In 1970, the user-centred design approach started to evolve and became widespread in the 1990s (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). Based on the study conducted by Sanders in 1992 (Sanders and Stappers, 2008) the user centred design proved to be most useful in the design and development of consumer products (Kotamraju and Van Der Geest, 2012). For example, the service design is composed of …"visual communication design, information design and interaction design, [integrated together]. Transformation design, the newest [design] of emergent design [discipline], is based on participatory practices, in combination with user-centred methods”
(Sanders and Stappers, 2008, p.10). The researchers need to learn more about how to provide a beneficial guide to people how they are progressing at the ‘doing’ level of creativity, provide beneficial assistance to people who are at the ‘adaptive’ level, afford a scaffolds that support and
26 serve people need for creative expression at the ‘making’ level, and offer a clean slate for those at the ‘creating’ level (Sanders and Stappers, 2008).
Figure 2.2: Current state of the user-centred design (adapted from Sanders and Stappers, 2008)
Converging multi HCD methods together (Sanders, 2000) to draw simultaneously from marketing research (‘what people say’), applied anthropology (‘what people do’), and participatory design (‘what people make’). Collective generativity has started to replace individual creativity, though respect is an essential between both. The use of generative tools requires the design researchers not only to respect each other, but also to respect people who are served by the design (Sanders, 2000).
Livari (2011) reviewed 327 papers between 1998 and 2007 to identify user-centred designs and found that many of them refer to renowned authors such as Norman (emotional design) or ISO 13407 (Human centred design processes for interactive systems) rather than conceptualize user-centeredness in their contexts. Understanding users’ needs is considered to be a key to strategic thinking in user-centred design; because they reflect their expectations and wishes which lead to facilitate transform these needs into requirements (Huang and Brooks, 2011). One of centred design’s intrinsic characteristics is that it encourages designers to aim towards a user-friendly design in design development (Wakkary, 2003).
To get things done in the way expected, researchers need to put people at the centre of the design development process (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). Such a design aims to discover possibilities and opportunities, taking in consideration people’s ideas, desires, needs and aspiration for experience (Leavitt and Shneiderman, 2006). The authors learned that products must be designed holistically; this means hardware and software must be put together (Sanders, 2000). Some community groups like technologists and business strategists are involved in bringing new
Analysis
User Centred
User Feedback Design Design
Prototype
27 products and services to market, thus inducing the role that people play in the design development process. This research heads into a challenge whereby the relationship between people and human experience is becoming the core of interest in overall are much of value than products (Sanders, 2000).
It is worth mentioning the pros and cons in applying the user-centred design approach. Many of these dis/advantages have been noticed. This approach confirms that the service/product will be suitable for its intended purpose in the environment in which it will be used. Table 2.1 summarises these and other advantages and disadvantages of user-centred design (Dix et al., 1997; Preece et al., 1994; Preece et al., 2002).
Sanders and Stappers (2008, p.11) explain the caricature (See figure 2.3) which, shows the lack of the classical user-centred design process and the rationale for transforming to Co-design approach, “the user is a passive object of study, and the researcher brings knowledge from theories and develops more knowledge through observation and interviews”. “The designer then passively receives this knowledge in the form of a report, and adds an understanding of technology and the creative thinking needed to generate ideas, concepts, etc” (Sanders and Stappers, 2008, p.12). Hence, the Co-design considers the roles are mixed up. The service user who will finally be served through the design process is given the position of ‘expert of his/her experience’, and takes a large part in knowledge development, idea generation and concept development. Thus, designer and the researcher work together using the tools for ideation (i.e. in giving form to their ideas), because design talents are an essential in the development of the tools (Sanders and Stappers, 2008).
Figure 2.3: Classical roles of users, researchers, and designers in the design process on the left and how they are merging in the co-designing process on the right cited from (sanders and
stappers, 2008).
28
Pros Cons
Products are efficient and safe. High cost.
Pay attention to the level of users’
satisfaction and managing users’
expectation
Time consuming.
The sense of ownership that appears holder users for the product.
Other additional design team may be needed (i. e.
ethnographers, usability experts).
Dramatic integration of the products into the environment and less redesign
needed.
Difficulty in translating some data into design.
Solution to any emerging problem more readily founded due the well-organized
collaborated process.
Sometimes it is difficult to transfer the product to other clients; due to the product being too specific to be used in
general to other clients. Thus, this makes it costly.
Table 2.1: Concise Summary of dis/advantage for User-centred design
2.4.1 Citizens' Participation in the Process of e-Government Development
Citizen engagement training, which is directed by the government, is developing in many countries, at both local and national levels (Følstad et al., 2004); a big effort has been made to wide spread the categories of citizens’ engagement such as handicapped, disabled people, ethnic minority groups, young people, etc. In general, when citizens involved in technology development or evaluation in relation to e-Government services; researcher explains by three examples are illustrated below to clarify the situation when the engagement is of limited focus, such as the creation or evaluation of websites or services (Olphert and Damodaran, 2007).
The Surrey 50+ website project is the first example to mention. UK government’s local e-Democracy programme, including many projects, one of which was the Surrey county council’s pilot study that included people over 50 and created a website targeted for them. This study focuses on the active engagement of older people in developing public services to conclude points that help in making better government for older people. Another target was to encourage the use of ICTs among the over-50s via online participation to know more about technology.
People who concern regarding their ages and housing associations were a part in this project as well. Hence, the technology employed in this project was an open source content management and designed to fit their local authority use in England. Regarding the contributions from
29 participants, it was concluded to build a web portal targeted for those above 50. The software was also specially adapted to offer usability for older people to conform to the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative for website standards. The project duration was 6 months including about 2,000 people, and Surrey county council considers that the project was successful in making older people aware of and to use ICT in an effective way (Olphert and Damodaran, 2007, cited in Allen, 2005).
The second example is the Logged Off project carried out by the Carnegie Young People to know whether new technologies could motivate young people (aged from 13-18) to participate more in the political life. A special website was set up in this project, to enable participants to read and discuss the different points of view of other peers. This project recommended that government should make a network of young people who could evaluate ICT initiatives aimed specifically at engaging young participants (Olphert and Damodaran, 2007, cited in Carnegie Young People Initiative, 2003).
The third example is the Canadian National Forum on Health (Walls et al., 1992) introduces citizens in a comprehensive preparation (reading documents, attending briefings, etc.) in order to participate in consultative exercises to inform national policy on health matters. The Canadian citizens who participated were well educated and well equipped to analyse any difficult written material. On the other hand, other successful participation projects such as the Macatawa project (Emery and Purser, 1996), the Chicago neighbourhood planning project (Al-Kodmany, 1999), the K-Net projects (Beaton, 2004), and the Action Aid Reflect ICTs Project (Battarbee and Koskinen, 2005) had participants from different backgrounds with different levels of skills and education. All report that engagement in the projects led to an increase in participants’
confidence while sharing their point of views, increased understanding and ability be decision makers.
The above research example suggests that the participation of citizens in e-Government developments did not go deep into the lives of most people involved in the exercises. It also showed that in general decision making in the design of local e-Government had carried out by central government, while citizens having little effect on design development and implementation of e-Government services. Governments are doing a significant effort to let citizens participate in decision making to inform policy and planning decisions but this is in areas other than IS development projects .They concentrate on expanding citizen engagement throughout the development of e-Government systems or applications and how government can
30 benefit from this extension (Olphert and Damodaran, 2007). Moreover, governments conclude that knowing how to participate in decision making needs primary skills to develop for those whose participation is sought. The core elements are the modifications and development that take place as participants learn new skills. If conditions are right, citizens show a willingness to spend time and pay attention to participation issues.
2.4.2 A Synthesis of Citizens’ Engagement
Enid Mumford focused on implementing a participatory approach in the development of computer-based work systems (Olphert and Damodaran, 2007), because it was ethically a real expression of democratic values and it helped in making a good design. Giving users the chance to contribute their expertise and knowledge provides an opportunity for skills exchange that positively affects both designers and users, and help users to accept new systems by giving users a sense of ownership and a suitable understanding of the system (Mckinney et al., 2002).
The results of effective citizen participation throughout the process of development leads to improvement in solution quality and effectiveness as the users’ unmet needs can be identified or anticipated in an efficient way (i.e. user's needs should match design process) (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004); these results have significant advantages in that new information and communication technologies have the potential to deliver. For example, in the UK government aspirations for e-Government systems are not limited to making information systems more efficient, convenient, and integrated as well, but also it includes community participation in the political process. As a result, an effective citizen engagement process in the development of e-Government systems will help matching the targets planned (Olphert and Damodaran, 2007).