Advertisement

Case Study: Building UX Design into Citizen Science Applications

  • Brian TraynorEmail author
  • Tracy Lee
  • Danah Duke
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10290)

Abstract

Citizen science is the engagement of the public in science or monitoring to address real world problems. Citizen science programs have the ability to provide excellent data for researchers at large spatial and temporal scales. Advancements in technology has resulted in a proliferation of citizen science programs and many are dependent on website and smartphone applications to facilitate data collection, data usability and communication of results. Citizen science applications need to be developed so that they are easy to use and any interface issues identified and resolved before release. Usability reports during the development cycle provide evidenced-based prioritization recommendations. In this paper, two case studies are presented. The Call of the Wild application involved the testing of a high fidelity prototype to collect data on work flow and ease of use. The Wild Watch application provided data on task success and SUS scores that supported release readiness. Both projects continue to have improvements identified based on usability testing.

Keywords

Citizen science Usability testing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Wild Watch is generously supported by Cenovus Energy and Shell Canada. Call of the Wetland is generously supported by Enbridge, TD Friends of the Environment and The Calgary Foundation.

The authors wish to thank information design and communications students from Mount Royal University whom assist with the usability testing, including Amy Lai, Alexis Handford, and Devon Henry. In addition we thank participants whom undertook usability testing for Call of the Wetland and Wild Watch programs.

References

  1. 1.
    Bonney, R., Phillips, T.B., Ballard, H.L., Enck, J.W.: Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Underst. Sci. 25, 2–16 (2015). doi: 10.1177/0963662515607406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mckinley, D.C., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Ballard, H.L., et al.: Published by the Ecological Society of America ESA Management and Environmental Protection (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson, S.: Citizen science reveals an extensive shift in the winter distribution of migratory western grebes. PLoS ONE 8, e65408 (2013). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Westgate, M.J.: Citizen science program shows urban areas have lower occurrence of frog species, but not accelerated declines. PLoS ONE 10, e0140973 (2015). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140973 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delaney, D., Corinne, D., Sperling, S., et al.: Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol. Invasions 10, 117–128 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tidball, K.G., Krasny, M.E.: Civic ecology: a pathway for earth stewardship in cities. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 267–273 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evans, C., Abrams, E., Reitsma, R., et al.: The neighborhood nestwatch program: participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conserv. Biol. 19, 589–594 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ballard, H., Belsky, J.: Participatory action research and environmental learning: implications for resilient forests and communities. Environ. Educ. Res. 16, 611–627 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wing, S., Horton, R., Marshall, S., et al.: Air pollution and odor in communities near industrial swine operations. Environ. Health Perspect. 116, 1362–1368 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiggins, A., Crowston, K.: From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of citizen science (2011). doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2011.207
  11. 11.
    Cox, J., Oh, E.Y., Simmons, B., et al.: Defining and measuring success in online citizen science. Comput. Sci. Eng. 17, 28–41 (2015). doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2015.65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C., Packer, C.: A generalized approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data from wildlife images. Conserv. Biol. 30, 520–531 (2016). doi: 10.1111/cobi.12695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haywood, B.K., Parrish, J.K., Dolliver, J.: Place-based and data-rich citizen science as a precursor for conservation action. Conserv. Biol. 30, 476–486 (2016). doi: 10.1111/cobi.12702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ries, L., Oberhauser, K.: A citizen army for science: quantifying the contributions of citizen scientists to our understanding of monarch butterfly biology. Bioscience 65, 419–430 (2015). doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pocock, M.J., Chapman, D.S., Sheppard, L.J., Roy, H.E.: A strategic framework to support the implementation of citizen science for environmental monitoring. Final report to SEPA, p. 67 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shirk, J.L., Ballard, H.L., Wilderman, C.C., et al.: Public participation in scientific research : a framework for deliberate design. Ecol. Soc. 17(2), 20 (2012). Article 29, doi: 10.5751/ES-04705-170229
  17. 17.
    Silvertown, J.: A new dawn for citizen science. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 24, 467–471 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baker, B.: Frontiers of citizen science. Bioscience 66, 921–927 (2016). doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poushter, J.: Smartphone ownership and internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies. Pew. Res. Cent., 45 (2016). http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Teacher, A.G.F., Griffiths, D.J., Hodgson, D.J., Inger, R.: Smartphones in ecology and evolution: a guide for the app-rehensive. Ecol. Evol. 3, 5268–5278 (2013). doi: 10.1002/ece3.888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Foster, G.L., Owen, L., Persello, S.: Exploring the role of smartphone technology for citizen science in agriculture. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 25 (2016). doi: 10.1007/s13593-016-0359-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., et al.: The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 298–304 (2012). doi: 10.1890/110294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Curtis, V.: Online citizen science projects: an exploration of motivation, contribution and participation. Ph.D. thesis. The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK (2015). http://oro.open.ac.uk/42239/
  25. 25.
    Davies, L., Fradera, R., Riesch, H., Fraser, P.L.: Surveying the citizen science landscape: an exploration of the design, delivery and impact of citizen science through the lens of the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) programme. BMC Ecol. 16, 1–13 (2016). doi: 10.1186/s12898-016-0066-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Graham, E.A., Henderson, S., Schloss, A.: Using mobile phones to engage citizen scientists in research. Eos (Washington DC) 92, 313–315 (2011). doi: 10.1029/2011EO380002 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Preece, J.: Citizen science: new research challenges for human-computer interaction. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 32, 585–612 (2016). doi: 10.1080/10447318.2016.1194153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chase, S.K., Levine, A.: A framework for evaluating and designing citizen science programs for natural resources monitoring. Conserv. Biol. 30, 456–466 (2016). doi: 10.1111/cobi.12697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jepson, P., Ladle, R.J.: Nature apps: waiting for the revolution. Ambio 44, 827–832 (2015). doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0712-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Newman, G., Zimmerman, D., Crall, A., et al.: User-friendly web mapping: lessons from a citizen science website. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 24, 1851–1869 (2010). doi: 10.1080/13658816.2010.490532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tullis, T., Albert, B.: Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 25062:2006 - Software engineering—Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—Common Industry Format (CIF) for usability test reports (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    ISO/IEC: 25066:2016 Systems and software engineering—Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—Common Industry Format (CIF) for usability—Evaluation report (2016)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sauro, J.: A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale. Measuring Usability LLC, Denver (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mount Royal UniversityCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Miistakis InstituteCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations