What’s the Difference?: Using Activity Theory to Study Why Mobile... Experience is Different from the typical Personal Computer

What’s the Difference?: Using Activity Theory to Study Why Mobile Device User
Experience is Different from the typical Personal Computer
First applicant name:
Geoffrey Blotter
First applicant email and NetID:
blotterg@gmail.com, gblotter
Mentor name and department:
Bret Swan, PhD, School of Technology
Goal/Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project is to use Activity Theory to (1) understand how users’ experiences
(UX) with mobile devices differ from typical desktop or laptop personal computers (PCs), and (2) create
assessment and design guidelines to foster more positive and personal mobile device UX.
Importance of Project
How should smart phones vs. tablets vs. desktop websites and web applications be designed to
foster positive user experiences? Today, the answer is – we don’t know. People are adopting and using
mobile devices (e.g., smartphones and tablets) at exponentially rates. People use their mobile devices in
different ways than PCs: including, quickly satisfying just-in-time information needs, accessing real-time
location-based information about their immediate world around them, and entertaining themselves at any
time in any place; even though their mobile devices have much smaller screens that limit what information
people can easily see and constrain how people interact with their mobile devices. Mobile software
applications allow abundant personalization of mobile devices, and advances in interaction technologies
(such as touch screens, virtual keyboards, voice-activation software, etc) allow users to more easily use
these devices. These factors have created highly coupled, dynamic, and more personal connections
between users’ and their mobile devices, compared to connections between users and their PCs.
Consequently, it is commonly recognized among academia and industry UX professionals that assessing
and designing positive mobile user experiences require fundamentally different approaches from the
typical assessment and design of UX for traditional desktop or laptop computers.
There is a lot of academic research and industry advice about the UX assessment and design of
webpages, PC software, and specific mobile technologies (Benbunan-Fich et al. 2007; Betiol et al. 2005).
However, no research was found that could explain why and how UX differs between mobile devices vs.
PCs. There is little research that exists about how mobile devices fit into people's lives (intentions, tasks,
affect, etc.), why people respond differently to different mobile user interfaces, and how users’
experiences with mobile devices are different compared to traditional computers. Practical UX
assessment and design guidelines are needed, based on sound, repeatable research, to help us
understand how to create more positive mobile user experiences for people using smart phones vs.
tablets vs. laptops vs. desktops interfaces.
Proposal
Using Activity Theory, we propose to design and conduct a study where data is collected from users of
new mobile devices from two different organizations. Dr. Swan and I are currently trying to develop
mobile applications to help evaluate BYU Nursing students in doctors’ offices, and a local company that
provides communication and notification services to parents and students in school districts.
After I approached Dr. Swan with the idea for this study, Dr. Swan taught me that Activity Theory provides
a framework and method for assessing the interaction between user intentions, users’ tools or artifacts,
and context of user to produce outcomes over time. Acitvity theory has been recommended and used in
UX and usability research for two decades (Kuutti 1995; Nardi 1998); yet, only a few studies have applied
it to study of mobile devices (Zurita et al. 2007). We found no studies that use it to study the differences
between mobile and traditional UX assessment and design.
FIG. 1. The basic structure of activity theory.
The figure above illustrates Activity Theory and the data we will collect and analyze from these two
organizations
conduct
thisexisting
study. On
the left, the
figure
the
and process of an activity
TABLE
1. describes
Description of
the system
basic terms.
create an idealized
designto that
ignores
practices,
that produces an outcome through the interaction of its components. An activity is undertaken when a
geometry, ergonomics, and common sense.
Activity: (the
Not necessarily
Governed by
subject is driven by a motivation to achieve an objective
object).conscious,
This process is mediated
bymotive/
tools
The challenge for the field is to be able to provide research
may become conscious
motives(such
(Collective)
and signs in collaboration with the community andbut
environment.
Tools are physical artifacts
as
findings that
are notdevices),
“lost in translation”
et al., memory, skills, etc.
“WHY”
mobile
while signs(Burton-West
refer to language,
(such as preferences, information,
2005) or toetc.)
find languages,
or models
that are used
Actions:
Conscious
Governed and
by goals
An activitytheories,
is constantly
developing
as a result
of contradictions,
tensions, and instability,
the
in reference
disciplines
and
can
help
inform
both
systems
“WHAT”
(Individual
or group)
systemic needs of the community and subject against the backdrop of rules, behavioral norms and
a
design anddivision
information
behavior.
Activity theory
is recog-and contradictions
Operations: Conscious
learned
but activity
can
Governed by
conditions
of labor.
By examining
the tensions
thatwhen
exist
in the
system,
Dr.
Swan
become
unconscious
or
automatic
in
routine.
(Nonconscious)
nized as theory
that
is
highly
applied
(Ponomarenko,
2004)
and I can gain a window into understanding the developments and changes taking place within activities
and allowsmediated
links to practice
particularly
the analysis
of be able to identify“HOW”
by mobile
devices. inThen
we should
common patterns in the components of
work, technology,
and education
(Rogers,
2008) as
well as interface
mobile device
activities
(e.g., tasks,
contexts,
designs,
etc.)
that enhance or inhibit positive user
Note. Adapted from “Activity Theory,” In J.M. Caroll (Ed.), “HCI
(Allen et
2011;
Kuutti
use in HCIexperiences.
(Bertelsen, Bødker,
& al.
John,
2003)
and1995)
system
Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Towards An Interdisciplinary Science”
design. As Miettinen (2006) notes that activity theory is an
(p. 301), 2003, San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann.
Anticipated
Academic
interventionist
research approach
withOutcome
relevant concepts that
Dr.the
Swan
and I between
will workthe
closely
to write
two
and present them at conferences: one paper targeted
are based on
dialogue
researchers
and
thepapers
Externalization is the process of the creation of new arteanstudying.
academic conference and one paper targeted to industry conference. We will also design and
people theyatare
facts (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999), i.e., a child uses the
deliver mobile assessment and design guidelines and exercises to be used in IT355 (Human-Computer
pencil to draw a picture or to communicate his/her feelings.
Interaction (HCI)),
(Advanced
A Brief Introduction
to theIT515R
Cultural
HistoricalHCI), and IT446-7 (IT Capstone) as needed. Also, specific mobile
Internalization, far from being a single, clear-cut process,
Viewpointassessment and testing protocols, checklists, and templates will be given to the company and BYU
embodies a wide range of techniques that make mental life
Nursing IT project team.
Activity theory is based on the concepts of the culturaland activity more efficacious, i.e., thinking to oneself, readhistorical school
of Russian psychology. The main ideas of
ing to oneself, doing sums in one’s mind (Toulmin, 1999).
Qualifications
Russian cultural
psychology
were developed
between
1920
Humans
not
only internalize
and rules of
I am uniquely
qualified
to develop
this application,
because
I have
developedexisting
severalstandards
mobile device
and 1930, and
they were Icentred
on the
unity of consciousactivityinbut
also externalise
new standards
applications.
have also
completed
several UX projects
various
classes. I them,
have acreating
professional
passion
ness and activity.
anmobile
attemptuser
by scholars
(Lektorsky,
1999).
Furthermore,
to learnThese
aboutideas
and were
design
interfaces, and
withrules
possibly
starting
my own
businessinternalization
in the near and
to explain future.
the interactions between human beings and the
externalization are highly integrated and continually iterating
(Leont’ev).
material world. Russian cultural psychologists recognized
Dr. Swan
uniquely
qualified
me on this project
because
he is thework,
only Leont’ev
professorintroduced
with
Building
on Vygotsky’s
the
the coevolution
of theis human
subject
and to
thementor
world itself.
usability
and shaped
user experience
engineering
at BYU.
My project
fitsform
well of
with
scholarly
concept
of activity,
a specific
thehis
societal
existence
The humanexpertise
subject is in
social
in nature,
by culture, and
and
aligns
other mobile
computing
research
he andthe
hispurposeful
students are
doing. of
of
humans,projects
which that
comprises
changing
influenced research,
by language,
acting
withwith
or through
other people
in
He
has
created
a
User
Experience
(UX)
Engineering
research
lab
with
equipment
I
can
use
in
this
natural and social reality (Davydov, 1999). Leont’ev study.
distinorganizations, groups, and communities. The material world
Dr.
Swan
also
has
access
to
industry
experts
and
professors
outside
of BYU
that Iand
canaction,
ask for
assistance
guished
between
collective
activity
reasoning
that
itself is social because the majority of the entities people
help me further my professional interests.
humans engage in goal-orientated actions that do not necesinteract with
are other people and culturally produced artesarily directly contribute to the attainment of the object of
facts. Therefore, Russian cultural psychologists understood
Project Timetable
activity, mediated by tools. But eventually the actions lead
the mind-forming
interaction
between
human
beings
and
the
Dr. Swan envisions we will work closely together on this project for a minimum of 6 months. He says,
to the
satisfaction
of a need
(the motive)
through
attainworld in terms
of
culture
and
society.
Lev
Vygotsky,
considover the next 2 months, we will study more literature,
design
a research
methodology
based
on the
Activity
ment
of
the
object.
Often,
these
actions
make
sense
only
in
ered the founder
of
Russian
cultural
psychology,
introduced
Theory, and pilot test the collection of user data. Data collection will happen in several iterations over the
a
social
context
of
a
shared
work
activity.
Therefore,
activimany concepts
that
are
widely
used
today,
such
as
the
zone
next 3 months. Then, we will analyze the data and write two papers over the next month. The $1500
satisfy
and actions
constituteand
the mobile
activities. Using
of proximalbudget
development,
naturalphone,
and a ties
will be cultural
used tomediation,
purchaseand
a smart
tablet,
anda need,
software
for prototyping
thistowards
reasoning,
Leont’ev travel,
(1978) although
developedBro
a basic
structure
higher psychological
functions.
applications
with users. Any left over money will go
conference
Swan
said
and common language used with regard to human activity, as
Vygotsky
the process
internalization
and
heemphasized
can find money
for us of
to go
to conferences.
represented in Figure 1 and described in Table 1.
externalization and reasoned that these two basic proIn addition to the hierarchical structure, activity theory
cesses operate continuously at every level of human activis dynamic, in that it recognizes that activities, actions, and
ity. Internalization is related to the reproduction of culture
operations change over time. An activity is part of a wider
(Engeström & Miettinen, 1999) or the internal reasoning
network (of activity systems) and most often the outcome of
and reconstruction of external objects (Xu, 2007), i.e., a
another activity is not intended for the same collective which
child observes a pencil being used and learns to use it. The
produces it, but to be “consumed” by some other collective in
thought activity (e.g., reasoning and planning) is an important
some other activity (Korpela, Soriyan, & Olufokunbi, 2000).
component of the internalization process (Leont’ev, 1978).
Fit With BYU’s Mission
Disseminating research-backed information to academics and industry professionals will go a long way to
helping a lot of people have better user experiences with they mobile devices, thus helping advance
human potential. This project also creates a “stimulating setting” for me to learn because it enables me to
pursue more advanced learning about my desire to learn about mobile UX design. This project may also
stimulate life-long learning in a variety of people. If people have better experiences usin their mobile
devices because of our research, we may influence them to learn more about themselves and the world
around them, as well as improve their quality of life.
Scholarly Sources
Allen, D., Karanasios, S., and Slavova, M. "Working With Activity Theory: Context, Technology, and
Information Behavior," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
(62:4), Apr 2011, pp 776-788.
Benbunan-Fich, R., and Benbunan, A. "Understanding user behavior with new mobile applications,"
Journal of Strategic Information Systems (16:4), Dec 2007, pp 393-412.
Betiol, A.H., and Cybis, W.D. "Usability testing of mobile devices: A comparison of three approaches,"
Human-Computer Interaction - Interact 2005, Proceedings (3585) 2005, pp 470-481.
Kuutti, K. "Activity Theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research," in: Context
and consciousness: Activity Theory and human computer interaction, B.A. Nardi (ed.), MIT Press,
Cambridge, 1995, pp. 17-44.
Nardi, B.A. "Activity theory and its use within human-computer interaction - Response to Jeremy
Roschelle's review of Context and Consciousness.," Journal of the Learning Sciences (7:2) 1998,
pp 257-261.
Zurita, G., and Nussbaum, M. "A conceptual framework based on Activity Theory for mobile CSCL,"
British Journal of Educational Technology (38:2), Mar 2007, pp 211-235.