Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
2,735
result(s) for
"user-centered design"
Sort by:
User-Centered Design for Designing and Evaluating a Prototype of a Data Collection Tool to Submit Information About Incidents of Violence Against Sex Workers: Multiple Methods Approach
Sex workers face an epidemic of violence in the United States. However, violence against sex workers in the United States is underreported. Sex workers hesitate to report it to the police because they are frequently punished themselves; therefore, an alternative for reporting is needed.
We aim to apply human-centered design methods to create and evaluate the usability of the prototype interface for ReportVASW (violence against sex worker, VASW) and identify opportunities for improvement.
This study explores ways to improve the prototype of ReportVASW, with particular attention to ways to improve the data collection tool. Evaluation methods included cognitive walkthrough, system usability scale, and heuristic evaluation.
End users were enthusiastic about the idea of a website to document violence against sex workers. ReportVASW scored 90 on the system usability scale. The tool scored neutral on consistency, and all other responses were positive toward the app, with most being strong.
Many opportunities to improve the interface were identified. Multiple methods identified multiple issues to address. Most changes are not overly complex, and the majority were aesthetic or minor. Further development of the ReportVASW data collection tool is worth pursuing.
Journal Article
Design and usability evaluation of a mobile‐based‐self‐management application for caregivers of children with severe burns
Paediatric burns are a major public health issue because of long‐term physical, psychological and social consequences and the high cost of treatment. The aim of this study was to design and evaluate a mobile‐based self‐management application for caregivers of children with severe burns. A participatory design technique was employed to develop the Burn application, which included three main phases: the determination of application requirements, the design and evaluation of the low‐fidelity prototype, and the design and evaluation of the high‐fidelity prototypes. In the first phase, application requirements were determined via validated paper questionnaires using the Delphi technique. In the second step, a low‐fidelity prototype was prepared using conceptual models and evaluated through a focus group with specialists. Seven specialists reviewed the application and evaluated how this prototype meets functional requirements and objectives. The third phase was performed in three stages. First, the high‐fidelity prototype was designed and developed by the JAVA programming language. Second, a cognitive walk‐through was carried out to show how users can interact with the mobile application and how it works. Third, this program was installed on the mobile phones of 28 caregivers of burned children, eight IT experts, and two general surgeries, and the prototype's usability was evaluated. In the present study, most caregivers of children with burns stated that after discharge, they face problems regarding infection control and wound care (4.07) and how to perform physical activity (4.12). User registration, educational materials, caregiver‐clinician communication, chat box, and appointment booking, safe login were the most important characteristic of the Burn application. Mean usability evaluation scores were in the range of 7.92 ± 0.238 to 8.10 ± 0.103, which is considered at a “good” level. From the Burn program design experience, it can be concluded that co‐design with health care specialists can significantly support and meet the specialists' and patients' needs and ensure the program's usefulness. In addition, application evaluation by users involved and not involved in the application design process can help enhance usability.
Journal Article
An 11-Item Measure of User- and Human-Centered Design for Personal Health Tools (UCD-11): Development and Validation
Researchers developing personal health tools employ a range of approaches to involve prospective users in design and development.
The aim of this paper was to develop a validated measure of the human- or user-centeredness of design and development processes for personal health tools.
We conducted a psychometric analysis of data from a previous systematic review of the design and development processes of 348 personal health tools. Using a conceptual framework of user-centered design, our team of patients, caregivers, health professionals, tool developers, and researchers analyzed how specific practices in tool design and development might be combined and used as a measure. We prioritized variables according to their importance within the conceptual framework and validated the resultant measure using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation, classical item analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis.
We retained 11 items in a 3-factor structure explaining 68% of the variance in the data. The Cronbach alpha was .72. Confirmatory factor analysis supported our hypothesis of a latent construct of user-centeredness. Items were whether or not: (1) patient, family, caregiver, or surrogate users were involved in the steps that help tool developers understand users or (2) develop a prototype, (3) asked their opinions, (4) observed using the tool or (5) involved in steps intended to evaluate the tool, (6) the process had 3 or more iterative cycles, (7) changes between cycles were explicitly reported, (8) health professionals were asked their opinion and (9) consulted before the first prototype was developed or (10) between initial and final prototypes, and (11) a panel of other experts was involved.
The User-Centered Design 11-item measure (UCD-11) may be used to quantitatively document the user/human-centeredness of design and development processes of patient-centered tools. By building an evidence base about such processes, we can help ensure that tools are adapted to people who will use them, rather than requiring people to adapt to tools.
Journal Article
UX fundamentals for non-UX professionals : user experience principles for managers, writers, designers, and developers
\"Demystify UX and its rules, contradictions, and dilemmas. This book provides real-world examples of user experience concepts that empower teams to create compelling products and services, manage social media, interview UX candidates, and oversee product teams. From product decisions to performance reviews, your ability to participate in discussions about UX has become vital to your company's success as well as your own. However, UX concepts can seem complex. Many UX books are written by and for UX professionals. UX Fundamentals for Non-UX Professionals serves the needs of project managers, graphic designers, copyeditors, marketers, and others who wish to understand UX design and research. You will discover how UX has influenced history and continues to affect our daily lives. Entertaining real-world examples demonstrate what a massive, WWII-era tank teaches us about design, what a blue flower tells us about audiences, and what drunk marathoners show us about software. What You'll Learn Know the fundamentals of UX through real-world examples Acquire the skills to participate intelligently in discussions about UX design and research Understand how UX impacts business, including product, pricing, placement, and promotion as well as security, speed, and privacy Who This Book Is For Professionals who work alongside UX designers and researchers, including but not limited to: project managers, graphic designers, copyeditors, developers, and human resource professionals; and business, marketing, and computer science students seeking to understand how UX affects human cognition and memory, product pricing and promotion, and software security and privacy.\"--Publisher's description.
Book
A User-Centered Approach to an Evidence-Based Electronic Health Pain Management Intervention for People With Chronic Pain: Design and Development of EPIO
Chronic pain conditions are complicated and challenging to live with. Electronic health (eHealth) interventions show promise in helping people cope with chronic illness, including pain. The success of these interventions depends not only on the technology and intervention content but also on the users' acceptance and adherence. Involving all stakeholders (eg, patients, spouses, health care providers, designers, software developers, and researchers) and exploring their input and preferences in the design and development process is an important step toward developing meaningful interventions and possibly strengthening treatment outcomes.
The aim of this study was to design and develop a user-centered, evidence-based eHealth self-management intervention for people with chronic pain.
The study employed a multidisciplinary and user-centered design approach. Overall, 20 stakeholders from the project team (ie, 7 researchers, 5 editors, 7 software developers, and 1 user representative), together with 33 external stakeholders (ie, 12 health care providers, 1 health care manger, 1 eHealth research psychologist, and 17 patients with chronic pain and 2 of their spouses) participated in a user-centered development process that included workshops, intervention content development, and usability testing. Intervention content was developed and finalized based on existing evidence, stakeholder input, and user testing. Stakeholder input was examined through qualitative analyses with rapid and in-depth analysis approaches.
Analyses from stakeholder input identified themes including a need for reliable, trustworthy, and evidence-based content, personalization, options for feedback, behavioral tracking, and self-assessment/registration as factors to include in the intervention. Evidence-based intervention content development resulted in one face-to-face introduction session and 9 app-based educational and exercise-based modules. Usability testing provided further insight into how to optimize the design of the intervention to the user group, identifying accessibility and a simple design to be essential.
The design and development process of eHealth interventions should strive to combine well-known evidence-based concepts with stakeholder input. This study, designing and developing the pain management intervention EPIO, illustrates how a stakeholder-centered design approach can provide essential input in the development of an eHealth self-management intervention for people with chronic pain.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03705104; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03705104.
Journal Article
Students' Ways of Experiencing Human-Centered Design
Background
Design is a central and distinguishing activity of engineering and one of the core criteria for evaluating and accrediting engineering programs. Design is also a subject area that poses many challenges for faculty, and incorporating human‐centered design approaches—approaches in which designers have as a focus the people they are designing for—poses additional challenges. Human‐centered approaches to design contribute to innovations in engineering design and have been shown to increase productivity, improve quality, reduce errors, improve acceptance of new products, and reduce development costs. In today's globally competitive economy, it is more important than ever to develop effective design skills within the undergraduate years.
Purpose (Hypothesis)
Before effective design learning experiences to develop the skills needed for human‐centered design can be created, an understanding of the ways in which students understand and experience human‐centered design is needed. This study addresses this need by investigating the qualitatively different ways in which students experience human‐centered design.
Design/Method
A phenomenographic framework was used to guide the methodology of the study while the literature and research on human‐centered design informed the construction of the study and provided ways to interpret the data and situate the findings. Thirty‐three student designers from a variety of academic contexts were interviewed using a semi‐structured, open‐ended approach in which they discussed concrete experiences “designing for others,” and reflections and meanings associated with those experiences.
Results
Analysis of the data yielded seven qualitatively different ways in which the students experienced humancentered design; these seven categories of description formed a two‐dimensional outcome space. Five of the categories were nested hierarchically. From less comprehensive to more comprehensive, those categories included: Human‐centered design as “User as Information Source Input to Linear Process,” “Keep Users' Needs in Mind,” “Design in Context,” “Commitment” and “Empathic Design.” Two categories represented ways of experiencing human‐centered design that were distinct: design was not humancentered, but “Technology‐Centered” and human‐centered design was not design, but “Service.”
Conclusion
This study found that i) students' understanding of the user and ii) their ability to integrate that into their designs are related in the development of more comprehensive ways of experiencing human‐centered design, and a conception of both aspects is needed. Furthermore, critical or immersive experiences involving real clients and users were important in allowing the students to experience human‐centered design in more comprehensive ways.
Journal Article