_We recently started a small game called DECAY in UNITY, a horror-exploration game set in an abandoned bunker facility.
_While we were hard at work building the game, we thought about implementing future, rather simple accessibility options; like making collectibles easier to see and find, adding an optional item counter to help you keep track of your needed collectibles and maybe some kind of colorblind mode (yet we weren’t sure how to implement such a feature in such a game with it making sense). But the easiest and nicest solution we came up with, besides a difficulty setting which would influence the time it would need for the game to result in a game over in certain moments, was the idea to optionally remove enemy encounters entirely from the game, so one could explore to their hearts content, since we poured a lot of love and detail into level itself, like little micro-narratives and so on. Finally, since the music can get creepy sometimes (as it should in a game like that) we considered if would be available to influence the game music, e.g., adjusting the volume or turning it off completely. Yet we are still on the fence on these topics, since we try to decide what is needed for our game to function in its core and what can be made more easily accessible.
When designing for medicine, the designer must be aware of various aspects of this field. He must analyze how the processes run in a particular medical institution and the first thing he must pay attention to is the medical aspects of the problem he is trying to solve. In a short time, the designer or design team must delve into the medical aspects of the prescribing problem and use three sources of information:
Visual medical information
Written medical information
Scientific medical information.
Visual medical information must be collected during the procedure the designer is investigating, such information can indirectly stimulate motivation and inspiration for superior product design. Written medical information is found mainly in brochures, through which the patient is informed about the treatment. The Internet is also an important source of information.
Scientific medical information gives state of the art research in the form of congressional reports. The designer must understand that the researcher has hidden desires that need to be found. It should be part of an open discussion with all interested parties. The designer or design team must extract all medical information to find out the requirements and wishes of all medical parties involved in the treatment and then come to the design of the product. Optimization should always be a topic of discussion to come up with the best product design. In a fuzzy interface, designs with medical information require special attention to communication between the designer and the specialist, otherwise, opportunities for optimized product design may be missed. Knowledge must be brought directly to the level of understanding and exchange of medical and technical information. Shared information must be known to all parties involved for the success of the project. Projects with medical science as their starting point require a new approach to design development.
While writing the last blog entry, I came across an issue that may turn out to be relevant to taking under consideration for answering my research question. Therefore, this blog entry serves as an “interim” post to discuss and contextualize my thoughts and, in the best case, provide scientific input.
The starting point constituted the following sentence from the article What You’re Getting Wrong About Inclusive Design I read for blog post #4: “Inclusivity. It’s one of the biggest buzzwords inside corporations right now. But the person who brought the practice of inclusive design to Microsoft-Kat Holmes-isn’t so sure that companies really get the idea yet.”
The statement above immediately started an inner discourse and ‘trains of thought’:
‘Trains of thought’:
„For topics that are socially relevant, specific terms develop in the media that stand for the "whole issue". In principle, this is a good idea, since it is easier for people to grasp something complex that has been presented in a simplified way. However, this observation seems extremely ambivalent to me. As much as umbrella terms emerge to take up important social issues, summarize them and make them accessible, they abstract the substance behind the actual issue. This is furthered by the inflationary use of those terms. Polarization occurs very quickly. Either everyone wants to adorn themselves with the feathers or is reluctant to put them on.
This can be seen very well with the term sustainability. Everyone knows very well that sustainability is important. Due to the inflationary use of the word, one reads about sustainability everywhere. From it two groupings developed. Those who have integrated sustainability into their lives and are convinced of its importance, and those who exploit sustainability by using it as a marketing strategy (keyword greenwashing within companies). It becomes intangible to the gross consumer as all is sustainable without communicating exactly how and why. This fosters that people can no longer relate to the topic, because it has become too general and it might causes anger that „suddenly everything has to be sustainable“, and if „I am not as sustainable as possible I am less worth“, whereby also fear of change plays a role. A similar problem takes place with inclusive design relating to this excuse of issue addressing in society and media. Everything has to be inclusive, because it is socially important to think inclusive / to be diverse.“
Trains Of Thought — Mood
These ‘trains of thought’ were the starting point of the considerations after which I did my further research on buzzwords.
Buzzwords
In fact, in many areas the problems of buzzwords are discussed and in many cases there is a political and economic factor that cannot be denied. The digital research shows that the topic around buzzwords, took place 5-10 years ago and only little current reports or statements can be found. However, the content is in keeping with the times.
In a dossier by Thomas Niehr published on the website of the German Federal Agency for Political Education in 2010 it was demonstrated that buzzwords are an excellent linguistic instrument for implementing strategies because they can be used to influence people’s thoughts and feelings.
Thus, the language strategy usually consists of strengthening one’s own position while devaluing that of the opponent. To get an approximate idea of the strategic impact of buzzwords, one needs to know who has used that buzzword in public discourse and in what way. This is especially true for buzzwords that are used to refer to controversial political ideas. Especially in public debate buzzwords are used to propagate certain demands and programs.
On the one hand, when a buzzword hits the zeitgeist and the program it contains finds many supporters, the so called “battle for words” sets in: Different groups will try to pass off the buzzword as their own, to “occupy” the buzzword for themselves. On the other hand, buzzwords are evaluated very differently depending on one’s views. For some, their association might be very positive, for other it is a synonym for the exact opposite. A distinction is therefore made between positive buzzwords and fighting- or stigma-words. The latter are used to discredit the ideas of the opponent, which is f. e. often used in political context.
Peter Josef Harr — Bedrohtes Menschsein.
What makes a word a buzzword?
It can be stated that there are no words that are buzzwords per se. Words require certain environmental conditions in order to be used as buzzwords at all. The existence of a public sphere in which buzzwords can be used and received is essential. If a demand or a program becomes explosive in such a public and is represented by a grouping, a buzzword can emerge. In retrospect, it becomes clear that such a buzzword has emerged in public discourse and has suddenly been used very frequently. This is true, for example, of environmental protection from the 1970s onward.
Some buzzwords acquire international significance and therefore also circulate, sometimes even with a time lag in different language communities. Therefore, it makes sense to analyze other structures (Note: Shape user research internationally).
Anything that you don’t want to implement for its own sake, but for an image, cannot work in my opinion.
Which leads to my conclusion that the Establishment of UX can not be driven by a specific terminology or buzzword like „Establishing UX“ rather by an unconscious process combined with political support, otherwise change will not be possible.
The questions I’m asking myself now are: Do I need buzzwords to establish a new approach to UX? Do I even need to get rid of them to make it work? And if I use some buzzwords, how dangerous or essential could they become to the process of establishment?
Buzzwords that came to my mind during research and that I recently encounter in everyday life:
Big Data Covid19 Commitment Diversity Foreigners Feminist Innovation Sustainability (derived from buzzword „environmental protection“)
Source: https://www.bpb.de/politik/grundfragen/sprache-und-politik/42720/schlagwoerter?p=0 Thomas Niehr (1993): Schlagwörter im politisch-kulturellen Kontext. Zum öffentlichen Diskurs in der BRD von 1966 bis 1974. Wiesbaden. Thomas Niehr (2007): “Schlagwort”. In: Ueding, Gert (Hrsg.): Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, Bd. 8. Tübingen, Sp. 496-502. https://www.creativejeffrey.com/creative/buzzwordproblem.php?topic=creativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzword https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/40-buzzwords-that-make-smart-people-sound-stupid-most-overused-corporate-jargon.html Harr, Peter Josef. Bedrohtes Menschsein. Eine kritische Analyse unserer Gesellschaft unter dem Aspekt der Liebe. Lit Verlag. Berlin, 2009. S.87 Buzzword Innovation — article: „Moving beyond buzzwords.“ by Dov Greenbaum and Markk Gerstein 2 books reflecting on society’s semantic station with „innovation“. In both books innovation was stated out as a term that has been reduced to a buzzword. Both books are valuable in forcing us to appreciate what is truly valuable to society. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd9805
This week I found another „good“ example for a deceptive design pattern* to analyze.
Within the checkout process on Lieferando.at they provide a short summary about the order and give feedback on filling out all relevant data to place an order. It seems like they list ALL cost and sum them up, but if you have a closer look the amount is bigger than the summary of the listed products. So the user has to click the button „Weitere anzeigen“ to see, that they add additional cost for delivery. As there would be enough space within viewport height to make the delivery fee visible from the start, it is clear that they want to hide it on purpose. Apart from additional cost they also give the options to edit the order or add notes for specific dishes in the extended version. Consequently it would increase the usability of the site to also change the wording from „Weiter anzeigen“ to „Bestellung bearbeiten“ („Edit order“). On the right hand side I added a quick-fix-design-proposal to cancel this deceptive design pattern* and enhance usability.
The last entry was about Universal Design, which is a design approach / a paradigm / a strategy that has the overall goal to create environments that can be used by everyone to the greatest extent possible.
This entry will be about Inclusive Design which is often mentioned synonymously in literature for either universal design or accessibility. Therefore, one of the goals for this entry is to deeply understand the meaning of inclusive design and to illustrate the difference (if there actually is a difference) to universal design and other design methods.
I started by googling the terminology inclusive design and I came across a wide variety of definitions. Sometimes it is equated with universal design, then it is described as not quite the same but very similar, then it is explained in comparison to accessibility.
Definitions mood
In the course of researching I came across Kate Holmes, who works for Microsoft and has established inclusive design in the company structure, especially in the design process.
In her article „What You’re Getting Wrong About Inclusive Design“ she states out a major point what inclusive design really is and not is. It is a design process not a design result.
Thus inclusive design is not only about trying to design for an outcome to be accessible, usable, experienceable for everyone. It is a methodology for how to approach design for creating design that can be used by a diverse group of people. In the digital realm, the process of inclusive design starts by identifying situations where people are excluded from using particular technologies. Recognizing that exclusion can happen to anyone depending on the particular circumstances is a key element to inclusive design methodology.
inclusive = not excluding someone or something
Inclusive design and accessible design both focus on the idea that disabilities happen at the intersection where people and their environments interact. Inclusive design, in particular, recognizes that solutions that work for people with a disability are likely to also work well for people in diverse circumstances.
The terminologies inclusive design, accessible design and universal design are often mixed or confused, because there are also many similarities. They are connected by the shared goal to create digital products that can be used by the widest possible group of people, regardless of their current circumstances. To make it clearer to understand the interference, I would place the term Universal Design in the hierarchy as a paradigm above inclusive- and accessible design, as it represents the intersection of their commonalities, and describe Inclusive Design as the process oriented strategy approach and Accessibility as a benchmark for an outcome of design.
As a conclusion, when designers pay attention to the people who are actually using the products they develop, and how they adapt when something doesn’t work well for them, UX designers can use inclusive design principles to create user-friendly products that work for the majority of people and meet accessibility guidelines in the process.
Sidenote:
In the course of researching inclusive design, I came across the term "discursive design", which is about design that encourages discourse. This term provides an interesting component to the establishment of UX and has therefore been added to the Glossary, where you are welcome to read about it.
_The thought came across my mind, how does accessibility handle in online and competitive games? In an MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online Game), how can these games accommodate accessibility features, just besides a colorblind setting or UI scaling? Turns out, there is a limit of accessibility in these games, because some issues just can’t be worked around.
Some examples, where some things can be addressed do exit though:
_Any customization, which do not add any unfair advantage to the game for some users. Like reconfiguring your controls, customizing colors or sizes of UI elements, or even change little details in the game, like in shooters, change the color of the reticle – like in APEX LEGENDS.
_Entry barriers on lower levels of play can be helpful in many games, like matchmaking of similar ranked players, say by level or skill. Yet the later, also known as SBMM (skill-based match making) often leads to more frustration than satisfaction with players due to it’s basic logic: if you play very good in some games in a row, the algorithm deems you more skillful and matches you with people which it thinks are equal to you now – yet you might have just gotten a lucky streak, and now you actually are being paired with players which are way more invested in the game and proceed to walk all over you for some rounds. Only for the algorithm to realize its misinterpretation of your skill level and putting you back to the rather less invested people – which you best again with ease and the cycle begins anew. The system might work in theory, but in the practical world its just an awful up and down rubber banding. Matching people by level often can go awry if the game allows an easy access to a new account, giving the opportunity to a frowned upon practice called ‘smurfing’. Here a player of a very high level of play creates a new account and abuses the system, which deems them as a new player, a beginner, and matches them with other – often real – beginners. This leads to the player absolutely destroying the fun for the beginners with the massive skill gap between the two parties and leaving the new one rather unsatisfied with their performance, which is immediately projected onto the game and the dissatisfaction with the game itself drives new players away.
_Other ways to lighten up entry barriers in games can be features which help players in lower levels of play but in higher levels of play turns out more than a burden and disadvantage. For example, aim assist, which helps new players acquire targets more easily by slightly adjusting their aim to stay or snap to targets can be beneficial to them, while in higher levels this slow, and less accurate method is easily bested and faster with a player manually aiming. Actually, in these high levels often the slight and trailing adjustments by the algorithm leads the players unintentionally loosing their aim on the target, because an adjustment which had to be done several milliseconds ago, which was already corrected and accounted for by the player comes way to late and results in an unwanted adjustment – ultimately losing the target for a brief moment. And this little moment can be defining in competitive gaming.
_Matchmaking isn’t a lost cause yet because players can be matched on other deciding factors. Like in GTA V, only players who chose to play with auto-aim on get paired together. Or in HALO REACH players with enabled voice communications will play together and in PUBG players who play in third person instead of first person will go against each other. This is because of a mechanic called ‘third person peeking’. If a player with third person view enabled hides behind cover, they can look over the cover with their camera, while their body stays hidden. An approaching enemy would not know that they have already been spotted, since the players camera is invisible to the enemy.
Some competitive games, which feature certain moments where a third person instead a first-person view, they activate a so called ‘anti-peek’ function – it hides every other dynamic gameobjects, which are currently not able to be seen from the point of the character which just switched to 3rd person (e.g., APEX LEGENDS when using emotes).
_To sum up, designing multiplayer games within the aspect of accessibility can be very hard, because sadly, some competitive games are made not to be easily accessible by everyone in their core, which isn’t their fault – it’s just in their nature, so to say. But every other factor besides these core mechanics, which can be made more accessible in this game is a step further and should be done without a second thought spent.
Home is a place where you feel comfortable. And that’s exactly how it should be with your smart home app. The app should offer all important functions and be visually appealing. Animations are also important in the home automation app, because they can improve the user experience, help to stand out from the crowd and can draw attention to important details.
In the following blog post, I set out to find visually appealing apps that have a presentation and layout that matches what makes a smart home app enjoyable to use for me.
I find designs that clearly visualize the house’s internal data, also take into account the energy balance and play with colors to allude to normal or increased energy consumption particularly sophisticated. I find it practical to subdivide the rooms, list finances and link them to my own smart home devices.
When it comes to smart device usage in the home, the question is how a smart app development look like and be built that it can be used easily and informatively. In the following blog post, you will find an analysis of the key elements of the smart app user interface.
Key values of a smart home app for the user
The first contact with the device offers onboarding and setup. For the optimal operation of the devices, the user should receive a tutorial of the app, which can also be referred to in the later course of use. After the introduction to the use, it is possible to set the product to his liking, open an account and register for the product. Most smart home products have a minimalist user interface with few buttons and a small display, while the user interface of the device allows you to make all the necessary settings.
This app function should make it possible to assign different roles for the smart home system. In this sense, admin, user, or guest roles can be assigned and thus different permissions can be set. It should also be possible for the user to group devices by room and to control different devices within a room at the same time.
For the proper use of the smart system, it is also important that push notifications inform about problems or activity. However, so that it is not perceived as intrusive, the notifications must be filtered according to urgency and value.
With remote control, certain actions should be able to be activated or called up smoothly while on the move, ideally via a mobile app. It should also be possible to automate certain processes and functions, programming regimes based on usage data and thus creating routines. It should also be possible for users to create their own scenarios. For a morning scenario, it should be possible for the user to have things happen automatically after waking up, such as the curtains opening and the coffee starting to brew. For these scenarios, it is ideal to work with a voice control system.
In order to know one’s home and its functions in the best possible way, it is important that sensors collect and evaluate data. Users should have direct access to the data via their mobile application, so it is important that the evaluations are clearly visualised and provide accurate insights into the use of the devices, as well as household-relevant consumption, such as through an energy management system.
To understand the relationship between the different functions, I tried to arrange them in a user flow to show how each category interacts with each other:
Why is empathy in medical application design so difficult? Empathy is the ability to empathize with other people’s situations without having to live the same experience. Thanks to it, we can understand the problems they are struggling with and the feelings that they are going through. Unfortunately, in designing for sick people, we cannot feel and close to what they are experiencing now, we can process information only under the prism of our own experiences and the only thing we can do is, at least, generally imagine what a person was going through. That is why we need to do thorough research and talk to patients, but unfortunately, that will not be enough.
In my research, I do not have the opportunity to do an interview yet, but I need at least a little closer to the experience and feelings of one of the target groups. That is why I decided to take the appropriate steps. I found patient interviews and started watching them. I must admit that it is hard because the topic is unfortunately very difficult.
If you are interested, you can watch some interviews on this page: https://www.cancerquest.org/videos/interviews/patient
_XBOX made great efforts into the field of accessibility and implemented a wide array of software and hardware for this purpose. Like a highly sophisticated text-to-speech for system UI elements, a mono toggle of unilateral hearing loss (impairment in only one ear while the other ear is in ‘normal’ limits) and a zoom function. They also included features for real time speech-to-text and text-to-speech ingame – the tech is yet not perfect, also because its difficult to cope with the game specific terminologies and lingo, which can change rather quickly.
_I myself tried speech-to-text out of curiosity in APEX LEGENDS, cause often teammates are very hard to understand or just way too quiet to hear them, but the algorithm may hear them. But to put it shortly, speech-to-text works rather horribly. Often, it’s just an unintelligible array of random words which hardly approximate what has been said; it seems to work best with the English language, then it sometimes gets it right. Mostly. Yet does generate absurdly funny combination of sounds resulting in a fun time at least. But the technology will get better eventually and can enable hearing or sight impaired people to take part in conversations which would otherwise be inaccessible to them.
_Also, XBOX introduced the copilot mode, a simple but brilliant solution. Two controllers are connected to the same console and give the same input simultaneously – making it possible for someone else to jump in and help if it is needed. For example, a parents could help their kids getting through difficult sections, while everything else is handled by the kids themselves. Or a blind person could play a game by hearing alone, while another person helps with the walking through the level, which could only be accessible trough sight. Originally it was designed to split the controls between two separate controllers; therefore, maybe controlling one side of the controller with one limb and the other parts of the controller with some other body part, which might not reach the other side of the initial controller. This method can make highly expensive customized controllers obsolete and democratizes technology further. They also published the adaptive controller, a tool for people with various impairments to make it possible for them to customize their inputs even further to their needs.
