Interactions - March/April 2013

the answer. We’ve found it beneficial to work primarily in groups, where both demonstrations and questions need less clarification and explanation. In addition, participants who have questions can help each other understand, and individuals reluctant to ask when alone may be more confident. Simple, one-response questions help to avoid them getting lost in translation, and planning in advance for as many answer eventualities as possible helps to avoid misunderstandings during a study. For example, we’ve tended to design multiple versions of the same question beforehand, and specifically address possible ambiguous responses.

Evaluation. Participatory design is a well-known and trusted method for designing successful systems. However, in our experience this approach can be problematic when people find it difficult to criticize things. This problem can be magnified hugely when people not only don’t know what they want, but also don’t know the capabilities of the technology being used [ 11]. It is important to know people’s needs, but not necessarily focus on their design input at all times. With this in mind, we have tended to conduct qualitative interviews via local researchers to explore people’s core needs, and ensure that our systems are tested throughout each of their design phases. Instead of working with end users directly, we have been working with people who grew up, know, work, and live in this context but are also well educated in computer science and its limitations (that is, local researchers, rather than local experts).

To cope with reluctance to criti-
cize and the tendency to give whol-
ly positive feedback regardless of
merit, we have tweaked and refined
our approach to qualitative feed-
back. Rather than asking people to
rate a system or to give feedback on
one design (which usually results
in high scores all around, regard-
less of actual suitability), we have
switched to making several similar
but comparable systems and ask-
ing people which one is preferred.

Mainly, it is hard to plan, and despite best efforts, things will inevitably change along the way. Go with the flow, and let the designs evolve.

ENDNOTES:

1. http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBOViewGrant. aspx?GrantRef=EP/J000604/1 2. Chetty, M. and Grinter, B. HCI4D: HCI challenges in the Global South. Proc. CHI EA ‘07. ACM, 2007, 2327-2332. 3. Dray, S., Siegel, D., and Kotzé, P. Indra’s Net: HCI in the developing world. interactions 10, 2 (2003), 28-37. 4. Marsden, G., Maunder, A., and Parker, M. People are people, but technology is not technology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 366 (2008), 3795-3804. 5. Taylor, A. Out there. Proc. CHI ‘ 11. ACM, 2011, 685-694. 6. Winschiers, H. and Fendler, J. Assumptions considered harmful—The need to redefine usability. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4559. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2007, 452-461. 7. Heeks, R. ICT4D 2.0: The next phase of applying ICT for international development. Computer 41, 6 (2008), 21-33. 8. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. The Indian telecom services performance indicators: October-December 2011; http://goo.gl/g8xSl 9. Walton, M., Marsden, G., Haßreiter, S., and Allen, S. Degrees of sharing: Proximate media sharing and messaging by young people in Khayelitsha. Proc. MobileHCI ‘ 12. ACM, 2012, 403-412. 10. Kumar, A., Rajput, N., Chakraborty, D., Agarwal, S., and Nanavati, A. W W T W: The World Wide Telecom Web. Proc. NSDR workshop ‘07. ACM, 2007. 11. Elovaara, P., Igira, F., and Mörtberg, C. Whose participation? Whose knowledge?: Exploring PD in Tanzania-Zanzibar and Sweden. Proc. PDC ‘06. ACM, 2006, 105-114. 12. Gitau, S., Diga, K., Bidwell, N., and Marsden, G. Beyond being a proxy user: A look at NGOs’ potential role in ICT4D deployment. Proc. ICTD ’ 10. ACM, 2010.

Final Thoughts

Like many people making a first foray into research in developing regions, we have learned why the common patterns of designing, building, and user testing are rarely appropriate. Indeed, it would be naive to think that designing from our own models would succeed in regions where the challenges facing end users are completely different [ 12]. But reading and gathering advice from other people gets us only so far. So, is it worth it for people who are not from a “ developing” country, such as India, to go there to conduct research? Yes, absolutely. From a personal point of view, in the process we’ve extended our experience and hugely expanded our worldview. From a design angle, we’ve been able to improve our work with insights from other often-unexpected perspectives, and as a result we’re now coming up with better designs.

To conclude: Assume nothing! Our ideas of simplicity and usability can be impossibly complex for people with different experiences to understand. Patience is imperative: It’s crucial to demonstrate use, explain concepts, and train users for each small prototype iteration. Designs will be quickly discarded or repurposed if they are not usable [ 7]. Working with people, particularly local experts and local researchers, to understand problems and limitations is the best way forward.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jennifer Pearson is a researcher
in the FI T Lab (fitlab.eu) at
Swansea University. Her research
interests include active reading,
improving digital books, and
mobile interaction development
for developing regions. Simon Robinson is a researcher in the FI T Lab (fitlab.eu) at Swansea University. His research interests include eyes-off interfaces, sen- sor-based mobile devices, and providing high-end interactions on low-end devices.