Cycling On

The software development cycle

I have the first prototype complete AND I have detailed user feedback data however one of the key components in beta testing software (specifically user interfaces) is making changes to the interface as recommended from the feedback and then beta testing the ALTERNATE interfaces. This form of cyclic research development is usually reserved for research teams given the short time frame and the large amount of work involved.

I am pleased to say that during my TIP research I have managed to beta test multiple versions of the user interface and make significant strides in developing innovative designs that solve fundamental issues surrounding semantic mapping of digital resources. There remains a number of "bugs" that still need to be solved and of course there are still a great many ideas that have to be developed into workable prototypes. Given the challenges and the fact that these interfaces are truly original and to some degree can be considered a leading edge technology I am very pleased with the progress that i have managed to make in such a short time.

Hopefully with only a few weeks left of this I have finished building the some of the prototypes that have been designed directly from feedback the second and third beta testing cycles as they demonstrate just how far the interface has come from the 1.0 version.

Feedback From Ziggy beta 1.0

Overview of Data Collection Method
I have changed my chosen method of data collection significantly since the beginning of my research. Initially i was going to extrapolate data from trends and stats on resource usage from users of my site using analytics,alexa and a variety of other site trackers to build a picture of how the video tutorial maps impacted the browsing habits and affected the ease of use of the site. Since I have begun testing the user interface it became clear that I there would be subtle details and important user feedback that simply would not be apparent form analyzing site statistics. So I have opted for a more user centric analysis that uses direct observation and interviews that asses the different perceptions of users about the UI while using it for the first time.

During this first phase of beta testing I gave sat with users and asked them to test drive a "new browser" for my website. In each case the users had already been exposed to my site and used the traditional index/course hyperlink lists for navigation. I clearly explained to each user that this was a piece of software in development, a "beta" and that the browser they were about to use was "not finished". This was done to encourage the user to be critical of the user interface and not feel as though they would be offending the creator of the interface by recommending changes. Also I did not want users to feel as though it was complete and therefor unlikely to have modifications made to it based on their input. Being completely honest with users test driving the software enabled me to have a privileged view of the tester as a developer and work directly with beta users documenting their official and unofficial responses.

Each beta tester/user was asked a series of informal questions (each question had the same content and wording but was asked in the form of a informal line of questioning) this was done to put the user in a more relaxed mood with the intent of coaxing out greater honesty and detail from their responses. The result of using an informal interview style were extremely positive. Users exhibited an enthusiastic willingness to comment on a multitude of aspects of the user interface design and even went as far as spontaneously providing creative and insightful ideas for further modifications or "improvements".

Although The generated video tutorial maps are in many ways an integral part of the user interface itself for the sake of clarity I have attempted to classify the user feedback into two areas of analysis. The user interface interactions ie (the way the tester manipulates the mouse, uses the keyboard short cuts, and the interface tools when browsing the map) and the way the tester "reads" the information content in the map.

User Interface Interactions Analysis
There were three fundamental user interaction methods in the first set of tests on the beta 1.0 software: Dragging and dropping the map in the window, Zooming in and out of the map with the scroll wheel and double clicking to visit external content.

What was the first thing most users did when they entered the map?
What responses were users expecting form specific user interactions?
Were they surprised by UI response's?
How did users navigate around the map?
What was the most common user interaction method?
Did the user discover the UI interaction automatically or did they require instructions?

What aspects of the UI design did the users comment on as positive?
What aspects of the UI design did users comment on as negative?
How would users change/customize the user interface?

The overall response to the UI was positive. However the time it took for users to feel comfortable with the interface was reflected in their self assessed ability/computer literacy level. In cases where uses had limited exposure to computers and lower confidence levels their was a high degree of initial apprehension with using an unfamiliar interface, these users generally took a greater amount of time to "master" the interface controls.

The more computer/tech savy users stated exploring the UI immediately using universal controls without using prompting from the instructions page notably different from less experienced users who required clear instructions in order to fully use the UI tools effectively.This identifies a common chasm between experienced and inexperienced computer uses as far as UI design requirements. Creating a UI devices that are universally accessible and require no manual is once of the "holy grails" of UI design. This task generally becomes more difficult as the capability of the software increases. The more tools users have the more difficult a UI can be to use for first time users and the longer it takes to become a "proficient" user.
A good example of this would be adobe photoshop. First time users are often overwhelmed by the choice of tools and the number of options they have available to them. With many less confident users limiting the number of tools and techniques they use with the software to a handful of number of tools available. Even when they master this limited set of tools they are often reluctant to try new tools in fear of confusing the knowledge they already poses leaving them on a plateau of the "occasional tinkerer".

In all cases users presented a number of creative uses for the UI and the concept of mapping online resources and content. As expected users had their own personal preferences to towards UI design but there were a number of common points made by the first set of beta testers.

Analyzing The Mapping Language
The range, depth and eagerness or user interactions was just one aspect of the UI design analysis. The other important factor that was investigated was the users inate understanding of the "language and structure" of the map itself. Some of the users were self confessed visual learners while others adamantly declared that they prefer traditional page layouts with text based content. Ultimately these differences in learning style did affect the "favour" of their responses but in either case users were able to identify key aspects of the interface design that they recognized as assisting with their "learning" or acquisition of a new concepts.

Was the map intuitive to interpret?
Was the node text clear to read?
Could users identify the theme of the map?
How did the user interpret the colors in the map?
How quickly did users identify patterns in the map structure?
How did users perform when locating unfamiliar content?
Once users identified patterns in the map structure did this aid the process of locating unfamiliar content?

What aspects of the Map design did the users comment on as positive?
What aspects of the map design did users comment on as negative?
How would users change/customize the map/interface?

With this type of new and unfamiliar user interface there are countless modifications that could be made and factors that must be considered to create the "best" user interface of this type (visual concept mapping of digital resources). The various nuances of UID and the science behind the language and structure of the map itself could be the subject of number of detailed research papers. Even the optimization of data packing efficiency versus readability & usability could be the focus of a phd on its own so I don't expect to definitively answer the majority of profound questions raised by this research project. However the initial feedback i have already received has yielded some valuable insights into what factors need to be carefully considered and controlled, what must be flexible, what elements can be potentially controlled/customized by users and what can be considered to be entirely optional when designing interfaces of this type.

Streaming Video Content Into Ziggy On Demand

The powerful aspect of flash that initially convinced me that flash was the best medium to develop the mapping software is its ability to load multiple video/animation "movie clips" into the flash environment and treat those video or vector animations as objects. Treating them as objects means that i can change the scale, reposition or even animate the moving video just as i would a simple bitmap image (using actionscript). When you combine this with the fact that flash can do all of this in a very small file size or required CPU/RAM flash becomes the only choice.

One of the chief design goals in the development of visual mapping software and a popular request by beta users is the ability to load the video tutorial inside the map itself instead of having to open up a new web page an view content externally to the map page.

Well good news, Ive just completed another milestone and have successfully created a working prototype that achieves this. When users double click on a node instead of opening up a new web page and viewing pages externally users see the video tutorial and instructions load inside the map. Because it is inside the QSLS environment it is associated with the content node (as it is nested in inside the mc) and can be positioned automatically then scaled and dragged around by the user at will.

Of course this is all done on demand so users can actually view multiple video tutorials side by side to compare an contrast techniques or view veins/themes of content in a node cluster.

The really great thing about this whole beta testing and development cycle is that i have managed to make the entire map run off a xml file and the content that is loaded into the environment and associated with each node is also structured using simple xml files.

This means that the content floating in the mapping environment comes directly from the same xml pages that feed my XSL pages on my website. So users can browse content using the regular menus and indexes of my site or view the same styled xml pages in Ziggy without me having to create special versions for web pages that work in the QSLS environment. Since XML is the future of web dev this could become a very powerful GUI. Plus given its ability to efficiently stuff allot of information into a relatively small amount of space it has some promising applications in mobile web services and iphone/UMPC devices.But more importantly coupled with a semantic agent Ziggy could become a great asset when having to deal with semantic search results or websites of the semantic web.

Quantum Leaping

Initial user feedback form the first round of beta test indicate that easing the work users must do when moving from node to node has become important factor to consider when trying the create a user friendly mapping interface. Since users of my maps will most likely be required to use the scroll wheel and mouse intensely when moving up the node hierarchy or moving from a node on one side of the map to another. Even in occasions when the user wants to gain a clearer perspective of other related nodes around a parent node they need to drag an zoom out each time.

Automating these tasks and them building into the interface so that users can access these tools in a simple routine way. Building tools such as this requires a dynamic function that responds to each node uniquely. The function would have to recenter the viewing window on the node that has been clicked on, then zoom into the node position so that it becomes readable in the window view.To fly into a node on auto pilot we would need the coordinates of the chosen node and the "child value total" const (cdt) these would change depending on the node that is clicked on.

Today I completed the function and used the built in easing class to smoothly accelerate into the node location. The effect is somewhat like Google earth's interface. When the user presses the "Ctrl" key then double clicks on a node the the autopilot is activated and guides the user to the node.

I chose to use "ctrl" double click as it was a more efficient action than requiring the user to triple click on the node and it is in line with my current minimalist UID.

Since the content in each node are quantized learning modules and users move form video module to module following a non linear course. Ive nicknamed the act of flying or leaping between quantized nodes "quantum leaping". The phrase has it roots in quantum physics but i figured it was appropriate as the mapping engine is called Ziggy.

demo: ziggy 1.1
demo: ziggy 1.2 (with quantum leaping)

Note: hold down the ctrl key and double click on a node to quantum leap.

The beautiful thing about working xml and seperating the data from the mapping engine itself is that i only have to update the swf file embedded in the web page to upgrate the maps interfaceas the map essentially displays and manages external multimedia files.

Visual Bread Crumbs

One of my primary goals in creating this mapping interface is to design it for visual learners. Creating symbolic scale markers and putting a text based bread crumbs in a panel at the top of the map does not fulfil this goal sufficiently.

To make the bread crumbs and scale markers more visually oriented I propose a visual form of bread crumbs that can be shown in the side of the window. The visual bread crumbs panel will consisted of a series of thumbnail representations of the map at set scales. As the user diggs deeper into the map by zooming down to content nodes a series of map thumbnails are created documenting scale changes.

A visual reference of this form could serve as a valuable method of "grounding" the user as they leap about the map following along the paths of connecting lines between nodes. This would reduce potential disorientation and increase the ability of the user to know where they are in the map without having to zoom out to get their "bearings" (something i noticed beta users doing frequently).

User Friendly Zooming Interface

Once the constants in the positioning algorithm where adjusted to reduce the likely hood of node overlap it left the map with a high level of scale differentiation between 1st order category nodes and content nodes. This meant that the user had to zoom in a great deal to read the content nodes. Since the map is designed so that users can explore content across the map this meant the map required heavy use of the scroll wheel to maneuver from node to node. After a few times of doing this beta users reported that they felt they where spending the majority of their time and effort zooming in and out of the map.

This is a specific issue that i imagined might become a sticking point with users. After giving some thought to the matter I have decided that the best way to face this issue is to create a user power tool. In particular a power tool that gives the user the ability to fluidly and relatively effortlessly change scale in the map around points of interest. To this I'm going to build another fundamental method of interactively with the map.


Actions
keyboard shortcut
If a user presses the control key the clicks a node with the left mouse button

Mouse only
If the user triple clicks a node.

Triggered Effect
The viewing window will then automatically center on the node and zoom in to a readable scale. In effect users can leap from node to node throughout the map and automatically change scale.

Self Similarity

One of the problems i have discovered since building the first set of video tutorial maps, is the fact that the maps show a high degree of self similarity.

Essentially self similarity is the property an object exhibits where it shows the same structural features regardless of scale. For example: [fig3].

Self similarity presents a unique problem to my mapping project as it makes the identification of scale difficult for the user. The importance of being able to recognise the zoom level of the image window with respect to the global map is crucial. Firstly it allows the user to locate their relative position within the map, easily find the parent node and associate context to the video or article they are viewing from the "content" node.Secondly self similarity works against the user when they are trying to uniquely identify content node clusters as to quote a user from initial trials "they all look the same from a distance".

Breaking Symmetry
One possible solution to the problem of selfsimilarity to impose symmetry breaking on the positioning of the nodes. This will result in a asymmetric positioning of parent nodes and in turn clusters of content nodes. Of course i have yet to figure out the best way to break symmetry in a controlled manner.

Artificial Scale Markers
Another possibility is to create some sort of artificial scale marker that the user can use to quickly identify the scale of the section of the map in the viewing window. Although their is a clear scale change between parent and child node the effect is only useful form a distance and you need to have a relative reference to see the scale change. when you are zoomed in the map their is no obvious relative reference so an artifical reference such as a scale marker must be made.

An effective scale marker could be to create a symbolic code that appears at the top of a category node. A simple symbolic code could be to use a series of dots to denote the hierarchical level of the parent node. For example:

1st order parent node: one dot, .
2nd order parent node: two dots, ..
3rd order parent node: three dots, ...
and so on.



The dots would be useful they wouldnt require much processing to create (as they are points) and the user could get a quick impression of what zoom level they are at by looking at the nearest parent category node. But the dots themselves do not take up much information space.

Note: The content nodes would not contain any scale symbols as the nearest parent node will remain in the window area while content is being viewed.