Re: Relative difficulty of creation

Hi all

I'm sceptical that this can be answered in terms of a fixed ordering of tasks because

1) Tasks are a fraught concept in HCI, human activity exists, but do tasks really make sense as a unit of analysis? How well can they actually be grounded in real interaction transcripts. I have no problem with goals (but I do with 'main' or 'central' goals), or with the importance of the initial state of an activity shaping subsequent action (minimally, a task = goal from initial state), but as an organising concept tasks exist more in the mind of some designers than in the practice of all users

2) Any design improvement could overthrow the task ordering

3) Interface resistance won't map in an orderly manner onto whatever task taxonomy and ordering we come up with

4) Add user perceived complexity to the mix and it will all get really fraught as different users introduce different task taxonomies and difficulty orderings

For examples, see the Bardzells' HCI 2007 paper at http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.13282

The topic may surprise, but BDSM practices in 2nd life provide a range of examples as to why content creation at the task level would require an explosion of the taxonomic space to capture the relative difficulty of Japanese Rope Bondage compared to other BDSM practices in 2nd life.

Another paper by Jeffrey Bardzell shows how amateur multimedia tends to take the path of least resistance, so the tasks will succeed, but with a quality that is professionally poor (not that this may matter at all, cf Numa numa videos and their popularity) - see http://www.humantechnology.jyu.fi/articles/volume3/2007/bardzell.pdf

One upshot of Bardzell's work is knowing what matters. Actual and perceived difficulty are costs relative to achievable benefits. Usability isn't an absolute. If users really want the benefits, they will try harder and accept what they can get. If they don't, then good usability won't make them work more or better.

When looking at how and why users create content, a balanced view of costs and benefits is needed. Indeed, value as benefits must be understood prior to costs as usage impediments, since it is ultimately worth as benefits/costs that drives user behaviour, and not a single dimension of value or aversion

Good luck with the research

---
You are currently subscribed to ucd as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-36127-427.18997733ec258a9fcaf239cc55d53363@listman.syntagm.co.uk

Yes, I think there is. I was looking
at this issue recently in another context.

Take a look at Bloom's Taxonomy (see
this Wikipedia
article and especially this
item ).

Regards

Phil

Phil Parry

User Experience Designer

Product Usability Design Group

IBM United Kingdom Limited

Mail Point 095

(: +44 (0)1962 817 097

Internal: 247 097

Notes: Phil Parry/UK/IBM

Mailto: [email protected]

From:
"Lars Wieneke" <[email protected]>

To:
"User-Centred Design (Discussion)"
<[email protected]>

Date:
23/05/2008 13:07

Subject:
Relative difficulty of creation

----------

Hi list members,

While researching approaches to lower the threshold of content production
in applications driven by user contributions I was wondering whether research
in the relative difficulty of creating content exists.

"Relative difficulty of creation" relates to the question what
kind of tasks a user regards as more difficult than another. e.g. is it
more difficult for a user to answer a question or to post it?

This relative difficulty might be specific to a particular user, so how
can I asses it?

Are there any concepts old or new out there that would dare to create a
hierarchy of relative difficulty?

---

You are currently subscribed to ucd as: [email protected].

To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-35977-731.59c33016884a62116be975a9bb8257e3@listman.syntagm.co.uk

----------

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU