Interaction Design and Agile Development: a Real World Perspective

<p>Although both agile development methods and interaction design aim to build quality software that meets the user's needs, each approaches development from a different perspective. Agile development methods describe activities addressing the coding (and in some cases the process management) part of software development, whereas interaction design methods describe activities for developing that aspect of the software that will be perceived by the user. Agile development and interaction design each have little to say about the other, despite the reality that both approaches are combined in practice. There has been little investigation into how the two processes work together, and the issues that arise. To aim for a better understanding of practice, we conducted grounded theory research about real-world software teams who combine interaction design and agile development. The results provided insights into interaction design being done up front (before implementation begins), the structure of the development iterations, the effect of incorporating interaction design techniques into the agile development iterations, as well as the role of the interaction designer on agile teams. The analysis also highlighted areas that may benefit from further research.</p>

Try to see it my way – Examining the relationship between visual perspective taking and theory of mind in frontotemporal dementia

The behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is characterised by pronounced alterations in social functioning, including the understanding of others’ thoughts and feelings via theory of mind. The emergence of such impairments in other social disorders such as autism and schizophrenia is suggested to reflect an inability to imagine the other person’s visual perspective of the world. To our knowledge, this hypothesis is yet to be explored in bvFTD. Here, we sought to examine the capacity for different forms of perspective taking, including visual perspective taking and theory of mind in bvFTD, and to establish their inter-relationships and underlying neural correlates. Fifteen bvFTD patients and 15 healthy Controls completed a comprehensive battery of perspective taking measures, comprising Level 1 (‘what’) and Level 2 (‘how’) visual perspective taking tasks, a cartoon task capturing theory of mind, and a questionnaire assessing perspective taking in daily life. Compared with Controls, bvFTD patients displayed significant impairments across all perspective taking measures. These perspective taking impairments, however, were not correlated with one another in bvFTD. Moreover, controlling for visual perspective taking performance did not ameliorate the deficits in theory of mind or real-world perspective taking. Region-of-interest voxel-based morphometry analyses suggested distinct neural correlates for visual perspective taking (inferior frontal gyrus) versus theory of mind (medial prefrontal cortex, precuneus), which appeared to partially overlap with those implicated in real-world perspective taking (inferior frontal gyrus, precuneus, temporoparietal junction). Despite pervasive impairments in all aspects of perspective taking in bvFTD, our findings suggest that these deficits may reflect distinct underlying processes. Future studies manipulating discrete aspects of the tasks will help to clarify the neurocognitive mechanisms of, and relationships between different forms of perspective taking in bvFTD, along with their real-world implications.