Team:Wellesley HCI/Methodology

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 116: Line 116:
<h1>Overview</h1>
<h1>Overview</h1>
<p>
<p>
-
In our project, we applied a user-centered design (UCD) approach for developing software tools for synthetic biology. In UCD, users are involved throughout all stages of the design process. Thus, extensive attention is given to gather information about users, identify their needs, and to test and refine designs based on users’ feedback. The main goal of UCD is to develop software tools that users find desirable, usable, and useful. Tools that rather than forcing users to adopt their behavior, improve and enhance current practices.
+
To have a successful software tool, as designers it is our responsibility to cater to the needs of the user.  Throughout our projects, we applied a user-centered design (UCD) process in both our MS Surface and web-based tools as well as in our outreach program. In UCD, user input is extremely crucial throughout all the stages of the design process. The goal of UCD is to create tools that enhance the current intuitive behaviors and practices of the users instead of forcing users to change behaviors to adapt to our software. Thus, extensive attention is given to the feedback and opinions of our potential users- synthetic biologists- and improvements in the designs are made in each iteration of our software design to address the questions and problems brought up by our users each time.    
</p>
</p>
</div>
</div>
Line 123: Line 123:
<h1>Design Process</h1>
<h1>Design Process</h1>
<p>
<p>
-
Our design process consisted of an iterative cycle that included 4 stages:
+
The user-centered design process we followed this year can be divided into four different steps:  analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation.  Following, we describe the key activities we employed in each stage:
<!--<center><img src="http://cs.wellesley.edu/~hcilab/iGEM_wiki/images/designcyce.jpg"></center>-->
<!--<center><img src="http://cs.wellesley.edu/~hcilab/iGEM_wiki/images/designcyce.jpg"></center>-->
<br><br>
<br><br>
-
Following, we describe the key activities we employed in each stage:
 
-
 
-
 
<h2>Analysis</h2>
<h2>Analysis</h2>
 +
<b> In the analysis phase we visited a variety of potential users for our software to understand the users’ profiles: their needs, requirements, and visions for the software we are to develop. In this phase there is also a lot of background research on competitive products, and start envisioning potential scenarios in which the synthetic biologists might use our software practically. </b>
<ul>
<ul>
-
<li>Observed users in the lab: our own wet-lab team, and the MIT iGEM team.
+
<li>Observed users: MIT iGEM team, BU iGEM team, introductory biology students from Wellesley College, MIT-Wellesley Upward Bound Program high school participants
-
 
+
<li>We conducted focus groups and interviews with experts in the field of synthetic biology and biosafety, including from pharmaceutical companies such as Agilent Technologies or Sirtris Phamaceuticals.
-
<li>Met with a wide variety of users to understand their needs, requirements, and constraints. We conducted focus groups and interviews with: PIs from the Harvard Medical School, researchers from the Weiss Institute, Boston University, and MIT, Biology faculty from MIT and Wellesley College, the MIT iGEM team.
+
<li>In addition, the entire computational team participated first-hand in a synthetic biology experiment inspired by a previous iGEM project, to familiarize ourselves with the wet-lab environment and to understand some of the common safety precautions and lab managerial techniques biologists use while carrying out experiments.
-
 
+
<li>We set out on developing applications for the MS Surface, and looked at various previous applications dealing with organizing scientific data and visualizing abstract scientific processes, such as modular cloning.  We also looked at different powerful Internet search engines as well as biology databases, and analyzed the benefits and detriments of each design and layout before we decided to create SynBio Search. In preparation for our outreach program, we also looked at different educational games and interactive techniques that can be both MS-Surface reliant but also kinesthetically interactive in nature.
-
<li>Looked at competitive products
+
<li><b>Because we contacted a variety of users and during the design process of our programs, throughout the analysis phase we created user profiles and made preliminary plans as to an analytical task for the users to test our designs. </b>  
-
<li>Created user profiles
+
-
<li>Developed a task analysis
+
-
<li>Documented user scenarios
+
</ul>
</ul>
Line 149: Line 144:
<img src="http://cs.wellesley.edu/~hcilab/iGEM_wiki/images/BrainstormSession627/image4.jpg" width="260px">
<img src="http://cs.wellesley.edu/~hcilab/iGEM_wiki/images/BrainstormSession627/image4.jpg" width="260px">
-
 
+
<br><b>In the design phase we sit down with the users and brainstorm concepts for the design of the software, then create low-fidelity prototypes of the software.  Collaborating with potential users then we start testing the usability of a higher-fidelity prototype for the design. </b>
<ul>
<ul>
-
<li>Brainstormed design concepts and metaphors
+
<li>We took the first week of our summer research program to brainstorm design concepts at Wellesley, and invited several collaborators to the brainstorming sessions. Students presented their findings for relevant works to the group, we brainstormed design concepts, and developed walkthroughs of design concepts through the creation of paper prototypes.  After creating design sketches for our projects, we created low-fidelity prototypes, the first iterations, of our programs. 
-
<li>Developed <a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:BU_Wellesley_Software/eLabNotebook#results">walkthroughs</a> of design concepts
+
<li>During the design phase, we also conducted usability testing of MoClo planner on our low-fidelity prototype with biology students at Wellesley College.  Their feedback allowed us to quickly iterate on the design of our program.  After testing SynFlo with students from Upward Bound, we were also able to iterate on our design.  As SynBio Search was created towards the end of the summer session, we are still in the design and preliminary test stage for this program. 
-
<li>Created design sketches
+
-
<li>Created <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8_uj_YLyiM">low-fidelity prototypes</a> (see example below)
+
-
<li>Conducted usability testing on low-fidelity prototypes
+
-
<li>Created high-fidelity detailed design
+
-
<li>Did usability testing again
+
</ul>
</ul>
<br>
<br>
Line 163: Line 153:
<br>
<br>
<h2>Implementation</h2>
<h2>Implementation</h2>
 +
<b>With feedback from our users then we start the implementation stage, where we conduct further usability tests with synthetic biologists, and evaluate the visual design, performance, and efficiency of our tools.</b>
<ul>
<ul>
-
<li>Conducted ongoing heuristic evaluations
+
<li>During this phase, we conducted ongoing heuristic evaluations by testing our software MoClo Planner with BU and MIT’s iGEM teams.  We observed their evaluations, and iterated on the visual design of our MoClo Planner program as well as improving performance by making the search option more efficient, among many other small program changes that improved subject satisfaction with our software.  
-
<li>Iterated on visual design, performance, and  
+
<li>We continued to interview experts in the areas of synthetic biology, and started considering questions about safety, collaboration, information sharing, and safety that may be answered with the programs we are designing. 
-
<li>Conducted on going usability testing with users (our wet-lab team, biology students and faculty)
+
</ul>
</ul>
</p>
</p>
Line 172: Line 162:
<h2>Evaluation</h2>
<h2>Evaluation</h2>
 +
<b>Finally, in the evaluation stage we deploy our refined software tools for use in the wet-lab and evaluate overall user satisfaction regarding the software tools created.  If the users are not satisfied, then the entire process starts again. </b>
<ul>
<ul>
-
<li>Evaluated the usability and usefulness of our software tools by deploying them for use by our  
+
<li>Here, we evaluate the usability and useful of our tools by performing statistical analyses of our testing results from the design and implementation stages. Things we considered in evaluating the value of our programs include various quantitative measures (e.g. time on task, subjective satisfaction) and qualitative indicators (e.g. collaboration and problem solving styles demonstrated by users). 
-
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:BU_Wellesley_Software/Wet_Lab#tools">wet lab team</a>
+
<li>During this stage, we realized that we designed the MoClo Planner to facilitate a bottom-up workflow, to manipulate individual parts and build into complex biological modules.  Since it also would be convenient for our users to use MoClo in a top-down workflow, we concluded the next step would be to start the design cycle anew and design for a top-down approach as well. 
-
<li>Considered various quantitative measures (e.g. time on task, subjective satisfaction) and qualitative indicators (e.g. collaboration and problem solving styles demonstrated by users)
+
</ul>
</ul>
-
 

Revision as of 15:57, 28 September 2012

Wellesley HCI: Methodology


Methodology

Overview

To have a successful software tool, as designers it is our responsibility to cater to the needs of the user. Throughout our projects, we applied a user-centered design (UCD) process in both our MS Surface and web-based tools as well as in our outreach program. In UCD, user input is extremely crucial throughout all the stages of the design process. The goal of UCD is to create tools that enhance the current intuitive behaviors and practices of the users instead of forcing users to change behaviors to adapt to our software. Thus, extensive attention is given to the feedback and opinions of our potential users- synthetic biologists- and improvements in the designs are made in each iteration of our software design to address the questions and problems brought up by our users each time.

Design Process

The user-centered design process we followed this year can be divided into four different steps: analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation. Following, we describe the key activities we employed in each stage:

Analysis

In the analysis phase we visited a variety of potential users for our software to understand the users’ profiles: their needs, requirements, and visions for the software we are to develop. In this phase there is also a lot of background research on competitive products, and start envisioning potential scenarios in which the synthetic biologists might use our software practically.
  • Observed users: MIT iGEM team, BU iGEM team, introductory biology students from Wellesley College, MIT-Wellesley Upward Bound Program high school participants
  • We conducted focus groups and interviews with experts in the field of synthetic biology and biosafety, including from pharmaceutical companies such as Agilent Technologies or Sirtris Phamaceuticals.
  • In addition, the entire computational team participated first-hand in a synthetic biology experiment inspired by a previous iGEM project, to familiarize ourselves with the wet-lab environment and to understand some of the common safety precautions and lab managerial techniques biologists use while carrying out experiments.
  • We set out on developing applications for the MS Surface, and looked at various previous applications dealing with organizing scientific data and visualizing abstract scientific processes, such as modular cloning. We also looked at different powerful Internet search engines as well as biology databases, and analyzed the benefits and detriments of each design and layout before we decided to create SynBio Search. In preparation for our outreach program, we also looked at different educational games and interactive techniques that can be both MS-Surface reliant but also kinesthetically interactive in nature.
  • Because we contacted a variety of users and during the design process of our programs, throughout the analysis phase we created user profiles and made preliminary plans as to an analytical task for the users to test our designs.

Design


In the design phase we sit down with the users and brainstorm concepts for the design of the software, then create low-fidelity prototypes of the software. Collaborating with potential users then we start testing the usability of a higher-fidelity prototype for the design.
  • We took the first week of our summer research program to brainstorm design concepts at Wellesley, and invited several collaborators to the brainstorming sessions. Students presented their findings for relevant works to the group, we brainstormed design concepts, and developed walkthroughs of design concepts through the creation of paper prototypes. After creating design sketches for our projects, we created low-fidelity prototypes, the first iterations, of our programs.
  • During the design phase, we also conducted usability testing of MoClo planner on our low-fidelity prototype with biology students at Wellesley College. Their feedback allowed us to quickly iterate on the design of our program. After testing SynFlo with students from Upward Bound, we were also able to iterate on our design. As SynBio Search was created towards the end of the summer session, we are still in the design and preliminary test stage for this program.


Implementation

With feedback from our users then we start the implementation stage, where we conduct further usability tests with synthetic biologists, and evaluate the visual design, performance, and efficiency of our tools.
  • During this phase, we conducted ongoing heuristic evaluations by testing our software MoClo Planner with BU and MIT’s iGEM teams. We observed their evaluations, and iterated on the visual design of our MoClo Planner program as well as improving performance by making the search option more efficient, among many other small program changes that improved subject satisfaction with our software.
  • We continued to interview experts in the areas of synthetic biology, and started considering questions about safety, collaboration, information sharing, and safety that may be answered with the programs we are designing.

Evaluation

Finally, in the evaluation stage we deploy our refined software tools for use in the wet-lab and evaluate overall user satisfaction regarding the software tools created. If the users are not satisfied, then the entire process starts again.
  • Here, we evaluate the usability and useful of our tools by performing statistical analyses of our testing results from the design and implementation stages. Things we considered in evaluating the value of our programs include various quantitative measures (e.g. time on task, subjective satisfaction) and qualitative indicators (e.g. collaboration and problem solving styles demonstrated by users).
  • During this stage, we realized that we designed the MoClo Planner to facilitate a bottom-up workflow, to manipulate individual parts and build into complex biological modules. Since it also would be convenient for our users to use MoClo in a top-down workflow, we concluded the next step would be to start the design cycle anew and design for a top-down approach as well.





Retrieved from "http://2012.igem.org/Team:Wellesley_HCI/Methodology"