Proceedings of HF 2002, Nov. 25-27, 2002, Melbourne, Australia

Keywords:  Ergonomics, product design, end user needs, mobile appliances

Abstract

User interface design has two major focus areas: Ensuring that the product is easy to use and ensuring that the product meets end user needs. The former -ease of use- has already reached a mature role in the industry. Usability processes have been integrated into the product development process and the importance of usability is well understood all the way up to the top management. However, meeting end user needs in product design is still a poorly understood process not properly applied in the industry. Instead most design is driven quest for applications for emerging technologies or requirements dictated by marketing people. And more than once this has lead to products that do not meet user needs. The importance of qualitative end user studies as such is well understood and also reflected in the number of studies being conducted. However, the problem lies in transferring the findings into designs. There has been a lack of proper way to make people involved in the design process (designers, marketing people, management) to understand what is important in the product i.e. what actually should be designed. This case study describes a project whose objective was to create a series of concepts for Nokia's sports products and to see what kinds of solutions would emerge for products optimized for physical activities, outdoor activities and wearability. It is a good case of a project where findings of the end user studies totally changed the focus of the project from assumed interaction design of phone applications to ergonomic design of handling the phone and the headset. Furthermore, the project was a pilot project for concept projects that followed it. It successfully demonstrated the model of a user-centered concept project. It convinced the customer organization and it helped to create the necessary confidence in the process.

Introduction

In the industry the practical constraints, in terms of time and money, do no allow very long research phases. There is a constant need for a quick, efficient and cheap ways to understand what end users need and how to meet these requirements in the products. Qualitative user studies have been successfully used to a great extent and they have proven to be a good way of understanding user needs. However, designers and marketing people usually don’t bother to read long sociological reports that are not written in their language even though the design team needs this information to understand what is important in the product i.e. what actually should be designed. In practice many important findings have been lost in the design process due to lack of means to convey end user research findings to the design process.

The approach presented here comprises of the following phases:  1. End user studies: Data is collected both with observations and interviews. The findings are described as qualitative results. 2. Analysis of existing products: similar and related products are put to extensive practical testing to find out the best solutions. 3. Design drivers. This is the novel thing in this approach: the findings of the first two phases are turned into simple design goals on which people involved in the project can agree. All new ideas and design can be evaluated against these. 4. Iterative design. During this phase new findings from participatory design are fed back to the design drivers.

End user studies

Conceptual design believes in the user-centered approach. The goal is to see very precisely how people behave in the environments in which they truly live using the devices that they truly use. Asking questions about these things isn't enough. Much of human behavior is automatic, guided by routine, and environmentally dependent in such a way that when taken out of the real situation and environment, it is difficult or impossible to repeat the entire activity by recalling and telling about it.

The project observed bicyclers and rollerbladers who were on their way to work and during their free time using the Contextual Inquiry method introduced by Beyer& Holtzblatt (1998). It also conducted a separate observation and logbook study on the use of a headset, i.e. an earphone placed in user's ear and connected to a mobile phone. In all, data was collected from about 50 users. The designers had an abundance of information to go through and then they selected what was pivotal in it.

In the user studies it was found that wearability of sports products is a more complex problem than originally assumed. Breaking it down into simply definable design goals required that the concept of wearability with respect to a phone and its accessories be defined. And, in fact, four classes of wearability were discovered:

·         On-line wearability. The earpiece is at the ear and the microphone close to the mouth at all times so that voice communication is possible. The carrying method is the same during and between calls. The hands are always free. The phone doesn't interfere with physical activities during and between calls. The phone can withstand environmental stresses during physical activity.

·         Off-line wearability. There are no devices near the ear and mouth between calls. When a call is initiated, the earpiece and microphone can easily be moved to the ear. The hands are free except when starting and ending the call. The phone doesn't interfere with physical activities between calls and only moderately during calls. The phone can withstand environmental stresses during physical activity.

·         Portable. The phone doesn't interfere with physical activities between calls. The phone can withstand environmental stresses during physical activity. The phone is held in the hand during calls.

·         Baggable, The phone can withstand environmental stresses during physical activity. The phone is held in the hand during calls

During the project, none of the products available on the market met any of these categories. The project's starting assumption was for a design in the on-line wearability category. However, observations indicated that users shied away from the idea of having a device at the ear constantly. On the other hand, phones were carried along almost without exception during bicycling and rollerblading, and they were also used a lot during the activity. Occasionally communication needs related to the actual activity emerged, but they were very sporadic.

Analysis of existing products

Copying ideas is a method that is not discussed much in design literature. It is not honorable. Companies striving to distinguish themselves from the rest with innovative products just don't do it. It is not in compliance with any accepted design ideology – user-centered, creative, and functional – to resort to solutions made by others. In this project we turned to them very carefully and systematically. It took a broad view of the wearable and hangable types of products related to sports, outdoor recreation and entertainment electronics readily available on the market and what could be learned from them with respect to the off-line wearability of phones. We purchased and tested portable CD and tape players and their remote controls, FM radios worn around the wrist or neck, water-resistant radios attached to swimming caps, radios hung on the ear, stereo headphones, radiophones, heart rate monitors, hearing protectors, protective eyewear, swimming meters, pocket knives, key chains, watches, and so on.

Often times, researchers are content with studying the looks and features of competitors' products via web sites or literature. That is not enough. You have to try out the products for yourself. Only by testing the different user interface solutions are you able to acquire information about the level of precision and detail that is necessary in design. An experienced designer is able to analyze the user interface solutions and evaluate their superiority by trying them out. In this project, the hands-on approach was exceptionally concrete, but nevertheless, the same need to try out other products exists in projects in which the target of design is less physical.

Compared to designing based solely on the users' needs, copying ideas has a certain unequalled advantage. The ideas are readily expressed in the solution language, unlike the user needs, which are abstract and anything but straightforward when it comes to turning them into design solutions. Copying ideas is not as simple as you might expect. The products to be tested are not necessarily direct competitors of the concepts. They are not always the same products that you are designing, but they are similar in some essential respect. They are intended for the same environment or situation. Perhaps they are for use by the same people. Within limited resources, you must be able to guess where the best ideas will be found. A good idea must be recognized in a different context than the one associated with the ongoing design project, and then it must be transferred and adapted to the new context.

The key problems of off-line wearability are related to cords and to the flexible changeover between on-line and off-line use. There are various headsets for portable players and phones that fit naturally and even comfortably when worn. The problems emerge when removing the headset from the ear. The cords swing and are in the way. You become entangled in them. When the cord dangles freely, it and the switches on it are difficult to find. Putting it back on requires the use of two hands. Some headsets require you to stand in front of a mirror if you are a novice. Packing and especially untangling the cord is a pain.

When searching for competing products, we found a retractable key chain that is attached to your belt to prevent your keys from dropping or getting lost, but you can still use the keys without taking them off the key chain. Similar solutions were also found in CD player headphones. A retractable cord seemed to go a long way towards off-line wearability. The reel would be small and easy to attach. The earphone and cord would be retracted between phone calls and easy to find and put on the ear when needed.

Design drivers

Rather than attempting to avoid risks and failures, concept design is the pursuit of optimized solutions for key challenges. The background information must be processed in accordance with this goal. For this reason it isn't desirable to present the acquired information traditionally in the form of requirements, but in a more positive way as goals. We have called these key, compactly crystallized goals 'design drivers.'

Design drivers help to outline the main goals of a design without going into an in-depth analysis of requirements. Producing design drivers is part of a creative process. They structure the problem and, at the same time, partly define the solution (Lawson 1990). Rittel and Webber (1973) describe problems typical to planning “ill-defined and wicked”. These problems typically can't be defined separately from the solutions. It is only possible only to specify the objectives and prioritize the sub-problems to be solved.

The plan must be taken as far as possible in the direction of design drivers. Often times it's a good idea to exaggerate so that the composition of the concept becomes clear and easy to understand. Design drivers are based on what has been discovered from user studies, literature, competing products, etc. However, selecting and defining them is not just an analysis based on the material collected, the selection includes factors related to business strategy, design ideals and designer intuition. Some of the even important user needs must be put aside so that the focus can be placed on what is the most essential.

Design drivers are often guesses based on faint cues. Future trends are typically obscure. Sometimes design drivers are downright obvious sounding truths, which, even so, haven't been taken into consideration in the design of the product.

Having just a handful of design drivers is ideal. If there are too many, the concept gets diluted and its composition becomes vague. Perhaps this is a logical necessity. Other necessary – but secondary in terms of the concept's composition – attributes are added to the plan later when they fit best.

Using a few concepts to describe a complex target of design is problematic. You have to be adept at using concepts that efficiently depict the product. Sometimes you have to create new concepts. Along with the new concepts, also a new language easily emerges, a language that doesn't always sound beautiful, a language in which words usually end with ‘able’. But at its best, a new language helps to build the bridge between the user demands and the design solutions. It is not just a concept design that is made. A design is also made with concepts.

Based on the end user studies there was no need for constant communication. Using the wearability classifications, a simply definable design driver was created:

·         Off-line wearability

Other key design drivers identified were:

·         A sturdy structure resisting water, dust and blows

·         Applicability in other, non-athletic environments, such as a car and office

·         A sporty look

·         Need to know who is calling before answering the phone

Based on the research and summarised in the design drivers, it was clear that new functions of a sporty product are not the core. A lap timer, training log, etc can be added to the products, but they benefit only a small segment of the athletic population. Instead, product wearability is a pivotal area for all users, and in this respect there was much room for improvement in the commercially available products. The project, which was launched to develop functions and user interfaces for sports products, was refocused to develop accessories and design solutions that improve wearability. The project designed various clips and cases for carrying phones, solutions for improving water- and shock-resistance, and off-line wearable headsets, which are examined more closely below.

Ergonomics of wearability

Based on user studies and analysis of similar products, several headset models were designed for ergonomic testing. Simultaneously various clips and cases were protyped. Some headset models featured a reel as a separate accessory and some featured the reel as an integrated part of the phone. Solutions for attaching the reel were sought as well as solutions for handling the retracting cord, for eliminating the tension and for releasing the locking mechanism. Plenty of key chains and Plastic Padding were used

The practical way of testing and redesigning the concepts was to play Frisbee and other games in the nearby park wearing headsets on and a 100-gram chunk modeling a phone placed here and there.  Sometimes this is as scientific as you need to go. Basic requirement of comfort and being able to read the display are easy to evaluate with the designers trying it out themselves. To be allowed to spend warm summer days outside the office involved in such leisure activities of course requires maturity of the working culture of the company.  It was even tougher for the researchers who had their first-ever sailing experience solo aboard a small sailboat on a nearby lake. Sitting on board the yawl, holding the rudder in one hand and a line in the other with feet snuggly strapped down doesn't afford the best opportunity to have a phone conversation. The inexperienced sailors, however, not only had to ask for sailing instructions, they had to answer the distress calls made by their colleagues on shore while in the midst of the most difficult maneuvers.

Often times, one design driver leads to different solutions depending on the technology used and how much the existing products can be modified. The goal is generally for concepts that can be realized within a few years. It is more difficult to make decisions about concepts with a longer time span because there isn't enough knowledge about the technology and markets. It is often difficult to get anything new into production faster. However, the aim is to present all the interesting concepts.

We kept our feet firmly on the ground in the project. Nevertheless, the opportunities to realize the concepts varied from those that could be realized immediately to those that would have to wait for new technology. The ideas for the off-line wearable headset were divided into three generations. The first generation was based on improvements to existing products, the second consisted of new products based on existing technology, and the third was new products based on emerging technologies.

In the first phase, it was suggested to improve the headsets by changing the design of the microphone part so that the cord could be pulled into a loop through the microphone part and then looped behind the neck. Furthermore, it was suggested that the answering switch be moved onto the headset. With these modifications, the standard headset could be improved so that it was always reachable and a single hand movement could answer and end a call. The realization is not limited by any technical problem except a safe mechanism to open the loop around the person's neck.

In the second phase, a headset with a retractable cord that is attached to the phone with a link cable was suggested. This solution eliminates the dangling cord problem. The concept is simple in principle, but designing the reliable, working mechanics is relatively demanding. When answering and ending a call is connected to pulling out and retracting the cord, managing phone calls became as simple as it is with conventional table phones. Moreover, this way the headset is an independently operating unit that can be used to manage the most general and simple phone call operations without having to handle the phone itself. A patent with this solution, i.e. managing phone functions utilizing a retractable cord, has been applied for. If the patent is granted, it protects the concept of answering a phone call by lifting the handset. This could be considered the main user interface innovation in the telecommunications sector.

In the third phase, it was suggested that the off-line wearable headset could be improved by realizing the connection to the phone using a short-range radio frequency link. The phone could be located anywhere within the range of the radio link, for example in the bottom of a backpack or in a bag on the sidelines of a field. To realize the solution, the phones must be equipped with the technology in question, and the technology must be developed so that the size and weight of the transmitter are within acceptable limits. We are still waiting for this to happen.

Conclusions

The project had two important results. First, the concepts itself turned out to be implementable and received positive user feedback. Secondly, the process itself was piloted in this project and received approval and has been applied successfully ever since.

Design implications

The project successfully anticipated the development trends of wearable phone accessories. As of this writing, many of the concepts perceived have been realized, including the retractable headset – albeit many by competitors. It also helped to create a new product category that was launched late 2001.

The project was a success in terms of practical requirements. It managed to squeeze a great deal – including the defining of user-centered design drivers, interactive model tooling and testing, and the protection of key concepts – into a very compact project. The project was a pilot project for the concept projects that followed it. It was used to demonstrate a model of a user-centered concept project to the customer organization and it helped to create the necessary confidence so that there was no hesitance later when commencing other projects using similar approach. The same approach has been used to study communication related user needs in different contexts e.g. in the car, within family members etc and it currently forms the backbone of end user studies at Nokia.

References

·         Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.

·         Lawson, B. (1990). How designers think – the design process demystified. 2nd edition. Butterworth Architecture, London.

·         Rittel, H.W.J. & Webber, M.M. (1973). Planning problems are wicked problems in Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Plicy Sciences 4, 155-169.