by Roger Santos
So here we are at the start of a new year and many things have changed – new classes, Professors, and babies…babies? That’s right, congratulations to Sophie and Fritz on their new additions. Also, congratulations to the chapter for winning the Gold level Student Chapter Award for HFES for 2007. See page 5 of the HFES bulletin to see professor Andre receiving the award.
The bulletin will now be sent out in html form so people can read it directly from their inbox. This way we might actually garner some readers - “might” being the operative word. Check out the new quick tips, reminders and links section of the bulletin for some useful info. But if you want to visit the chapter website all articles will also be available there. In this issue of the newsletter we have some really cool articles so be sure to check them out. Check out the new quick tips, reminders and links section for some useful info. In this issue of the newsletter we have some really cool articles so be sure to check them out.
I’d like to take a moment to say a word about the recent loss of Kevin Corker. After taking ISE 212 with him I was really looking forward to working with him this coming spring semester for the project class. From 212, I knew there was so much to learn from him. The promise of working with and learning from him was something that I eagerly awaited. I can only imagine what I could have gained by working with him.
When I first met Kevin, I was sitting with Freund talking about entering the program. I remember Kevin walked in wearing a Hawaiian shirt, a thick beard and just seemed full of energy as he welcomed me to the program. He stayed a short time because he was busy, but as he left he was excited to have me there and said he looked forward to working with all of us new students. I think that was the defining moment where I knew I was in the right program and with the right teachers. I’ll never forget this moment in my career and I’ll always remember Kevin that way – full of life and always sharing his positive energy. Needless to say, the program has indeed lost a great teacher and it will be hard to think of the program being the same without him.
February 5th, 2008
Posted by
rdscleaners |
issue_4.1, newsletter |
no comments
by Jamie Miller
As of July 1, 2008, Californians must use a hands-free device to talk on their cell phones while driving. I recently purchased a Bluetooth headset to make sure that I was prepared for this new law. The Plantronics 520 headset was highly rated so I thought it would be a good choice. After I charged the headset, I immediately started to familiarize myself with it. Although the headset only had one button, I didn’t think anything of it at first. I didn’t have a clue how to use the headset, so I started reading the manual.
I turned to the page that listed the headset controls. I quickly realized that a single button was supposed to perform the following nine different tasks: turn on the headset, turn off the headset, answer a call, reject a call, end a call, make a call, adjust the volume (the button moves back and forth), transfer a call from the headset to the phone, and transfer a call from the phone to headset. Even after reading the list, I figured this was normal for all headsets. After all, how else would a manufacturer be able to provide customers with the functionality they desire and keep the size to a minimum?
Unfortunately, the answer is to reduce the number of buttons. Plantronics crams nine functions into one button by pairing the functions with different tones, and making the user press the button three different ways (short, long, and left and right). After using this headset for awhile, I now know that even performing simple tasks can be difficult.
For example, I was trying to make a call by using voice dial. I pressed the button, a beep signaled in my ear, I spoke the name, but nothing happened. I repeated this two more times to no avail – all while driving. Finally, I realized I needed to hold the button down longer to hear a lower tone, which signaled voice dial. I’ve also had issues with trying to turn off the headset and figuring out how much charge is left on the battery. (The light indicator is also supposed to indicate 11 different states of the headset!)
Overall, I like the headset; however, there is definitely room for improvement. Even for someone who is technically inclined like me, the complexity is a bit much. The headset is compact, but there is definitely room for more than one button. Ideally, I would like to have one button for on/off and second button for calling functionality. For now, I’ve learned the essential functions I need to use the headset, and I will probably not use it to its full potential. As for the light indicator, there is no way I will be able to remember all of the 11 states, and quite frankly I don’t know that I want to learn them all. The different light patterns will just have to remain a mystery.
February 5th, 2008
Posted by
rdscleaners |
issue_4.1, newsletter |
no comments
by Kirsten Peters
I entered the project class in my fourth semester knowing I was interested in exploring the Nintendo Wii’s new game controller method. Due to the irregular nature of my project I was given Dr. Freund as an advisor. Over the course of the first month I talked with him about different aspects of this idea and with his help was able to narrow the project down a bit.
I then started an in-depth literature review. Once I knew more about the background research and theories, I started to form the ideas of a rough experimental design. From there, I continued an iterative process of research and experimental design as the ideas and design grew into something solid and feasible. Also, since I chose to use motion capture as one of my measurement techniques, I took extra time to work with Dr. Jim Kao of the Kinesiology department to learn the constraints and requirements of the equipment he was allowing me to use. The last couple of weeks of the semester were focused on polishing up my report and preparing my proposal for Dr. Freund. In the end I chose to investigate the influences of bowling proficiency on performance and upper extremity movement characteristics during first-time Wii-bowling.
Over the summer I took a full time internship so I wasn’t able to start on the next phase until I was back in school. Once I was back I got straight to work. I met with Dr. Kao to review the measurement equipment and met with Dr. Freund to regroup and revise some minor changes to my experimental design. Once I applied for IRB approval, I drafted up my exact test protocol and script, bought supplies, and investigated recruiting options. Once I had IRB approval, I started recruiting via the Psych 1 pool, Craig’s list, the SJSU HFES Yahoo! Group, a network of friends, and posters and signs posted on campus and at local game stores. I chose to use 30 participants (three groups of 10) so I needed to find more people than usual.
While recruiting and scheduling participant appointments, I ran multiple levels of a pilot study. It was during this period that I made a couple of changes to my protocol based on some unforeseen complications due to the motion capture system. However, once the bugs were ironed out I started running participants like crazy. It took about 2 months to finish recruiting and running 24 participants – which was much longer than I expected. Since, by this time, it was early November, I decided to give up finding the last 6 participants and move on to the next phase of my project.
Because I chose to use motion capture data, I was forced to complete an extra step before moving on to the data analysis phase. Without boring you with the details, I needed to ‘digitize’ the video data before I could find out the dependant variable I was interested in knowing. That process has taken me the longest and I have only just completed digitizing the first group of data, which is actually only 1/3 of the simple data.
My plan is to use this first group of data to complete an initial statistical analysis of my data. If I find no significant results, I will need to digitize the remaining 2/3 of the simple data before I can use it for additional statistical analysis. Once I have finished my data analysis, I will be ready to report my findings in my final report. Right now, the plan is to finish this semester.
My advice to any student reading this is to pick an interesting topic you are passionate about and find a simple question you want to answer with your project. You do not need to reinvent the wheel with this project. This project has taught me the importance of good research with a scientific design. I have also learned patience, restraint, perseverance, discipline and the importance of a good network.
If you have any questions about my project or experience, I encourage you to attend a Thesis/Project Café meeting which is usually held every other week. Regardless of your stage in the program or project, we welcome your input and interest. Or feel free to email me at engineerkirsten@yahoo.com
February 4th, 2008
Posted by
rdscleaners |
issue_4.1, newsletter |
no comments
by Susann Kress
“Which one of these is the best one-I don’t care how much it costs” a patient with wrist tendonitis asks after being sent to me for physical therapy, as he pulls out a stack of papers with pictures of objects that only vaguely resemble what most people would recognize as a computer mouse.
Like a parade of exotic animals I gaze upon what lays before me: “the J-mouse”, “the joystick mouse”, “the wheel mouse”, even a specimen called the “the foot mouse”…
Although some people can benefit greatly from substituting poorly adjusted computer equipment, this will not be the focus of this article. A great new mouse is not some kind of magic bullet against repetitive strain injury or RSI. I have seen too many patients that started out with wrist tendonitis, only to develop a new onset of finger joint and tendon problems after being switched to a new mouse that substitutes the repetitive wrist motion with a track ball that requires continues use of their fingers. Another common scenario is a patient that was advised to switch sides for their mouse use only to end up with bilateral hand/wrist problems.
I work at an orthopedic clinic in Cupertino right around the corner from Apple Computer, the same company that creates new and shiny gadgets on a daily basis. It is often people from this same industry that seek our services for a RSI after years of spending 8-12 hours/day behind the computer and are searching for the perfect tool that will keep their body functioning at the same high level that they have demanded from it. When suggesting to them regularly scheduled times each day to stretch and exercise, they often look at me as if I had just asked them to give up their first borne child to me. The words “break” and “exercise” is enough to trigger a fight or flight response in them.
However, the cause of Repetitive Strain Injury boils down to a simple equation and within it also lays the answer for a potential cure:
Repetition + Force + Lack of Rest = RSI (tendonitis, tenosynovitis, nerve compression)
Ergonomics are important at avoiding injury but so is people’s willingness to take frequent breaks to stretch as well as exercise regularly. From my experience, there are no shortcuts although people will continue to look for them, since taking time out of their busy work day to stretch or limit their computer use requires them to change on a deeper level. It means putting their health and body first, not their work although in the long run this approach will benefit their working careers.
One of my favorite tools to aid people on the road to avoiding/recovering from RSI is a piece of software such as “Stretch Break Pro” that actually blocks the user from further performing any tasks on the computer until a series of timed stretches are performed. The frequency and breaks are determined by the user and so is the stretch duration. It may not be as cool as a brand new and shiny “joystick mouse” but it is defiantly a step in the right direction.
February 4th, 2008
Posted by
rdscleaners |
issue_4.1, newsletter |
no comments
by Joey Elyacy
TUESDAY SOCIAL NIGHT
Tuesdays, 8:30 p.m.
Hotel DeAnza lounge
http://www.hoteldeanza.com/
Tuesday night means strong drinks at Hotel DeAnza! Students generally head over to the hotel lounge around 8:30 p.m. after ISE 217. Please join us to talk shop, complain about end-of-semester projects, or just hang out for fun! Call Jamie Kravitz at 323-646-8579 to confirm before heading over.
BAYCHI MEETING
Tuesday, May 10, 7:00 - 9:30 p.m.
PARC Auditorium, Palo Alto, CA
http://www.baychi.org/program/
During this meeting, Scott Berkun, a project management and product design consultant, will speak on “What To Do When Things Go Wrong: Saving Design Train Wrecks.” We’ve all been on projects where bad things happen, or where decisions are made, despite our protests, that we know will lead to disaster. But what can be done? How can teams recover from big mistakes? This talk looks at the organizational, political, and process failures that lead to design disasters, and focuses on ways to both avoid and recover from tough project challenges. The speaker encourages you to bring your own stories of tough projects, and to share your experiences in trying to save them, or in running for cover.
UPA 2005
June 27 - July 1
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
http://www.upassoc.org/conferences_and_events/upa_conference/2005/
The 2005 International UPA Conference will take place June 27 - July 1, 2005 at The Fairmont Queen Elizabeth hotel in downtown Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The theme for this year’s annual conference is “Bridging Cultures.” Come together to celebrate usability in the research, design, and testing of hardware, software, documents, and commercial products. It is about understanding your own values and how values differ in other cultures or even just in other people within your culture. Once you are able to honor and recognize your differences, you can begin to act upon the similarities and embrace the diversity that multi-cultural companies, teams and projects provide. Build a cultural bridge for your team by recognizing the strength that diversity provides.
HCI INTERNATIONAL 2005
July 22 - 27
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada
http://www.hci-international.org/
HCI International 2005, and its affiliated conferences, provides an international forum for the dissemination and exchange of scientific information on theoretical, generic, and applied areas of HCI, usability, internationalization, virtual reality, universal access, and cognitive ergonomics. There will be six modes of communication: plenary presentation, parallel sessions, demonstration and poster sessions, tutorials, exhibitions and meetings of special interest groups. The six-day conference will start with three days of tutorials. The tutorials will begin on Friday, 22 July 2005. A total of 26 tutorials will be offered (both half-day and full-day) at introductory, intermediate, and advanced levels covering the entire spectrum of the 9 tracks and 7 conferences.
January 8th, 2007
Posted by
rdscleaners |
Uncategorized, issue_1.3 |
no comments
Intelligent User Interfaces Conference
San Diego, January 2005
by Jamie Kravitz
I learned a new phrase in San Diego: “embodied conversational agents”, or “ECAs.” According to the MIT press, “embodied conversational agents are computer-generated, cartoon-like characters that demonstrate many of the same properties as humans in face-to-face conversation, including the ability to produce and respond to verbal and nonverbal communication.”
Many of the lectures and demonstrations at the conference featured these artificially intelligent devices that interacted with humans in a multimodal fashion. These lectures included a talk by Justine Cassell, creator of REA, an artificial real-estate agent who is apparently the biggest star in the world of ECAs. There were less sexy ones, too, like a fancy-pants thermostat, and the “intelligent” bathroom mirror that let you shave and program the lights over the toilet at the same time (I kid you not!).
To tell the truth, I was in a little over my head. The focus of the conference was pretty heavily into artificial intelligence (AI), and many of the attendees were hardcore computer/AI types. However, there were several panels specifically focusing on usability and other issues that relate to interaction design.
It was good exposure to the whole issue of multimodal input, as many of the programs, objects and gadgets on display used natural language, gestural input, and various types of tactile input.
Some of the presentations and posters I found particularly interesting: using geometric pattern matching to recognize stylus input with an on-screen keyboard; embedding hidden messages in background music that could only be perceived by people who were sensitized to hear it; a program for generating walking directions in a confusing building; and the conference-honored “outstanding paper,” which used an intelligent algorithm for media allocation, determining whether text, graphics, or voice (or combo) would be most suitable for the request the user made.
On the usability front, Barry Smyth from University College Dublin talked about privacy and personalization. He noted that while personalization can increase the usability of products, there is a trade-off with regard to privacy. There was also a panel discussion entitled “The Usability Crisis in High-Tech Home Products,” which was intended to spur discussion of how intelligent user interfaces could help products with poor usability.
Interestingly, it was not clear to me that some of the “intelligent” solutions offered made the products any more usable. In some cases, like the intelligent bathroom mirror, they seemed to add a lot of functionality, but were no more user-friendly than the poorly designed products they were supposed to replace.
The conference was small, with only one track, so there was ample opportunity to meet with others in the field and connect with the presenters. While a little esoteric, there was plenty of interesting information for HCI-oriented human factors people, and interesting glimpses of cutting-edge research in the artificial intelligence community.
January 8th, 2007
Posted by
rdscleaners |
Uncategorized, issue_1.3 |
no comments
HF/E Questions and Answers
by Joey Elyacy
ENGLISH WRITING REQUIREMENT
Question: “How can I meet the English writing proficiency requirement for the HF/E program?”
Answer: The English writing proficiency requirement can be met in three ways. According to Dr. Kevin Corker, these ways are:
1. Having taken or passed an upper-division undergraduate technical writing course, or a course in which 60 percent of its grade rested upon a writing assignment (to be evaluated by Graduate Studies for acceptability).
2. Having taken or passed an SJSU graduate technical writing course, such as 200 W or PSYC 220 (which satisfies the technical writing requirement). If you intend to take 200 W, the writing skill test (WST) has to be taken before you are eligible to enroll. If you score high enough, it may dismiss the requirement all together.
3. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, in which you are the sole author. Also, having written a book or a chapter in a technical field.
For those who need to add a class to meet this requirement, this is a very good reason to take PSYC 220. The course not only teaches you how to write a technical paper, but provides a great way to learn the different types of experimental designs.
For further clarification on the above methods, please contact Dr. Corker. You may also refer to the “Competency in Written English” chapter of the Graduate Student Handbook:
http://www2.sjsu.edu/gradstudies/forms/5competency.pdf
INTERNSHIP CREDITS
Question: “How can I substitute internships for class credits?”
Answer: Internships cannot take the place of an elective course in the HF/E program. Students may request permission to enroll in a one- to three-credit ISE 298 for an internship. If approved, this credit is considered appropriate for the student’s program, but not for the 30-credit degree requirement.
Dr. Corker points out that it is worthwile for each student to seek out internships to complement their graduate program. However, the policy on credits that count toward the degree is unchanged.
TOTALLY RANDOM
Question: “How many usability engineers does it take to change a light bulb?” (Vajira N., San Jose, CA)
Answer: Well, this question is a break from the more serious tone of the previous ones. What do you think? The answer is none. They get the users to do it.
HAVE A QUESTION?
If you have any questions regarding Human Factors/Ergonomics, student interests, or even just a light-hearted query, please e-mail your questions to jelyacy2002@yahoo.com. If your question is picked, it will appear in the next issue of the newsletter.
January 8th, 2007
Posted by
rdscleaners |
Uncategorized, issue_1.3 |
no comments
Lessons learned from accident reviews
by Jose Luis Garcia
As you all know, safety, aviation and human factors are closely related. I am not revealing anything new there. However, the review of any accident provides good material for reflection. I hope you enjoy reviewing the following cases as much as I have. Many of them engaged me directly with my target career, human factors and aviation. Perhaps you will find them relevant as well.
Historically, 70 percent of commercial jet accidents involved humans (Boeing 2004), in one form or another. In the early years of aviation, technical defects were the main cause of accidents. But as reliability improved, the human factor became the main factor.
Some say human error is the primary factor in up to 80 to 90 percent of the cases. However, aviation accidents often involve more than one cause, such as system complexity, poor human-machine interface, inappropriate work organization, awkward work procedures, altered communication between pilot and controllers, or loss of situational awareness. We should not place blame on the human operator alone, but rather to a combination of factors in a highly complex context.
The best way to understand the human factors of the aviation world, and how they can be applied, is to review some of the big accidents that have occurred. We will find there the “Aha!” The analysis of two of these accidents motivated me to pursue deeper human factors education: the accident at Los Rodeos airport in Tenerife (Spain) in 1977, where two B747 (from KLM and Pan Am) collided on the runway; and the accident of Cali (Colombia) in 1995, where an American Airlines B757 crashed into the terrain. Each aviation accident provides myriad lessons to learn, but those two are especially relevant, in my opinion.
LOS RODEOS RUNWAY COLLISION
The Los Rodeos runway collision remains the worst accident in aviation history, hopefully forever, with 583 fatalities. This accident was a clear example of the relevance of human factors in aviation. Stress, decision-making errors, communication problems between pilot, controller and crew, lack of situational awareness, and organizational management issues in the cockpit were contributing factors.
Los Rodeos runway collision record:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19770327-1
Los Rodeos accident report:
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/7000/7500/7585/jatww3-1wilson.pdf
CALI B757 TERRAIN CRASH
The Cali B757 terrain crash was the first accident of a B757. By that time, it was the only airliner that had not had fatal accidents, along with the Concorde. It made clear how human interaction with automated systems in aviation required further improvements, and provided new design opportunities of human-computer collaboration. The accident in Cali had the following contributing factors: lack of situational awareness due to poor information, interaction problems with automated systems, human dependency on automation, work load when manipulating automated systems, and usability issues of critical systems.
Cali B757 terrain crash record:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19951220-1
Cali B757 accident report:
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~anneb/collwn.pdf
GERMAN MIDAIR COLLISION
But if those examples are not enough, we could remember the midair collision in Ueberlingen, Germany in 2002. A DHL cargo B757 collided with a Bashkirian Airlines Tupolev 154 at 35,000 feet. They were the only two aircraft in the controlled sector by Zurich ACC. How could this be possible? This time the controller was not overloaded, and the pilot did not misunderstand his instructions. However, problems with divided attention, high degree of trust in automation systems, macroergonomic issues (shift organization), differences on training due to cultural differences, and decision-making in critical situations were the decisive factors.
German midair collision analysis:
http://www.aviation.uiuc.edu/UnitsHFD/conference/humfac04/nuneslaur.pdf
IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT ACCIDENTS
Similarly, by reviewing other accidents, we will see other areas to apply human factors. But human factors isn’t only about preventing accidents. According to International Civil Organization Association (ICAO), human factors in aviation hopes to help achieve the aviation system goals of safe and efficient transportation of passengers and cargo. Efficiency should not be forgotten, and again, the human being is the key.
To visualize human factors concepts, ICAO uses the SHELL model as introduced by Edwards in 1972, and modified by Hawkins in 1984. SHELL stands for Software, Hardware, Environment, and Liveware.
The approach to aviation systems design, and in general to any system, should be comprehensive. It should integrate technical, human and procedural systems to deliver the desired system performance. The result will be a system that reinforces human capabilities, mitigates human limitations, and fulfills human needs.
Human factors will be always an issue in aviation, as long as pilots control aircraft, and air-traffic controllers are in charge of aircraft separation. Even in the case of unmanned vehicles, in free-flight airspace, human operators will monitor the traffic situation and intervene for maintenance. Human factors will be there. There are so many things to understand, so many things to solve, and so many designs to improve. We have such a huge field to explore!
To get a start, explore these links:
EUROCONTROL HF
http://www.eurocontrol.int/humanfactors/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html
FAA human Factors Division
http://www.hf.faa.gov
NASA HF research and technology division
http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov
Flight Safety Foundation
http://www.flightsafety.org
CAP 719 Fundamental Human Factors Concepts (UK CAA 2002)
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~anneb/collwn.pdf
CAP 737 CRM (Crew Resource management) Training (UK CAA 2003)
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP737.pdf
January 8th, 2007
Posted by
rdscleaners |
Uncategorized, issue_1.3 |
no comments
Part 1: Entering the Human Factors Job Market
by Andrew Wong
Last year, I had a first-hand look at the job market for interaction designers. This series documents my experiences, and will hopefully provide some insight for students about to make a similar move.
At the beginning of 2004, I was the sole user interface (UI) designer for 2Wire, a San Jose company that makes the popular HomePortal residential gateway. I was hired in 2001 to primarily handle the interaction and visual design for the HomePortal UI. At the time, my main deliverables were final art and static prototypes for the engineers to integrate with their back-end code.
Then, around the beginning of 2003, my role seriously shifted from UI design to almost entirely UI development. The new work was interesting and I learned a lot, but by Spring 2004, over a year had passed and I had not done any significant design work. Recognizing this, I wanted to return to a user-centered, design-oriented team environment.
Because usability research was not on the horizon at 2Wire, I began looking for other companies that value the iterative user-centered design process. By working as an individual contributor and designing on my own for so long, I felt isolated from the design community, and out of touch with what companies were looking for in my line of work.
My first step was to restart my professional network. I joined BayCHI and began volunteering as a developer on their intranet. It proved to be a fruitful networking opportunity, as I was able to meet some of the top HCI professionals in the area. I didn’t start out as an interaction designer from the HCI discipline, so it was good for me to gain more insight into the field.
SURVEYING THE FIELD
I also began subscribing to the BayCHI Job Bank, a weekly newsletter for members. It features job listings from employers and recruiters seeking UI design and usability research professionals. I studied the qualifications that employers were requiring, and began applying for the opportunities that interested me.
I found that the job title associated most often with what I wanted to do was “interaction designer.” It seemed that the term “information architecture” has become more or less a relic of the dot-com era. Also, while there were still several openings for jacks- or jills-of-all-trades, “UI” was becoming more specialized.
Back in the old days, designers like us did everything: the user-task analysis, wire-frames, flows, specifications, look and feel, and prototypes. Now there are distinct roles for interaction designers, visual designers, usability researchers, (occasionally) information architects, prototypers, and UI developers or engineers. The job descriptions vary for these roles, but there is definitely much more specialization within the field now than there was five years ago.
At the time, around the end of 2003, there were very few openings in the Bay Area — the economy and job market were still really hurting. I was betting it would improve in 2004 because it would be an election year. But because the job openings were so scarce, employers were being extremely choosy with their hiring, often listing requirements so steep that the crop of qualified candidates would be extremely narrow.
Some employers were asking for designers with deep usability research or cognitive psychology backgrounds, and also with technical implementation experience! Surely candidates who are equally strong in development, design, and research — so strong that you could dedicate them to any one of the three areas — would be few and far between.
HUMAN FACTORS IS HOT
While the job descriptions looked unrealistic, they did give me an idea of what was out there. I noticed a trend: organizations are increasingly looking to HCI and human factors professionals to handle UI design, specifically interaction design. There appears to be another kind of conservative swing these days: an industry backlash against creative types (graphic designers or multimedia producers) designing UIs.
I think this is a result of the dot-com bubble, when organizations tried to top one another in making web sites and user interfaces cool and hip. A lot of creative folks also got hired over HCI people during that time, when more and more software started moving toward web-based interfaces, and companies confused web-based UI design with web site design. Ultimately, companies got burned when they alienated users with attractive, clever but unusable products.
So in some ways, the demand for human factors expertise has increased for the wrong reasons: some companies don’t necessarily understand the value of user-centered design, but just want to play it safe. They seem to be following a trend: overlooking creative and visual aspects of design in favor of academic backgrounds in HCI, human factors, or cognitive psychology. To them, these are more reliable and easier-to-measure indications of a designer’s ability.
The message seems to be that if you have a creative background, or if your portfolio is flashy and aesthetically appealing, you can’t possibly be a serious UI designer! Hiring managers are pigeonholing candidates with creative backgrounds, without looking beyond their actual expertise and experience. Some of the hiring companies I encountered in the past two years have solid reputations in the CHI community, and established organizations dedicated to best practices in user experience design. Others seemed to be hiring human factors people just because it was what everyone else was doing.
TO BE CONTINUED… See next issue for insight on going back to school and the interview process.
January 8th, 2007
Posted by
rdscleaners |
Uncategorized, issue_1.3 |
no comments
