Synthesis of discussions about possible developments

180 much as possible, the difference in the information provided (which is always present when there are two different visual presentations).

Another possible confounding factor detected when analysing experiment 2, was the tiredness effect. The participants’ preference for analysing conflicts and ambiguity in requirements with textual versus jigsaw puzzle metaphor, could very well be biased in favour of the jigsaw puzzle, because this was presented always first when participants were less tired. To avoid this possible factor, in the second session of experiment 3, the mode of presentation of the system requirements was the inverse of the one used in the first session.

One other possible confounding factor, raised by one participant, is that the examples worked might not be comparable, and in particular that the Health-Watcher could be considered simpler when compared to the CMS, i.e., having requirements easier to examine. It is difficult to ensure that the requirements documentation for two systems is “similar” in “handling difficulty”.

181 5.4.4.1 Design of the pieces and structure of the jigsaw puzzle design

The aspects participants liked in the design of the jigsaw puzzle metaphor, in comparison to the usual text presentation of requirements documentation, were as follows:

 The text inside the jigsaw puzzle pieces is presented in a simpler and easier

to read fashion, there are keywords, smaller sentences, the letters are bigger, the “important” information is bullet-pointed; some parts are highlighted (through upper case).

o As a consequence both the relevant topics and the relations between

pieces are more direct and easier to spot. This enables to accentuate some aspects, which make the users think if, for instance, the numbers (shown in more than one piece for the same or related aspects and that appear to be related) should match up;

 The jigsaw puzzle is colourful; someone said the orange and yellow colours used in experiment 3 lead into action;

 Users can move the different pieces (representing requirements), making it a more flexible presentation to work with;

 It promotes group work: all focused at the same time on only one object;

 Through presenting the requirements connected amongst them, makes users understand (visually) that requirements have impact on each other.

The structure, that the jigsaw puzzle provides, was discussed in some sessions. The way the puzzle pieces are laid down imposes/proposes an order to scan the possible conflicts/ambiguities. In experiment 1 with the L-shape, users are conducted to start the analysis by one of the ends. In experiments 2 and 3 with the rectangular 2x2 grid

182 shape, users are conducted to start typically with the top left piece. In all cases users tend to analyse the first piece they pick with the ones that are adjacent. The question raised was: is this a good or bad effect? Participants’ opinion was that the way the puzzle pieces are disposed allows controlling the focus of the discussion. It is important to note that, according to participants’ opinion, the structure provided by the puzzle if on one hand promotes analysis in a certain order, on the other does not limit people to find imperfections among pieces that are not directly connected. This opinion was supported by the results collected, since participants reported conflicts among pieces not directly connected or not having badly fitting interlocking shapes.

One participant commented that the jigsaw puzzle helps to think about the pairs of pieces that are side by side but not in diagonal. He suggested it would be good to allow more connections for interlocking shapes. To accommodate more connections, another participant suggested using pieces in shape of hexagon instead of rectangle (which is something the researchers also considered but did not evaluate). Another suggestion was to have bigger pieces

The design of the jigsaw puzzle can be better or worse, and this is a responsibility of the engineers in charge. More evaluation on the effects different shapes can have is also needed.

5.4.4.2 Possibility to present the jigsaw puzzle in a digital form

When the participants were queried on the possibility to support the jigsaw puzzle metaphor in a digital form, like in an interactive digital table, there were two types of reactions (except for one participant): some accepted the idea enthusiastically, some

183 others liked or even preferred the physical pieces but would also like (or in some cases accept) to have it in a digital table with all the advantages of the digital support.

From the 22 participants in the 3 experiments, one participant definitely assumed his preference for the physical mode of presenting the jigsaw puzzle.

The participants that accepted enthusiastically the possibility of having the jigsaw puzzle presented in an interactive table foresaw that this type of digital support could enable to work in pretty much the same way, as they did with the physical pieces, with the advantage of providing extra functionalities. One participant called it the “i-jigsaw puzzle”. Some of these advantages that were suggested by both groups are:

- Direct manipulation: hand writing (notes with comments and rationale with show/hide) and drawing (e.g. arrows, links between different words in different requirements, these links could have different widths if there are more conflicts in a link), move the pieces, change the size of pieces;

- Visual helpers: to have icons in each piece to illustrate the requirement that is being considered; highlight the words/expressions that provoked the conflicts;

- Intelligent real-time interaction (like changing a requirement text and see the interlocking shape due to a conflict disappearing);

o this functionality would be very important to provide users work

progress assessment in real-time;

- Have 3D jigsaw puzzles to enable visualization of a bigger number of relationships among requirements, and possibly with several levels of abstraction;

- Organization and storage;

- Easy distribution (e.g. possibility to send the jigsaw puzzle before/after the meeting)

- Collaborative functionalities (e.g. recording with different colors the contributions from different participants); and

184 - Technology is fun and this would have a positive impact in creativity: for technology fans the jigsaw in digital format would probably be an extra motivation compared with text.

The group of participants that wished to retain the physical pieces noted that it is a disadvantage to lose the possibility to touch the pieces physically, and lose the initial challenge of putting the pieces together physically and realize how they are physically linked. This group of participants accepted to work with the jigsaw puzzle in a computer, but they still would like to have the physical form.

One of participants pointed out that he was not feeling comfortable with the fact that the physical pieces did not match, and stressed he would not use a puzzle like this to discuss with his customers. When asked if having an interactive digital table that shows pieces fitting well when the problems are solved would make the jigsaw puzzle more usable, he replied that in that case he might use it.

One very interesting suggestion concerning the type of support for the jigsaw puzzle is to adjust the support according to participants’ profile. According to their preference the meeting could run with the jigsaw puzzle physically or digitally supported.

5.4.4.3 Picture in the background of the jigsaw puzzle pieces

In the debate about the picture background, some participants found it distracting.

They reported a tendency to make a connection between the picture and the system domain. Having this in mind one participant suggested this could be explored positively if the picture has something to do with the domain of the system. Another

185 idea was to have the background of the requirements with colours conveying information like priority/importance (e.g. red for highly important).

A very interesting suggestion and with marketing value, is to use the colours of customers in the picture background of the jigsaw puzzle. The idea is to use an abstract picture like the one used in experiment 3 (Figures 5-5 and 5-6) but with the colours of customer’s company.

Referring to the preference between the background images shown in Figure G-1 (the “clouds and water” picture) and 5-5 or G-4 (the “orange, yellow abstract” picture) used in the two sessions of experiment 3, all the six participants except one voted for the picture of Figure 5-5. There was one participant who preferred the “clouds and water” picture, because this is a natural, more serene picture. The ones that preferred the “orange, yellow abstract” picture pointed out the following reasons: it is colourful, it has hot colours and contrast, it has lines, and the connections are easier to spot.

They also pointed out that the “orange, yellow abstract” picture is more dynamic: this type of colours will lead into action. They said that the text in the picture of Figure G-1 is more difficult to read, since it contains blinds. With cold colours it is more difficult to make contrast.

When queried why they did not write on the pieces (experiment 3), participants said they would like to but did not do it in order to not deface the picture.

186 5.4.4.4 Possibility to identify conflicts and ambiguities that were not considered a priori

The participants debated if users would be able to identify conflicts that were not considered a priori by the engineers in charge and that are not visualized through the jigsaw puzzle. The general conclusion was that finding imperfections not “marked” is not prohibited by this jigsaw puzzle representation. Participants reported that initially they focused on the pairs that were given, but afterwards they went beyond the original limits of the given structure.

5.4.4.5 Attachment of semantics to the interlocking shapes of the jigsaw puzzle

In one of the sessions, participants tried to attach semantics to the interlocking shapes of the jigsaw puzzle: between the number of interlocking shapes and the number of phrases (in each requirement) with imperfections. They soon concluded that from the presented puzzle they could not draw this type of association. Later on in the meeting, participants came back again to the discussion of adding more semantics to the interlocking shapes. Some other meanings proposed for the bubbles were “what the requirement might provide (to other requirements)” or “what the requirement might need”.

One participant stressed that in his opinion this metaphor would not work without a semantics attached to the interlocking shapes. He stated: “we need to know the semantics for each interlocking to go any further in exploring the conflicts/ambiguities”. Nevertheless this participant worked with the material

187 presented and collaborated with the others in the task proposed. On the contrary another participant expressed clearly that he did not find anything special in the interlocking shapes, he just looked at the material presented as a metaphor to detect and analyse conflicts and ambiguities. For this participant the spatial relations among pieces (proximity can mean more interaction) are the ones that can benefit from having semantics attached. And in particular if this semantics is associated to spatial relations it can be used to direct people’s focus in different ways (with advantages but also with risks).