Paper or Pixel? Comparing Paper- and Tool-Based Participatory Design Approaches

Heintz, Matthias; Law, Effie Lai‐Chong; Soleimani, Samaneh

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22698-9_34

Cited by 7 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An important component of this methodology was that no digital technology was used during the workshops. Research has shown that a paper‐based approach to co‐design results in a greater number of ideas and design solutions being generated within a session, compared with workshops that use digital technology . Data from the workshops were collected through three main sources: gathering written comments made by co‐designers relating to previous real‐life examples; hand‐drawn mock‐ups; and transcribing detailed qualitative notes of the comments made throughout the workshops.…”

Section: Project Synergy Research and Development Cycle: Iterative Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Project Synergy: co‐designing technology‐enabled solutions for Australian mental health services reform

Hickie

Davenport

Burns

et al. 2019

Medical Journal of Australia

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Project Synergy aims to test the potential of new and emerging technologies to enhance the quality of mental health care provided by traditional face‐to‐face services. Specifically, it seeks to ensure that consumers get the right care, first time (delivery of effective mental health care early in the course of illness). Using co‐design with affected individuals, Project Synergy has built, implemented and evaluated an online platform to assist the assessment, feedback, management and monitoring of people with mental disorders. It also promotes the maintenance of wellbeing by collating health and social information from consumers, their supportive others and health professionals. This information is reported back openly to consumers and their service providers to promote genuine collaborative care. The online platform does not provide stand‐alone medical or health advice, risk assessment, clinical diagnosis or treatment; instead, it supports users to decide what may be suitable care options. Using an iterative cycle of research and development, the first four studies of Project Synergy (2014–2016) involved the development of different types of online prototypes for young people (i) attending university; (ii) in three disadvantaged communities in New South Wales; (iii) at risk of suicide; and (iv) attending five headspace centres. These contributed valuable information concerning the co‐design, build, user testing and evaluation of prototypes, as well as staff experiences during development and service quality improvements following implementation. Through ongoing research and development (2017–2020), these prototypes underpin one online platform that aims to support better multidimensional mental health outcomes for consumers; more efficient, effective and appropriate use of health professional knowledge and clinical skills; and quality improvements in mental health service delivery.

show abstract

Section: Project Synergy Research and Development Cycle: Iterative Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Project Synergy: co‐designing technology‐enabled solutions for Australian mental health services reform

Hickie

Davenport

Burns

et al. 2019

Medical Journal of Australia

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On average the teachers produced roughly 60% more items of feedback than students per head. The data were categorised by the second and third authors, who are experienced Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers, along several dimensions using the CAt+ rating scheme (Heintz et al 2015). CAt+ is designed to categorise user feedback with the primary purpose of creating a prioritised list of actions for system changes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The participant can freely draw on the system. PDot also allows the participant to provide detailed comments in a text box and indicate her current mood by selecting one of the three smiley faces given (Heintz 2017). …”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Student-Facing Learning Dashboards of Affective States

Sedrakyan

Leony

Muñoz‐Merino

et al. 2017

Data Driven Approaches in Digital Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To compare the PD feedback on interactive prototypes gathered with paper and PDotCapturer, we applied the coding scheme CAt+ (Categories plus Attributes). CAt+ was developed in [12] for analysing the quality of PD feedback on noninteractive prototypes captured with paper and myBalsamiq. By modifying the categories and attributes of CAt+ as required for coding the datasets presented in this paper, we improved its scope of applicability.…”

Section: Rq2: What Are the Qualitative Differences In Pd Feedback Gatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This comparability has not yet been researched adequately. In a recent attempt, due to the lack of a dedicated PD tool, the comparison was done using a general-purpose online prototyping tool [12]. Inspired by the methodology and results of this attempt, we have created a dedicated PD online tool called PDotCapturer, and intended to compare it with a paper-based approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Paper- and Tool-based Participatory Design Approaches: A Case Study with PDotCapturer

Heintz

Law

Andrade

2018

Electronic Workshops in Computing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current Participatory Design (PD) practice, paper-based approaches are commonly applied. However, the use of software tools can potentially enhance the PD process and outcome, given their flexibility for prototype presentation, data storage, retrieval and analysis. Driven by this assumption, we developed the specific-purpose PD online tool PDotCapturer. To evaluate the effectiveness of PDotCapturer, as compared with a paper-based approach, we conducted a within-subjects study where 33 participants were asked to provide feedback on e-learning prototypes, using either paper or PDotCapturer in one session and vice-versa in another session. The evaluation criteria were quantity and quality of the participants' comments. For qualitative data analysis, we applied the refined coding scheme CAt+. Results show that using PDotCapturer partly led to feedback of higher quality, but the number of comments was higher for the paper-based approach. Our work contributes to the HCI community by augmenting the repertoire of the PD toolbox.

show abstract

Paper or Pixel? Comparing Paper- and Tool-Based Participatory Design Approaches

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Project Synergy: co‐designing technology‐enabled solutions for Australian mental health services reform

Project Synergy: co‐designing technology‐enabled solutions for Australian mental health services reform

Evaluating Student-Facing Learning Dashboards of Affective States

Comparison of Paper- and Tool-based Participatory Design Approaches: A Case Study with PDotCapturer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About