Assignment #2

The aim of this assignment is for you to think about the appropriateness of different kinds of conceptual model that have been designed for similar kinds of physical and electronic artifacts.

(a) Describe the conceptual model that underlie the design of:

        A personal pocket-sized calendar /diary 

        A wall calendar 

        A wall planner

        What is the main kind of activity and object they are based on?

        The activity and object that all of these devices are based on is keeping track of appointments and dates.  Each one provides a little different functionality  in that the personal pocket sized calendar is just looking a week in advance.  The wall calendar lets you see a month at a time while the wall planner lets you see a year at a time.

    How do they differ for each of the three artifacts?

    The allow different amounts of vision into the future.  For the pocket one you can see only a week at a time but you can put more information down on each day.  The wall calendar allows a look at one month at a time but take a little space away on each day to record appointments.  The wall planner allows you to see a whole year but really doesn't provide much space and sometimes provides no space for important information.

What metaphors have been used in the design of their physical interface?

The pocket calendar is basically a week.  While the wall calendar is a month and the wall planner is a year.

Do users understand the conceptual models these are based on in the ways intended?

Yes the users do understand that each one is a different time frame and allows for different things to be accomplished.

Do they match the different user needs?

For the most part the do match the different needs.  Users that need to just keep track of the dates can use the wall planner.  The ones that need more space to keep track of items that day can use the month planner.  And the ones that want to use a full days schedule use the week at a time.

(b)    Now describe the conceptual  models that underlie the design of:
        

        An electronic personal calendar found on a personal organizer or handheld computer.

        A shared calendar found on the web.

How do they differ from the equivalent physical artifacts?

They are on a screen and are a little more portable in the case of a personal organizer or handheld computer. A shared calendar on the web is more like a month calendar except it is on the computer.  

What new functionality has been provided?

The software programs that are used in the electronic versions of the planners have added functionality like reminders of important dates and the ability to take the planners with you in some cases so you can write down important dates in the far future very easily unlike the pocket calendar and very unlike the wall calendar and planner.

What interface metaphors have been used?

In the case of the electronic personal calendar on a personal organizer.  The organizer is based off of an organizer that is not electronic, and the calendar is based off of the paper calendars that go inside these organizers.  In the case of the shared calendar is it just like the wall calendar a month at a time.

Are the functions and interface metaphors well integrated?

Yes the functions and interface metaphors are well integrated.  The user can see how to turn the pages of the calendars very easily as well as the fact that there is space to write down their information.

What kinds of problems do users have with these interactive kinds of calendars?

Users that are not familiar with electronic devices can be intimidated.  They can also forget to save the items that they put in the calendar or know how to use the extra features like reminders.  They can easily get frustrated when appointments are missed because they did not know how to use they functions correctly.

Why do you think this is?

The major reason is users not understanding how the product works as a result of their intimidation or as a result of bad information given by the maker of the software.  The software can either be poorly designed so that it makes it difficult to understand and use, or the software can have bad directions on how to use it.