2022
Warren, Jillian L., Antle, Alissa N., Kitson, Alexandra, Davoodi, Alireza
Lessons Learned and Future Considerations for Designing Remotely Facilitated Co-Design Studies with Children Focused on Socio-Emotional Experiences Proceedings Article
In: Interaction Design and Children, pp. 37–49, Association for Computing Machinery, Braga, Portugal, 2022, ISBN: 9781450391979.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Child-Computer Interaction, Co-design with Children, Methodology, no child alone, Research Methods
@inproceedings{10.1145/3501712.3529722,
title = {Lessons Learned and Future Considerations for Designing Remotely Facilitated Co-Design Studies with Children Focused on Socio-Emotional Experiences},
author = {Jillian L. Warren and Alissa N. Antle and Alexandra Kitson and Alireza Davoodi},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3501712.3529722},
doi = {10.1145/3501712.3529722},
isbn = {9781450391979},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-01},
urldate = {2022-01-01},
booktitle = {Interaction Design and Children},
pages = {37–49},
publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery},
address = {Braga, Portugal},
series = {IDC '22},
abstract = {The IDC community has a rich history of developing new methods for involving children in design research. However, few papers discuss developing new remotely facilitated co-design approaches. Fewer still focus on the challenges of eliciting discussion and generating design ideas around subjective experiences involving emotions, feelings, and thoughts. We argue these are of growing need in a post-Covid world. In this paper we contribute a methodological design rationale for a remotely facilitated co-design study aimed at addressing challenges related to ethically eliciting reflection on, promoting ideation around and capturing data of children and families about their personal Covid-19 experiences. To illustrate our methods, we provide exemplar cases of data collected from our participants to show the type of data that can be elicited using our methods. Lastly, we contribute considerations for future methods design based on a selection of our lessons learned.},
keywords = {Child-Computer Interaction, Co-design with Children, Methodology, no child alone, Research Methods},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
The IDC community has a rich history of developing new methods for involving children in design research. However, few papers discuss developing new remotely facilitated co-design approaches. Fewer still focus on the challenges of eliciting discussion and generating design ideas around subjective experiences involving emotions, feelings, and thoughts. We argue these are of growing need in a post-Covid world. In this paper we contribute a methodological design rationale for a remotely facilitated co-design study aimed at addressing challenges related to ethically eliciting reflection on, promoting ideation around and capturing data of children and families about their personal Covid-19 experiences. To illustrate our methods, we provide exemplar cases of data collected from our participants to show the type of data that can be elicited using our methods. Lastly, we contribute considerations for future methods design based on a selection of our lessons learned.
2009
Antle, Alissa N., Droumeva, Milena, Ha, Daniel
Hands on What? Comparing Children's Mouse-Based and Tangible-Based Interaction Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 80–88, Association for Computing Machinery, Como, Italy, 2009, ISBN: 9781605583952.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: children, comparative experiment, digital tabletop, embodied interaction, evaluation, event table, input methods, interaction styles, jigsaw puzzle, Methodology, object manipulation, tangible computing, tangible interaction, video analysis
@inproceedings{10.1145/1551788.1551803,
title = {Hands on What? Comparing Children's Mouse-Based and Tangible-Based Interaction},
author = {Alissa N. Antle and Milena Droumeva and Daniel Ha},
url = {https://doi-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1145/1551788.1551803},
doi = {10.1145/1551788.1551803},
isbn = {9781605583952},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-01-01},
urldate = {2009-01-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children},
pages = {80–88},
publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery},
address = {Como, Italy},
series = {IDC '09},
abstract = {We investigate the similarities and differences -- in terms of quantitative performance and qualitative behaviors -- between how children solve an object manipulation task using mouse-based input versus tangible-based input. This work examines the assumption common in tangible computing that direct physical manipulation is beneficial for certain spatial tasks. We describe an ecologically valid comparison of mouse-based versus tangible-based input for a jigsaw puzzle task in order to better understand the tradeoffs in choosing input and interaction styles. We include a traditional cardboard puzzle for comparative purposes. The results of an experiment with 132 children indicate children are more successful and faster at solving puzzles using a tangible-based approach. Detailed temporal analysis indicates that pairs in the tangible group spend most of their time using a combination of epistemic and pragmatic actions which support mental problem solving. Conversely, pairs in the mouse group use an ineffective trial and error strategy.},
keywords = {children, comparative experiment, digital tabletop, embodied interaction, evaluation, event table, input methods, interaction styles, jigsaw puzzle, Methodology, object manipulation, tangible computing, tangible interaction, video analysis},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
We investigate the similarities and differences -- in terms of quantitative performance and qualitative behaviors -- between how children solve an object manipulation task using mouse-based input versus tangible-based input. This work examines the assumption common in tangible computing that direct physical manipulation is beneficial for certain spatial tasks. We describe an ecologically valid comparison of mouse-based versus tangible-based input for a jigsaw puzzle task in order to better understand the tradeoffs in choosing input and interaction styles. We include a traditional cardboard puzzle for comparative purposes. The results of an experiment with 132 children indicate children are more successful and faster at solving puzzles using a tangible-based approach. Detailed temporal analysis indicates that pairs in the tangible group spend most of their time using a combination of epistemic and pragmatic actions which support mental problem solving. Conversely, pairs in the mouse group use an ineffective trial and error strategy.