View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

HCCI Tool: A Lens to Support Industrial Designers during the Conceptualisation of Smart Products

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: HCCI Tool: A Lens to Support Industrial Designers during the Conceptualisation of Smart Products
Language: English
Authors: De Ruyck, Olivia (ORCID 0000-0002-7786-8612), Conradie, Peter (ORCID 0000-0003-4495-9136), Van Hove, Stephanie (ORCID 0000-0001-8652-9236), All, Anissa (ORCID 0000-0002-9255-2827), Baccarne, Bastiaan (ORCID 0000-0002-8489-3285), De Marez, Lieven (ORCID 0000-0001-7716-4079), Saldien, Jelle (ORCID 0000-0003-2557-3764)
Source: International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Nov 2023 33(5):1991-2017.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Man Machine Systems, Industrial Arts, Design, Internet, Artificial Intelligence, Interaction, Design Preferences
DOI: 10.1007/s10798-022-09803-9
ISSN: 0957-7572
1573-1804
Abstract: Interactions between humans and smart products (i.e. digital components integrated in physical Internet of Things devices) are becoming more complex and less visible. Yet designers lack tools to capture these interactions and incorporate them into their design. In this paper we present the Human-Computer-Context Interaction (HCCI) tool that helps the designer to consider the different interactions of the user early in the conceptualisation phase, in order to eventually improve the user experience for smart products. This tool introduces 5 relevant interaction levels to be considered, when defining the context-of-use. In this paper we assess the use of the tool by means of a design challenge with a total of 34 industrial design students, given the task to design a smart kitchen concept. The tool was evaluated by a mixed method approach. Results show that the tool was evaluated as useful and usable during the early concept phase of the design of smart products. Unsupported concepts typically envisioned a single user interacting with one object through explicit interactions. Hence, tool-supported designs were more holistic and better captured interactions with other objects, users, content and services. From this we conclude that the tool can help to detect possible pitfalls of design selections. The tool is aimed to be used in a new product development process by HCI researchers, designers, and developers and is technology independent. Based on observations and participant feedback, we reflect on the strengths and limitations of this tool.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1392330
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEa4pwIM4p15nb5AXNjwEfGAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMF1hWgzhSRLTfzlWgIBEICBm-Su2KdOWC9BgqnMRR-fUb_Vw5jGGtolEGe82gk5Y_pEnwDsUz846VrJopaldnKDLiAwE5LLZBc1GS6z8qeo43hgvaen0jN8GO195T7_iyyS8ArVH6RY7CrR89kosY6CeWEG6h9ULLEBIUkn3I4IMTNAG1gZMf4n8o-WkaJn8EA5S04hHLdjXzm1fxZ3YG40hGinSrMtu59gUfFt
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0171951887;ogv01nov.23;2023Sep19.05:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0171951887-1">HCCI tool: a lens to support industrial designers during the conceptualisation of smart products </title> <p>Interactions between humans and smart products (i.e. digital components integrated in physical Internet of Things devices) are becoming more complex and less visible. Yet designers lack tools to capture these interactions and incorporate them into their design. In this paper we present the Human-Computer-Context Interaction (HCCI) tool that helps the designer to consider the different interactions of the user early in the conceptualisation phase, in order to eventually improve the user experience for smart products. This tool introduces 5 relevant interaction levels to be considered, when defining the context-of-use. In this paper we assess the use of the tool by means of a design challenge with a total of 34 industrial design students, given the task to design a smart kitchen concept. The tool was evaluated by a mixed method approach. Results show that the tool was evaluated as useful and usable during the early concept phase of the design of smart products. Unsupported concepts typically envisioned a single user interacting with one object through explicit interactions. Hence, tool-supported designs were more holistic and better captured interactions with other objects, users, content and services. From this we conclude that the tool can help to detect possible pitfalls of design selections. The tool is aimed to be used in a new product development process by HCI researchers, designers, and developers and is technology independent. Based on observations and participant feedback, we reflect on the strengths and limitations of this tool.</p> <p>Keywords: Human-computer interaction; Contextual user research; New product development; Ubiquitous computing; Tool</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Human Computer Interaction (HCI), is a rather young domain, and became a field on its own in the early 1980s. However, rapid pace of technological developments in the last decades (e.g., wireless technologies, mobile phones, pervasive technologies) has led to an escalation of new opportunities for augmenting, extending and supporting a wide range of user experiences, interactions and communications (Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref1">40</reflink>]). As a consequence, HCI has developed as an eclectic interdisciplinary science, rather than a well-defined one. At its beginning, it was concerned with the interface between a user and a computer, but now it covers all aspect of human life. While the concept "human-computer interaction" is wide-spread, many complain that it suggests one human interacting with one computer to complete narrow tasks. Instead, critics believe that the discipline should reflect user-oriented technologies that are ubiquitous, pervasive, social, embedded, tangible, invisible, multimodal, immersive, augmented, or ambient. Some want to break free from the focus on computer use and emphasize areas such as user experience, emotional impact, aesthetics, and social engagement (Shneiderman, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref2">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>How users, interact with these computer-based applications has also changed in many ways. With the term "ubiquitous computing" Marc Weiser introduced the third wave of HCI. Instead of one user interacting with one computer through an interface and explicit commands; computer interfaces get completely weaved into the lives of users, resulting in interactions outside of the traditional range of human-computer interaction (Weiser, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref3">56</reflink>]). Today, many details of his vision became reality: technologies have entered from the workplace to our homes. Homes are becoming smart and automated, and cars have become computers on wheels. By 2025, it is expected that there will be more than 30 billion Internet of Things (IoT) connections, creating a massive network of connected devices and systems that collect and exchange data. This is almost 4 IoT devices per person on average (Iot-Analytics, n.d.).</p> <p>As a consequence of this shift in interactions and the growing popularity of smart products changes, different sectors are being confronted with new changes and challenges. Hence, engineers and designers have an increasingly difficult job to design products that are not only technically efficient, but also provide an excellent user experience. There is an increasing demand for experienced professionals in the IoT sector, but since few dedicated IoT courses are currently offered, most Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) students will have limited knowledge of IoT development until after graduation and entering the labour market (He et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref4">20</reflink>]). Moreover, dedicated IoT courses have a technical focus and focus less on interactions and experiences of the user.</p> <p>Although several toolboxes exist to support the new product development process (NPD) of smart products, there is a lack of tools that do not focus on the technology, but capture the human-computer interactions and its user experience (). Our study, builds on the Human-Computer-Context-Interaction HCCI model for conducting User studies for shifting interfaces (Van Hove et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>]) which until now has only been described in theory and was not subjected to an experiment. The aim of our study is to introduce and evaluate a tool to foster human-centred design of smart products by providing a tool for designers to better classify and define all interactions of the user during early concept phase. Therefore we look to offer our students new tools that can support them in the creation of strong concepts. In our opinion the classic product design or HCI—tools provide a more narrow user-to-object or user-to-computer interaction model. The aim of the HCCI-tool and the template is to 'force' students to look at the complex interactions of new 'smart products' from different perspectives, broadening the interaction model during the design and facilitating a better User Experience (UX) at the end.</p> <p>The evaluation of the tool is limited to smart home products, since the multitude of interactions taking place within homes is a rewarding, but delineated starting point for smart product design. Moreover, this limited scope increased the comparability of the characteristics of the resulting designs. We do not evaluate this tool for all internet of things fields like the design of smart healthcare and smart mobility and transportation... although, these can be included in future research.</p> <p>We want to evaluate the usefulness, usability, satisfaction and the impact of the tool in order to iterate and improve the tool in future research. Through an evaluation of the tool with 34 students of the 2<sups>nd</sups> year industrial design engineering we focus on the following research questions through qualitative and quantitative research:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How are the usefulness, usability and satisfaction of the HCCI tool scored by young designers?</item> <p></p> <item> Impact and comprehension of the HCCI tool: How does unravelling the human-product interactions—following the HCCI model—impact the design in an early concept phase?</item> </ulist> <p>The rest of the article is structured as follows: First, the extant literature on HCI research and education, and existing toolkits for design of smart products and user experience are reviewed. This is followed by a description of the proposed HCCI tool and of the research methods and procedures used in the study. The results of our enquiry are then discussed. Finally, implications, limitations, and directions for future research are presented.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-3">Related work</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171951887-4">HCI research and evolution</hd> <p>Human computer Interaction (HCI) has grown at a rapid pace since its inception in the early 1980s. It emerged as a well-defined discipline, focussing on the interface between user and computer, but now covers all aspects of human life, through all forms of computers from device ecologies to nano-technology (Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref6">40</reflink>]). The ways humans interact with technology became more natural on the one hand, but more complex to capture on the other hand. As an example it is less complex for a user to control the temperature on a programmable thermostat in the home based on the daily habits (e.g. a fixed time-based temperature for every day in the week), but it is more complex to adjust these systems to adhere to our real individual behaviour (e.g. take into account flexible hours, holidays, vacations, personal preferences, room preferences, etc..).</p> <p>The technological developments bring new opportunities for the users to interact with objects. Earliest interaction between computer and human was through command line interfaces (CLI) with the help of an interface and keyboard. When the computers became more powerful, interaction was possible through Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) (Kortum, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]). The mouse enabled users to explore the interface that relied on metaphors such as windows and files. As an alternative to CLI and GUI, Natural user Interfaces (NUI) were introduced. An example of natural interaction that evolved from that idea today is the Kinect, a gaming device with sensors embedded in the controllers that react to the body movement. Another example is the Soli Project by Google's Advanced Technologies and Projects (ATAP Lab) (Google Soli Project, n.d.) to enable the ambient world to become an user interface through a miniature radar that is used for motion tracking of the human hand. With these examples of technological developments, we see that to interact with technology users don't need explicit actions, but technology becomes more ubiquitous.</p> <p>Three waves describe the fast evolution in the field and cohere with the introduction of new technology. The first wave, described by Bødker ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>]) focuses on the interaction between a human and computer through CLI where researchers mainly focus on usability. A single user interacts with a single computer in one single location which is usually the work space. In the second wave, first described by Bannon ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>]), multiple interactions are possible, and the research focus shifts to communication and collaboration. In the third wave, again described by Bødker ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]) the use context and interaction types are broadened. Technology is not only present at work, but has spread to our homes and everyday life and culture. The shift from CLI to NUI similarly corresponds to the prediction that we are moving from a situation where one computer is used by many people, to where one person has many computing devices which are embedded in the people's daily routine to perform an automation of their environment (Weiser & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref11">55</reflink>]). This has resulted in a shift in research focus from "technology and content" to "users and context" or a shift from Human-computer Interaction (HCI) to Human-Computer-Context Interaction (HCCI).</p> <p>IoT research has concentrated mainly on two ends: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>) theoretical research on the integration of computers into the physical world an how they can serve human/societal needs as described above, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>) technical research, solving technological challenges such as performance, connectivity and security. The focus and methods of HCI research stayed broadly on investigating performance-oriented explicit interactions, often not considering context (Weschung & De Moor, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref14">57</reflink>]) leading to IoT devices with disappointing user experience.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-5">HCI in industrial design education</hd> <p>The arrival of technological developments has led to an escalation of new opportunities. These include designing experiences for different people, in different settings, doing different things (Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref15">40</reflink>]). Researchers and designers of smart products, not only need technical skills, but also notions of interface design, usability, electronica... Therefore multidisciplinary teams are being put together and members of HCI communities work in fields as diverse as user interface design, human factors, computer science, psychology, engineering, graphics, industrial design, entertainment, and telecommunications (SigChi Members, n.d.).</p> <p>As a consequence of the evolution in IoT research, the skills and education of HCI researchers evolved. Traditionally, industrial design started with a design brief, stating a fixed problem and a context (Design council 2010). Hence, a variety of methods to study user needs exist and are being educated, ranging from traditional focus groups (McQuarrie & McIntyre, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref16">33</reflink>]), co-creation sessions with end users (Sanders & Stappers, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref17">43</reflink>]) to the creation of "personas" and "context mapping" (Stappers & Visser, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref18">51</reflink>]). However, ideation in dynamic environments is challenging because of the increasing complexity of systems that are used beyond the desktop interface. Many of today's Industrial Design curriculum are being restructured by integrating sensor-based technologies as a mandatory core element of the entire design program (Budd & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]). Through the introduction of smart technology courses and hardware prototyping tools for smart products as Arduino, there is a particular emphasis on assisting students to connect concepts of ID, IxD & HCI and break the typical design students' notion of an electronic product as a "black box with magical functions." New curricula leverage the traditional strengths of the Industrial Design discipline by integrating a hands-on understanding of electronics, and IoT while maintaining a focus on the core values of Industrial Design.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-6">HCI toolkits</hd> <p>Research into toolkits and methods plays an important role in the field of HCI, as it can heavily influence both the design and implementation of interactive systems. With the upcoming popularity of smart products, the methods and tools to design such technologies received more attention. Within HCI literature, the term 'toolkit' is widely used to describe various types of software, hardware, design and conceptual frameworks, which fall in the category of constructive research. The use of toolkits can be defined as "producing understanding about the construction of an interactive artefact for some purpose in human use of computing" (Oulasvirta & Hornbæk, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref20">38</reflink>]). Greenberg ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>]) defines toolkits as generative platforms designed to create new interactive artefacts, provide easy access to complex algorithms, enable fast prototyping of software and hardware interfaces, and/or enable creative exploration of design spaces. Ledo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref22">28</reflink>]) analysed and summarized the value of HCI toolkits such as "reducing authoring time and complexity" (Greenberg, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]; Olsen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref24">37</reflink>]), and "empowering new audiences" (Olsen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref25">37</reflink>]) which are also amongst our goals.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-7">IoT maker tools and cards</hd> <p>There is a wide variety in tools which can be applied during different moments of the design process (from ideation to evaluation) for different types of users (for co-creations with users or for the designers). Examples of tools that help the designers to design interactive products with technology—are Arduino platform, Raspberry Pi, LEGO Mindstorms, MakeyMakey (Silver et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref26">49</reflink>]). Designers can add a digital layer to their prototypes and experience the interaction.</p> <p>Contrary to previously described digital tools, non-digital (analogue) tools continue to dominate the early stages or "fuzzy front-end" of the design process (Borum et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]). Card based design tools for IoT ideation, as described and summarized by Mora et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref28">35</reflink>]), have been applied to the design of technology for a wide range of domains including the idea exploration for embodied interfaces (Hornecker, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref29">22</reflink>]), the design of tangible learning games (Deng et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref30">10</reflink>]), to inspire for the design for playfulness (Lucero & Arrasvuori, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref31">30</reflink>]) and to influence behavior through design (Lockton et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref32">29</reflink>]). The cards are mostly used during co-creations and bring domain experts out of their silos to co-create user-centric IoT experiences. A few card-based tools have specifically targeted IoT ideation and describe IoT technology in an accessible language to non-experts (Aspiala & Deschamps-Sonsino, n.d.). They use different techniques such as the analysis of actual IoT products with the aim of finding technical, societal or economical friction points (thingsclash); or ideate IoT scenarios by merging physical objects, digital services and interaction metaphors (Mora et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref33">35</reflink>]). The hybrid product systems framework (HPSS) (Deroeck, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>]) aims to guide a designer or team beyond the ideation phase, through all stages of the design. The tool helps the designer think ahead about how the digital aspect of a product can evolve even after launch. Several of these IoT design tools can be used in a flexible way and deployed in one or more phases of the design process. They often have a technical approach and do not take interactions with other objects, people and the context-of use into account.</p> <p>A systematic literature review of Peters and colleagues (Peters et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref35">39</reflink>]) of analogue tools for collaborative ideation resulted in 76 design tools. The majority of these design tools take the form of a card deck and to a lesser extent templates or 'self-declared toolkits'. Gaps such as ideation tools for newer technologies such as Mixed Reality and the Internet of Things (IoT); the lack of evaluation of tools and public availability are addressed by the authors. If design tools are evaluated, this mostly involves participant observations, in-depth interviews, or questionnaires, whereas experimental evaluations are rare. Only the repeated measures experiment from Cardoso and Clarkson (Cardoso & Clarckson, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref36">8</reflink>]) has been described in literature. This experimental evaluation is similar to the intended evaluation of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-8">HCI frameworks with a focus on the context-of-use</hd> <p>Next to tools and frameworks that focus on the interaction between the user and the computer from a product or technical point of view; others focus specifically on the impact of the interaction context also called the context-of-use on user experience. They do not aim to guide the entire design process and to record technical components, as the IoT tools mentioned above. Instead of starting from technology, they first want to capture the context and the interactions of the user.</p> <p>Different authors found the need to describe a framework to capture the Human Computer Interaction. Volpentesta's model ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref37">54</reflink>]) on mobile and ubiquitous services in smart environments, for example, decomposes interaction in different components: the user, the interactive resource (smart objects interacting with the user and m-service); m-service (set of software and policies); and action information flow (information exchange between two interaction entities). Wu and Fu ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref38">58</reflink>]) on the other hand, describe a framework for human system interaction, which focuses on giving permissions and privacy rights to users in a smart environment. The authors describe 3 components: the user (defined by an ID), a service, and a space. Another valuable framework providing a more holistic view on user experience and especially on context, is the integrated Quality of Experience (QoE) framework by Geerts and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref39">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>While there are several HCI frameworks available that provide insight in aspects to take into account when developing user experience, these do not sufficiently provide researchers with concrete concepts that can be used during a design process.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-9">Introduction HCCI tool</hd> <p>Based on the existing literature above that guide the design and evaluation of technologies and that describe at least one interaction between the human and the computer, we introduce the HCCI tool (Fig. 1), an improved version of the work of Van Hove (Van Hove et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref40">24</reflink>]). Current frameworks in HCI literature are rather HCI taxonomies, focusing on separate components or impact of a single component on a system-user interaction and are thus rather system-centric and overlook user experience. The presented HCCI tool takes a more user-centred and holistic approach by deconstructing user experience in several interactions. The tool determines user activities by 5 interaction levels: user-service, user-object, user-content, user-user and user-context. User-service, user-content and user-object interactions (partly) define the user-system interaction. The user interfaces with a system and interactions can occur explicitly or implicitly. User-context interactions also shape user- system interactions and vice versa. User context on a first level refers to context of use and on a second level, situational context. Context-of-use consists of the local context around the system, consisting of other objects and (secondary) users that are not part of the system, which might relate to the interaction between the primary user and the system. Context-of-use is a dynamic concept, influenced by its situational context. Following, we further specify the individual components.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1HCCI tool determines user activities by 5 interaction levels: user-service, user-object, user-content, user-user and user-context</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-10">User</hd> <p>Similar to the conceptualization of system, the user is considered an essential part of HCI frameworks and models (Satchell & Dourish, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref41">44</reflink>]; Wu & Fu, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref42">58</reflink>]). However, secondary and tertiary users are often overlooked although their presence has an impact on the type of interaction first users have with a system. e.g. when I am alone I want my cooking hob to work automatically, but when I cook for friends visiting (secondary and tertiary users) I want my hob to display more information and work with timers.</p> <p>In the proposed HCCI framework, a user is defined as a person that has entered into the context of use and is described by their goals and needs (s)he is (un)aware of. In the context of use, the user can interact (input and output) with systems (always through an interface), objects (ref), and with other users (secondary or tertiary users). User can activate a system implicitly (e.g. by triggering a sensor) or explicitly (e.g. pressing a button, speech command).</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-11">Object</hd> <p>The conceptualization of an object is tightly coupled with the technology domain. In an IoT context, objects are defined as smart objects or physical objects with a digital functionality and can be identified and tracked automatically (Kranz et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref43">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the proposed HCCI framework however we take both interactive and non-interactive objects into account. They can both be part of a system or not part of the system but part of the context of use (Jumisko-Pyykkö & Vainio, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref44">26</reflink>]). An example of the distinction between non-interactive objects and interactive objects is for instant my ingredients (chicken) and an interactive pot with sensors to warn me that the chicken burnt.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-12">Content</hd> <p>In tangible user interfaces, content is defined as digital information that a physical object embodies (Sharlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref45">45</reflink>]) or physical representation of data (Hornecker & Buur, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>]). Content quality is considered one of the important dimensions defining Quality of Experience of IoT applications, next to service and system quality (Shin, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref47">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the proposed HCCI framework, content is defined as non-digital and digital information that is a subcomponent of a system. Content can either be input for a system or output for the user. Input-content is either implicitly or explicitly registered by the system as machine- readable data. Output-content is human-readable information through the five senses. A good example of the distinction between implicit and explicit is a recommender system that is based on previous user behavior referring to implicitly registered content (e.g., music they have listened to before) and recommender systems based on a rating of the user, referring to explicitly registered content.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-13">Interface</hd> <p>A user interface can be interpreted as that part of a system that allows interaction between humans and machines (IEEE, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref48">23</reflink>]). Newer interfaces, Tangible User Interfaces (TUI) and Natural User Interfaces (NUI), don't require direct connection between the input and the output (explicit). They can be implicit interfaces that provide system instructions via sensors placed on or on the body of the user, including in the brain (Solovey et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref49">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the proposed HCCI framework, the interface is part of the system and allows interaction between the user and the system. From the user perspective, an interface can range from visible, purposeful interaction over subconscious, intentional peripheral interaction to invisible, unconscious, implicit interaction. A good example of the distinction between a visible, purposeful interaction and an invisible, unconscious, implicit interaction is for instance, a press on a help button when an elderly person falls or falling on a sensor in a mat which triggers an alarm. Both the button as the sensors are interfaces.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-14">Context</hd> <p>Often context is considered a broad term that does not differentiate between different levels of context. Context can be differentiated in e.g., situational context (),temporal context (e.g., duration, time, synchronism of actions) and physical context (e.g., spatial and functional meaning of space) (Jumisko-Pyykkö & Vainio, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]), or social, and user context (Angkananon & Wald, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]; Gummerus & Pihlstr, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref52">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the proposed HCCI framework, interactions take place within a context of use and emerge from the situational context. The situational context is dynamically constituted by opportunities according to, and interests and goals of the user which gives meaning to the user-system interaction. Other people (system-mediated or co-located), referred to as secondary and tertiary users, and other objects can also be part of the context of use and can affect the user-system interaction. Hence, the context-of-use is constituted by the user, a task, a system and can consist of other people and other objects. Various contexts should be mapped to understand the impact on the interaction.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-15">Service</hd> <p>A service is referred to as "the action of helping or doing work for someone" (Oxford dictionary). Wu and Fu ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref53">58</reflink>]) make a distinction between background and foreground services. Background services do not require attention of the user (i.e., lighting service), in contrast to foreground services that need to be activated or interacted with by the user (i.e., Skype).</p> <p>In the proposed HCCI framework, service is defined as one of the three subcomponents of a system, besides object and content. Services are intangible and provided to the user or to the context of use as a result of a supply in content (e.g., music that plays) and/or action of an object (e.g., light bulb that turns on, the service is light).</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-16">System</hd> <p>A system refers to a set of interconnected elements that achieve a given objective through the performance of a specified function (IEEE, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref54">23</reflink>], p. 1143). In the model of mobile ubiquitous services in a smart environment (Volpentesta, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref55">54</reflink>]), system components are sensors, embedded subsystems, devices owned by mobile users and remote or local servers. All these elements comply with the object concept as defined above.</p> <p>In our proposed HCCI framework, we define the system as covering all objects, services and content collaborating together around their specified user goal. The system interacts with a user through an interface. The system can also undertake autonomous actions without user input and can be activated by contextual input. Various systems might in turn be interfacing with each other (out of view of the user) to deliver content or provide feedback.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-17">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171951887-18">Experiment setup</hd> <p>The presentation and evaluation of the tool were presented in the context of the course "user-centred design" in the 2nd bachelor of Industrial Design Engineering Technology, at Ghent University. The participating students (n = 34) have at least a two-year background in industrial design education, and are familiar with basic methodologies of the product development process (Roozenburg & Eekels, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref56">41</reflink>]). They did not have a substantial technical or methodological orientation. Prior to the experiment, students had at least some experience with idea generation and idea definition, and are trained to conceptually define products and services.</p> <p>The course took place online due to the COVID pandemic. This, however, gave the opportunity to control the evaluation in time and context as they had to hand in the assignments in real time. The course took 90 min and was planned as follows (Table 1). First students were welcomed. The class started with an introduction on smart products; after the introduction the students received 20 min for the following exercise; "Design a smart kitchen with a smart cooking hub and cooker to facilitate the cooking experience. Define on a conceptual level, how this kitchen may look like. The picture on the slide is just an example, be creative." Students needed to hand in 1 slide and explain the concept in a 3 min video presentation. This step in the course allowed us to make a comparison with a second exercise. How well did participants manage without a tool and how did the tool helped to improve their concept? After this assignment, the new tool was introduced. We explained the use of the tool based on an example of the development of a smart drone. The selected example was very different from the assignment to avoid influencing the students. After the 10 min explanation of the tool, students received the same assignment, now with the use of the HCCI tool. Twenty minutes later, students had to hand in the HCCI tool work sheet and another 3-min video explaining the tool and mentioning the differences with the previous concept. Finally, students were asked to evaluate the tool with an online survey. It was mentioned to the participants that the questionnaire was anonymous.</p> <p>We chose for a comparison where we compared the creation of a concept without a dedicated tool to the creation of a concept with a dedicated tool rather than for a A/B test, comparing the results of 2 groups. There are several reasons for this choice: we had a rather small group of participants, dividing them, would make the results less significant. Secondly, the comparison of concepts between the two groups could be subjective as different concepts would be compared. The use of two different conditions allowed us to compare the same concepts twice and understand the existing or missing interactions.</p> <p>For the purpose of this study with students we transformed the layout of the tool to a format which can be filled in and which is visually attractive to use. The HCCI framework and the elements of Van Hove (Van Hove et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref57">53</reflink>]) remain the same, but received an updated to a workable tool with space to write and draw. The template forces the designer to think about the different interactions and fill in solutions and important pitfalls for the design. There is no start of end point in the tool. Filling in the different interactions such as "Users" should inspire the designer and add more "Objects" and "Interfaces" these users interact with.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-19">Evaluation method</hd> <p>Acceptance of toolkits as a research contribution remains a challenge and a topic of frequent discussion (Greenberg, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref58">16</reflink>]; Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref59">36</reflink>]; Olsen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref60">37</reflink>]). The problem is that toolkit evaluation is challenging, as it is often unclear what 'evaluating' a toolkit means and what methods are appropriate (Ledo et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref61">28</reflink>]). Based on the analysis of 68 published toolkit papers Ledo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref62">28</reflink>]) reveal 4 strategies to evaluate toolkits: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>) demonstrations (what a toolkit can do), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>) usage (who can you use the toolkit and how), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>) technical evaluations (how well a toolkit performs), and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>) heuristics (to what extent the toolkit meets standard guidelines). In our research we apply all 4: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>) demonstration of the HCCI tool through a description, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>) usage and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>) a technical evaluation through a quantitative questionnaire and additional interviews, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>) heuristics by a comparison of the result of the tool versus no usage of the tool.</p> <p>For the evaluation we choose for a multi method approach. We give more detailed information about the quantitative questionnaire used and the qualitative evaluation of the concepts and the tool through video recordings.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-20">Quantitative evaluation</hd> <p>Participants were asked to fill in an online survey with 25 questions after the use of the tool. The survey was prepared using a standard USE Questionnaire (Lund, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref71">31</reflink>]). USE stands for Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use. Perceived Usefulness is the degree to which a person believes that using the tool will support them in their job performance, Perceived Ease of Use is the degree to which a person believes that using the tool will be effortless and Satisfaction is the fulfilment of one's wishes, expectations, or needs, or the pleasure derived from the use of the tool. As stated by Faria et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref72">12</reflink>]) the evaluation dimensions in the USE Questionnaire were believed to be the most important factors to evaluate usability. The attitudes Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) used in USE questionnaire, are based on the influential Technology Acceptance Model TAM to determine someone's behavioural intention to use a technology (Davis, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref73">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>The questionnaire can be used without training, because the construction of the items are simply worded to be easily understandable by respondents (Lund, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref74">31</reflink>]). The questionnaire has been used successfully by many researchers (Faria et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref75">12</reflink>]; Filippidis & Tsoukalas, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref76">13</reflink>]; Hariyanto et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref77">18</reflink>]; Hashim et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref78">19</reflink>]; Salameh, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref79">42</reflink>]) over different domains such as the evaluation of usability in e-banking, education, prototyping. Questions are presented with a five-point Likert scale (I fully agree, partially agree, not agree nor disagree, partially disagree and completely disagree). We used validated scales and instruments. Although our sample size is modest, (n = 34), according to Bujang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref80">7</reflink>]), it is sufficient to perform a Cronbach analysis of our instruments reliability. Our Cronbach alpha results are satisfactory, with Usefulness scoring α = 0.838; Ease of Use α = 0.932 and Satisfaction α = 0.835, thus exceeding the customary cut-off of α = 0.7</p> <p>The overall goal of the survey was thus not to test a conceptual model, but rather to get a general insights into the overall usefulness of the tool among our student population.</p> <p>The second part of the questions in the survey concerned the evaluation of the quality of the created ideas by the students after the use of the tool based on originality, technical feasibility as suggested by Kudrowitz and Wallace ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref81">27</reflink>]). Data from the questionnaires were aggregated and analysed. This technical evaluation sheds a light on the perceived quality of the ideas. Ideas were not evaluated according to novelty and appropriateness (Sternberg & Lubart, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref82">52</reflink>])—a common approach in evaluation—because novelty and creativity are not a goal of this study. This tool is not positioned as a creativity tool but rather wants to be a holistic lens for designers to improve the user experience during the design process of smart products.</p> <p>Our sample comprised of 36 quantitative answers, from which 2 participants were excluded due to incomplete results, bringing the sample to 34 valid respondents. There was a majority of male participants (80.5%), not exceptional for engineering studies. The average participant age was 21.5 (± 4.4) years old. A majority reported having 3 years of design experience, while the final sample also included 29.8% participants with one or more years of experience. No significant differences were found with more experienced designers. The questionnaire after the use of the tool, was taken to understand the usefulness and satisfaction by the participants. Given the limited sample size, the results are presented per item, as opposed to sum scores for constructs.</p> <p>Based on the results, we want to answer the question: How are the Usefulness, Usability and Satisfaction of the HCCI tool scored by young designers?</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-21">Qualitative evaluation</hd> <p>In addition to the quantitative evaluation, qualitative data was gathered through recorded presentations of the different created concepts by the respondents. Two of the authors, with a background as design professionals, compared all 68 concepts (2 concepts per participant) through qualitative research to understand the impact of the tool. Original concepts were compared to the concepts created after the use of the tool. Additionally researchers compared results in-between the participants to reveal similarities. In a first video respondents describe the concept they have created without the use of any tool. In a second video the participants present the new concept and explain the benefits or barriers of the usage of the tool. The discussed elements of the concepts, were categorised under the different interaction levels of the HCCI tool being the concept, user, context, interface, object, content and service. This, in order to be able to compare the initial mentioned interactions with the interactions following the HCCI tool. Additionally, notes written on the concept sheets were added to the belonging categories to ensure that all items the students had thought of are captured, which could be missing if the data is only based on videos.</p> <p>A coding book was developed consisting of 14 separate codes, each adding more detail to one of the seven defined interactions of the HCCI framework (deductively). Its definitions and operationalization was further refined in discussions between the two coders (inductively). A first version of the codings were validated with a small subset of transcripts of this study. The process of training and consolidation continued until an acceptable Cohen's Kappa inter-rater reliability of 0.78 was reached for 5 transcripts, which results in a moderate agreement among the coders (McHugh, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref83">32</reflink>]). The complete process was facilitated by Nvivo 12 for qualitative data analysis.</p> <p>Quotations reported in the following sections are from the unmodified transcript of user feedback collected through video recording and the open questions on the evaluation of the tool in the survey.</p> <p>The quality of the recordings supplied by the students varied due to technical issues and the time limitation. Some only hold voice recordings, others video with or without the visualisation of the concept at the same time. Although this did not impact our results, since respondents used the same type of recording for both concept presentations.</p> <p>Based on the data, the research question on the impact and comprehension of the tool could be answered: How does unravelling the human-product interactions—following the HCCI model—impact the design in an early concept phase?</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-22">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171951887-23">Usability, usefulness and satisfaction of the HCCI tool</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171951887-24">Usefulness of the tool</hd> <p>Data from the questionnaires indicate that HCCI tool was perceived as useful. More than 91% (n = 31/34) of the participants agreed or totally agreed. The tool helped most in "being effective" (85.3%) and "being productive" (72.7%). Lowest scores, and most neutral scores were given to the statements "the tools helps me to gain time" (50.0% (totally) agree), "the tool gives me control about my activity" (50.0% (totally)agree). This can partially be explained by the fact that the participants answer this question with a short term view, not with the time that the tool could help them save on the long term of the design process. The low control about the activity could be clarified by the novelty aspect.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-25">Usability of the tool</hd> <p>Data from the questionnaires indicate that HCCI tool was perceived as easy to use. If neutral answers are excluded, 76.5% of the participants agreed or totally agreed that <emph>"it was easy to learn</emph>". Followed by "<emph>easy to use as I liked</emph>" (67.7%), "<emph>clear and understandable</emph>" (64.8%). Participants scored the flexibility of the tool lowest (47.1%). This might be because of the fixed structure and template which is provided.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-26">Satisfaction and improvements</hd> <p>55.8% agreed or totally agreed to be satisfied with the tool versus 11.8% that don't agree, others give a neutral answer (32.4%). In an open question, participants commented on the question. Most mentioned advantages of the tool are: easy to use, fast to use, makes you think about all aspects, finding of new ideas and critical aspects, study the context, provides an overview and structure, makes you question the interface to choose. Disadvantages of the tool mentioned that should be improved are the duration of the use of the tool, the type of template provided (now a static one), the limited explanation of the interactions on the template, the instructions on how to use the template. More details and suggestions on how to improve the tool can be found in the qualitative part above (Tables 2, 3).</p> <p>Table 1 Summary of experiment set-up</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>No usage of a dedicated tool</p></th><th align="left"><p>Usage of HCCI tool</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>• General introduction IoT products, no tool specified</p><p>• 20' assignment</p><p>Output:</p><p>• Concept explained in 1 slide</p><p>• 3 min video presentation</p></td><td align="left"><p>• Introduction HCCI tool template</p><p>• 20' assignment</p><p>Output:</p><p>• Concept explained in 1 slide</p><p>• 3 min video presentation</p><p>• Indication of changed or added elements with the initial concept</p><p>• Online USE survey</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2 Use and satisfaction about the tool</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>#</p></th><th align="left"><p>Question</p></th><th align="left"><p>Totally agree (%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Agree (%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Don't agree, don't disagree (%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Disagree (%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Totally disagree (%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Total</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool helps me to be more effective</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>79.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool helps me to be more productive</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>60.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool is useful</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>73.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool gives me control about the activity I want to learn</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>41.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>41.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool makes what I want to achieve easier</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>35.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool helps me to gain time</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>44.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>32.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool satisfies my needs</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>44.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool does everything I expect it to do</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>44.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>35.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3 Usability of the tool</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>#</p></th><th align="left"><p>Question</p></th><th align="left"><p>Totally agree (%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Agree (%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Don't agree, don't disagree (%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Disagree (%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Totally disagree (%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Total</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool was easy to learn</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>26.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>50.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool was clear and understandable</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47.1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>It was easy to get acquainted with the tool</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>50.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>26.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool was flexible to use</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>41.2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38.2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool was easy to use</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>58.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>The tool was easy to use as I liked</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>58.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0171951887-27">Impact and comprehension of the HCCI tool</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171951887-28">Self-declared impact of the tool</hd> <p>As a last element of the quantitative survey, participants were requested to score the designs created with and without the tool; and compare them on "<emph>originality</emph>", "<emph>technical feasibility of the design</emph>" and "<emph>value for the user</emph>" (Kudrowitz & Wallace, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref84">27</reflink>]). Students were questioned after the use of the tool about their learning outcomes and their self-perceived quality of the design. The results are presented in Table 4. The design with the use of the HCCI model was perceived more original by 85.3% of the participants. The value for the end-user received in 73.5% of the cases a better result of the respondents. Improvement on the technical feasibility of the product scored by 42.4%. This lower score might be the result of the increased originality and opening the concept to new interactions which had not been thought of before by the designer. The designer might not have knowledge about the new incorporated technologies or has highlighted technical difficulties he prior to the use of the model did not envisaged (Table 5).</p> <p>Table 4 Comparison by the participants between the both concepts</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>#</p></th><th align="left"><p>Question</p></th><th align="left"><p>A lot worse (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>#</p></th><th align="left"><p>Worse (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>#</p></th><th align="left"><p>Equal (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>#</p></th><th align="left"><p>Better (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>#</p></th><th align="left"><p>A lot better (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>#</p></th><th align="left"><p>Total</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Originality</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>82.4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Technical feasibility of the design</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>39.4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Value for the user</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>55.9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5 Comparison between the initial concept and the concept created with the HCCI tool</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Initial concept</p></th><th align="left"><p>Concept with use of HCCI</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Context interactions</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p> > 90% of the initial concepts describe only situational context</p></td><td align="left"><p> > 25% of the HCCI concepts describe temporal context</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> > 50% of the HCCI concepts describe environmental context</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>User interactions</p></td><td align="left"><p> < 15% of the initial concepts describe multiple users (majority describes single users)</p></td><td align="left"><p> > 90% of the HCCI concepts describe multiple users</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Interface interactions</p></td><td align="left"><p> > 75% of the initial concepts focus on touchscreen as main interface</p></td><td align="left"><p> > 90% of the HCCI concepts change the touchscreen interface or add an extra interface</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> > 90% of the initial concepts describe one user interacting with the interface</p></td><td align="left"><p>HCCI concepts describe multiple users and automatic interactions with the system</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Object interactions</p></td><td align="left"><p> > 90% of the initial concepts describe 1–3 objects</p></td><td align="left"><p> > 90% of the HCCI concepts describe more than 3 objects</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> < 10% of the initial concepts mention non-interactive objects</p></td><td align="left"><p> > 30% of the HCCI concepts mention non-interactive objects</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>In initial concepts, few objects interact (a user-object interaction is needed)</p></td><td align="left"><p>In HCCI concepts, more objects interact (object-object interaction)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Content interactions</p></td><td align="left"><p> < 50% of the initial concepts describe content</p></td><td align="left"><p>100% of HCCI concepts describe content</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Initial concepts have a vague description of content (e.g. a beep)</p></td><td align="left"><p>HCCI concepts describe more detail about content, but the quality is still poor</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Service interactions</p></td><td align="left"><p> < 50% of the initial concepts describe service</p></td><td align="left"><p> > 75% of the HCCI concepts describe service</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>initial concepts give a vague description of a service</p></td><td align="left"><p>HCCI concepts give more detail about service</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0171951887-29">Comprehension of the interactions</hd> <p>Figure 2, is an example of an original concept for a smart kitchen and one after the use of the HCCI tool created by the same participant. Researchers compared each element of the original with the adapted concept to understand the impact of the tool on the design.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2Example of filled in HCCI template with colour indication by respondent 19 (blue: original content, yellow: added content with the help of the template)</p> <p>The original concept: A smart hob is connected to a tablet. Through the tablet, the chef indicates he wants to boil water. The hob switches on and heats it to the correct temperature. The tablet will also indicate which cooking fire is ready and which cooking pot is most suitable for use. The hood is connected to the hob and will start automatically when vapour is detected.</p> <p>The adaption to the concept with the HCCI tool: A smart hob is connected to a tablet or smartphone. Through the tablet or app, the chef can follow cooking instructions and automated recipes. The tablet switches on the hob and heats it to the correct temperature. He will also indicate which cooking fire is on and ready for use and which cooking pot is most suitable for use. The hood is connected to the hob and will start automatically when vapour is detected. The family can follow the process through an app, the can make diner suggestions and see when the meal will be ready. Since water, oil are present which can cause damage or make the operation of the product more difficult the interaction through a touch tablet should be re-evaluated and perhaps changed to smartphone use of voice command. Through the smartphone application the chef can share when the dinner will be ready, or guest can share allergies or preferences.</p> <p>In this original example, the designer conceptualised this product with one single user, interacting with 2 smart products (the hood and the hob). He interacts with the product through a touchscreen. Possible other users, services, different interfaces, context of use and critical points are not taken into account. In the second concept, by capturing different interactions between the user and the product, the concept becomes more mature. The smartphones or voice commands are added as new interfaces to offer the user the possibility to interact with other users (user to user interaction). The initially chosen touchscreen interface is questioned because of the better envisioning of the context of use: working with dirty hands. This leads to the possible switch to a voice interface. New services such as participation of family members in the menu selection are added (user to service and content). Following we discuss the different elements in the tool and how participants discussed them in the original and adapted concepts. Findings are based on the evaluation by the researchers of the submitted assignments.</p> <p>Hereunder you can find a comparison between the initial concepts classified via the lenses of the HCCI tool to the HCCI tool conceptualisation.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-30">Context</hd> <p>Initial concepts describe the context in a short and poor way, if mentioned, participants mention the situational context "<emph>the woman wants to prepare a fast meal and doesn't know what to prepare</emph>" and potential risks such as "<emph>burns and scalds".</emph> More than 25% of the HCCI concepts also describe temporal contexts (duration, moment of the day); over 50% describe environmental factors: humidity, heath, hygiene; or the cooking experience of the chef. Defining the context helps participants to detect new opportunities or to question their current design. <emph>"Because I thought of the context of a family preparing the meal together, I thought of all the different noises and voices which impacted my initial idea of choosing voice commands for all appliances."—respondent 3.</emph> The context will impact the interaction between the user and the object, therefore various contexts should be mapped.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-31">User</hd> <p>Only 5 of the 34 respondents (< 15%) describe the interaction with multiple users in the initial concept. After the use of the HCCI tool, almost all (> 90%), describe possible interactions with other users such as family members cooking together, children being at risk in the kitchen, professional cooks needing help with time management, or guests being involved in the preparation and selection of recipes. The introduction to multiple users in a concept has a large impact, and requires changes to initial proposed services, content or interfaces. After the use of the model, due to the fact that more users interact with the objects, more implicit interactions are introduced (e.g. automatically adding groceries on their shopping lists).</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-32">Interface</hd> <p>In the original concept, 27 of 34 respondents (> 75%) propose the use of touchscreens such as displays on the fridge and smartphones as the main interface, often in combination with automatic actions through sensors. 90% changed or added an interface after the use of the HCCI model because they realized that the proposed interface was inadequate or insufficient. Due to the fact that respondents introduced multiple users, they also foresee multiple screens or a combination of interfaces is pushed for multiple users to interact<emph>. "I choose for a combination of screens: actual buttons on the stove, led lights to indicate that the bin will open and smartphone for remote access. These options are not always needed, but will allow different types of users to interact in the kitchen and let them act depending on their location".—respondent 12.</emph></p> <p>Providing more attention to the context makes designers realise that their initial chosen interface will have some flaws. <emph>"I opted for a touchscreen, but I changed that to a camera projector with movement recognition. The hands of the people cooking are often dirty and the screens are not so resistant to grease and water.</emph>" – <emph>respondent 14.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0171951887-33">Object</hd> <p>In the original concepts, participants describe 1 to 3 objects; by using the HCCI tool that number increases to over 3 objects that must be taken into account. Additionally (not mentioned in the original concepts) participants also mention non-interactive objects with the use of the model. In several cases, they also impact the design for example, "<emph>shoes lying around can prevent a drawer from opening automatically, which means that a safety system must be included in the requirements</emph>."—<emph>respondent 1.</emph></p> <p>While initial concepts interacted with objects through individual interfaces with the input of the user (user-object interaction), mapping interactive objects helps to make these objects speak together (object-object interaction), "<emph>I now see the products more as a whole. In the beginning, the user interacted with all of the objects separately. After using the tool, for example, the cooker hood switches on when the hob is switched on because I had to describe them together."—respondent 13.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0171951887-34">Content</hd> <p>Less than half of the respondents mention content in their original concept; compared to all with the use of the HCCI tool. The level of the description varies but usually remains vague "<emph>a beep when dinner is ready</emph>". Others describe content as "<emph>temperature, shopping list, recipes, preparation methods</emph>". Explicit input content is most described, the user gives explicit commands to devices through an app such as setting a timer. Implicit registered input content such as <emph>"ingredients they have used before are placed automatically in a shopping list"</emph> or <emph>"automatic notifications when an ingredient is about to expire"</emph> are described to a lesser extent, but are present in 8 concepts after the use of the HCCI tool. Due to its limited space on the template, the current layout provides little incentive to describe this in detail. It is recommendable to adapt the layout and stimulate the designer to describe the content in a higher level of details.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-35">Service</hd> <p>Service, is one of the three sub-components of a system, besides object and content. It was least well understood by the participants, but was more described (> 75%) in the second version compared to the first iterations (< 50%). While some understand it clearly and it helps them to describe the content of the service <emph>"providing the parents with suggestions to balance their and their children's diet".</emph> Others describe it vaguely <emph>"maintenance and safety of the work environment"</emph> or confused it with content. However, participants also mention it as a strong element which they initially overlooked <emph>"the tool inspires me by e.g. helping me think of services".</emph> The current icon for "Service", a screwdriver and spanner, is somewhat misleading and implied for a couple of the participants to think of technical solutions and maintenance of the concept. A different icon and additional description of the term is recommendable to solve the current confusion.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-36">Summarized impact of the HCCI tool</hd> <p>We summarize the impact of the HCCI tool explored through qualitative research in three points: the tool provides a lens to envision all user interactions; it is an instrument to reflect on design requirements; provides structure and openness.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-37">Provide a lens to envision all user interactions</hd> <p>Initial designs, were limited to the point of view of only one user, neglecting different contexts. The HCCI framework broadened the view of the designers. By mapping the interaction with multiple users, interfaces changed (single screen to multiple screen; touch screen to voice); warning signals were added (e.g. beep tones, control systems to avoid bumping into the door) and new services were devised (e.g. the app can also be downloaded by others in the family who can make suggestions for the menu and consult the time that dinner will be served). By mapping user-object interactions, concepts became more coherent, growing to a single ecosystem instead of separate applications. (e.g. the cooker hood receives a signal to activate when the hob is switched on). All interactions were well understood, however a broader explanation about the types of interactions, not only given verbally at the introduction but also written on the template would be beneficial. Today, the format holds a very short explanation of the interactions due to the ridged format. It would be recommendable that the further alteration of the tool would add a more elaborate transcribed description of the requested interaction. Especially interaction with a service and content were least understood.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-38">Reflect on design requirements</hd> <p>A second impact of the tool noticed, was its use to look with a new lens at a design. Critical elements were identified, for further examination during user research and design phases. By writing down the description of the context of the kitchen, a participant noticed it could be dirty and greasy, and there is contact with water. These circumstances impacted the initial choice for touch screens in his design, and made him add a backup system with physical buttons. Another participant reflected on his choice for speech technology when writing down the user-object interaction with a noisy mixer, or beep sounds from the oven. Other example of a critical element detected through the use of the model are non-interactive objects laying around in the kitchen, preventing drawers to open automatically. Providing a dedicated area to point all critical requirements would bring more clarity to the design.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-39">Provide structure and openness</hd> <p>The participants welcomed a template to introduce structure in their generated concepts. Participants mentioned the tool helped to provide them with an overview of their concept allowing them not to overlook important interactions. This indicates that a template-based tool with boxes to fill in could be a valuable format to develop further. It is useful for less experienced designers, providing them structure that they currently miss. There was no specific order indicated on how to start filling in the tool, there is no start or end indicated. A minority of the users would prefer some more clear instructions. However, the practice learns that participants used it in random order, causing a snowball effect. By adding new users, they realised there would be more objects or that the interface was impacted; this leads to more detailed concepts along the way. The current ridged structure on the other hand was a barrier for others. The restricted space in the template limited their detailing. Based on the analysis of the results and comments of respondents we believe that the model should be presented in an interactive tool such as MIRO (<emph>Miro</emph>, n.d.) to allow collaborations and connect the framework to different tools. A respondent mentioned "<emph>The frames, limit my imagination. I would prefer to have more white space. I see this tool as the heart of a mindmap, from which I can start and sketch arrows to open the idea.</emph>"<emph>- respondent 34.</emph> Giving the designers a more open platform will also allow them to add pictures and drawings, which can currently not be added.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-40">Conclusions</hd> <p>The shift to "ubiquitous computing" (Weiser, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref85">56</reflink>]) has caused more complex interactions with various 'smart' products, in various locations, with several users, having multiple interactions. However, multidisciplinary design teams and future designers lack tools to design these more complex products. In addition, the focus and methods of current HCI research stays on performance-oriented explicit interactions in a single user to single 'computer' interaction paradigm. Context is often less considered (Weschung & De Moor, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref86">57</reflink>]) leading to IoT devices with disappointing user experience.</p> <p>This study presented and evaluated a tool for HCI designers to foster human-centred design of smart products. The tool provides a lens to look at all interactions of the user and helps to define user requirements during the creative phase of the generation of smart products. Through an evaluation of the tool with 34 students of the 2nd year industrial design engineering we assess the usefulness, the usability and the impact on the designs.</p> <p>From both qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods, we can conclude that the use of the tool has a clear impact on the delivered concepts. The students indicate an improvement of their created concept. Qualitative interviews and the analysis of the results by the researcher also indicate major progress in results. Concepts were more holistic and took better account of interactions with other objects, users, content and services. Initial chosen interfaces and possible pitfalls of design selections were reconsidered. The strongest benefits of the use of the tool recognised by the participants and researchers are: provide structure, consider all user interactions, reflect on design requirements. The satisfaction about the use of the tool and usefulness were highly rated. From the findings we can conclude that the tool is appropriate for beginning HCI practitioners defining smart products in the early concept phase. It might also help professionals that need extra structure or want to ensure a good user experience during the design of smart products.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-41">Limitations and future work</hd> <p>We would like to highlight some shortcomings and future work. The current work is grounded in earlier work from our lab and builds on earlier accounts of HCI. It is designed deductively, or, put differently, we propose a theory-driven framework and tool. Despite indications that the proposed HCCI-tool has a promising outlook, future work should therefore also corroborate its validity more into depth. In order to foster construct validity, we aspire that in the next developmental stage, quantitative work addresses the tool's content validity (i.e., does it cover all factors involved in conceptualizing smart products), its external validity (how does it perform in other design contexts) and for example the tool's criterion validity (how does use of the tool predict outcomes such as originality). Through an empirical inductive path, the tool can hence evolve toward a more robust inspirational design tool.</p> <p>So far, the HCCI tool has only been presented and run by the authors. Consequently, we cannot draw conclusions about the adoption or use of the tool by other researchers on the level of supervision needed. However, in the session we did not encounter questions or difficulties about the usage. A template format was appreciated to create structure in their ideas. This indicates that a tool and the simple structure with 5 blocks should be maintained but possibly extended with white space for comments, pictures and links for further development of the product. Adaptions to the format of the tool, making it more interactive, and an instruction video with the intention and usage of the tool will be worked out. The limited time of 30 min per session was seen as a restriction, longer sessions would be recommended in the future.</p> <p>In addition, participants were forced to use a tool for iteration of the concept. We cannot argue that creating a tool is actually something that a designer wants. The tool is useful for the designer who becomes aware of the opportunities and possibilities at play within an internet of things environment. The tool is currently not considered as an ideation tools. Identifying an initial idea was not the direct result of the use of the tool. However, it helped the participants to eliminate critical aspects of an often vague and incoherent idea.</p> <p>Finally, the HCCI tool was not compared to another existing tool through an A/B comparison. This, mainly because we could not find a tool with a similar approach. In addition, the goal was not to compare the outcome of tools: "which one is better?" Rather than this often irrational ranking, a comparison between concepts with or without a tool was made. This gave, in addition, the opportunity to compare the same concepts twice and to understand the gaps in the current way of working of designers. Nor, have we performed a quantitative pre and post-test, due to the limited sample size (n = 36) and thus our inability to perform reliability analysis; the mixed method approach and the time restrictions for the students during the assignment however were reasons to choose for a self-reported experience after the use of the tool. However, a qualitative comparison between the concepts is made by the researchers, based on the comparison of the templates and the presented videos about the concepts before and after the tools.</p> <p>We do acknowledge that after an iteration on a concept through a tool, we expect better results. We could expect that when a new design brief and condition is given by the tutors through the introduction of the HCCI tool, it makes the student consider different scenarios. As expected, more interactions with secondary and tertiary users or on the interaction with the context of the user were present. However, notable is the absence of secondary users and tertiary users or context in the first concepts. Without these extra stimulations, such as in the tool, we note that students take them in a lesser degree into account. Additionally, the high scores given by the participants confirm that the tool has an impact. Future research may include a randomised mixed A/B comparison test, with sufficient sample size, in combination with a pre- and post-test to make the results more objective.</p> <p>This evaluation of the tool was limited to the design of smart home solutions. We do not claim that the tool is applicable for the design of solutions in all internet of things fields like healthcare, mobility and transportation. However, through future research, there is a potential to generalise this tool to a broader field of design and make the tool more contributive for the engineering educational research community.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-42">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We thank the industrial product engineering students of the dep. Engineering and Architecture of Ghent University for participation.</p> <hd id="AN0171951887-43">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0171951887-44"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref12" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Angkananon, K, & Wald, M. (2017). Technology-enhanced accessible interactions for visually impaired Thai people. 1, UAHCI 2017, Part II, LNCS 10278, pp. 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58703-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref13" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aspiala, T, & Deschamps-Sonsino, A. (2022). Know-cards. Learn. Play. Collect. Retrieved March 11, 2021, from https://<ulink href="http://www.designswarm.com/know-cards/">www.designswarm.com/know-cards/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref9" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bannon LJGreenbaum J, Kyng M. From human factors to human actors: the role of psychology and human-computer interaction studies in system design. Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. 1991; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 25-44</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref8" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction changing roles - NordiCHI '06, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182476.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref27" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Borum, N, Brooks, E. P, & Frimodt-Møller, S. R. (2014). The resilience of analog tools in creative work practices: A case study of LEGO Future Lab's team in Billund. In: Lecture notes in computer science (Including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), 8510 LNCS(PART 1), pp. 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07233-3_3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref19" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Budd J, Wang W. Industrial design education: Taming technology to enhance user experience. Archives of Design Research. 2017; 30; 3: 17-27. 10.15187/adr.2017.08.30.3.17</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref80" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bujang MA, Omar ED, Baharum NA. A review on sample size determination for cronbach's alpha test: A simple guide for researchers. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2018; 25; 6: 85-99. 10.21315/mjms2018.25.6.9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref36" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cardoso C, Clarckson PJ. Simulation in user-centred design: helping designers to empathise with atypical users. Journal of Engineering Design. 2010; 23; 1: 1-22. 10.1080/09544821003742650</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref73" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 13; 13: 319-339. 10.2307/249008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deng, Y, Antle, A. N, & Neustaedter, C. (2014). Tango Cards: A Card-based Design Tool for Informing the Design of Tangible Learning Games. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598601.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deroeck, D. (2019). Ideas of things: The IOT design Kit. In DIS '19 Companion: companion publication of the 2019 on designing interactive systems conference, pp. 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301019.3323888.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faria, T. V. M, Pavanelli, M, & Bernardes, J. L. (2016). Evaluating the usability using USE questionnaire: Mindboard system use case. In Proceedings of the international conference on learning and collaboration technologies, pp. 518–527.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Filippidis SK, Tsoukalas IA. On the use of adaptive instructional images based on the sequential–global dimension of the Felder-Silverman learning style theory. Interactive Learning Environments. 2009; 17; 2: 135-150. 10.1080/10494820701869524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geerts, D, De Moor, K, Ketyko, I, Jacobs, A, Van den Bergh, J, Joseph, W, Martens, L, & De Marez, L. (2010). Linking an integrated framework with appropriate methods for measuring QoE. In 2010b Second international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1109/QOMEX.2010b.5516292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Google Soli Project. (2019). Retrieved May 24, 2022, from https://atap.google.com/soli/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenberg S. Toolkits and interface creativity. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 2007; 32; 2: 139-159. 10.1007/s11042-006-0062-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gummerus J, Pihlstr M. Context and mobile services' value-in-use. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2011; 18: 521-533. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hariyanto D, Triyono MB, Köhler T. Usability evaluation of personalized adaptive e-learning system using USE questionnaire. Knowledge Management and E-Learning. 2020; 12; 1: 85-105. 10.34105/j.kmel.2020.12.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hashim AFM, Hussin H, Othman MH, Ahmad SA. Usability evaluation of a desktop virtual reality prototype (DVRP) courseware to enhance knowledge on drug abuse. Journal of Techno Social. 2016; 8; 1: 12-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He, J, Lo, D. C. T, Xie, Y, & Lartigue, J. (2016). Integrating Internet of things (IoT) into STEM undergraduate education: Case study of a modern technology infused courseware for embedded system course. In Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2016-Novem. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757458</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hornecker, E, & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems - CHI '06, 437. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124838</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hornecker, E. (2010). Creative idea exploration within the structure of a guiding framework: the card brainstorming game. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on tangible embedded and embodied interaction, 10, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IEEE. (2000). The authoritative dictionary of IEEE standards terms. IEEE Std 100-2000. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2000.322230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Vainio T. Framing the context of use for mobile HCI. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction. 2010; 2; 4: 1-28. 10.4018/jmhci.2010100101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kortum P. HCI beyond the GUI: Design for haptic, speech, olfactory, and other nontraditional interfaces. 2008; Elsevier</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kranz M, Holleis P, Schmidt A. Embedded interaction: Interacting with the internet of things. IEEE Internet Computing. 2010; 14; 2: 46-53. 10.1109/MIC.2009.141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kudrowitz BM, Wallace D. Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early-stage product ideation. Journal of Engineering Design. 2013; 24; 2: 120-139. 10.1080/09544828.2012.676633</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledo, D, Houben, S, Vermeulen, J, Marquardt, N, Oehlberg, L, & Greenberg, S. (2018). Evaluation strategies for HCI Toolkit research. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2018, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173610</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lockton D, Harrison D, Stanton NA. The design with intent method: A design tool for influencing user behaviour. Applied Ergonomics. 2010; 41; 3: 382-392. 10.1016/j.apergo.2009.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucero A, Arrasvuori J. The PLEX cards and its techniques as sources of inspiration when designing for playfulness. International Journal of Arts and Technology. 2013; 6; 1: 22. 10.1504/IJART.2013.050688</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lund AM. Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interface. 2001; 8; 2: 3-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McHugh ML. Lessons in biostatistics interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemica Medica. 2012; 22; 3: 276-282. 10.11613/BM.2012.031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McQuarrie EF, McIntyre SH. Focus groups and the development of new products by technologically driven companies: Some guidelines. The Journal of Product Innovation Management. 1986; 3; 1: 40-47. 10.1016/0737-6782(86)90042-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miro (2022). Retrieved June 14, 2021, from https://miro.com/index/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mora, S, Gianni, F, & Divitini, M. (2017). Tiles: A card-based ideation toolkit for the internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS '17, pp. 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064699</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers B, Hudson SE, Pausch R. Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 2000; 7; 1: 3-28. 10.1145/344949.344959</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olsen, D. R. (2007). Evaluating user interface systems research. In UIST: Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Softaware and Technology, pp. 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1145/1294211.1294256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oulasvirta, A, & Hornbæk, K. (2016). HCI research a s problem - solving. CHI 2016, San Jose, p4956-4967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters D, Loke L, Ahmadpour N. Toolkits, cards and games–a review of analogue tools for collaborative ideation. CoDesign. 2021; 17; 4: 410-434. 10.1080/15710882.2020.1715444</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, Y. (2012). HCI theory: classical, modern, and contemporary. Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics, 5(2), 9-14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roozenburg NFM, Eekels J. Product design: fundamentals and methods. 1995; Wiley Chichester</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salameh Z. Attitudes towards Facebook and the use of knowledge and skills among students in the English department at the University of Hail. Journal of Education and Practice. 2017; 8; 8: 1-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign. 2008; 4; 1: 5-18. 10.1080/15710880701875068</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Satchell, C, & Dourish, P. (2009). Beyond the user: Use and non-use in HCI. In Proc. 21st Annu. Conf. Aust. Comput. Interact. Spec. Interes, OZCHI '09, pp. 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/1738826.1738829.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharlin E, Watson B, Kitamura Y, Kishino F, Itoh Y. On tangible user interfaces, humans and spatiality. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 2004. 10.1007/s00779-004-0296-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin DH. Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet of things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users. Information Management. 2017; 54: 998-1011. 10.1016/j.im.2017.02.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shneiderman B. Claiming success, charting the future: Micro-HCI and macro-HCI. Interactions. 2011; 18; 5: 10-11. 10.1145/2008176.2008180</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SigChi members. (2022). Retrieved March 11, 2021, from https://sigchi.org/about/about-sigchi/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silver, J, Rosenbaum, E, & Shaw, D. (2012). Makey makey: Improvising tangible and nature-based user interfaces beginner's mind collective. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction (TEI '12), pp. 367–370. https://doi.org/10.1145/2148131.2148219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solovey E, Afergan D, Peck EM, Hincks SW, Jacob RJK. Designing implicit interfaces for physiological computing: Guidelines and lessons learned using fNIRS. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 2015. 10.1145/2687926</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stappers, P. J, & Visser, F. S. (2007). Bringing participatory techniques to industrial design engineers. In DS 43: Proceedings of E and PDE 2007, the 9th international conference on engineering and product design education, pp. 117–122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI. Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. 1995; Free Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Hove S, De Letter J, De Ruyck O, Conradie P, All A, Saldien J, De Marez LMarcus A, Wang W. Human-computer interaction to human-computer-context interaction: Towards a conceptual framework for conducting user studies for shifting interfaces. Design, user experience, and usability: Theory and practice. 2018; Springer International Publishing: 277-293. 10.1007/978-3-319-91797-9_20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volpentesta AP. A framework for human interaction with mobiquitous services in a smart environment. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 50: 177-185. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiser, M, & Brown, J. S. (1997). The coming age of calm technology. In Beyond calculation (pp. 75-85). Springer, New York, NY.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiser M. The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American. 1991; 265; 3: 94-104. 10.1038/scientificamerican0991-94</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weschung I, De Moor K. Quality of experience versus user experience. Quality of Experience. 2014. 10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu C, Fu L. Design and realization of a framework for human – system interaction in smart homes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part a: Systems and Humans. 2012; 42; 1: 15-31. 10.1109/TSMCA.2011.2159584</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Olivia De Ruyck; Peter Conradie; Stephanie Van Hove; Anissa All; Bastiaan Baccarne; Lieven De Marez and Jelle Saldien</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref83"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1392330
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: HCCI Tool: A Lens to Support Industrial Designers during the Conceptualisation of Smart Products
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22De+Ruyck%2C+Olivia%22">De Ruyck, Olivia</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7786-8612">0000-0002-7786-8612</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Conradie%2C+Peter%22">Conradie, Peter</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4495-9136">0000-0003-4495-9136</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Van+Hove%2C+Stephanie%22">Van Hove, Stephanie</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8652-9236">0000-0001-8652-9236</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22All%2C+Anissa%22">All, Anissa</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9255-2827">0000-0002-9255-2827</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baccarne%2C+Bastiaan%22">Baccarne, Bastiaan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8489-3285">0000-0002-8489-3285</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22De+Marez%2C+Lieven%22">De Marez, Lieven</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7716-4079">0000-0001-7716-4079</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Saldien%2C+Jelle%22">Saldien, Jelle</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2557-3764">0000-0003-2557-3764</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Technology+and+Design+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Technology and Design Education</i></searchLink>. Nov 2023 33(5):1991-2017.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Man+Machine+Systems%22">Man Machine Systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Industrial+Arts%22">Industrial Arts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Internet%22">Internet</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Artificial+Intelligence%22">Artificial Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design+Preferences%22">Design Preferences</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10798-022-09803-9
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0957-7572<br />1573-1804
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Interactions between humans and smart products (i.e. digital components integrated in physical Internet of Things devices) are becoming more complex and less visible. Yet designers lack tools to capture these interactions and incorporate them into their design. In this paper we present the Human-Computer-Context Interaction (HCCI) tool that helps the designer to consider the different interactions of the user early in the conceptualisation phase, in order to eventually improve the user experience for smart products. This tool introduces 5 relevant interaction levels to be considered, when defining the context-of-use. In this paper we assess the use of the tool by means of a design challenge with a total of 34 industrial design students, given the task to design a smart kitchen concept. The tool was evaluated by a mixed method approach. Results show that the tool was evaluated as useful and usable during the early concept phase of the design of smart products. Unsupported concepts typically envisioned a single user interacting with one object through explicit interactions. Hence, tool-supported designs were more holistic and better captured interactions with other objects, users, content and services. From this we conclude that the tool can help to detect possible pitfalls of design selections. The tool is aimed to be used in a new product development process by HCI researchers, designers, and developers and is technology independent. Based on observations and participant feedback, we reflect on the strengths and limitations of this tool.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1392330
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1392330
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10798-022-09803-9
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 1991
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Man Machine Systems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Industrial Arts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Internet
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Artificial Intelligence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design Preferences
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: HCCI Tool: A Lens to Support Industrial Designers during the Conceptualisation of Smart Products
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: De Ruyck, Olivia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Conradie, Peter
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Van Hove, Stephanie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: All, Anissa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baccarne, Bastiaan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: De Marez, Lieven
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Saldien, Jelle
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0957-7572
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1804
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Technology and Design Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1