he User-centered design (UCD) process outlines the phases throughout a design and development life-cycle all while focusing on gaining a deep understanding of who will be using the product.

1. ‘When we learn all the answers,
they change the questions…’ @cristobalcobo
oxford
internet
ins1tute

2. Old Paradigm
New Paradigm
consumer
consumer
company
company

3. “Any customer can have a car painted any
colour that he wants so long as it is black “
*(h.ford,1922)
Remark
about
the
Model
T
in
1909,
published
in
his
autobiography
My
Life
and
Work
(1922)

4. “individual
playing
both
roles
consumers
of
services
as
well
as
creators
of
added
value
services”.

5. Challenge:
alignment
of
engagement

6. hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=

7. hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user%2Ccommunity&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=

8. hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user%2Ccommunity%2C+experience&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=

9. hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user%2Ccommunity%2Cexperience%2Cuser
+-­‐+driven&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=

13. A
B
testbed

14. The
Documentary
Network
by
Windows
Phone
Design
Studio
youtube.com/watch?v=lciYKwVLTuk
Connecting - Trends in UI, Interaction, Experience Design

15. User- center design
(‘pull’)

17. Domain
Landscape
of
the
Living
Lab
Research
Map
(Pallot
et
al.,
2010)

18. User-centricity
User-centred Design Tools in FI Projects
ques9onnaires
focus
groups
interviews
prac9cal
workshops
shadowing
cultural
probes
pen
&
paper
mock-­‐ups
fully
func9onal
prototypes
in-­‐home
observa9on
think-­‐aloud
sessions
user
diaries
field
studies
personas
or
scenarios
eye-­‐tracking
studies
scenario-­‐based
focus
groups
s9mulus
material
like
comic
strips,
videos,
theatre
performances,
drama9sed
stories
usability
tes9ng
longitudinal
evalua9on
weekly
teleconferences
beta
launch
Source: 29 0f 55 respondents (working on 35 different Future Internet projects) use this tools (2012).

19. bottom up innovation
(‘push’)

20. • ICT change power relations in (almost) all domains.
• Technologies can be understood as a trend amplifier.
• Can empower users of all kinds: citizens, consumers,
workers, patients, audiences...
(van
Dijk,
2010)
2011

21. How to engage with users in order to adopt an
active role in co-creation & co-design?

22. • SOPA
&
PIPA
protest
[2012]
• English
Wikipedia
+~7,000
websites
coordinated
a
service
blackout,
to
raise
awareness.
• 160
million
people
viewed
Wikipedia's
banner.
• Google
collected
+7
million
signatures.
• BoycoEs
of
companies
and
organiza1ons
that
support
the
legisla1on.

23. Network
Type:
Architecture
Openness
Control
Modulariza9on
3.0
Collabora1on
Many-­‐to-­‐Many
Managed
High
High
2.0
Contribu1ng
Many-­‐to-­‐Many
Networked
Moderate
(i.e.
reputa1on)
Moderate
(i.e.
simple
task)
1.0
Sharing
One-­‐to-­‐many
Open
Low
Low
(DuEon,
2008)
3
Levels
of
Collabora9ve
Networks
Organiza9ons

24. Clay
Shirky's
Cogni1ve
Surplus:
Crea1vity
and
Generosity
in
a
Connected
Age
reCAPTCHA
is
a
type
of
challenge-­‐response
that
ask
users
to
enter
words
seen
in
distorted
text
images
on
screen
(it
helps
digi1ze
the
text
of
books,
while
protec1ng
websites
from
bots).
The
system
has
been
reported
as
displaying
over
100
million
CAPTCHAs
every
day.

25. New ideas that can be turned into
applications that add value.
The ability to collaborate between
people:
a) of different backgrounds (micro-contexts),
b) with different perspectives, and
c) possessing different knowledge.
Human centric systemic innovation
instruments (encouraging the interaction
between all stakeholders).
Eriksson
et
al.,2005
co-creation/co-innovation
Khan
Academy
Lite
Raspberry
Pi
hLp://kalite.learningequality.org

26. (Pallot
et
al.,
2010)
Contextual & social based adoption & adaptation of ICT:
• Living
Labs
+
User
Driven
Innova9on
+
User
Centred
Design
+
User
Created
Content
+
User
Group
Experience
(socio-­‐emo1onal)
…BUT
• The
principles
(usability,
accessibility
or
technology
customiza9on)
are
more
manifested
in
theore9cal
considera9ons
rather
than
in
prac9ce.
• Significant
number
of
“one-­‐size-­‐fits-­‐all”
paradigm
is
common
in
the
market.
~40,000
solu1on
submissions
[~300,000
solvers
-­‐200
countries]
Awards:
$5,000
to
$1+M

27. problems and challenges

28. Communications tools
don’t get socially
interesting until they get
technologically boring
(Shirky, 2008)
Interesting social
innovations may
not be interesting
technically
(Bernstein, et al, 2011)
Flash
mobs
strike
again
for
the
9th
annual
‘no
pants’
subway
ride
Social
Media’s
Influence
on
the
Arab
Spring
Privacy
or
data
protec1on?

29. (Bernstein,
Ackerman,
Chi
&
Miller,
2011).
Conflation of usefulness and usability
Usefulness: asks whether a system solves an important problem.
Usability: asks how users interact with the system.
“In the technology industry
many time features &
functionalities is prioritized
rather than usefulness”
www.leapmotion.com
hEp://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com
‘The
most
beau1ful,
powerful
mapping
service
ever’
iOS6
Google
Map

30. Challenge: How to create meaningful synergies
between users & technology?
Problems
in
the
complex
innova1on
systems.
• Suboptimal degree of interaction with users (i.e.
only
a
few
companies
effec1vely
involve
users
in
their
innova1on
process).
• Discrepancy between theory and practice.
(i.e
early
involvement
of
users
par1cularly
in
early
stage
of
the
projects.)
• Mechanisms to integrate increasingly multidisciplinary
knowledge (gathered
in
diverse
interac1on
contexts)
• Adequate translation and transformation of user insights
(into
more
technical
requirements).
• Path dependency& lock-in (i.e
difficult
to
break
into
new
grounds/
paradigms).
(Eriksson
et
al.,2005
and
De
Moor,
et
al
2010)

31. (Fiedler,
2011,
Offenberg
&
Pipek,
2008;
Seserv.Org
).
Future Internet
research towards an
“Open Development
Model” different
stakeholders
combining efforts
and benefit.
conclusion
Users at the center of the Internet Ecosystem

32. Usability is not enough to improve software poorly
designed
1. High-flexible software architectures (from feedback to
co-creation + cognitive surplus).
2. Legislation need to keep pace with the ever-
increasing

33. 3. Systematic participation of users (iterative loop).
4. Cross-disciplinary methodologies (and knowledge
integration tools to deal with complexity).

34. 5. Adopting various IPR
models (providing more
flexible uses).
6. Clear incentives
(combining extrinsic with
intrinsic motivation) I.e.
pull-push

35. 7. QoE matters more
than QoS to users.
8. Open to different
cultures, languages
(but localisation‐
friendly, context
based).

36. 9. Increase transparency (but also awareness
and simplicity) about data uses.

37. @cristobalcobo
hEp://1ny.cc/ppts
Oxford
Internet
Ins1tute
Research
Fellow.

38. References
• Almirall,
E.,
&
Wareham,
J.
(2008).
Living
Labs
and
open
innova1on:
roles
and
applicability.
The
Electronic
Journal
for
Virtual
OrganizaDons
and
Networks,
10(3),
21–46.
• Bernstein,
M.
S.,
Ackerman,
M.
S.,
Chi,
E.
H.,
&
Miller,
R.
C.
(2011).
The
trouble
with
social
compu1ng
systems
research.
In
Proceedings
of
the
2011
annual
conference
extended
abstracts
on
Human
factors
in
compuDng
systems
(pp.
389–398).
Retrieved
from
hEp://dl.acm.org/cita1on.cfm?id=1979618
• Coetzee,
H.,
Du
Toit,
I.-­‐M.,
&
Herselman,
M.
(2012).
Living
Labs
in
South
Africa:
An
analysis
based
on
five
case
studies.
Retrieved
from
hEp://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/handle/10204/6082
• De
Moor,
K.,
Berte,
K.,
De
Marez,
L.,
Joseph,
W.,
Deryckere,
T.,
&
Martens,
L.
(2010).
User-­‐driven
innova1on?
Challenges
of
user
involvement
in
future
technology
analysis.
Science
and
Public
Policy,
37(1),
51–61.
• DuEon,
W.
(2008).
Collabora1ve
network
organiza1ons:
new
technical,
managerial
and
social
infrastructures
to
capture
the
value
of
distributed
intelligence.
Retrieved
from
hEp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1302893
• Eriksson,
M.,
Niitamo,
V.-­‐P.,
&
Kulkki,
S.
(2005).
State-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art
in
u1lizing
Living
Labs
approach
to
user-­‐centric
ICT
innova1on-­‐a
European
approach.
Lulea:
Center
for
Distance-­‐spanning
Technology.
Lulea
University
of
Technology
Sweden:
Lulea.
Online
under:
hSp://www.
cdt.
ltu.
se/main.
php/SOA_LivingLabs.
pdf.
Retrieved
from
hEp://www.vinnova.se/upload/dokument/
verksamhet/1ta/stateozheart_livinglabs_eriksson2005.pdf
• Nicolas
nova.
(2009,
October
15).
Field
research
and
interacDon
design.
Retrieved
from
hEp://www.slideshare.net/nicolasnova/
field-­‐research-­‐and-­‐interac1on-­‐design
• Pallot,
M.,
Trousse,
B.,
Senach,
B.,
&
Scapin,
D.
(2010).
Living
Lab
Research
Landscape:
From
User
Centred
Design
and
User
Experience
towards
User
Cocrea1on.
Presented
at
the
First
European
Summer
School
“Living
Labs.”
Retrieved
from
hEp://
hal.inria.fr/inria-­‐00612632
• Paul
Isakson.
(2008,
March
22).
What’s
Next
In
MarkeDng
&
AdverDsing.
News
&
Poli1cs.
Retrieved
from
hEp://
www.slideshare.net/paulisakson/whats-­‐next-­‐in-­‐marke1ng-­‐adver1sing-­‐318143
• J.A.G.M.
van
Dijk.
“Conceptual
Framework”.
In:
Study
on
the
Social
Impact
of
ICT
(2010),
pp.
1–30.
• Hess,
J.,
Offenberg,
S.,
&
Pipek,
V.
(2008).
Community
driven
development
as
par1cipa1on?:
involving
user
communi1es
in
a
sozware
design
process.
In
Proceedings
of
the
Tenth
Anniversary
Conference
on
ParDcipatory
Design
2008
(pp.
31–40).
Retrieved
from
hEp://dl.acm.org/cita1on.cfm?id=1795240
• Fiedler,
M.,
et
al.
Future
Internet
Assembly
Research
Roadmap–Towards
Framework
8:
Research
PrioriDes
for
the
Future
Internet.
Technical
report,
Future
Internet
Assembly
Working
Group,
2011.