Well, in the last couple of weeks I have been returning to Robert Nozick's writings. The reason is that I had to check something in his book "The Examined Life" and when I browsed through the book I realized how much I liked it. That in turn led me to look for another of his books in my bookshelf "The Nature of Rationality" and to order his last book "Invariances -- the structure of the objective world".
These are some ambitious titles! After spending some hours with this books I am again captivated and delighted by his way of writing (even though I already knew it). His books are wonderful to read. The writings are vibrant and crisp. It feels more like listening to someone who really know what they are talking about than reading a text.
I am trying to figure out what it is that intrigues me about the texts. First of all, I like the almost ridiculous ambition of Nozick's projects. He is trying to explain rationality, life, nature, and the real world. This is of course what philosophy is about. The opening sentence in "Invariances" is "Philosophy begins in wonder."
I also like that he is not desperately trying to "win" some kind intellectual war and to have the final word. He writes that the "method" should be to explore and to find what is "plausible, illuminating, intellectually interesting, and supported by reason" and that it is not about "proofs". He uses this phrase frequently to make sure the reader do not forget what the measure of success is.
I also like that Nozick is dealing with the basic questions when it comes to everyday life, for instance, he comes back all the time to the simple question, what is "reason" and how do we know what is "reasonable" and is there a form of rationality that is natural and what would that mean. To me, these question are directly relevant for my own research on design and judgment. Reason and rationality are related to judgment. Rationality is a cornerstone in design arguments. But what kind of rationality? Actually, at the end of "The Nature of Rationality" he engages in a discussion about imagination and what it means that rationality is not only about alternative solutions but about imagining new alternatives. It is possible to read this short section as if it is about design.
Anyway, highly stimulating readings.
Book note: Robert Nozick "The examined Life - Philosophical meditations"
After being hidden in my book shelf for quite some time, the book "The examined Life - Philosophical meditations" by Robert Nozick surfaced the other day. This is a book that came out in 1989 and is maybe the most approachable of books by Nozick, even though that is questioned by some. The book has been called an overambitious and almost silly attempt to achieve the impossible.
The book is unusual for a philosophical treatment, since it has a quire personal tone and deals with issues that are way too big for the format. This personal tone and relevance for everyday life reflects the title of the book. The term "the examined life" is a reference to the famous expression by Sokrates "“The unexamined life is not worth living".
Nozick is not known for this particular book. Many reviewers see this as a strange non-philosophical exploration of topics that are less "philosophical" in a traditional sense. Those who do review the book mostly discuss the chapters where Nozick explores ethical or life issues, such as love, happiness, sexuality, and faith.
To me the book, apart from discussing those important subjects also takes on a fascinating experiment in how to analytically approach reality. I frequently use some of Nozick's definitions in my teaching, particularly his wonderfully simple distinction between value and meaning. Nozick attempts to develop a full "matrix" of qualities that we have to consider if we want to understand reality. He ends up with a matrix consisting of 48 qualities! This is to some extent overwhelming and have by some been labeled as a somewhat crazy endeavor. At the same time, at least for me it is inspiring and a sign of courage. He calls it the "polyhedron of reality" or the "matrix of reality".
In my recent attempts to think about an analytical approach to human computer interaction and what that would entail, I find Nozick's work highly relevant and inspiring. I am convinced that some parts of his matrix can serve as a foundation for such analysis. So, I will definitely come back to this and see what can be done.
I highly recommend this book in general, not only for the "matrix" part but for the way it is written, the tone and style, and the way Nozick see the purpose of philosophy.
The book is unusual for a philosophical treatment, since it has a quire personal tone and deals with issues that are way too big for the format. This personal tone and relevance for everyday life reflects the title of the book. The term "the examined life" is a reference to the famous expression by Sokrates "“The unexamined life is not worth living".
Nozick is not known for this particular book. Many reviewers see this as a strange non-philosophical exploration of topics that are less "philosophical" in a traditional sense. Those who do review the book mostly discuss the chapters where Nozick explores ethical or life issues, such as love, happiness, sexuality, and faith.
To me the book, apart from discussing those important subjects also takes on a fascinating experiment in how to analytically approach reality. I frequently use some of Nozick's definitions in my teaching, particularly his wonderfully simple distinction between value and meaning. Nozick attempts to develop a full "matrix" of qualities that we have to consider if we want to understand reality. He ends up with a matrix consisting of 48 qualities! This is to some extent overwhelming and have by some been labeled as a somewhat crazy endeavor. At the same time, at least for me it is inspiring and a sign of courage. He calls it the "polyhedron of reality" or the "matrix of reality".
In my recent attempts to think about an analytical approach to human computer interaction and what that would entail, I find Nozick's work highly relevant and inspiring. I am convinced that some parts of his matrix can serve as a foundation for such analysis. So, I will definitely come back to this and see what can be done.
I highly recommend this book in general, not only for the "matrix" part but for the way it is written, the tone and style, and the way Nozick see the purpose of philosophy.
An Analytic Turn in HCI Research
Over the last few years I have explored and played with the idea of an analytic turn in HCI research. My reasons for this exploration are several--some reasons are fairly simple and straightforward while others more complex and subtle. The most obvious reason for me to turn to analysis is that I am looking for a more object/artifact/thing oriented approach in HCI research.
The turn in HCI research toward user-centeredness and user experience have in many cases gone too far. This research has strived to become more inclusive of aspects outside of the traditional ones, such as functionality, efficiency, etc. The complete focus on the user has led to wonderful developments in the field that were highly needed and that have made a great impact. At this time though, with the ambition to consider "everything" important, a lot of research in interaction design and HCI is becoming far too broad, leaving a core without concreteness and without any analytical strength that would make sense from a design perspective.
Interestingly enough this expansion of HCI research when it comes to scope is not limited to any particular approach or method. It is possible to see the same effort manifested in highly developed qualitative research as well as in quantitative research. The attempt in both cases seems to be to find ways to capture, analyze and explain users reactions and experiences of interactive artifacts and systems. However, in both cases it has lead to a shift in focus away from the object/artifact/system/thing that the experiencing subject is interacting with.
My own explorations lately have therefore been based on the simple idea that analysis of interactive artifacts can be done without applying any form of use or user perspective. It is an analytic research approach that aligns with a design perspective in the sense that the analysis is directed towards those aspects of the design that a designer can control. After having tried this approach in some studies, I am convinced that it is highly rewarding but at the same time difficult and still far from clear how to do it. I am quite sure however that it is different from both any kind of user studies and interestingly also criticism (which sounds like it could be similar).
I am (slowly) developing an approach or at least a way of thinking, in collaboration with some phd students, that I label "artifact analysis". It is clear that a proper artifact analysis has to be done according to some principles and the process has to be clearly thought out. The results are, in my view, really interesting and in many ways surprising. And what I like the most is that the findings are often counterintuitive and quite challenging. Now you may ask, ok, so how do you do it? Well, I do not have time to write that now, maybe later :-)
The turn in HCI research toward user-centeredness and user experience have in many cases gone too far. This research has strived to become more inclusive of aspects outside of the traditional ones, such as functionality, efficiency, etc. The complete focus on the user has led to wonderful developments in the field that were highly needed and that have made a great impact. At this time though, with the ambition to consider "everything" important, a lot of research in interaction design and HCI is becoming far too broad, leaving a core without concreteness and without any analytical strength that would make sense from a design perspective.
Interestingly enough this expansion of HCI research when it comes to scope is not limited to any particular approach or method. It is possible to see the same effort manifested in highly developed qualitative research as well as in quantitative research. The attempt in both cases seems to be to find ways to capture, analyze and explain users reactions and experiences of interactive artifacts and systems. However, in both cases it has lead to a shift in focus away from the object/artifact/system/thing that the experiencing subject is interacting with.
My own explorations lately have therefore been based on the simple idea that analysis of interactive artifacts can be done without applying any form of use or user perspective. It is an analytic research approach that aligns with a design perspective in the sense that the analysis is directed towards those aspects of the design that a designer can control. After having tried this approach in some studies, I am convinced that it is highly rewarding but at the same time difficult and still far from clear how to do it. I am quite sure however that it is different from both any kind of user studies and interestingly also criticism (which sounds like it could be similar).
I am (slowly) developing an approach or at least a way of thinking, in collaboration with some phd students, that I label "artifact analysis". It is clear that a proper artifact analysis has to be done according to some principles and the process has to be clearly thought out. The results are, in my view, really interesting and in many ways surprising. And what I like the most is that the findings are often counterintuitive and quite challenging. Now you may ask, ok, so how do you do it? Well, I do not have time to write that now, maybe later :-)
New course in the Spring 2014: "Philosophy and Theory of Design"
I have against better judgment decided to teach a new course in the Spring of 2014. I have since 15 years or so taught a course on "Design Theory" mostly for master students. That course has become a bit less theoretical in the last few years (but it is also much better as a course!). The new course is a small seminar (maybe 6-12) with the title "Philosophy and Theory of Design". It will only be open for PhD students and interested colleagues, and only after permission from me :-) We will meet once a week for 1,5 hour, read good texts and discuss. I will also now and then give shorter "lectures" during these meetings. I don't know if anyone will sign up for this type of course, we'll see. I am looking forward to it, and if you are interested, write to me.
(I am as usual also in the Spring teaching a course on "Experience Design")
(I am as usual also in the Spring teaching a course on "Experience Design")
Why flat design is soon boring, old and "flat"
The notion of flat design has seen some tremendous success in the last years (even Google is doing it). There is an abundance of sites and blogs that will tell you what flat design is and how it will revolutionize design, especially interface design. Some see flat design not as a form of style but as an inevitable development.
Flat design is as a form language and style quite interesting especially after a long period when digital technology made it possible to imitate reality in all its glory and richness. So, it is not strange that there is an attraction in the opposite, which some see as a turn towards the "real" qualities of digital material (which makes the whole question more philosophical).
Anyway, all this is fine and well. However, we will all quite soon be bored again, and flat design will be seen as "old" and maybe "flat". I have no problem with that, that is the way style and fashion in any field works.
What is somewhat problematic is when designers argue that flat design is not a choice, not a style, not one out of infinitely many possible ways to design. When they see flat design as a culmination of an evolution or as the unavoidable paradigm. Such a view is highly unfortunate. It leads to simplistic understandings of design and at the end of the day, it leads to a narrowing and streamlining of the design space which in turn lead to a deprived design landscapes and ultimately boring designs.
Flat design is as a form language and style quite interesting especially after a long period when digital technology made it possible to imitate reality in all its glory and richness. So, it is not strange that there is an attraction in the opposite, which some see as a turn towards the "real" qualities of digital material (which makes the whole question more philosophical).
Anyway, all this is fine and well. However, we will all quite soon be bored again, and flat design will be seen as "old" and maybe "flat". I have no problem with that, that is the way style and fashion in any field works.
What is somewhat problematic is when designers argue that flat design is not a choice, not a style, not one out of infinitely many possible ways to design. When they see flat design as a culmination of an evolution or as the unavoidable paradigm. Such a view is highly unfortunate. It leads to simplistic understandings of design and at the end of the day, it leads to a narrowing and streamlining of the design space which in turn lead to a deprived design landscapes and ultimately boring designs.
Book note: Goffman, interaction and analytical artifact oriented HCI
I just received the book "Interaction Rituals" by Erving Goffman in the mail. I have not really read Goffman before but found the writing to resonate with my own thinking. Even though a lot of his work is in psychology and sociology it is possible to read his work as if it is about human-computer interaction and not only human-human interaction.
I found this great quote in the Introduction:
"I assume that the proper study of interaction is not the individual and his psychology, but rather the syntactical relations among the acts of different persons mutually present to one another. None the less, since it is individual actors who contribute the ultimate materials, it will always be reasonable to ask what general properties they must have if this sort of contribution is to be expected of them. What minimal model of the actor is needed if we are to wind him up, stick him amongst his fellows, and have an orderly traffic of behavior emerge?" (page 2).
It is possible to read this as if it is about human computer interaction. Contrary to most work in HCI today, which is almost completely focused on the "human" side of use and experience and not on the "computer" side, Goffman argues that it is possible to, or maybe even necessary to, develop models of the "ultimate material", which in this case would be also the artifact side of the interaction. It is "reasonable" to study what "general properties" the ultimate material must have to be able to contribute to the interaction in the way they do. I read this as similar to the approach that I have argued for in some articles, especially together with Lars-Erik Janlert, about the need and benefit of an analytical artifactist approach in HCI research.
Lars-Erik and I have since early 90s tried to develop a more analytical and artifact oriented approach to interaction studies (see refs and links below). In our 1997 article "The Character of Things" we examined, without using Goffman, the possibility of understanding human-artifact interaction as a form of human-human interaction. We experimented with ascribing artifacts "character" and "character traits" as a way to handle the overwhelming complexity arising by the manifold and diversity of new interactive products. We ended the article with the following paragraph:
"We believe that we must learn to better exploit the basic abilities human
beings have evolved in dealing with each other and with things in their
environment. One of these abilities is the use of characters. We propose
that in the design of computer artifacts: (1) more attention should be paid
to character, and the completeness and coherence of characteristics; and
(2) the design of characteristic features should be developed to better bring
out the (true) character of computer artifacts."
I am convinced that when interactive artifacts evolve and becomes more complex and with even richer behaviors it is generally a good idea to use human-human interaction as a model for inspiration. We deal with highly complex people on a daily basis, even people who are hostile, dishonest, etc. in their relations and behaviors towards us, but we still manage to interact to some extent. Of course it is important not to engage in such an analysis thinking that artifacts are humans. We are still far from a situation where human-human interaction can serve as prescriptive for any kind of more serious artifact design attempts, but they can certainly serve as a metaphorical inspiration for potential explanations and understandings.
[My reading of Goffman is when I write this restricted to just some small parts of the book "Interaction Rituals", so any form of mis-interpretation is possible.]
----------------------------------
Janlert, L-E. & Stolterman, E. (1997). The character of things. Design Studies Vol 18, No 3, July (1997), 297-314.
(Won the prize as the journals best article of 1997)
Lars-Erik Janlert and Erik Stolterman. 2010. Complex interaction. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 2, Article 8 (May 2010),
We also have one more article under review and one in progress on the same theme.
I found this great quote in the Introduction:
"I assume that the proper study of interaction is not the individual and his psychology, but rather the syntactical relations among the acts of different persons mutually present to one another. None the less, since it is individual actors who contribute the ultimate materials, it will always be reasonable to ask what general properties they must have if this sort of contribution is to be expected of them. What minimal model of the actor is needed if we are to wind him up, stick him amongst his fellows, and have an orderly traffic of behavior emerge?" (page 2).
It is possible to read this as if it is about human computer interaction. Contrary to most work in HCI today, which is almost completely focused on the "human" side of use and experience and not on the "computer" side, Goffman argues that it is possible to, or maybe even necessary to, develop models of the "ultimate material", which in this case would be also the artifact side of the interaction. It is "reasonable" to study what "general properties" the ultimate material must have to be able to contribute to the interaction in the way they do. I read this as similar to the approach that I have argued for in some articles, especially together with Lars-Erik Janlert, about the need and benefit of an analytical artifactist approach in HCI research.
Lars-Erik and I have since early 90s tried to develop a more analytical and artifact oriented approach to interaction studies (see refs and links below). In our 1997 article "The Character of Things" we examined, without using Goffman, the possibility of understanding human-artifact interaction as a form of human-human interaction. We experimented with ascribing artifacts "character" and "character traits" as a way to handle the overwhelming complexity arising by the manifold and diversity of new interactive products. We ended the article with the following paragraph:
"We believe that we must learn to better exploit the basic abilities human
beings have evolved in dealing with each other and with things in their
environment. One of these abilities is the use of characters. We propose
that in the design of computer artifacts: (1) more attention should be paid
to character, and the completeness and coherence of characteristics; and
(2) the design of characteristic features should be developed to better bring
out the (true) character of computer artifacts."
I am convinced that when interactive artifacts evolve and becomes more complex and with even richer behaviors it is generally a good idea to use human-human interaction as a model for inspiration. We deal with highly complex people on a daily basis, even people who are hostile, dishonest, etc. in their relations and behaviors towards us, but we still manage to interact to some extent. Of course it is important not to engage in such an analysis thinking that artifacts are humans. We are still far from a situation where human-human interaction can serve as prescriptive for any kind of more serious artifact design attempts, but they can certainly serve as a metaphorical inspiration for potential explanations and understandings.
[My reading of Goffman is when I write this restricted to just some small parts of the book "Interaction Rituals", so any form of mis-interpretation is possible.]
----------------------------------
Janlert, L-E. & Stolterman, E. (1997). The character of things. Design Studies Vol 18, No 3, July (1997), 297-314.
(Won the prize as the journals best article of 1997)
Lars-Erik Janlert and Erik Stolterman. 2010. Complex interaction. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 2, Article 8 (May 2010),
We also have one more article under review and one in progress on the same theme.
"How System Designers Think About Design and Methods"
In 1991 I defended my PhD dissertation. The dissertation was in Swedish. In those days we (or at least I) did not write many papers or articles, we focused on the dissertation, and I did not really publish anything from my dissertation in English,. However, I published one article in the Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (1991) with the title "How system designers think about design and methods--some reflections based on an interview study".
I have not seen this article in years and recently I realized I do not even have a copy. My colleague Jeff Bardzell has in some mysterious way been able to find it (the reasons for why he did this are for another post). He just sent me a pdf version of the article. Thanks Jeff![I just got a message from my old friend and colleague Peter Axel Nielsen that all SJIS articles are available online, and so is mine...so I have changed the link. Thanks Peter Axel!]
I am quite sure I have not read the article since 1991. As usual when you read something you wrote a long time ago you have different revelations. I realized that I am still working on and with the same ideas today as back then. I realized that I completely agree with myself. This can be seen as seriously sad or perhaps something good, I am not sure. I also realized that the article fits perfectly into the ongoing NSF project I am currently working on. It can be added to the papers we are writing today without any changes.
So, what about intellectual development and growth? Has nothing happened with me since then? Well, even if I still like the article, I can see what appears to be small changes in how I think. Reading myself, it is clear that my work today is grounded in a different way, and that it is connected to a much broader net of knowledge. At the same time, I can also see the optimism in the early writing, the lack of respect for big questions or for authorities or for the complexities of reality. Anyway, interesting reflections at least for me :-)
If you are working on anything related to design practice, design methods, etc. you should read the article. You can find it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
I am developing a theory of interaction (!). In the process of doing that, I am trying to categorize my theory. To do that I need to know wh...
-
Nigel Cross has for a long time been one of the most prominent researchers of design. He has a background as an architect and industrial des... -
It is obvious that 'design thinking' as an approach to change has never been more popular than now. Everywhere on the web it is poss...