Archive for January, 2011
Journal Club 28.01.2010 – Data.Gov.UK
Jan 31st
With the release of new transparent data from data.gov.uk we at LiSC were buzzing with new research ideas. The new open data website allows members of the public to search open data sets released by the Government in order to generate new and interesting applications to aid the general public. ’Oh the endless combinations of government data and Google map overlays’ we hear you cry, sadly it looks like this may not be a distinct possibility. After trawling through the reams and reams of spreadsheets we found that a lot of data had simply not been collected and other datasets failed to provide sufficient granularity offering only a sweeping stereotypical view of a generalised area. Therefore we proposed that the open data sets need to be standardised in order to show statistics at national, regional, council and area/district level.
One of the key points raised in the Journal club meeting was that not all of the data sets were of poor quality. Good examples of rich data sets were those about NHS funding and treatment which was split into regional, Primary Care Trust and clinic level areas. With this finer granularity available it may be possible to analyse the NHS data and provide a more accurate assumption based on the released data.
The most important issue that came to light was that data sets are not readily available in on-line API formats and are currently hindered by the masses of spreadsheets that need to be downloaded and hosted in order to be worked into a usable and highly available format. If this data gathering process is maintained fragmentation will occur, inevitably leading to outdated or misrepresented data sets being used as the basis of public information. Therefore the data.gov.uk website needs to host ‘live’ API’s with which developers can interact with.
Unfortunately some cakes are still at large due to the failure of being captured before the meeting, please if you have any information of their whereabouts contact a member of LiSC as soon as possible.
Useless fact: ‘Liverpool City Council issued 580 Dog Fouling Fixed Penalty Notices (Apr 08 – Mar 09) resulting in £14,950 worth of fines’ (data.gov.uk) – Its interesting to know what Liverpool City Council focuses its attention on, isn’t it?
Journal Club 21.1.2011 – User-Centred Design and Sherlock Holmes
Jan 27th
With many of our research projects employing HCI research methods, we had a light discussion on one of HCI’s core concepts: user-centred design. To stimulate discussion we took a look at the interesting paper, ‘Pastiche scenarios: Fiction as a resource for user centred design’ by Blythe & Wright (2006), available from here.
The paper looks at an alternative method to build an understanding of target users of systems in the tasks they do and the scenarios that bring about the need for these tasks. The proposed method is the creative use of well-known fictional characters, such as Sherlock Holmes or Bridget Jones, in creating personas and scenarios over the standard ‘static’ methods of rolling out some basic statistics such as demographics and job title. This approach can make the process of UCD a lot more fun and lead to an enriched understanding of the users needs, desires and cultural issues. In particular, their use could be helpful for the types of studies we do here at LiSC that involve real people in real environments instead of tightly controlled lab studies.
Examples of our projects that could benefit from the use of pistache scenarios are ENACT and Electro-Magnates, both of which will involve a diverse range of pariticpants touching upon sensitive aspects of their well-being and lifestyles.
A new cake made its debut appearance, the Sticky Toffee with butterscotch cream, it sure gave the Carrot and Walnut cake a run for its money.
Journal Club 7.1.2011 – Persuasive discussions
Jan 12th
We held the first journal club meeting of the new year in our shiny new office on the third floor of the MHT building, overlooking the bypass, a McDonalds and some train tracks. We got together to discuss persuasive technology. We have a number of projects that loosely fall into this field so it was good to talk through some stuff that we have recently been thinking about.
The main paper under discussion was by Consolvo et al (2009) and was presented at CHI that year. Available here We all had quite a lot to say about this paper and I think the general consensus was that while there were some interesting points included about incorporating theoretical approaches in design, that the evaluation (as appears to be the norm in this field) left a lot to be desired.
We also had a quick look at the UK governments interesting recent ‘nudge unit’ document and considered how it relates to this topic.
Rather shockingly, no cakes were harmed in the making of this blog post.
ENACT Project Blog #1
Jan 3rd
We have recently begun work on our work packages of the ENACT project. This project is investigating the use of modern Web 2.0 technology in the delivery of psychological therapy (Specifically; Cognitive Behaviour Therapy). As part of this project, there is a lot of basic background work to be done on understanding how people use these technologies in their day-today lives, and also on how people access computerised therapies. There is also a lot of work to be done on understanding how health research is conducted more generally.
Due to the vast array of stuff that is new to us that will undoubtedly come from our involvement in this project, I thought it would be a good idea to chronicle the process. So, this post will point to some papers we have read recently, some interesting starting points for thinking about how to go about this research. So, here’s a list of stuff we have recently found useful:
In doing and health-related research with humans it is of huge benefit to follow the guidelines laid out in this framework by Campbell, Fitzpatrick et al. (2000) Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7262/694.extract
In attempting to get a new practice (such as a new form of computerised therapy) accepted into everyday usage within a health service, there are a lot of factors to think about – all of which should be driving research questions. These factors are laid out in fascinating detail by Carl May and Tracy Finch
http://soc.sagepub.com/content/43/3/535.abstract
There are certain variables, described by Asay and Lambert, that appear to heavily influence the success of psychological therapies. These factors are constant across all types of therapies and must certainly be considered when designing any new method for delivering therapy.
http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/classes/31190/week%203/Asay-Common%20factors.pdf
Interestingly, the paper by Asay and Lambert should also be of interest to anyone interesting in developing any sort of technology with the intention of changing the behaviour of those who use it. The variables outlined by Asay and Lambert are the kinds of things that we are not good at identifying in HCI research. Another paper that is useful for all behaviour change purposes is this one by Percevic, Lambert and Kordy, which outlines the benefits of monitoring and presenting feedback as part of any intervention.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14981792
As I said – this really is a starting point – One that I’ve found to be quite useful in drawing up general ideas of how to go about this work. We’ll try to keep this blog updated as often as possible.
Conor