Formative evaluation plays an important role in the domain of interaction design (IXD). It occurs throughout the design and development processes, with the results of evaluation feeding back to revise the design. How important is formative evaluation in a product design process? Will this method obstruct creativity, or it can inspire and promote better design? In the fall of 2010, students from a senior-level product design course and a graduate-level interaction design course were grouped together to work on a GE Healthcare sponsored design project: home-based health monitors for individuals with Cerebral Palsy, Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and Arthritis. Product design students led the overall process of design: investigating the diseases, brainstorming the concepts and finalizing the design with stages of prototypes and computer models. IXD students acted in two roles: designing the interactive design components of the concepts and running formative evaluations iteratively to improve the outcome during the process. They adopted several evaluation methods, including usability testing, interface criticism, cognitive walkthrough, and heuristic evaluation at different stages to evaluate and improve the design outcomes. Instead of being an outside critic, they actively participated in the creation process. Product design students gained from the experience of working in a multi-role team, listening to the evaluation results, and integrating suggestions into their work. This paper reports the structure and outcomes of these design collaborations, highlights the gains and losses in the process, and most importantly, illustrates a potential path to conduct such design education in the future.

1. Integrating Interaction Design Evaluation into Product Design Process

2. STEVE VISSER Professor of Industrial Design CHERYL ZHENYU QIAN Assistant Professor of Interaction Design Department of Art and Design

8. An urgent need to consider digital interaction

9. User Interaction Experience 00 interface + navigation

10. Interface 00 A boundary across which two independent systems meet and act on or communicate with each other.

11. Interface 00 What is the industrial designer’s responsibility? Physical interface itself or Integration of digital & physical interface

12. User Interface 00 Engineering-centered user-centered

14. Navigation 00

15. Lost in the navigation 01

16. 01 Lost in the navigation

17. To integrate physical and digital interaction in education, there are gaps

18. Gap between design and cognitive science 01

19. Gap between design and information technology 01

20. Gap between design and evaluation methods 01

21. GE Healthcare Home Monitor for patients of Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's, Arthritis, Cerebral Palsy

22. What are the home monitors on the market?

23. Existing Product Usability Tests 00

24. Identified Problems 00

25. Diseases Research 00

26. Empathetic Research 00

28. Concept Progression 00 Each team illustrate 12 design concepts

29. Review Concepts 00 96 design concepts generated from 8 teams

30. Physical Prototypes 00

31. Digital Prototypes 00

32. Design Evaluation 00

33. Multiple Sclerosis Problem © 2011 Cheryl Zhenyu Qian, Purdue University

34. Design Outcome © 2011 Cheryl Zhenyu Qian, Purdue University

35. © 2011 Cheryl Zhenyu Qian, Purdue University

36. © 2011 Cheryl Zhenyu Qian, Purdue University

37. © 2011 Cheryl Zhenyu Qian, Purdue University

38. © 2011 Cheryl Zhenyu Qian, Purdue University

39. © 2011 Cheryl Zhenyu Qian, Purdue University

40. Arthritis Problem 00

46. Design Outcome of Enable The solution. Fits comfortably in hand

47. Track how long you have been inactive Design Outcome for Arthritis

48. Design Outcome 00

55. www.interactiondesign.us Deadline: Feb. 1 st , 2012