Capturing Design Space From a User Perspective: The Repertory Grid Technique Revisited

ion: Underlying Topics Made Visible It is quite common to evaluate artifacts (or a set of artifacts) to improve their design. Often neglected is the additional step of abstracting and generalizing from the data obtained (Carroll et al., 1992). Such abstractions could stimulate the develop452 Hassenzahl and Wessler Table 2: Number and Percentage of Personal Constructs Belonging to Different Types Concerning Their Design Relevancy Construct Type Design Relevancy No. of Constructs % of Constructs A Descriptive Low 75 44 B Evaluative; Useful for artifact selection Medium 34 20 C Evaluative; Useful for artifact redesign without the need for further analysis High 61 36 ment of theories for the design of artifacts and could prove helpful for solving future design problems. From our perspective, it is an important asset of an (evaluation) method to support abstraction. A first inspection of the personal constructs by the experimenter (i.e., Wessler) revealed obvious similarities within and between participants. Based on these similarities, he defined and described construct classes. We, with one additional rater, then categorized each construct as belonging to one of the construct classes. Ambiguous constructs were removed. Interrater agreement (Fleiss, 1971) of categorization was satisfactory (κ = 0.68, μ = 15.49; p < .01, two-tailed). Based on difficulties encountered during classification, the initial set of construct classes was slightly reformulated. It was attempted to resolve disagreement about construct’s class membership among the raters. In the case disagreements could not be resolved, the construct was removed from further analysis. Altogether, 153 constructs remained in the analysis. Table 3 shows the identified construct classes, some examples, and the number of constructs summarized by the class. Design principles. The construct class “design principles” refers to differences in metaphors (e.g., reality, anthropomorphism, desktop), visual design methods (e.g., animation, color), and interaction design methods (buttons, dialog boxes) used by the designers. It illustrates the participants’ receptiveness to differences in the way the designers solved the design problem set by the given task. The summarized constructs are more or less descriptive in nature. Quality of interaction. The construct class “quality of interaction” refers to differences in the prototype’s controllability, simplicity, and efficiency. It shows the participants’ ability to express and put into focus usability problems occurring during interaction. The summarized constructs are more or less evaluative in nature. Quality of presentation. The construct class “quality of presentation” refers to differences in the prototype’s self-descriptiveness (i.e., ability to communicate its functions, the way it is operated, and its current status) and clarity (e.g., readability, unambiguousness). It shows the participants’ ability to infer differences in the usability of prototypes from the way information is presented to them. The summarized constructs are more or less evaluative in nature. Hedonic quality. The construct class “hedonic quality” refers to differences in the prototype’s hedonic quality (Hassenzahl et al., 2000), that is, the non-task-related qualities modernity, novelty, and ability to stimulate. It illustrates the participants’ responsiveness to differences beyond mere usability and utility. The summarized constructs are more or less evaluative in nature. Capturing Design Space 453