skip to main content
10.1145/3121283.3121309acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Challenges faced when teaching how to write a user scenario

Published: 19 September 2017 Publication History

Abstract

The importance of the scenarios in the user-centered design process of low complexity interactive systems is well documented in various academic and professional articles. The aim of this study is to reveal the undocumented properties that distinguish useful (rich) scenarios from uninteresting (poor) ones. Two student projects, involving scenario writing, were used to detect the aspects that define the quality of a user scenario. A total of 298 scenarios were individually and blindly graded by three experts in user-centered design and then analyzed following a grounded approach. A number of aspects that distinguish the "rich" from the "poor" scenarios were identified.

References

[1]
Susanne Bødker. 2000. Scenarios in user-centred design - setting the stage for reflection and action. Interacting with computers, 13(1):61--75.
[2]
John M Carroll. 1995. Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[3]
John M Carroll, Mary Beth Rosson, George Chin, and Jürgen Koenemann. 1998. Requirements development in scenario-based design. IEEE transactions on software engineering, 24(12):1156--1170.
[4]
Domenic V Cicchetti. 1994. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological assessment, 6(4):284.
[5]
Nigel Cross. 2001. Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. Elsevier.
[6]
Kees Dorst and Nigel Cross. 2001. Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem--solution. Design studies, 22(5):425--437.
[7]
Anders Lindgren, Fang Chen, Per Amdahl, and Per Chaikiat. 2007. Using personas and scenarios as an interface design tool for advanced driver assistance systems. In International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, pages 460--469. Springer.
[8]
Nicolas Marmaras, Dimitris Nathanael, and Konstantinos Gkikas. 2015. Detailed design exercises help promote conceptual thinking: Lessons learned from teaching user centred design to an engineering class. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2015, page 12. ACM.
[9]
Bonnie A Nardi. 1992. The use of scenarios in design. Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Technical Publications Department.
[10]
Dev Patnaik and Robert Becker. 1999. Needfinding: the why and how of uncovering people's needs. Design Management Review, 10(2):37--43.
[11]
John Pruitt and Jonathan Grudin. 2003. Personas: practice and theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences, pages 1--15. ACM.
[12]
Whitney Quesenbery and Kevin Brooks. 2010. Storytelling for user experience: Crafting stories for better design. Rosenfeld Media.
[13]
Gemma JM Read, Paul M Salmon, Michael G Lenné, and Daniel P Jenkins. 2015. Designing a ticket to ride with the cognitive work analysis design toolkit. Ergonomics, 58(8):1266--1286.
[14]
Mary Beth Rosson and John M Carroll. 2009. Scenario based design. Human-computer interaction. Boca Raton, FL, pages 145--162.
[15]
Mary Beth Rosson and John Millar Carroll. 2002. Usability engineering: scenario-based development of human-computer interaction.

Index Terms

  1. Challenges faced when teaching how to write a user scenario

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ECCE '17: Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics
    September 2017
    214 pages
    ISBN:9781450352567
    DOI:10.1145/3121283
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    In-Cooperation

    • EACE: European Association for Cognitive Ergonomics
    • Umeå University

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 19 September 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. User-centered design
    2. problem space
    3. scenario-based design
    4. teaching
    5. use-case
    6. user scenario

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    ECCE 2017

    Acceptance Rates

    ECCE '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 29 of 54 submissions, 54%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 56 of 91 submissions, 62%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 108
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)14
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media