Designer perceptions of user agency during the development of environmental risk visualization tools

ABSTRACT

This paper presents initial results of an interview study of designers or developers of interactive tools for visualizing environmental risks (e.g., maps of coastal flooding). It focuses on visualization development as a space in which users can exercise agency via user-centered design practices, thus enhancing user agency during the ultimate context of use. I describe commonalities of user inclusion in the development process, and trends in designer perceptions of the role of users in development. I focus on: 1) how and why environmental risk visualization tool development projects involve users, 2) how and to what extent user participation in design/development helps co-define the design of the visualization tool, and 3) how the literature on user agency may contribute to design practices tailored toward the ultimate context of use of risk visualization tools.

References

1. R. D. Rawlins and G. D. Wilson. Agency and interactive data displays: Internet graphics as co-created rhetorical spaces. Tech. Comm. Q. 23, 4 (2014), 303--322.
2. E. Naglehout, J. Staggers, and D. Tillery. Risk communication, space and findability in the public sphere: A case study of a physical and online information center. J. Tech. Wr. & Comm. 39, 3 (2009), 227--243.
3. B. Mirel. Visualizations for data exploration and analysis: A critical review of usability research. Tech. Comm. 45 (1998), 491--509.
4. D. Richards. Testing the waters: Local users, sea level rise, and the productive usability of interactive geovisualizations. Comm. Des. Q. 3, 3 (2015), 20--24.
5. N. Pidgeon, Complexity, uncertainty and future risks. J. Risk. Research. 17, 10 (2014), 1269--1271.
6. R. E. Roth, Interactivity and cartography: A contemporary perspective on user interface and user experience design from geospatial professionals. Cartographica 50, 2 (2015), 94--115.
7. N. Iivari. Enculturation of user involvement in software development organizations: An interpretive case study in the product development context. In Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, (2004), 287--296. New York, NY: ACM Press.
8. E. Eshet, and H. Bouwman. Context of use: The final frontier in the practice of user-centered design? Interact. Comp. 2016, 1--23.
9. J. Corbin, and A. Strauss. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19, 6 (1990), 418--427.
10. E. Haley, R. Taylor, and M Morrison. How advertising creatives define excellent planning. J. Curr. Iss. & Res. Advertising, 35, 2 (2014), 167--189.
11. J. Corbin and A. Strauss. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). (2008) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. S. Carliner. Physical, cognitive, and affective: A three-part framework for information design. Tech. Comm. 47, 4 (2000), 561--576.
13. J. Iivari and N. Iivari. Varieties of user-centredness: An analysis of four systems development methods. Info. Systems J. 21 (2011), 125--153.
14. S. H. Stephens, D. E. DeLorme, and S. C. Hagen. Evaluation of the design features of interactive sea-level rise viewers for risk communication. Env. Comm. 11, 2 (2017), 248--262.
15. M. M. Cooper. Rhetorical agency as emergent and enacted. Coll. Comp. Comm. 62, 3 (2011), 420--429.