Solved by verified expert:In this scenario, you are a human factors investigator who has been asked to provide recommendations and guidelines for improving the accessibility of hardware, software, and IT services for an employee with physical disabilities. Your report will evaluate the current environment and provide recommendations for improvement.
out.pdf
journel_2.pdf
journel_1.pdf
it_331_hospital_clerk_scenario_guidelines_and_rubric.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Tomorrow’s ergonomics
Charytonowicz, Jerzy
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society … Annual Meeting; 2000; 6,
ProQuest Central
pg. 194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 48th ANNUAL MEETING—2004
1170
Teaching and Learning Design: Commonalty and Diversity in
Ergonomics, HCI and Architecture Design Education
Rich Halstead-Nussloch
William Carpenter
Computing & Software Engineering
Southern Polytechnic State University
Marietta, GA 30060 USA
+1 770 528 5509
rhalstea@spsu.edu
Architecture
Southern Polytechnic State University
Marietta, GA 30060 USA
+1 770 528 4280
wcarpent@spsu.edu
For four years we have been developing a design pedagogy that merges significant aspects of our
disciplines (architecture and HCI). This has culminated in a joint design course where we
bridged between design-build courses in architecture and user-interaction engineering. In this
paper we cover lessons learned, based on our experience. Using the pedagogy developed for the
Bauhaus, we have identified five goals for design education. Primary among these is education
that combines designing artifacts with building them. We report commonalties and differences
between our professions that have a significant impact on design education. Our work points to
three recommendations for cross-disciplinary design education. Primary among them is to focus
on design studios to keep within practical and manageable bounds.
INTRODUCTION
Prior to meeting each other, we independently
taught architecture [2,5] and HCI/ergonomics [5,6]
courses using respectively the Bauhaus approach of
teaching design through building and a rapid application
development (RAD) approach to teach ergonomics
design of user-interfaces. About four years ago as we
worked on a grant proposal together, we discovered
some commonalties in these approaches to teach design,
and decided to try a merger. This paper presents a case
study of a trial joint architecture-HCI design-build
course. In sharing the lessons learned we intend to
provide educators with an overview of some links
between ergonomics and architectural design. These
lessons require two caveats: First, although we have
been working together for four years, we still remain in
the scientific stage of discovery. The conclusions we
have reached about design education are in an initial
stage of definition. Second, at this stage our lessons are
local in nature and might not work more universally.
For example, since Southern Polytechnic is a teachingoriented university our lessons might not apply at a
research-oriented university.
Conceptual Foundations for Teaching Design
For this merged course, we based our teaching
techniques on those Gropius described [2, 3, 4] for the
Bauhaus. Gropius first articulated a number of aims,
which form the foundation of our teaching approach:
The designer should become a person of vision
and of professional competence, whose task it is to
coordinate the many social, technical, economic, and
formal problems, which arise in connection with the
building. He/she must recognize the impact of
industrialization and explore the new relationships and
constraints dictated by social and scientific progress.
In an age of specialization, method is more
important than information. Training should be cyclical
rather than linear and emphsize relations.
Design knowledge only comes by individual
experience, where feedback on one’s own work is of
paramount value. Through the feedback students receive
when trying to build their designs, they quickly learn to
account for constraints [7]. The aim is to provide a rich
and deep learning environment facilitating a student to
design and build artifacts (physical and informational)
not only within human capability constraints, but also
for human enjoyment, spirituality, etc.
At the start, basic design and shop practice
combined should introduce the students to the elements
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 48th ANNUAL MEETING—2004
of design and simultaneously the ideas of construction.
In succeeding years, the design and construction studio
should be supplemented by field experience.
Students should be taught to work in
collaborative teams.
Case history studios should be studied in later
years, rather than first, to avoid imitation and
intimidation. Students learn to design better when first
encouraged to explore, try, reflect upon, and integrate
design and construction.
Our Goals for Teaching Design
We aimed for similar pedagogical goals as we
merged together our teaching approaches into a joint
design through building course sequence. Our desire
was an active learning environment that fostered
exploration, discovery, and creativity. We wanted to
demonstrate in teaching these courses that these aims
formed a common core for effectively teaching both
architectural and HCI/ergonomics design [1, 8].
The longer history and legacy of design
education in architecture motivated us in the initial stage
of collaboration to look back to Gropius for our
pedagogical goals. Since each of the principles for
architecture has some correspondence in teaching
ergonomic and HCI design, we found it worthwhile to
update them for our situation. In doing so, we
discovered five goal areas as emphasized below.
Education for architects, ergonomists and HCI
specialists is predominately professional education [8].
Once individuals receive a degree in any of those areas,
they are expected to practice and uphold the standards
and image of the profession. In all three areas,
education must be sensitive to practice, licensure and
certification. Likewise, in any design profession,
methodology is primary. Good design requires effective
procedural knowledge and technique more so than a
massive amount of declarative knowledge. This is as
true in HCI and ergonomics as it is in architecture. In all
three professions, education must cover Best Practices
and Methods.
Further, design knowledge is acquired primarily
through individual experience and action. When
ergonomics students actually design a task flow or HCI
students actually design a web page they acquire
experience leading to deeper knowledge and skill. The
individual experience component of architectural
education has been formalized in curricula based upon
Design Studios for each level of progress. Indeed, when
many architects begin practice they spend an initial
period as an “apprentice” in a firm.
1171
A key educational principle concerns what
educators should do in the beginning of a designer’s
education. Gropius clearly directs towards combining
Design and Build in education. His approach had shop
practice and construction exercises going hand-in-hand
with the design. Design students who immediately try to
build or prototype their work get immediate feedback on
their design. Gropius insisted that Design and Build
appear together and simultaneously throughout design
education. Within architecture, HCI and ergonomics
education, there are many opportunities for Design and
Build. Architecture students spend many hours drawing
and building models of their designs. HCI and
ergonomics design students spend much time developing
and testing prototypes of their designs. All design
students can and do closely couple Design and Build
from the beginning of their education.
Being able to work effectively in a team is a
necessary survival skill for all design students. Team
Fusion and Contribution are characteristics desired of
all design students. Simply put teams are a fact of life
for designers as fundamental as driving a car or using a
computer.
To maximize raw creativity, Case Study
Examples should be presented later in the design
student’s education. Gropius anticipated that design
students might quickly converge to the limit of imitating
designs from the Case Study Examples emphasized.
CASE STUDY APPROACH
To implement our pedagogical merger, we
linked two course sequences at Southern Polytechnic
State University (SPSU). Carpenter teaches
Architecture (Arch) 3011 and 3012, which form a
design-build course sequence required for 3rd year
architecture students. The Fall Semester 2002 Arch
3011 class designed a house for the Martin Luther King,
Jr. Historic District in Atlanta. During Spring Semester
2003, the same students in the Arch 3012 began building
the house. Software Engineering (SWE) 6343 User
Interface Design and SWE 6783 User Interaction
Engineering were respectively scheduled into a fall
2002-spring 2003 sequence and taught by HalsteadNussloch as a design-build sequence. A web portal to
support our design-build sequence was designed in the
fall course and was prototyped in the spring course.
These are elective courses in the SPSU MS in SWE
degree program. For clarity, students in the SWE
sequence are referred to as HCI (Human-Computer
Interaction) students below.
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 48th ANNUAL MEETING—2004
To develop this report, we observed our students
as they interacted with each other across the disciplines,
us as teachers and with clients as well. We also
analyzed our course curricula, comparing and
contrasting how we consider and approach teaching
design. We first listed how we implemented our five
pedagogical goals. Then, we developed a list of
commonalties and a list of differences between our
disciplines’ approach to teaching design. Finally, we
reflected on our grounding in Gropius’ pedagogical
principles and picked our personal top three “lessons
learned.”
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Implementing Our Pedagogical Goals
To implement our five pedagogical goals, we
bridged between the architecture and the HCI (software
engineering) courses. Table 1 illustrates how.
Goal
Architecture
Best Practices
and Methods
Used Historic
District Design
Guide
Develop House
Drawings and
Models
Design House in
Fall; Build in
Spring
Self-Directed
Student Teams
Precedents;
District WalkThrough
Design
Studios
Design and
Build
Team Fusion/
Contribution
Case Study
Examples
HCI (Software
Engineering)
Used Design
Guides for Web
Sites
Develop Web
Page Sketches and
Demos
Design Web Portal
in Fall; Prototype
in Spring
Self-Directed
Student Teams
Web Search for
Benchmark Web
Sites
Table 1-Implementing our teaching goals.
To implement Best Practices and Methods,
architecture students utilized an existing design guide
for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Historic District. HCI
students searched the web and the literature for
appropriate web design guides and found an adequate
few.
Architecture students completed Design Studios
as appropriate to designing a house for a client. HCI
students utilized an appropriate SWE development
process, which included typical design stages that served
as Design Studios. Both groups presented Design
Studios to their client and received feedback.
1172
The Design and Build plan for architecture
students set them to design a house in the fall and build
it in the spring. For HCI students the Design and Build
plan was less ambitious in that the spring was to be
spent prototyping rather than building. Nonetheless,
neither group was able to complete the plan for the
spring. Both found some practicalities were barriers.
The architecture students found time and cost
requirements for actually building their designs
exceeded budget available. The HCI students chose a
new technology (Microsoft’s .net) and spent much of
their time learning it, which left insufficient time to
complete the web portal prototype. Given the larger
scale and complexity introduced when students actually
build a full-scale project, we see this outcome as typical
for the build stage of Design and Build.
Both the architecture and HCI students formed
self-directed teams. All teams went through the typical
stages of form-storm-norm-perform and also had some
few members who did most of the work. We thus
observed typical profiles of Team Fusion and
Contribution.
Being in the advanced stages of education, both
the architecture and the HCI students found their own
Case Studies Examples. Architecture students utilized
historical records, design guides and walking around the
Atlanta neighborhood taking pictures of houses and
spaces. HCI students searched the web and the literature
for benchmark web sites. Following the guidance of
their profession’s methodology, both groups discovered
their own Case Study Examples. For this process the
instructors contributed Case Study Examples, but were
not the exclusive or even predominant source.
Commonalities Observed in Teaching Design
In bridging between our courses, we found
significant commonality between the architecture and
HCI/ergonomics approaches:
Both Have an Intense Focus on the User/Client
Both of our disciplines have an intense focus on
the user and client. For centuries, architects have aimed
to please clients with their designs of physical space.
For decades, HCI/ergonomics professionals (called
HCIers here) have aimed for functional and pleasing
designs of the information space around users. The
spaces that both disciplines aim to create must support
effective and pleasing reaction, function and interaction
for users.
To ensure such, architects initially develop a
program, which describes users and their needs and
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 48th ANNUAL MEETING—2004
requirements for the space being designed. HCI
professionals develop a user analysis containing similar
information about the users and the information space
being designed for them. Both the architect’s program
and the HCIer’s user analysis are completed at the
beginning of the design and serve as the “home base”
for the whole design process. So, both design
disciplines start with an intense focus on the user/client
and carry that throughout the whole design process.
Both Use an Iterative Design Process
Both architects and HCIers utilize a cycle of
design, prototyping, and testing. Successive designs
incorporate feedback from prior tests. Iterative cycling
is fundamental in both disciplines.
Many Concepts and Procedures Are in Common
Although terminology might differ, architects
and HCIers utilize many similar concepts and
procedures during design. Table 2 shows the major of
these commonalties.
Concept/
Procedure
Customer
“Know thy user”
Visible design
Design record
Change design
Borrow prior design
Assess design
Testing
Review panel
Architecture
HCI
Client
Program
Model
Drawing
Change
request
Precedents
Meet design
standards
Client
Acceptance
Jury
User
User analysis
Prototype
Document
Change request
Benchmarking
Meet design
guidelines
Usability Testing
User Interface
Experts &
Heuristic Review
Table 2-Major concepts and procedures in common
Both architecture and HCI keep a focus on users
and also have procedures to analyze and gain knowledge
about users and clients. Both groups of professionals
make their designs visible, architects through drawings
and models and HCIers through developing prototypes.
Both maintain design records and have a concept and
procedure for changing approved designs. Borrowing
and utilizing prior design; assessing the designs; testing;
and holding review panels are procedures done in both
HCI and architecture. We found our students were
borrowing tips and techniques from their own and also
1173
each other’s disciplines to refine their work and skills,
and these commonalties greatly supported this cross
learning.
Differences Observed in Teaching Design
In bridging between our courses, we also found
significant differences between architecture and
HCI/ergonomics approach to design education:
Architects Quickly Choose; HCIers Keep Options
One of the first, pleasant surprises we
encountered is that architect students quickly converge
on a single design whereas HCIers tend to keep multiple
design options open longer. We conjecture this is due to
the fact that architecture is the more mature discipline.
Architects are expected to quickly assess the client’s
needs and then design and present a single solution that
best meets needs. HCI, having been around for only
about twenty years, is in many respects less well-formed
in terms of both its problem- and solution- domains. To
hedge against this uncertainty, HCIers will tend to show
users and clients options at many more points in the
design process and rely on their preferences.
Furthermore, it is easier and much less expensive to
carry more design options further into the HCI design
process than in architecture.
Focus: Architects-Aesthetics; HCIers-Infrastructure
Architects focus first on the looks, the
aesthetics—the “skin” of the space they create. HCI
designers focus first on the tasks, the functions—the
infrastructure of the information spaces they create.
Although neither discipline excludes aesthetics or
infrastructure, they have a different primary emphasis.
Lessons Learned in Teaching Design
By linking our architecture and HCI design
courses, we learned some lessons about teaching design:
Carpenter’s Lessons Learned
First, in teaching architecture design, the
simultaneity of Design and Build is valuable to the point
of making the increased complexity of putting them
together worthwhile. The direct feedback obtained
when designer students actually try to build their designs
is powerful in education.
Second, the role of haptic learning in Design
Studios is critically important. Strong and deep
connections are built when designer students form and
manipulate materials to build their design concepts.
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 48th ANNUAL MEETING—2004
Third, design teachers must use positive tension
to facilitate Team Fusion and Contribution. Group
dynamics virtually dictate a stormy period prior to team
fusion. Design teachers should utilize the storm’s
tension to guide their students towards normalization
with the profession’s Best Practices and Methods. Once
this occurs, student teamwork flows out smoothly.
Halstead-Nussloch’s Lessons Learned
First, in Design and Build, managing the scope
of the build phase is critical. To work effectively, both
the build process and the artifact produced must be both
significant and doable.
Second, both design teachers and students
should find candidate Case Study Examples. The
maximum educational value of Case Study Examples
comes from reviewing, analyzing, and evaluating them.
This review process can also serve to create positive
tension to facilitate Team Fusion and Contribution.
Third, trying to bridge between whole courses in
architecture and HCI/ergonomics design was logistically
difficult. Because they are smaller in scale than a whole
course, developing joint Design Studios for architecture
and HCI/ergonomics seems better practically and
therefore potentially more effective educationally.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our experience in the fall 2002 and
spring 2003, we conclude that teaching design can be
effective through the Design and Build workshop
approach. As an initial attempt, we are satisfied that our
update of Gropius’ teaching aims for architecture apply
well for HCI/ergonomics design also. Specifically:
• Gropius’ aims that method is more important than
information and the designer should become a
person of vision and of professional competence can
be implemented by covering design Best Practices
and Methods for buildings or user interfaces alike.
•
•
Gropius’ aim that design knowledge only comes by
individual experience, where feedback on one’s own
work i …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
