META- OBJETIVO:

Interview was used both in the initial process; for gathering information from profession- als (see Section 3.2.1), and in the evaluation process with children (see Section 3.4.2.2). Using interview with professionals proved to be very useful, as all of them provided a lot of information. The chosen structure, semi-structured interview, supported this very well in that it opened up for new topics. The qualitative approach allowed for learning and deep insight into the domain space. Having chosen a quantitative approach instead would probably not have provided the same depth of understanding.

Interviews with children, on the other hand, did not provide much depth; since their answers were very short and to the point. In this case, a longer questionnaire with concrete questions might have been more useful for getting more appropriate data. In this way, one could formulate different questions regarding the same topic, to get more

data regarding same issues. This would have been useful because some of the children sometimes looked unsure when they answered. A question most of them seemed unsure about, was the one about whether they though it would be good to learn about difficult emotions when receiving a cancer diagnosis. In the wake of the interviews, an under- standing about this being an unclear question has risen. The children might not have understood the possible benefits of this information. This should probably have been explained in more detail before the question was asked.

Using an online survey, in form of a questionnaire, together with a video of the prototype could have been a good way to gather useful additional data. Using this approach, it would have been easier to get a greater data basis, regardless of the graphical location. The results of the evaluation, also show that the child who tested from her home, was more critical than the ones participating in the usability tests at the test laboratory. This might indicate that that children dare to be more honest and critical when being home in a safe environment, rather than in a laboratory with strangers. As the data basis is limited, one should not over-conclude on such findings. The differences could be explained with varying preferences. The opinions from the one who evaluated from her home may also be affected by the fact that the story did not take into consideration children in her situation, incurable cancer, as she was the only one with this condition. She mentioned that this had an effect on her user experience (see Section 8.3.2.3, paragraph: Hope). The differences of her only watching a low-quality screen capture of the prototype, while the other interacted with the prototype, may also have influenced her opinions. It would have been valuable to obtain more feedback from children from their homes. That would give a basis to better explain positive and negative feedback, in relation to test environment.

9.1.2 Observation

The observation (see Section 3.4.2.1) gave valuable feedback regarding the interaction design and also indication of user experiences. Using screen capture was critical, as many details would be missed without the possibility to review the process. The observation type participant-observer, was helpful in that all of the children asked some questions along the way and some needed hints on how to go further. However, it could be expected that children felt more stressed since they were observed. In such case they rather asked for instructions and hints to do the right thing and answer correctly. The idea behind choosing the observation type participant-observer, was to make the children feel more

relaxed. However, most of the children seemed to be shy and discomfortable by having a stranger watch them, even with the ability to ask questions along the way, in addition to having a parent next to them.

If the children were alone in the room, with their parent, they might have managed the problems they encountered by themselves; without an element of control which could be related to being observed. Even though the children were all explained that it was the system that were tested, and not themselves, two of them (T1 and T3) seemed to be afraid of doing anything wrong. It would have been interesting to see the results of observations where the children did not know they were being observed such as by hidden camera.

9.1.3 Anticipated eXperience Evaluation

Reliability and validity of the results provided by the use of Anticipated eXperience Evaluation (AXE) (see Section 3.4.2.3), can be discussed. The results show that each of the usability testers chose positive images (illustrating hope, and safety), while the one tested from her home, who got the information presented in text, answered “No” to both of the user experience goals. The methods used might have affected the answers given, but the answers might also have been given simply because of her condition (incurable cancer). The fact that the testers had to pick one of the images, might have forced them to chose one, even though they did not actually feel hopeful or safe when using the prototype. They might also have been biased to pick the image they liked the best, or simply picked the one they thought were the right one; the one they thought were preferred by the researcher. Children often answer what they think the adults want to hear (Docherty & Sandelowski, 1999). If they were asked whether they felt hopeful or not, and safe or not, the outcome might have been different. The outcome might also have been different if the use of a scale would have been applied to two contrasting images, which is the true use of AXE, and not the simplified version. The reason for simplifying was to make it easier for the children. Nevertheless, this might not have been the case, and should be further explored. The images chosen could also have been tested in some way before being used for more trustworthy results. A way in which they could be tested could be to show children the images and asked how they made them feel.

The placement might also have affected the answers. As discussed in the previous section, the environment may effect the level of honesty when answering the questions. Using a combination of these methods, based on both images and words, could have been interesting. This would give a more precise indication towards the effect of the specific method.