Categorization Constructionist Assessment with Software-Based Affinity Diagramming

Affinity diagramming is a cheap and widely used knowledge elicitation technique in human–computer interaction (HCI). However, empirical methods for evaluating user performance in conducting affinity diagrams have remained relatively static. Despite the fact that often the main value of such affinity diagramming sessions lies in the group-based discussions and debates that take place during their construction, what is being captured is often only the final categorizations (the affinity diagram) rather than the process of constructing them. In this article, we propose the concept of categorization constructionism, which we describe as optimized when affinity diagrams are facilitated in groups that have a considerate input of activity in categorization decision-making. We describe how we used this rule to model the temporal nature found within affinity diagram categorizations as they are constructed. To help us test our approach, we utilized participatory design (PD) sessions in developing three TabletPC-based software tools (CATERINE, SAW, and MATE) that would record, allow manipulation of, and evaluate the organization of affinity constructs over time programmatically with digital inking processes. We then used these tools to conduct an experiment that would explore our concept of measuring constructionistic activity over time in practice through the use of our tools.

[1]  Panayiotis Zaphiris,et al.  A web based tool for HCI-orientated massively asynchronous linear card sorting , 2003 .

[2]  Laura Slaughter,et al.  Assessing the Equivalence of the Paper and On-line Formats of the QUIS 5.5 , 1998 .

[3]  M. Resnick Distributed Constructionism , 1996, ICLS.

[4]  Kent L. Norman,et al.  Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface , 1988, CHI '88.

[5]  Panayiotis Zaphiris,et al.  PROTEUS: Artefact-driven Constructionist Assessment within Tablet PC-based Low-fidelity Prototyping , 2005, BCS HCI.

[6]  L. Vygotsky Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[7]  Pascal Béguin,et al.  Designing for Instrument-Mediated Activity , 2000, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Karen Holtzblatt,et al.  Contextual design , 1997, INTR.

[9]  A. N. Leont’ev,et al.  Activity, consciousness, and personality , 1978 .

[10]  L. S. Vygotskiĭ,et al.  Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes , 1978 .

[11]  A. Efland,et al.  Art and cognition , 2002 .

[12]  Wendy Olphert,et al.  Getting what you want, or wanting what you get? Beyond user centred design , 2003 .

[13]  G. Kelly The Psychology of Personal Constructs , 2020 .

[14]  Nigel Shadbolt,et al.  The efficacy of knowledge elicitation techniques: a comparison across domains and levels of expertise , 1990 .

[15]  Jianming Dong,et al.  A user input and analysis tool for information architecture , 2001, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[16]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.