<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Matching HCI Methods and Developers Values in eXtreme Programming Development Processes</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Peter Wolkerstorfer</string-name>
          <email>wolkerstorfer@cure.at</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Manfred Tscheligi</string-name>
          <email>tscheligi@cure.at</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Claudia Oppenauer-Meerskraut</string-name>
          <email>oppenauer@cure.at</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Arjan Geven</string-name>
          <email>geven@cure.at</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>CURE - Center of Usability Research &amp; Engineering Modecenterstraße 17 / Objekt 2</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>1110 Vienna</addr-line>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Here within we describe our practical experience with the orchestration of human computer interaction (HCI) methods and extreme programming (XP) software development processes. We show how we selected the applied methods based on the motivating goals and values of developers by using a means-end approach. We discuss our experiences with the applied methods and conclude with some advice on which HCI methods are optimally supporting extreme programming developers.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>INTRODUCTION
A problem when HCI engineers are to collaborate with
extreme programming software developers is the difference
between cultures: Software engineers on the one hand and
HCI experts on the other hand come from different domains
with different attitudes, approaches, backgrounds, and even
different ways to express themselves. The XP process
requires tight cooperation in teams, which reveals
differences between engineers and HCI experts very
quickly: engineers have a technical approach to software
development whereas HCI experts mainly have a
psychological background, hence taking a cognitive view
on the software development. These differences can lead to
problems. Methods to prevent this have to be integrated into
the collaboration process. To avoid cultural problems HCI
methods must fit the developers´ needs. Our approach to
provide this match of methods is to look at the psychology
(goals and values) of developers and derive user-experience
(UX) requirements (REQ) from them. In our case UX is
meant as the programmers experience in relationship to the
applied HCI methods. On this basis we select HCI methods
to optimally support the development process. The insights
in this paper come from a research project where the goal
was to orchestrate usability and XP processes.</p>
      <p>GOALS AND VALUES OF XP- DEVELOPERS
Foundations
In order to identify the necessary selection of HCI methods
we need to consider that HCI methods - in most of the cases
- are not the prime focus of XP programmers, not under
their constant attention nor necessarily fit for application in
XP- processes. Therefore, to achieve a higher
usercenteredness and an enhanced usage and acceptance of
usability methods in agile teams the following two pillars
need to be fostered:
a.) Position usability methods in a way that they fit
the agile team structure and process without
disturbing the primary task: software development
(=adoption towards the organizational and process
goals).
b.) Align the usability methods towards the
programmer’s goals and values in order to achieve
acceptance and use of these methods beyond
indoctrination (=adoption towards psychological
and developer’s goals).</p>
      <p>
        Developer’s UX Requirements
The methods we used to elicit the requirements are focus
groups due to availability of the developers and a means
end approach [[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]] as it provides insights into motivating
goals and values of developers. This was done to elicit the
UX requirements of developers related to HCI methods.
The findings suggest that the requirements are, that HCI
methods:
• REQ1: have to be easy to apply
• REQ2: are efficient (in terms of time and cost)
• REQ3: are non-intrusive related to the developers
workflow
• REQ4: support team
      </p>
      <p>
        communication
• REQ5: enable learning and finding new approaches
• REQ6: must make ambition (professional AND personal
achievement) achievable
orientation
and
inter-team
HCI METHOD SELECTION
Pool of Methods
When we started our research project it was not clear to us
which HCI methods should be preferred in XP development
processes. Hence we started with a method mix containing:
user studies, usability laboratory tests, usability expert
evaluations, (adopted) personas, and extended unit-tests in
the sense of automated usability evaluation (AUE) [[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]].
The question then was: which HCI method to select?
Selection
Personas
Personas are archetypical descriptions of real users,
representing the target user group. Personas are often
described in a narrative way and are designed to help
software developers to get a better understanding of the real
end-user they are developing for [[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]]. We have chosen the
personas method based on requirements REQ1, REQ2,
REQ3 and REQ4.
      </p>
      <p>
        Extended Unit Tests
In XP unit testing is mandatory. Our approach extends the
technical unit tests by adding usability- specific test cases.
At the time writing we are experimenting with a
graphbased approach [[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]]. We have chosen extended unit tests
based on requirements REQ2, REQ3, REQ5 and REQ6.
CONCLUSION
Personas have been a great success and have also been
honoured by the developers. An observation worth
reporting is that there seems to be a small fraction (in our
case: one out of six) of developers who are “resistant” to
the personas method – hence reject it completely. We
suggest conducting a psychological screening of developers
before setting up teams to be able to identify those people
in order to cope with the problem.
      </p>
      <p>The experience with the approach to extend unit tests is
twofold: on the one hand we succeeded in including
automated usability evaluations in the nightly build. On the
other hand the actual testing frameworks are not suited for
AUE. Hence new AUE-tools have to be developed. Our
graph-based approach is promising but – by now – much to
abstract (there is a need for graph- and HCI knowledge to
interpret the results). For practical implementation such
tools have to provide easy to understand and clear usability
feedback to the developers.</p>
      <p>FUTURE RESEARCH
Future research will have to provide AUE-tools, which
enable developers to easily grasp HCI knowledge from the
tool in order to implement usability accordingly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research herein is partially conducted within the
competence network Softnet Austria (www.soft-net.at) and
funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics
(bm:wa), the province of Styria, the Steirische
Wirtschaftsförderungsgesellschaft mbH. (SFG), and the city
of Vienna in terms of the center for innovation and
technology (ZIT).</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pruitt</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Adlin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T. 2005</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design</article-title>
          (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Reynolds</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Thomas J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Olson</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Jerry C.
          <article-title>; Lawrence, Understanding Consumer Decision Making, The means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy</article-title>
          ; Erlbaum Associates,
          <year>2001</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Thimbleby</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gow</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2008</year>
          .
          <article-title>Applying Graph Theory to Interaction Design</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Engineering interactive Systems: EIS 2007 Joint Working Conferences, EHCI</source>
          <year>2007</year>
          ,
          <article-title>DSV-IS 2007</article-title>
          ,
          <article-title>HCSE 2007</article-title>
          , Salamanca, Spain, March
          <volume>22</volume>
          -24,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Selected</given-names>
            <surname>Papers</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Gulliksen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. B.</given-names>
            <surname>Harning</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Palanque</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G. C.</given-names>
            <surname>Veer</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and J. Wesson,
          <source>Eds. Lecture Notes In Computer Science</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>4940</volume>
          . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg,
          <fpage>501</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>519</lpage>
          . DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
          <fpage>540</fpage>
          -92698-6_
          <fpage>30</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wolkerstorfer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tscheligi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sefelin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Milchrahm</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hussain</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lechner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shahzad</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2008</year>
          .
          <article-title>Probing an agile usability process</article-title>
          .
          <source>In CHI '08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Florence, Italy, April 05 - 10</source>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
          <source>CHI '08. ACM</source>
          , New York, NY,
          <fpage>2151</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>2158</lpage>
          . DOI= http://doi.acm.
          <source>org/10</source>
          .1145/1358628.1358648
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>