|
|
The participation of children in the design of new technology: a discussion paper
By Ben Williamson, Learning Researcher, Futurelab
Page 4 of 7 |
2. FROM CHILDREN AS USERS AND TESTERS, TO DESIGN PARTNERS (AND STOPS IN BETWEEN)
2.1 Users and testers
2.1.1 Defining the terminology
In the influential formulation that Druin (2002) provides, users and testers are regarded as having distinctly different roles in the development of new technology and interactive media. According to this the roles are defined as:
1. User: the child is observed as she uses existing technology so that future technology may be changed or enhanced
2. Tester: the child is observed as she uses pre-release prototype new technology and is asked for direct feedback to inform further iterative development
These are definitions which may not fit with more popular understandings of the roles. More commonly, the 'user' may be defined as anybody who 'uses' a piece of new technology. In the context of this article, the user therefore might be any child involved, to any extent, within the research and development process. However, many critics in the field of child involvement are beginning to question both the concept of 'users', and their role in new technology design. Most notably, 'user' can refer to either a child or adult; most commentators would agree that different methodological approaches are required for each. Furthermore, many commentators talk of 'user testing', or 'usability testing'. In user testing or usability testing the child participant is required only to ensure that new technology 'works', that is, has intuitive functionality, appropriate content and so on. The terms 'user' and 'tester' are, therefore, most commonly used together to denote someone recruited fairly late in the development of a new technology.
2.1.2 Defining the roles of users and testers
In the commercial realm user testing lacks clear definition (Kujala 2003). Wiklund (1994), for instance, describes a model of user involvement in which user testing is a critical component of an iterative process of product evaluation, and where the results of the user feedback are recruited into the redesign of the product or interface in question. In contrast, Webb (1996) describes a process of user testing prevalent in commercial multimedia development where it is confined to the post-production de-bugging phase.
Critiques of 'user testing' suggest that user involvement is often employed, particularly in the commercial sector, too late in a development cycle to make a significant contribution to an iterative and evaluative process (Scaife et al. 1997). Further, the types of interactions between designers and children involved in user testing have also been criticised for being too reactive, and for reinforcing the traditional notion that adults design for children as prospective users (Kafai 2003), rather than reinforcing a flattened hierarchy of design. Interactions of this kind may also only provide researchers and designers with limited insight into the potential of technology designed for children, since they are limited by constraints of the technology being used (Branton 2003). Plus, it remains up to the designers and researchers to decide which feedback to take note of and which to ignore (Scaife et al. 1997).
Markopoulos and Bekker (2003) attempt to address these issues in usability testing methods with children, describing children as 'test-users', and arguing that there has to date been 'no systematic methodological investigation of how such usability testing should be conducted' (228). They question how samples of children for involvement are selected, what environments are most commonly used, and how usability testing can be measured. Bødker (2003), meanwhile, has since the early 1990s been developing usability testing 'scenarios' that can provoke new ideas amongst participants in the usability testing process. Such scenarios, he argues, should be rooted in specific situations from the domain under scrutiny, but can also be designed as 'future' situations to allow participants to explore both how they would accomplish something within a current context, as well as with prototype materials in a speculative context. Arguably, this is a good practical intervention which ties blue-skies technological exploration to real-world issues.
While therefore the term 'user' is contested, and the role of the user even more so, nevertheless, involving users in the design process in these ways should not be discounted, and has proven successful in a great many case studies. What is more, this user testing approach is often co-opted into other processes, so that a more participative design process is likely to recruit members of a product's target group as both users being observed with technology at a very early stage, and as prototype testers during the product's iteration (Druin 2003). Indeed, such an overlap in methodologies form the bases of the child-focused, participative design approaches described next.
2.2 Informant designers
Informant design methodologies employ children at regular stages throughout the development of new technology prototypes. Pioneered by Scaife et al (1997), informant design questions the extent to which children can work as equal partners alongside adult participants, or whether adult supervisors should dictate their level of involvement. It also involves teachers as well as children in the process alongside researchers, designers and so on, and starts with early discussions principally motivated by specific subject-related issues. Both children and teachers are conceived as 'native informants' who are able to identify problems from within their educational experiences, and separately identify the kinds of problems that they encounter within specific subject-related contexts, since their views are likely to be quite distinct.
Based on these initial inputs, teams working with informant designers are able to transform the list of problems and issues into 'high level functionality requirements for multimedia implementation' (Scaife et al 1997: 346). What follows is a series of low-tech prototyping using everyday materials such as plasticine, crayons and paper, in which children and teachers, working together with designers, come up with designs and ideas for motivating activities and interfaces. A high-tech prototype is devised, and then iteratively tested and retested with the group. Indeed, low-tech and high-tech prototypes are often worked on in parallel, informing one another throughout iteration, rather than the high-tech model following on from the low-tech version in a linear manner.
The object of informant design is to discover something not previously known, rather than confirming what the design team thought it knew already. Rather than treating children and teachers as equal partners with designers, researchers, psychologists, artists and computer scientists, informant design involves intended user groups at various stages, where and when their expertise can be maximised and where their knowledge is required. Nonetheless, Scaife et al (1997) point out a number of problems with such an approach. They note that the presence of unfamiliar adults can act as an inhibitor to children who may therefore not put
(CONTINUE...)
|
|
