Student Name
HW 1
9/17/14
CSC 212
1. Problem Statement
Professors at the University of Rochester spend valuable class time fiddling with
Goergen’s classroom projectors. This project employs two needfinding techniques to
determine the user’s issues and suggests possible solutions to mitigate the delay.
2. Methodology
2.1 Techniques:
Observation and process mapping served as the primary needfinding techniques for
this project. I considered the survey technique, but since that relies on the professor’s
one-sided account of what happens, observation seemed the more practical choice for
gathering unbiased information. By observing professors using the projector equipment
in person, I can assess their needs and abilities, determine what tasks must be
performed and how they perform them, and use these observations to further develop
the process map and correct errors within it.
The process map was used to predict a potential ‘course of action’- a step-by-step
ideal model to compare to professor’s method. I designed a process map that lays out a
typical scenario, taking into consideration the process as it appears to the professor,
and the required mechanical processes of the projector equipment, for the reason that
deviations from the process map would be noted as potential workarounds or usercreated solutions.
The process map:
1. Start with professor who is unfamiliar with the classroom’s projector and control
panel, and assume basic technological capability (operate laptop, connect cables
to correct ports, etc).
2. The professor will try to power on the projector by pressing anything that looks
like a power button.
3. The professor will connect their laptop to the projector via cable first, and then
look for the button that selects the laptop as projection source.
4. The professor may hit the wrong key from the start, or may hit the right key at
first before pressing others while waiting for the projector to power up and/or
recognize laptop connection; this is the primary source of confusion and most
likely to propagate delays as the professor repeats steps 1-3 until successful.
2.2 Participant criteria
• Must being operating the projector equipment at the start of class. This will allow the
observer (myself) to accurately measure time and keep consistent with the typical
user scenario.
• Must be acting alone; i.e., I would not observe a ClassTech expert training a
professor, or a student setting up the projector for the professor.
2.3 Settings and Participants
• A ‘control test’ observation was made in Goergen 110 (referred to henceforth as
‘110’) with myself as an operator. I would try to connect my laptop by following the
process map.
• Professor Olga Korotkova would be observed in the Goergen 101 atrium (‘101’)
trying to connect to and operate the two-screen projector at the start of the OPT 596
colloquium.
• Dr. Rui Li would be observed in the Goergen 108 (‘108’) trying to connect to and
operate the two-screen projector at the start of the CSC 212/412 class.
2.3 Observation process
1. Introduce myself and ask permission to observe and take photos.
2. Time the users from ‘on’ button press until laptop display is projected on the
screen.
3. Refrain from interfering by taking action or giving advice, despite great temptation
to do so.
4. If an impasse is reached, ask them to explain/clarify the issue they’re facing.
Details of observation process for Prof. Korotkova, classroom 101:
1. Walk in and introduce myself to Prof. Korotkova. State my intent to observe
without interfering and to ask questions about connecting laptops to and
powering on the projector. Obtain permission to observe during class time and
take photographs beforehand.
2. Prof. Korotkova’s control panel has no sleep mode and is already on; she hits the
image of the left projector screen and then ‘source: PC’, repeating this process
for the right screen. The computer’s display is projected instantly on both
projector screens.
3. Prof. Korotkova requests my help finding a laser pointer, asks which flash drive
port to use, and how to display frozen videos in a PowerPoint presentation,
looking at the projector’s control panel for a Play button.
4. I say that I am only here to observe and ask questions, and ask “So you want to
use the projector control panel to control the PowerPoint slides?” at which point
the professor opts to use the laser pointer’s controls.
Observation for Dr. Li, classroom 108:
1. Came early to ensure Dr. Li’s projector use can be observed from the very
beginning. He enters 108 at the start of class and hands his laptop to the TA. I
introduce myself and ask if I can observe without interfering, record video, and
take photos of the set-up process. I obtain permission to do so.
2. Dr. Li spends some time plugging in and powering on his laptop. He plugs in the
projector-to-laptop cable. The laptop display flashes several times and Dr. Li
watches the projector screens, which are still showing the default image. Dr. Li
pushes the laptop button on the control panel while the laptop display keeps
flashing.
3. He asks the TA (Michelle) and myself if we can turn on the projectors, then steps
in and tries it himself. After several attempts by both teacher and TA, Dr. Li asks
Morgan if he can turn it on. I record a video of Morgan explaining how the
screens are activated; it can be viewed here.
4. I ask Dr. Li if he is looking for the laptop option when he continues to use the
projector panel (now opened to a different screen from the one Morgan showed
him). After one minute, he asks the TA to step in and try it, and she is successful.
One major issue observed by the participant and observant parties: the proper cords
are connected between laptop and projector, the laptop display disappears from the
laptop but does not reappear on the projector screens. The laptop display flashes on
and off before turning black. This is a hardware issue that the professor may not be able
to hurry along.
Also, by watching for any workarounds Dr. Li may use, I was able to instantly
recognize a major source of the problem: that Dr. Li’s workaround- allowing students to
assist in the process- resulted in the division and subsequent loss of his attention to the
issue, confident that the projector would work now that students were taking care of it.
This workaround does get the display working, but the professor still won’t know how to
get it working on his own, meaning that he would have to use this time-consuming
workaround at the start of each class.
3. Results
3.1 Summary and implicit findings
One discovery implicit to observing projector operation is the variation between
control panel interface: each classroom uses different panels to connect laptops to the
projector, and these panels operate not only on different hardware, but also via
graphically dissimilar interfaces, as shown:
Table 3.1.1
Goergen 110
The default screen for
classroom 110’s user
panel, which is a full
classroom length from the
cable hookup for laptops
(video)
The 110 user interface
when the “laptop” option is
selected.
Goergen 101 (Atrium)
The default screen for the
atrium’s two-projector
control panel; the modes
accessed by a button
press in Goergen 110 are
now displayed in a new
layout with touch-screen
buttons.
Goergen 108
The default screen for
classroom 108’s twoprojector control panel.
Same hardware as the
atrium’s panel with a
different graphical layout
for the user interface;
Neither a ‘laptop’ or ‘PC’
option is displayed here.
The variation in control panels may account for part of the delay, given the potential
for confusion when operating unfamiliar technology, but some delay is also caused by
the hardware powering on and its mechanical delay in executing tasks. The delay due
to hardware, software, and user operation in each observation session are displayed in
Table 3.1.2 below.
Classroom
110
101 (Atrium)
108
Table 3.1.2
Projector warmup
Laptop hookup
Total set-up time
10 seconds for
screen descent
1 minute, 30 sec
1 minute, 40 sec
Instant (<3 seconds)
for both screens
Instant (<3 seconds)
<3 sec
7 seconds for
projector to turn on
for both screens
7 minutes
7 minutes, 7 sec
The significant deviance in time from the control room (110)’s process illustrates the
difference between hardware delay and user delay: the newer equipment in 101 was
able to power on with the push of one button, while the same equipment in 108 took
much longer to power on and even longer for the user to properly operate.
3.2 Questions
• Iterations:
It took two iterations of the observation procedure before I felt the “ah-ha” moment- I
felt that I’d collected enough information to revise my process map and start over with a
new design (see Discussion in section 4).
• Footage:
The video found in Table 3.1.1, illustrating the classroom distance between equipment:
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0eaabvsrl5cmhj/110%20distance%20between%20device
s.mp4>
The video found in Section 3.2, Morgan explaining the control panel interface to Dr. Li:
< https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1o78cajrjif1gp/108%20video.mp4>
Consent for film recording was obtained from all three participants.
4. Discussion
4.1 Summary and acknowledgements
While reflecting on the process map after the observation sessions, I noted several
factors which the narrow focus of the process map did not account for: machine delay
and error, multiple-user situations (when two other students helped Dr. Li and took over
the control panel), and the quasi-Hawthorne effect of the professors requesting the help
of the observer.
The workaround deviated from the process map:
Dr. Li relied on two other students to operate the
projector and connect the laptop for him, which
made it difficult for a passive observer to
investigate the issues specific to the doctor’s
understanding.
It is also obvious when examining the process map that I’d designed from the
perspective of a technical expert- in many years of IT assistance I have repeatedly
observed that error falls on the user, not the machine, and so in this case I expected
that I would be dealing with ‘technologically illiterate’ professors who would need help
with the absolute basics, such as turning the machine on. If I could revise the process
map, I would show that the issue is not about the function of the machine vs. the
capability of the user- this is issue is optimizing the process (and possibly implementing
a solution) so it works for users and equipment both.
4.2 Suggested solutions
Using data from the control test and two observation sessions to correct my initial
process map, I would then determine which functions professors perform most
frequently (with more observation and/or interview), and suggest ways to optimize the
process: having Evaluated, I can then re-Design the process and test the Prototype on
professors that have trouble with projectors. Based on the significant time variation
between 101 and the others, it appears that a simple all-in-one user interface is the
most effective; however, this is difficult to gauge with such a small sample size. More
participants would be observed, questioned, and tested on the prototype solution, which
may involve a re-designed interface or a printed step-by-step guide available at each
control panel.