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.