Volume 14, Issue 4, August 2019
Books, movies, and culture, in general, have elevated artificial intelligence (AI) as the answer to everything, while simultaneously training generations of us to dread AI. Recent events have brought some of our worst technology fears to light. Those now infamous AI systems likely began with poor or heavily biased content, inadequate training, and most significantly a lack of mitigation planning and maintenance. AI systems are as imperfect as the humans making them and retain the biases, the inconsistencies, and the flaws inherent in the initial data provided to them. Looking for patterns in flawed data magnifies the flaws and identifies patterns that may not be valid. These poorly designed systems can create dangerous situations for humans. AI must be designed responsibly and intentionally.
When developing a new product, it is common for designers to feel that they do not have enough information about users’ needs. This is especially true at the front end of a new product design process. An important component of this process is testing and validating potential design concepts. The aim of this study was to explore the validity of augmented reality (AR) and tangible augmented reality (TAR) as tools for evaluating the usability of a product.
Digital technologies have changed human behavior, especially the characteristics of products and their functionalities related to interface and interaction. Smartphone users had to accept touchscreen interfaces without sufficient evidence of the effectiveness of these digital interfaces over physical analog interfaces. Moreover, smartphone gaming industries have introduced mobile games with touch-based interfaces that may or may not be effective for game users. This study aims to find empirical evidence for the effectiveness between analog and digital interfaces for smartphone game controls through two usability tests: (a) a pilot study to compare the data values between direct and indirect input control with six participants and (b) a main study to investigate the effects of tap-only afford between digital and analog input control from the results of the pilot study.
The purpose of this research was to investigate the effect of manipulating item formats for a revised version of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire. The TAM has 12 items, six assessing perceived usefulness (PU) and six assessing perceived ease of use (PEU). Its original purpose was to quantify likelihood of technology acceptance, using an item format with end anchors of “Likely” on the left and “Unlikely” on the right, and seven response options (from left to right) of “Extremely, Quite, Slightly, Neither, Slightly, Quite, Extremely.” To revise the TAM to measure user experience (UX), it is necessary to change the items from assessments of likelihood to agreement.