook to not your handouts, you can click on which phone is course next. Okay, also as everybody knows we're going on for about 45, 50 minutes today and then we're going to make our so and after that we're going to be having an election from Kevin Allen, the research scientist in the new experiments group and you'll get an election in a minute. I hear we're most likely to do new experiments in the reality. The story starts as well. On week seven we're going to go on field trip to Manchester City Art Gallery. So I've arranged for you to have, oh god this is about four, this is about four, three groups of me now, three groups of 20. Three separate tours around Art Gallery and some special user experience kind of teaching there. There was a bit of a lecture I'm going to put to you in the gallery. But each of these periods is going to be 45 minutes long. 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 a tour? Would enough people stay if they were going to do that? So I'm okay to arrange it and you're all going to not be all right. We're going over the two hours. Okay, so also Toby Howard, director of undergraduate studies will be coming along as well. So he wants to have a bit of a tour and some of the activities that you're going to be doing about thinking more emotionally and aesthetically. And this tour is going to be given to you, not by the gallery staff but by some artists. It's going to be through their modern art collection mainly with some interactive stuff. Okay, next. If any of you have forgotten one of those cool phone numbers where you can look at QR codes, this will give you a direct connection to the website. And this week's aspect is part of the website. So this website is actually going to have the reason to be able to find it. It's almost handy because they've looked at the slides a hundred times. So some of these have found the website. Okay, so the website should be up and running now. It's open coursework. It's a new thing the school's doing. So we've got the open coursework aspect for the website. So if you want to look at this, if you want to take a look at QR code you can. The website URL is ocdw.cs.manchester.com.uk or slash ux. You can also redirect from the syllabus pages. Okay. All right, so getting a bit more interactive. This, these questions we talked about last week and discussed last week. So let's go through another part of our discussion. Now, hopefully you've actually done something more. What's interesting, what is the significance of tons of identity in your everyday life? Anybody got any ideas about that at all? Please. I should start picking people up. Any ideas? Yes. I've used it to develop the free compression algorithm. Why? Okay. I've used it for its sonic vulnerability. And basically because the human ear is almost sensitive between two and five thousand per ounce. The athletic track is also perfect for finding a minute. Because they can get that right and replicate that sound. And the rest of the bandwidth is going to be right. 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 it sound like it does can replicate this with the wrong. This track with the wrongs of the human voice that it didn't do before. Okay. That's why it's significant in your experience. Because without it, your experience of listening to audio on an electronic computer or a device would be much less. Okay. Why is it so 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 proving it with this track, that's what you're getting. A better experience than you would otherwise. Okay. So again, what properties of Tom's diamond 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 set, what do you mean? Lewis. 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. Okay. The range that it covers is the range that it covers and because it's a Mac and Pal very human voice, that's what makes it significant. If it was just a standard musical instrument, it wouldn't be so significant anymore because it could do that and be free in any way. Now, the next part that I really wanted to bring up about support is this. It might be more difficult. What does significance of Tom's diamond represent? Good science. Why does it represent good science? Any ideas? Yes. So it's actually because, so this person who took, who heard, well, first heard Tom's diamond playing and thought, oh, this is a good track. Success might be great. He was clearly looking for ways to find his other potential so he could actually get that and try it and make it better to basically, basically he was looking for a way to make it fail so he could 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 would 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 for a 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 all work. His argument was great. He was looking for ways to make it better to improve it by it failing. And actually, there's a quote from, which is on the design of this Wikipedia. And he says that, so the bit rates, the bit rates for most tracks sound at right before it tested seems like maybe it's not right. So that everything else sounded great. But when it played this, the voice sounded absolutely horrible. It sounded untouchable. Everything else was great, but not this architecture. 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 a whatever. This isn't a 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 wanting to, all this kind of makes sense, and it fits a bit of a discussion. But I was wondering, can we not focus on the design from a different perspective in terms of how it's significant and how we do it? As in, for example, from the different background research, it turns out that she wrote the song about two separate days, and then picked some different points when we were together. Can we not look at it from the perspective of you're looking at events that have occurred, but that a person is on focus on the 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 component 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 be, to keep it sort of semi-technical, but that's definitely the thing that should definitely be thought about. Yeah, especially because of these time frames, certainly with components of these aspects, like anthropology and ethnography and social science and sociology, those aspects are actually quite important. And in some cases, 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 when we're in use of expertise? How might we model those requirements for personas? Anybody who's heard of personas? Anybody who's heard of scenarios? Yes, scenarios. And a task analysis. Okay? Why are you doing software engineering? The question is quite a common language to assess some of the concepts of all software engineering's use of expertise in software engineering. Yes, but what we do is to convey the information, to try and do the translation of the language to a software engineer's language, or so that we can look at general cases. What we do is we take fragments of people's experience that seem to work out for us and smush them together into a server or a scenario such that we can better describe the experiences of people or what their requirements are. This is the same task analysis because it's a compendium of stuff done on different days and different times. Two of the software engineer. So actually, you could say that grabbing these bits that Susan Weber was trying to get to with these different parts from different days smushing them together. She's giving a persona or a sort of a scenario for a user experience, a firm experience of the dive in this case. The reality is that we could 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 that we can do to the floor. And in everyday life. That's the major one. Coursework. So, 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 this failure can anything be made better. So if you did like it and there's a real failure to like it, then you need to evaluate 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 had a good learning experience if you like while doing it? You might not like it but you understand something. Okay, cool. And so who really hated writing this in 250 words? Yeah, everybody hates writing in 250 words because that's why I set it. It takes a lot to write it in 250 words. You really need to know it. But writing it in a thousand words is easy because you know it's 250 words, that's why it's happening. Okay? Okay, so there's a 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 the user experience is? Who didn't like it? It's undefined. It's undefined, okay. But if you had to, I mean, saying you were going into a, I mean it's defined in some way because we've got groups which are called user experience groups and we've got people who call themselves actually. What is it to you? What do you think it is as you're a computer scientist? You're a train computer scientist two and a half years ago you should have an opinion on this. Tell me, what is that opinion? You know it? Okay, at the back you didn't like it. That's Alex. He's a PhD student. He was on a list back when he was unconscious. He dreamed about this every night. Who else didn't like it? You liked the blanket. Okay, 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. That's what it means to you. It's the simplest definition. That's fine. Simple definition, that's okay. Anybody else who wants to venture, what do you mean to them? User experience is just a term. It's not the final word. It's the feeling of being able to decide what the people might need for them. And then we find each other to say that no, we're able to use the words we need, what it means to me. Right, yeah. Actually, yeah. That's one way. Don't you know what to do? I guess the one way I looked at it after the system was beautiful is that actually user experience we have user experience in everything we do because like I mentioned in the previous lecture not everyone's brains are identical so open boxes of brains in general like the way we think our experiences over the past over a year are something different and therefore influence the way we think they're going to be. 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 in the way we feel or the things we give importance to and things like that. Okay, why is that important for software engineering? I guess that's important because think about the number of people who use computers. It's very hard to have very accurately capture a system or an interface which will appeal to every single person or basically what you aim to do is to define an interface which will appeal to the majority whilst maybe hopefully adding maybe a special access maybe easier for other people to adapt to it or things like that. Okay, cool, that's good. So what I did for I read the paper actually, Rudra, what I feel about user experience as a term is, there's an experience that leaves with the emotion of any a new kind of a feeling in the life of the particular system anytime. And it's a very important user experience from the different side in my placement where what about the system is good enough for everyone, how someone is perceived using that system is certainly different. We have to change the perception of the whole thing or other things to come out as that thing is working. Before that it was working. So that's a feeling an emotional attachment that you have that's very subjective as well. Yeah, that's very good. Absolutely. And those use cases can be modelled as personas, scenarios, use cases, task analysis. And we also said anticipate what all these things are trying to do is the scenarios the personas are trying to anticipate users and their needs. But we might be wrong. In fact, we're often wrong. The problem is, when we're software engineers, you might not all think it, but how many are computer scientists here actually? I know we've got some people who have taken options, are you all doing computer science software engineering or something else? Who's computer scientist? Who said I am a computer scientist? Okay, so quite a few. Okay, so all of you as computer scientists you might not know it, but you think markedly different to the rest of the population. Okay? The reason why you think one of these is because you are not trained for computer science, but it is in some way fitted to who you are. Okay, we can see this coming in a non-computational thinking. Whereby computer scientists think differently to everybody. It brings most of the people and that difference in thought allows them to tackle problems of why 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. No real users would actually choose a Linux shell over a computer. Okay? But a lot of computer 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, it's a little bit strange to me. Okay, so hopefully you've got the idea that there's something that's very, very new at the moment. 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 mentioned 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. So how did UX emerge? Well, in general, it emerged from the HCI field as we know. Now HCI is across the perimeter in any way, as we spoke about last week and it's got different fields which cover that thing together. Now these fields, psychology, sociology, social science, computer science, these fields are all different from each other really. And the thing about them is that in HCI we often use the methods in these fields which they're human-facing methods. Those methods might not be right, there might be modification for us to use them correctly in computer science itself. So all you're finding, say for instance psychology or sociology or social science are mostly about testing. So they say the 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 in psychology it's normally single people in the lab based scenario. Now social science is very much focused around surveys, questionnaires very structured work. And those guys are interested in looking at large populations giving them surveys and then getting some kind of quantitative information back, some 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, they'll do that in the wild 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 mainly used to be there, there was a type of anthropology called veranda ethnography or veranda anthropology whereby you get some sort of well often rich rich, I suppose let me characterize this rich and bigoted man from western Europe north-western Europe, 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 the ethnography, those are in Chicago and Chicago. In reality what we do now, what people do now anthropology, is they go and sit and be with the actual populations. So they're marking, they may be individual, indivisible from the groups that they're in. 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 them into stuff or get them to understand the better well, get them to perform sets of tests which are measurable and then you come out with statistical outcomes. Computer science what testing do we do in computer science, mainly? You're all computer scientists, somebody who doesn't know, sure we've got it, we do by 2.0 years into 3.0 years into 3.0 What testing do we do? Functional testing, so mainly what we do is white box white box testing, you're sure you can listen software to me, right? Test driven development, does the fortune execute without plugs, that's it. If it does, it's good, fit for purpose next. That's pretty much what we do. But we also do something different than the others, because we create it. So we create stuff, we create the thing, and then we test it. Now how do we create it? Do we do anything beforehand? So UX is really practical HCI with benefits if 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 at the HCI in general. So 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're about 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 it seems to dilute the hard science of HCI but I don't think that's the case really, it just means we know a bit more ok so this is the main important part, so generally the issue is a big page 43 should put a big star, why is user experience important? It's important because at the moment for most computer science, users are silent they don't get made commercially, they might do a bit of requirements analysis, but by the fact that I asked you, software engineers what kind of stuff have you done in this kind of demand in software engineering, there's not much I know Robert's done some stuff with you about using modeling and that kind of thing but that is not very much for all three or the two and a half years of thinking about everything 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 finished a three-year degree, not much ok so that's why it's important for users, use your systems all the time and mostly at this point, they're silent they don't interact with it systems come forward to the user, not vice versa Jeff Raskin who designs the, well what did Jeff Raskin design? Jeff Raskin what did he build? did he build a handle he was going to build? something anybody? so all googling it I can see there's a handkerchief on the back it's like come on fast ok so Jeff Raskin he designed the app all one and two and you find the interfaces for it we all think it's Steve Jobsom, it wasn't the app, no no it's Jeff Raskin so he worked on the systems for the Canon Cat and he was a great proponent of the thing called Cognetics, 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 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 that's what, that's the whole point and that's the whole point of his work for Apple doing the work with Apple and the user and the interface the other thing about the user experience which you should know, in fact maybe someone can tell me systems are less concerned with generalisability so these objective measures we've had from usability and accessibility and these kind of things are all concerned with old school HCI are all really concerned with generalisability how general is this to the population, if I test 20 of you with your experiences you'll be the same as 100,000 so therefore I can only test a hundred ten of you, but I know that this is how 100,000 people will work we know this works in some cases who's heard of Fittslaw Fittslaw 1 anybody want to mention what it's about Fittslaw, no so it's about the time it takes you to select the target when you're pointing using the pointing device and Fittslaw works for everything the mouse is made for it so Fittslaw is one example of this but the thing about UX is concerned about this generalisability to the population how do I know in our paper that we've just read what makes me think that what makes me think that any ideas the data in table 2 page 46 which says at the top fleeting and unstable aspects of the person's character that kind of thing so these fleeting aspects these less stable aspects of the person's character I can't say that their experience is generalisable to the population very easily because it might not be even generalisable to one beyond the 5 minutes their experience okay the systems are less concerned with most of what's tangible and with more holistic approaches to this kind of work I'm just going a bit faster now because I'm conscious that the time is running out so what in UX is exactly right what you said before and he said it's kind of untangible and that's right it's very still very weird so we just think these things this is what we think modern use experience is we'll get to my definition at the end 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 so if you're going to do functionality testing it's more than that you need to do more than that to understand the people moments of engagement so it means, so there's moments of engagement and touch points are two different words that are used in different parts of the process but touch points of engagement means that we're not looking at 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 that's why they can always think of something they can always think of this allows them to touch the system better it's just a a solid rule of tech saying that say the design of the iPod there's no reason why people wanted to get the iPod and it's just another kind of one pin three way but they did and they gave you for it and because there's a touch point there they touched with Apple, they touched with design they touched with the aesthetic okay it's pretty similar slightly different but pretty similar it's really the objectivity blended to subjectivity so it doesn't look for both and this means, well it means what's 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 user experience any ideas any ideas what, yes everyone, everyone, that's good yeah, pretty much everyone but let's narrow that down into a work setting so what do we do it depends on which sector of the business you're working with it's a car industry or it's just within the car industry it's a men if it's in-flight entertainment system there's two different sectors how you can capture a lot of segments of people who you would work with that's true but there's going to be some you're working with lots of different different kinds of people but just think some sort of training sectors degrees if you like, these people are coming from yes now, I'm going to get people's names wrong but I I'm going to call you here tell me what can we handle that? yeah I was thinking my administration is a big area it's basically people who aren't who are trying to do something and want to do it quickly and they want to see the focus of the bit in between so I'll tell you how the administration does in the sector okay good now let's just go away from just the general people into the technical people technical degrees or not technical degrees don't know your name but you're from Australia what's your name? you're going to be working with scientific people to please them out yes, scientific people that's true let me have it further let me have it further some of the people who we're working with are industrial designers so people who aren't software engineers they're industrial designers they design products or they design industrial artifacts so the iPod itself wasn't developed by some software engineers or computer scientists it was developed by industrial engineers industrial designers it was developed by product designers so 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 the kind of software engineers and hardware engineers electronic engineers so you're going to be responsible for understanding the user experience and conveying what is required from the user and 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 like software engineers because you're going to have to do the translation between all of them and you so you're going to try and understand what's going on so yes sorry, just a question in terms of communicating all this to different types of people is this communicating finding a way to provide one definition to provide all of them to capture the audience or kind of tailor using the visual based on the you sort off with the most course kind of narrative to hopefully be able to convey the information to them in a course kind of way but for instance a persona or a scenario probably won't be much used to graphic design because that's not 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 I don't probably know what you should be doing is trying to facilitate communication and let them know what the user needs are okay and then testing it um you've also got to do the translation so certainly for things like so tell me who understands what coding is coding who understands what coding is as software engineers what? Jesus three people know how to code surely not we all know what coding is right? we all know how to code surely oh dear we all know how to code so that being the case would we know what coding is if we were anthropologists or ethnographists ethnographists the answer is yes we know what coding is we just wouldn't know what your kind of coding is it's an anthropology ethnographically there's a process of methodological coding which means categorization of intervalization so now the categorization of those interviews is something that we need to think about oh I'm going to use the coding now that's what we're going to get over the intervalization when we're categorizing those key points so that's a transformation we all need to make too okay so let's get on to this in the paper so the first thing is who's with me in understanding why this might be a problem why will tableware for your notes why might that be a problem for our understanding of what P2P, your experience is as related in the law paper it's only 57% of the 275 people is from the four countries they can't generalize so it's different backgrounds different country backgrounds certain people have different ideas about what things are and what things mean and how things are important so for instance, Finland why is Finland up there why do you think Finland's there Nokia and also it might be I don't know why then America is a second lots and more you've experienced people in America also this sort of stuff was done at various conferences and Boston is one of them where you put the conference also dictates people to care so this for start you need to start to be 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 keep that in mind second law that's not good for the user experience ok so what do we think what we see these top three standards you can see it's in your left face so let's stop there, thinking in more same aspects in the person it curves in and is dependent on the context of the artifact that's the experience how does it look like artifact where they don't see the interface they say artifact that's significant because it speaks more about the industrial and product design of the thing than it necessarily does about the computational resources within it or the interface even if it's not the simple interface and the prior exposure to an artifact shapes subsequently your experience so this bit here is it's something we know from usability anyway it's learnability 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 ok, but you have no idea when you first go to format people or what you don't like if you don't make changes to that system to make it more likeable it's highly likely the user is still going to take some convincing because they come with a preconception of the fact they've finished they have this with Google Word 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 there are still two fragment things it expanded a bit to the top ribbon, yeah, people when that was introduced hated it and still now they're about to switch into two different options because most people don't like it yes, but doesn't that reflect the way everyone doesn't like changes well, it's not changed now they didn't like changes to the start but in the next version they're 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 often times they like changes for the better if they can see there's a positive point especially if you tell them there's a positive point before they get to experience it ok it must be grounded we're going to do this we're going to do user-centered design in two weeks ok I can spend two full courses talking to you about user-centered designing and we're going to do it in two hours ok, so that's why it's at the time please and UX is based on how a person's perspective perceives 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 how 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 so that's something you also need to think about so you can see that getting down to the bottom here people never have comparable UX each and every interaction the product results in a unique experience ok so you can see here that the response rate is high but it's down here 2.575 2.575 2.4 ok, so it's below half plain people don't think that it only seems like they do so people think that there are some comparable experiences for how we do UX if people didn't have comparable experiences we'd never want to do it because what we're doing is because if everybody was that individual then why would we bother even thinking about these people? it's just not so generalisable as we want to imagine ok so the thing on this table is key ideas about user experience I might say to you what are the three key ideas about user 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 five definitions which we won't get to yet on the next slide there's an example of something that makes kind of a bad study not too bad, but there's one thing that just makes us do slightly bad just read them what do they think that might be maybe you've got an idea and I'm going to click over to the results the results are in your which is on your orange bit of paper tell all these graphs D1 D4 D5 tell me why it might be that D1 is the most preferred by industry tell me why it might be yes exactly right D1 is the only question that makes reference to the company it's likely that in some kind of bystander way someone's going to think, oh yeah, a company I would be a company out in the industry if it's a company I like 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 now I'm not a big fan of the survey ok so this is what we're saying 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 ok so I think that's quite a good definition actually I think that can't be right it's not exactly my definition but I think that can't be right what 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? 2 ok, well that's good who likes D2 the best? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 5, ok well I can see that my attempt to buy through by saying it was my favourite didn't work or it worked the other way I can do what the lecturer likes D3 1, 2, 3, D4 3 D5 do an equipment or a rhythm take half of you put your hands up very bad indeed ok so I can see that actually from what I can see D3, the entire set of effects that is listed by the interaction is one of the most people like 5 people of that ok that's good we are slightly different from the herd but only slightly different and in fact academia as you are it's second so that's good I presume that a lot of these people from their backgrounds are going to be also at conferences and places where they've got these responses are going to be not just straight computer scientists they're going to be proper designers, interaction designers those kind of people too ok I'm not going to bother about landscapes and time scouts families because I want to give you a break for coffee before we get on to the the stuff we see ok but I do want to look at this we see that there's a difference between this and standard exercise it's in the notes obviously so my view is that it collects people, methods tools and techniques together ok it combines them for a practical application why am I telling you my view why do I think matter what my view is she's alright in the exam no I'm very practical I'm very practical you've got my house you're the one here next to us talking about your experience that's true it's the best thing anyone can do yeah it's the best thing to do but also be critical I'm telling you this I'm talking to you about this this is my view I'm far more likely to be giving you my view than some kind 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 what I could be ok 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 field of study because there are three aspects of the user experience that will emerge by doing it ok it's umbrella term for multi-team dispassionisms it's observable so I believe it is observable 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 go by these groups of notes I'm tracking that kind of thing it describes a software artifact in a hosted way it's not a layer in a group to develop some people see this as being one layer that you have to go through one loop of the spiral design diagram one little box in the waterfall and it's not, it's everywhere it's through all of them so then we've got my little view and I say in the notes 49 it may evolve and it evolves in the time I wrote it in this lecture it evolved because I don't like testing anymore I think we're evaluating, not testing testing seems to be too rigid so I think we're evaluating not just testing there's a simple difference which you'll get to when we talk about scientific matter but you should know that but this stuff evolves ok it's amazing how much I couldn't talk about isn't it what goes to the next week I'll be asking the questions what's the key focus on HCI what's the purpose of the UX specialist what is the user experience how does it evolve if we're not 100% correct answers hello how do we decide what's right and what what are the 5 key properties of the user experience that are in your house to do for next week so there's no misunderstanding UX focus is a discussion and we'll do real good notes page 73 that's me again you can come and see me Wednesdays Fridays or email me whatever next we've got 10 minutes we're back here at 12 I don't want to show you these like this because we've got a lecture by Kenny Allen some of the terms that Kenny will be using you might not know yet that's okay just wait I'll show you see you in 10 minutes that means 12 o'clock actually not 10 minutes 7 minutes 12 o'clock I'll be back in a second just in time back here at 12 yes probably some of the notes back yeah what are you thinking about yeah