Repertory Grid Technique
To get useful feedback and diverse opinions on different stages of the design from different users before doing final product UX evaluation. This process do by building early prototypes and creating all possible scenarios. It benefits to fulfill the actual user needs and desires.
In this study, structured interview was built by using repertory grid technique and divided into two main phases. In first phase, researcher created three different bipolar elements and presented to participants and in second phase asked for rate those elements on own opinions.
The same approach was considered in this journal as well “Capturing The Design Repertory Space From Grid Technique a User Perspective” for finding, exploring, understanding design space in early prototypes, generate different views on the artifacts, embodying various individual needs and concerns in relation to the artifact.
Below are findings and suggested steps of this research after applying this approach by using 11 group of people.
- Charting the design space
- Exploring and understanding design space
- Abstraction: Underlying topics made visible
At final, the best design alternative is generally the one the most people agree on. This view rooted in the quantitative research tradition.
A comparison of five elicitation techniques for elicitation of attribute of low involvement products
Compared five elicitation techniques on eight criteria derived from the theories of consumer buying behavior.
- First triadic sorting for mapping cognitive structure.
- Second is free sorting, form groups based on important aspects as compare to other products.
- Third is not a sorting method, but use to find respondent relevant attributes products, called direct elicitation.
- Another one is ranking for prioritizing products according to preference.
- Last one, is picking from an attribute list.
The purpose of these approaches to find the theoretical conceptualisations of relationship between product attributes and consumer choice and motivation.
What aspects are you interested in improving (e.g. usability, beauty, satisfaction, …)
In our project I am interested to improve ease of use because it is related to blind people and trying to make this app as easy as we can do.
What design details you are unsure about (e.g. menu items, visual appearance, functions…)
I am not sure about the voice messages/commands like we need to evaluate our messages based on voice quality, rhythm, speed, pitch etc
Who would you like to evaluate the prototype: expert or users
In our study we are only considering users, first we have planned to do evaluation with actual user (to make them blind temporarily) by using paper prototype along scripted voice messages (scripted audio).
After that we will do our final evaluation with actual blind user and it could be available and participate before our final evaluation but it depends on his availability.
Do you need qualitative or quantitative data, or perhaps both? Later in class we’ll collect some data and do the analysis.
We required both qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate our first prototype.
Selection of suitable color scheme, menu items etc
About color scheme and design we are not putting much effort on these, we are focusing on audio interfaces and how can we provide ease of use to blind people. We have documented all the possible functionality and scenarios (in our previous group post) those will be addressed in this application.
Karapanos, Evangelos, and Jean-Bernard Martens. 2008. “The Quantitative Side of the Repertory Grid Technique: Some Concerns.” UXEM Workshop in CHI’08, April 6th, 2008. http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3158.
Hassenzahl, Marc, and Rainer Wessler. 2000. “Capturing Design Space From a User Perspective: The Repertory Grid Technique Revisited.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 12 (3): 441–59. doi:10.1207/S15327590IJHC1203&4_13.
Bech-Larsen, Tino, and Niels Asger Nielsen. 1999. “A Comparison of Five Elicitation Techniques for Elicitation of Attributes of Low Involvement Products.” Journal of Economic Psychology 20 (3): 315–41. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(99)00011-2.