Trust from a Human Computer Interaction perspective
Download as PPTX, PDF7 likes1,688 views
The document discusses the importance of trust in human-computer interaction (HCI) and emphasizes the need for design methodologies that incorporate persuasion, emotion, and trust to enhance user engagement. It highlights the socio-technical nature of trust, the dynamic factors that influence it, and how trust enables smoother interactions and cooperation in sharing practices. Additionally, it outlines a design challenge aimed at creating trust-enabling scenarios for students to encourage sharing of resources and skills within a community.
![Resources
• Sousa et al. (2014). A design space for trust
enabling interaction design. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Multimedia,
Interaction, Design and Innovation MIDI 2014.
ACM.
• Sousa et al. (2015). Value creation through trust
in technologically-mediated social participation.
Technology, Innovation and Education, 1 - 9.
[forthcoming]
• https://humancomputertrust.wordpress.com](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/trust-introduction-150330012852-conversion-gate01/85/Trust-from-a-Human-Computer-Interaction-perspective-44-320.jpg)
Trust from a Human Computer Interaction perspective
- 2. Plan for today • We will start by setting – The theoretical underpinnings of • Human Computer Trust • Design Persuasion, Emotion & Trust – Address the key principles of design for – Persuasion, Emotion & Trust – Focus on design for Trust
- 3. Trust and HCI • HCI – Study computing and computational artifacts as they relate to the human condition. • Trust – Study the dynamic nature of trust in relationships Human Computer Trust – how trust influences the human interactions • Study the socio-technical nature of trust • Study the role of Trust in user leverage engagement
- 4. Theoretical underpinnings • Persuasion is… – The act of changing people’s behaviors and beliefs • Dictionary – The action or process of persuading • To make someone to act or believe in something • HCI perspective – Design actions or processes of persuading • To change an attitude or behavior
- 5. Theoretical underpinnings • HCI perspective – Studding design methodologies to: • Incentives people to become – More engaged; and – More connected with a certain product or ecosystems • Change an attitude or behavior – Attitude: » reflects the way we think of fell about something – Behaviour: » reflects The way in which one acts or conducts oneself, special towards the other
- 7. key principles • The ongoing cultural shift – The existing ever-widening range of digital artifacts is transforming our daily lives. • New design methodologies are needed – More engaging, compelling, and effective • PET complements classic – Usability & user experience best practices
- 8. Key principles • PET aims is to – Facilitates the “will do” • Motivates people to complete the task – Encourage. Motivates, constrains • Usability aims is to – Facilitates the “can do” • Facilitates activities
- 9. key principles • PET assumptions – Persuasion • Foster triggers actions; – Emotion • Generate an emotional response; and – Trust • Leverage credibility and cooperation.
- 10. WHY TRUST….
- 11. The trust role in… • Leverage credibility and cooperation – To assures the success of • the action/process of persuading • How it works? ?
- 12. Trust is crucial element • Create trust enabling actions to make… – activities proceed more smoothly, – Ensure more transparent behaviours, – people work with greater confidence. • To encourage people to – Cooperate – Accept certain technologies – Execute more positive actions – Creates social bounds – Establish empathic relations
- 13. Trust represents a key value • In foster more – Social participation • eParticipation through civil engagement – Cooperation • Peer to peer work • In encouraging – Economical transactions • Ecommerce – sharing practices • sharing economy – Sustainability • Changing user behaviours incentive more reuse practices
- 14. Trust represents a key value • In incentive designers – To provide • GOOD DESIGN patterns – Avoiding the Evil UX design • Done by not so honest people – That deliberately design to fool, trick or exploit users – To balance on what some refer to • The vision and values of dark vs good design patterns. • Examples of this exist on the web, in software and even in the real world See http://darkpatterns.org
- 15. The challenge to design for trust • Lies on two main approaches – one that reflects a strict operational standpoint; and another – that sees trust as an internal quality. • Although both views seem divergent in nature – We believe that they complement each other • One focus on technical aspects – designing for reliable systems with the main aim of preventing risks • The other supports the social component of the system – that sits upon a technical base
- 16. Trust is a of a state of mind • Trust reflects – a confidence and the predisposition to trust another. • This come based on a set of perceptions of – another as 'trustworthy’. – Gain by the ability to observe reinsurance elements • Looking for a balance between – an individual's commitments and the risk involved
- 17. Trust is a reinsurance element, • Trust reflects certain properties that – help users to cope with the risk – Support users to perceive intended behaviours • Trust reflects a balance between – individual's commitments to engage with • a certain Tasks, • a certain person, • A system or community – and the risk involved
- 18. How it works? • Trust is dynamic – It changes through time • It is likely to have impact on the parties and on the relationship. • To trust we rely on – The identification of certain • Trustworthy making qualities – The identification of signs that lead you to perceive • A society, a person, and or a technological artifact – Is in fact 'trustworthy’
- 19. Common touch points • Within the user centered design framework Analysis Design Implementation Evaluation Contextual inquiry Ethnographic research Competitive research Interviews Personas and scenarios Information architecture Prototyping Standard & guidelines Mental mapping Design frameworks Storyboards Cognitive walkthrough Usability testing Wizard of OZ Thinkaloud protocol
- 20. Design challenge • Contextual overview – The Sharing Economy has brought new attention to the everyday practice of sharing. – Digital tools are changing both what we can do together across neighbourhoods and • Reshaping the way we – think about sharing our time, materials and skills. • By fostering more trustful sharing practices.
- 21. Design challenge • Create a set of – Trust enabling sharing task scenarios to persuade TLU students to • share time, materials and skills among themselves. – Context the TLU student community • The exchange students • Students that use the dormitory.
- 22. The design process User Research & Understanding STARTS Set the Goals Definition & Design Create task scenarios ENDS
- 23. Procedure • Step 1 – Create a set of possible sharing goals; – and • Step 2 – Create a set of possible sharing tasks; • Step 3 – Create a set of Trust enabling sharing actions; • Step 4 – Select the most relevant actions to your trust enabling sharing scenario
- 24. STEP 1 – WHAT DO WE SHARE
- 25. What do we share? • space, • time, • things, • transport, • skills, • childcare, • buying decisions, • meals, • celebration
- 26. STEP 2 - WHY DO WE SHARE?
- 27. Why do we share? • For sustainability… – For cooperation and trust – When facing difficult times; – For sense and purpose – Create more gainful activities that give a sense of purpose; – To spend less, waste less, consume less.
- 28. Why do we share? • Create a set possible sharing behaviours What makes us share Why we avoid sharing To save money Unclear responsibilities and legal issues of what happens to the property Students travel light, sharing is convenient The fear of not getting one’s item back. Get to know people The question of who’s responsible when an item gets broken.
- 29. Third step • inspection technique – Use the toolkit to identify a set of • Trust enabling sharing actions • The products we will examine are – http://neighborgoods.net – http://www.streetbank.com – https://www.peerby.com – http://www.justshareit.com – https://www.airbnb.com
- 30. STEP 3 – ANALYTIC TECHNIQUES
- 31. The socio-technical model of trust Trust Predisposition Competency Predictability Reciprocity Benovelence Honesty Motivation Willingness Expectations Rational perception Emotional perception Relationships Commitments Engagement AttitudesQualities IntentionsBeliefs
- 32. The model • This model depicts trust as a construct – informed by 7 (seven) individual qualities • The model determines the extent – to which one relates with one's social and technical environment.
- 33. Toolkit • Working with user’s expectations – Incentive or Motivate • Represents the degree to which an individual believes (even under conditions of vulnerability and dependence) h/she has the ability to perform specific beneficial actions when using a computer. – Creating Willingness • Reflects positive or negative feelings about performing a given action while considering the risk and incentives.
- 34. Toolkit • Working with user’s perceptions – Perceiving competency • Reflects the degree of ease of use when associated with the use of the system. – Perceiving predictability • Represents a user's confidence that the system will help him to perform a desired action in accordance with what is expected.
- 35. Toolkit • Working with user’s emotions – Express benevolence • reflects a user's perception that most people share similar behaviours and values. – Show reciprocity • represents the degree to which an individual sees oneself as a part of a group. – Transmit honesty • reflects an insurance quality when facing apprehension, or even fear with the possibility of being deceived.
- 36. STEP 4 – ANALYTIC TECHNIQUES
- 37. Fourth step • Perform a starfish analysis – Connecting steps 1 and 2 With 3 • Look at the previous identified set of – Trust enabling sharing task scenarios; – Possible sharing goals; – Possible sharing activities; and • Select – The ones that…
- 38. Stop The ones that… do not bring any added value to your design solution Starfish method
- 39. Less The ones that… don’t bring so much benefits to your design solution Starfish method
- 40. Keep The ones that… are good examples or practices and you want to use... Starfish method
- 41. More The ones that… are good examples or practices that you fell that you should focus more on. Starfish method
- 42. Start The ones that represent the… Atomic actions or ideas that a team wants to bring into the design. Starfish method
- 43. Solution • Create a set of – Trust enabling sharing scenarios to persuade TLU students to share time, materials and skills among themselves.
- 44. Resources • Sousa et al. (2014). A design space for trust enabling interaction design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia, Interaction, Design and Innovation MIDI 2014. ACM. • Sousa et al. (2015). Value creation through trust in technologically-mediated social participation. Technology, Innovation and Education, 1 - 9. [forthcoming] • https://humancomputertrust.wordpress.com