Just saw this article about some new Apple patent. It is interesting how it moves toward a situation of new interactive modes, and particularly interaction without an interface. This is something that Lars-Erik Janlert and I have written about and discussed in some detail in a recent article.
Janlert, L-E., & Stolterman, E. (forthcoming). Faceless Interaction - a conceptual examination of the notion of interface: past, present and future. In the journal Human-Computer Interaction.
In the article we present a historical overview of how the interface has been understood over time. We also discuss some issues that interaction design is facing today, such as shrinking devices (less space for an interface) but increasing functionality (more this to do). We examine different ways this dilemma is handled today. And we specifically examine the idea of getting rid of the interface (as in the Apple patent above). We also discuss new issues such as cluttering which will become the next big interaction problem.
This is the abstract from the article
"In the middle of the present struggle to keep interaction complexity in check as artifact complexity continues to rise and the technical possibilities to interact multiply, the notion of interface is scrutinized. First, a limited number of previous interpretations or thought styles of the notion are identified and discussed. This serves as a framework for an analysis of the current situation with regard to complexity, control, and interaction, leading to a realization of the crucial role of surface in contemporary understanding of interaction. The potential of faceless interaction, interaction that transcends traditional reliance on surfaces, is then examined and discussed, liberating possibilities as well as complicating effects and dangers are pointed out, ending with a sketch of a possibly emerging new thought style."
Showing posts with label interaction design practice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interaction design practice. Show all posts
Amazon Echo and Faceless Interaction
Amazon is presenting a new device called Echo. It is a voice controlled device that makes it possible to play music, ask questions (Siri style), create shopping lists, set alarms, etc. It is supposed to have a
sophisticated microphone system that can recognize commands even when playing music. You can place it anywhere in a room and control it with your voice. You can check out the video link found on this page.
I find this really interesting. It is a step towards what Lars-Erik Janlert and I call "faceless interaction" in our article "Faceless Interaction - a conceptual examination of the notion of interface: past, present and future".
This type of faceless interaction, that is, interactivity without a "real" interface (defined in the article), is becoming more common and the issues we discuss in the article, for instance, interaction clutter becomes more prominent. When we have not just one but many faceless interactions in our environment, new challenges become apparent to interaction designers.
I find this really interesting. It is a step towards what Lars-Erik Janlert and I call "faceless interaction" in our article "Faceless Interaction - a conceptual examination of the notion of interface: past, present and future".
This type of faceless interaction, that is, interactivity without a "real" interface (defined in the article), is becoming more common and the issues we discuss in the article, for instance, interaction clutter becomes more prominent. When we have not just one but many faceless interactions in our environment, new challenges become apparent to interaction designers.
The Anatomy of Prototypes
In preparation of a lecture on Monday I had to re-read an article that I wrote together with Youn-Kyoung Lim and Josh Tenenberg called "The Anatomy of Prototypes: Prototypes as Filters, Prototypes as Manifestations of Design Ideas".I don't think I have read the whole article in a few years which is always an exciting and a bit nervous experience. Anyway, this time I was pleasantly surprised. I really find this article to be interesting and still useful. Unfortunately I have not done any more work on this topic since we wrote this article but after having read it now, I think I have to.
I am more convinced than ever that what our field needs are analytical tools that makes it possible to investigate specific entities in a structured way. In this article we propose an anatomy of prototypes that supports such investigations of one of the most important entities in our field--the prototype.
It would be great if we could develop similar "anatomies" for other entities in our field. The 'power' of anatomies (or frameworks) is that they (if done well) provide clear definitions that support examinations, categorizations and understanding without being prescriptive. The anatomy of prototypes that we provide in our article is a conceptual tool for the analysis and description of every possible prototype without saying anything at all how to design prototypes or what constitute a good prototype (except in a very abstract but principled and precise way).
Anyway, good to return to "old" texts and to discover that they still can be valuable and not outdated.
Faceless Interaction - a conceptual examination of the notion of interface: past, present and future
Now the article by Lars-Erik Janlert and me is published on the Human-Computer Interaction Journals website. I am very happy to see this article published!
Janlert, L-E., & Stolterman, E. (2014). Faceless Interaction - a conceptual examination of the notion of interface: past, present and future. In Human-Computer Interaction.
Abstract
In the middle of the present struggle to keep interaction complexity in check as artifact complexity continues to rise and the technical possibilities to interact multiply, the notion of interface is scrutinized. First, a limited number of previous interpretations or thought styles of the notion are identified and discussed. This serves as a framework for an analysis of the current situation with regard to complexity, control, and interaction, leading to a realization of the crucial role of surface in contemporary understanding of interaction. The potential of faceless interaction, interaction that transcends traditional reliance on surfaces, is then examined and discussed, liberating possibilities as well as complicating effects and dangers are pointed out, ending with a sketch of a possibly emerging new thought style.
Janlert, L-E., & Stolterman, E. (2014). Faceless Interaction - a conceptual examination of the notion of interface: past, present and future. In Human-Computer Interaction.
Abstract
In the middle of the present struggle to keep interaction complexity in check as artifact complexity continues to rise and the technical possibilities to interact multiply, the notion of interface is scrutinized. First, a limited number of previous interpretations or thought styles of the notion are identified and discussed. This serves as a framework for an analysis of the current situation with regard to complexity, control, and interaction, leading to a realization of the crucial role of surface in contemporary understanding of interaction. The potential of faceless interaction, interaction that transcends traditional reliance on surfaces, is then examined and discussed, liberating possibilities as well as complicating effects and dangers are pointed out, ending with a sketch of a possibly emerging new thought style.
CHI 2014 -- will it be the same or something new, and what does an answer really mean?
There are only a few days before CHI 2014 in Toronto. CHI is the largest and most important HCI conference in the world. It is also the most well organized conference I have ever been to. The value of CHI is, since it covers the whole field of HCI research, that it is the place where you can get a sense of what is going on, what are the new trends and ideas. Individual papers and presentations are to me less interesting than the way the whole conference moves, shifts and transforms. These shifts and changes are not always visible from year to year, but as soon as you take a longer view (I think even three years is long enough) you start to see that the field is constantly evolving. I get convinced that the changes are bigger and faster than most people believe when I talk to colleagues who have not been to CHI for a few years and have some strong opinions about the conference and you realize that their image of it does not correspond to what you experience.
However, there are of course two ways to think about this. I am convinced that the field, and with that CHI, changes every year, but what is the nature of the change? It might be that it is a superficial change that leave the foundational level the same. Is that the case? Is this what some colleagues mean when they are argue that CHI does not change. Is our field staying the same, being conservative? Is the recognition and glorification of the "new" really about something "new" or is it only a form of changes that leave the overall "project" safe, stable and the same? I am not sure. If anyone has some good answers please let me know...
However, there are of course two ways to think about this. I am convinced that the field, and with that CHI, changes every year, but what is the nature of the change? It might be that it is a superficial change that leave the foundational level the same. Is that the case? Is this what some colleagues mean when they are argue that CHI does not change. Is our field staying the same, being conservative? Is the recognition and glorification of the "new" really about something "new" or is it only a form of changes that leave the overall "project" safe, stable and the same? I am not sure. If anyone has some good answers please let me know...
"Connecting" short movie about the future of interaction design
About a year ago (I think) the company Basset & Partners presented a short movie (18 minutes) on Vimeo called "Connecting". At the time I watched the movie and I liked what I saw. Some of my colleagues are interviewed and so are a number of leading people from industry. I watched it again this morning for some reason and realized (again) that it contains a lot of interesting and exciting ideas about the history and future of interaction design. The insights delivered are still highly relevant even though some are somewhat futuristic. It is possible to identify some deep thoughts or underlying philosophy presented by the interviewees. Even though some parts of the video is focused on technological progress, the values and visions that the participants reveal are strongly human centered and far from being simplistically solution oriented or technology driven. It is great to see so many industrial leaders in our field being so thoughtful. A big thanks to Basset & Partners for making this movie.
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.
Book note: "Convivial Toolbox--generative research for the front end of design"
I just received a copy of a quite new book "Convivial Toolbox--generative research for the front end of design" by Elizabeth Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. It is exciting to see that more books on design are being published, and especially books that are not only simple "how-to" but also present a philosophical and theoretical position.Sanders and Stappers is doing this well in many ways. The book is first of all nicely designed with great paper! The book is full of interesting design schemas, many of which are quite insightful and interesting. I have yet to read the book carefully and I am not sure I will, not because I do not find it useful but because I am quite aware of most of what the book covers. To me the most interesting elements of the book are the elaborate schemas that in some cases are rich and dense and provide the reader with a lot of insights about the topic in a designerly relevant way. I will definitely use some of those schemas in my own teaching.
So, the book covers in a good way how early design can be supported by generative research. It gives examples and cases on how to do it. I think the book can be useful for anyone who is searching for such support.
At the same time, I find the layout of the book confusing. Numerous different sections, colors, and sidebars. The layout is structured as if it is a basic textbook with readers who need to be guided in detail in their reading, with "hints" and other typical features. It becomes confusing and difficult to read, at least for me.
I was quite intrigued by the title "Convivial Toolbox" since I am well aware of Illich writings and of his ideas. I was hoping that the authors would in a stronger sense build and relate their ideas to the notion on conviviality, but that did not really happen. For instance, to what extent and in what way are the tools described in the book better suited for convivial design than others, and in what way is conviviality supported by the process presented? I was looking for a final reflection or discussion of that but could not find it.
Device Landscapes—A New Challenge to Interaction Design and HCI Research
Together with the PhD students Heekyoung Jung and Will Ryan, and my colleague Marty Siegel, I have for some time been working on the idea of device or artifact landscapes (ecologies). We have changed our vocabulary several times trying to capture the nature of relationships between interactive artifacts. We have published a few papers on this research earlier and now a more overall journal article is to be published in a new Korean design research journal.
Stolterman, E. , Jung, H., Ryan, W., and Siegel, M. A. (2013) Device Landscapes: A New Challenge to Interaction Design and HCI Research. Archives of Design Research, 26(2), 7-33
You can find the article here
http://www.aodr.org/
Below is a brief summary of the article:
Background
The number of interactive digital artifacts is growing surrounding personal lives, and individuals have an increasing need to describe, analyze, and interpret what it means to own, use, and live with a large number of interactive artifacts. It becomes critical from a design perspective to better understand the relational aspects among multiple artifacts beyond the use of individual ones. In this article, we examine the nature of networks of interactive artifacts and the way people understand and handle these networks. We introduce the concept of device landscapes as a conceptual tool for the analysis and examination of personal networks of interactive artifacts.
Methods
We describe previous work and discuss the theoretical underpinnings supporting our studies. In particular, we compare and contrast our concept of device landscape to other models of multi-artifact systems with an emphasis on the bottom-up perspective in which landscapes are created by users instead of a perspective given by designers. Also, we summarize and interpret several studies we have completed—including personal inventory study, mapping study, survey, and interview to examine how people perceive and manage their personal device landscapes. Based on our findings we propose a conceptual framework aimed at supporting research on these device landscapes.
Results
From our studies we found that people perceive device landscapes in many different ways and develop their own strategies to manage multiple interactive artifacts, mostly digital devices in use. By investigating high-level patterns from device maps and verbal descriptions, properties and aspects of interactive artifacts are defined to describe the concept of device landscapes.
Conclusion
We also discuss how these personal networks—namely, device landscapes—present new challenges and implications to the interaction design and HCI research community by comparing it to the perspectives of ubiquitous and pervasive computing environments.
[If you are interested in reading the whole article, send me an email.]
Stolterman, E. , Jung, H., Ryan, W., and Siegel, M. A. (2013) Device Landscapes: A New Challenge to Interaction Design and HCI Research. Archives of Design Research, 26(2), 7-33
You can find the article here
http://www.aodr.org/
Below is a brief summary of the article:
Device Landscapes—A New Challenge to Interaction Design and HCI Research
Erik Stolterman, Heekyoung Jung, Will Ryan, Martin A. SiegelBackground
The number of interactive digital artifacts is growing surrounding personal lives, and individuals have an increasing need to describe, analyze, and interpret what it means to own, use, and live with a large number of interactive artifacts. It becomes critical from a design perspective to better understand the relational aspects among multiple artifacts beyond the use of individual ones. In this article, we examine the nature of networks of interactive artifacts and the way people understand and handle these networks. We introduce the concept of device landscapes as a conceptual tool for the analysis and examination of personal networks of interactive artifacts.
Methods
We describe previous work and discuss the theoretical underpinnings supporting our studies. In particular, we compare and contrast our concept of device landscape to other models of multi-artifact systems with an emphasis on the bottom-up perspective in which landscapes are created by users instead of a perspective given by designers. Also, we summarize and interpret several studies we have completed—including personal inventory study, mapping study, survey, and interview to examine how people perceive and manage their personal device landscapes. Based on our findings we propose a conceptual framework aimed at supporting research on these device landscapes.
Results
From our studies we found that people perceive device landscapes in many different ways and develop their own strategies to manage multiple interactive artifacts, mostly digital devices in use. By investigating high-level patterns from device maps and verbal descriptions, properties and aspects of interactive artifacts are defined to describe the concept of device landscapes.
Conclusion
We also discuss how these personal networks—namely, device landscapes—present new challenges and implications to the interaction design and HCI research community by comparing it to the perspectives of ubiquitous and pervasive computing environments.
[If you are interested in reading the whole article, send me an email.]
Interface tile designs--evolution or fashion
I guess you have already realized that one of the most popular interface design styles today is tile design. The examples are many, Pinterest (maybe where it started), Windows 8, USA today, etc. Even "older" designs are changing their design to become more tile like. Ebay is trying to look like Pinterest.
The tile design has an immediate appeal. It is clear, structured, appears to be highly organized and of course, is in many cases visually appealing. We have over the years seen many "styles" come and go, usually they have been seen as evolutions of the interface--new paradigms. GUI is seen as superior to command based interaction for instance and not as a style or fashion. Touch and gesture is seen as developments away from traditional keyboard interactions--not as a fashion. But is tile interfaces the next step in the evolution of interfaces or is it only a style, a fashion? And if so, does it matter?
My own very personal and unscientific analysis of tile interfaces has led me to the conclusion that the positive aspects I mentioned above does not come without problems. The dominating visual aspect of tiles seems to make it difficult to create distinctions between different types of content and also between differences in importance (apart from size). It also seems to be difficult to create a supporting browsing structure that does not "force" the user to inspect all tiles in the same way and with the same effort. I have to admit that I have not done enough examinations of this to be able to argue for any of these observations, but I am sure that they could use some study.
If tile design is less an overall evolution and improvement of the interface and more of a fashion, it does not mean that is necessary bad or less valuable. Styles and fashion are common in every area where it is difficult to make serious developments on the fundamental qualities of an artifact, for instance, clothes. New styles and fashions can be seen as ways to keep things from becoming boring and repetitive. And that is maybe what the tile design paradigm is all about.
I would like to hear what others think about this. Maybe interaction design, at least some aspects of it like traditional screen design, is at a stage where style and fashion will become even more important and truly new interaction paradigms will be less common.
Personally, I am already a bit tired of tile designed interfaces. They do not work well for me. USA Today is a good example where I do not see any positive improvements when it comes to the overall user experience. But, I may be wrong.
The tile design has an immediate appeal. It is clear, structured, appears to be highly organized and of course, is in many cases visually appealing. We have over the years seen many "styles" come and go, usually they have been seen as evolutions of the interface--new paradigms. GUI is seen as superior to command based interaction for instance and not as a style or fashion. Touch and gesture is seen as developments away from traditional keyboard interactions--not as a fashion. But is tile interfaces the next step in the evolution of interfaces or is it only a style, a fashion? And if so, does it matter?
My own very personal and unscientific analysis of tile interfaces has led me to the conclusion that the positive aspects I mentioned above does not come without problems. The dominating visual aspect of tiles seems to make it difficult to create distinctions between different types of content and also between differences in importance (apart from size). It also seems to be difficult to create a supporting browsing structure that does not "force" the user to inspect all tiles in the same way and with the same effort. I have to admit that I have not done enough examinations of this to be able to argue for any of these observations, but I am sure that they could use some study.
If tile design is less an overall evolution and improvement of the interface and more of a fashion, it does not mean that is necessary bad or less valuable. Styles and fashion are common in every area where it is difficult to make serious developments on the fundamental qualities of an artifact, for instance, clothes. New styles and fashions can be seen as ways to keep things from becoming boring and repetitive. And that is maybe what the tile design paradigm is all about.
I would like to hear what others think about this. Maybe interaction design, at least some aspects of it like traditional screen design, is at a stage where style and fashion will become even more important and truly new interaction paradigms will be less common.
Personally, I am already a bit tired of tile designed interfaces. They do not work well for me. USA Today is a good example where I do not see any positive improvements when it comes to the overall user experience. But, I may be wrong.
Interfaces of not?
During the last few years we have seen a drastic change in what is usually seen as the interface of interactive artifacts and systems. There are many who examine this change, such as this article about "Why The Human Body Will Be The Next Computer Interface".
I am excited to see speculations about this since I am working with Lars-Erik Janlert on a new article about this topic. The article is to some extent based on our previous article "Complex Interaction" even though it hopefully breaks some new ground when it comes to the big questions of "what is an interface" and the future oriented question of "what is the future of interfaces".
There are a number of interesting questions that we try to investigate int the article, for instance, what is the most useful definition of interfaces, does the Kinect have an interface, when interfaces are everywhere how can we think about them, etc. These questions are important since if answered they may help and support designers who on an everyday basis make decisions about the manifestations and materializations of interfaces. Questions like "should we try to make the interface smaller", "should we try to remove the interface" or "are gestures a good form of interaction in this case". The consequences of all these decisions are not obvious even though for a particular device they may make be. When we look at the landscape of interfaces that we all live within, every decision regarding one interface will influence the use and usefulness of all the others. There is an 'ecosystem' or landscape effect of all design decisions. Anyway, in our article we deal with all these issues and also relate them to the history of interfaces.
I am excited to see speculations about this since I am working with Lars-Erik Janlert on a new article about this topic. The article is to some extent based on our previous article "Complex Interaction" even though it hopefully breaks some new ground when it comes to the big questions of "what is an interface" and the future oriented question of "what is the future of interfaces".
There are a number of interesting questions that we try to investigate int the article, for instance, what is the most useful definition of interfaces, does the Kinect have an interface, when interfaces are everywhere how can we think about them, etc. These questions are important since if answered they may help and support designers who on an everyday basis make decisions about the manifestations and materializations of interfaces. Questions like "should we try to make the interface smaller", "should we try to remove the interface" or "are gestures a good form of interaction in this case". The consequences of all these decisions are not obvious even though for a particular device they may make be. When we look at the landscape of interfaces that we all live within, every decision regarding one interface will influence the use and usefulness of all the others. There is an 'ecosystem' or landscape effect of all design decisions. Anyway, in our article we deal with all these issues and also relate them to the history of interfaces.
DRS 2014 – Design’s Big Debates
Since I am involved in the organization of the DRS 2014 conference, I am posting some information about it hear. We are aiming to develop the conference to even more become the premier international general design conference. We are changing many aspects fo the conference to both better reach a broader audience while also enhance the quality of submissions. So, read and plan!!
DRS 2014 – Design’s Big Debates
Preliminary Call for Participation
Umeå, Sweden, June 16-19, 2014
http://drs2014.org
Design Research Society’s 2014 conference invites you to engage in discussions and debates on the future directions of design and design research. We welcome you to join us in Umeå, Sweden, June 16-19.
We believe there is a shared discourse in design, one that includes all areas of design research, and that is of vital importance for our understanding and development of the foundations of design. This discourse is something we share and cultivate over long periods time, as it tells stories of past, present and future trajectories of design and its role in society.
With an ever-increasing demand for academic specialization and increasing numbers of highly specialized conferences, there is now a bigger need than ever for a venue where the design research community can address significant challenges that cut across domains and big issues that will influence the way our field as a whole develops. The main purpose of the DRS 2014 conference is to foster and support a shared design discourse. By focusing on key big issues in design, we want to create a forum where the questions that have the potential to change the way we think and do design – its philosophy, theory, practice, methodology, education, profession and history – will be discussed and debated.
To create this platform for discussions and debates we want to open up a wider set of possibilities for engaging and participating. Thus, the DRS 2014 conference will make use of multiple publication and presentation formats, including both established ones such as ‘papers’ and new ones such as ‘conversations’, each with it's own submission and review process. Now is the time to begin asking yourself 'What do you think are the big debates in design?' What would you like this exciting conversation to be like to really matter to you – and, how will you contribute to make that happen?’
DRS 2014 is hosted by Umeå Institute of Design, Umeå University. The conference week will give you an opportunity to experience the nightless nights and sunny days of the Swedish Midsummer, and the many cultural events of Umeå, Cultural Capital of Europe 2014.
Warm welcome!
Johan Redström, Erik Stolterman and Anna Valtonen (General Chairs)
Carl DiSalvo and Jamer Hunt (Conversations and Debates Chairs)
Youn-kyung Lim and Kristina Niedderer (Papers Chairs)
Preliminary deadlines:
Papers: October 1st, 2013
Conversations: November 1st, 2013
More information:
DRS 2014, http://www.drs2014.org/
Design Research Society, http://www.
Umeå Institute of Design, http://www.uid.umu.se/
Umeå 2014: http://www.umea2014.se/
DRS 2014 – Design’s Big Debates
Preliminary Call for Participation
Umeå, Sweden, June 16-19, 2014
http://drs2014.org
Design Research Society’s 2014 conference invites you to engage in discussions and debates on the future directions of design and design research. We welcome you to join us in Umeå, Sweden, June 16-19.
We believe there is a shared discourse in design, one that includes all areas of design research, and that is of vital importance for our understanding and development of the foundations of design. This discourse is something we share and cultivate over long periods time, as it tells stories of past, present and future trajectories of design and its role in society.
With an ever-increasing demand for academic specialization and increasing numbers of highly specialized conferences, there is now a bigger need than ever for a venue where the design research community can address significant challenges that cut across domains and big issues that will influence the way our field as a whole develops. The main purpose of the DRS 2014 conference is to foster and support a shared design discourse. By focusing on key big issues in design, we want to create a forum where the questions that have the potential to change the way we think and do design – its philosophy, theory, practice, methodology, education, profession and history – will be discussed and debated.
To create this platform for discussions and debates we want to open up a wider set of possibilities for engaging and participating. Thus, the DRS 2014 conference will make use of multiple publication and presentation formats, including both established ones such as ‘papers’ and new ones such as ‘conversations’, each with it's own submission and review process. Now is the time to begin asking yourself 'What do you think are the big debates in design?' What would you like this exciting conversation to be like to really matter to you – and, how will you contribute to make that happen?’
DRS 2014 is hosted by Umeå Institute of Design, Umeå University. The conference week will give you an opportunity to experience the nightless nights and sunny days of the Swedish Midsummer, and the many cultural events of Umeå, Cultural Capital of Europe 2014.
Warm welcome!
Johan Redström, Erik Stolterman and Anna Valtonen (General Chairs)
Carl DiSalvo and Jamer Hunt (Conversations and Debates Chairs)
Youn-kyung Lim and Kristina Niedderer (Papers Chairs)
Preliminary deadlines:
Papers: October 1st, 2013
Conversations: November 1st, 2013
More information:
DRS 2014, http://www.drs2014.org/
Design Research Society, http://www.
Umeå Institute of Design, http://www.uid.umu.se/
Umeå 2014: http://www.umea2014.se/
Producing knowledge by design for design
The field of design, particularly the philosophy and theory of design, is evolving fast today. Over the last thirty years there has been a plethora of writings about the relation between science/research and design. One of the most contested questions has been to what extent design as a process of inquiry and action also is a legitimate process of knowledge production. It is not strange that the question arises. Science and design have distinct and different purposes as approaches. Jonas Löwgren says it clearly in his recent ACM Interactions article when he writes "The essence of research is to produce knowledge, and the essence of design is to produce artifacts." This is a clean and simple distinction, even though we know it is possible to find examples that makes this definition more complex, but Löwgren states that even if there are other purposes involved in research today, "the knowledge-production purpose is primary".
The same can be said about design of course. Design can have many different purposes but at the core it is all about the process of imagination and production of artifacts (systems, symbols, services, etc), or with other words, it is all about changing reality. Even though the discourse around design as a valid form of knowledge production approach has grown, it is not until lately that we are seeing some real advances. Unfortunately, a lot of energy has been devoted to develop definitions that are compliant with the existing understanding of knowledge production as it is practiced within the scientific tradition. This has led to an outsider perspective on design, that is, design is seen through the scientific definitions, understandings and concepts of knowledge and method. Less energy has been devoted to start from within, with the ambition to develop an insider perspective--a perspective that takes it starting point in a real and deep understanding of design as its own tradition and not seen as "not science".
I made the argument in my article "The nature of design practice and implications for design research" (ref below) that one of the common mistakes done when it comes to design theory is to use an outsider perspective (particularly with a stance in science). Anyway, it is clear to me that we are entering a more productive stage in the development of design philosophy when the insider approach is becoming more common. For instance, the article in ACM Interactions by Bill Gavers and John Bowers on "Annotated Portfolios" and Löwgren article mentioned above are great examples of this emerging realization that design has a real role to play in knowledge production and that the formulation of what that role is has to be done from within design grounded in a deep understanding of design.
A new understanding of design as a knowledge producing approach can be established but not by trying to make design into something it is not. This means that the road forward is not to make or force design to become more scientific or to use scientific methods, instead it means that we have to acknowledge and externalize what the core strength of design is. This is what Gaver, Bowers and Löwgren is doing so well. Löwgren states this well in his article when he concludes:
"To conclude, I strongly support Gaver and Bowers in claiming that design practice has a place in HCI research today, and that the researcher can add knowledge value by providing annotations in addition to the artifacts. My own contribution here is to recognize the proposal for annotated portfolios as an intermediate-level knowledge practice among other such practices. To me, those practices appear to be promising paths toward fruitful academic discourse and collaborative knowledge production that accommodates the nature of design practice without undue “scientistic” reduction."
This is exactly the way forward. However, this is also a challenge of magnitude since it requires anyone who engages with this issue to be equally well prepared in the philosophy of science as well as in the philosophy of design. Even if we are making progress, there are still few who have the ability to make thoughtful contributions based on such double competence, but with a new generation of thinkers who see it as natural to be equally competent in science and design there is hope.
----------------------
Löwgren has a great list of references in his article. To me, these selected references are examples of this new and growing understanding of design as research. I am pleased to see my own writings among the ones I selected :-)
The same can be said about design of course. Design can have many different purposes but at the core it is all about the process of imagination and production of artifacts (systems, symbols, services, etc), or with other words, it is all about changing reality. Even though the discourse around design as a valid form of knowledge production approach has grown, it is not until lately that we are seeing some real advances. Unfortunately, a lot of energy has been devoted to develop definitions that are compliant with the existing understanding of knowledge production as it is practiced within the scientific tradition. This has led to an outsider perspective on design, that is, design is seen through the scientific definitions, understandings and concepts of knowledge and method. Less energy has been devoted to start from within, with the ambition to develop an insider perspective--a perspective that takes it starting point in a real and deep understanding of design as its own tradition and not seen as "not science".
I made the argument in my article "The nature of design practice and implications for design research" (ref below) that one of the common mistakes done when it comes to design theory is to use an outsider perspective (particularly with a stance in science). Anyway, it is clear to me that we are entering a more productive stage in the development of design philosophy when the insider approach is becoming more common. For instance, the article in ACM Interactions by Bill Gavers and John Bowers on "Annotated Portfolios" and Löwgren article mentioned above are great examples of this emerging realization that design has a real role to play in knowledge production and that the formulation of what that role is has to be done from within design grounded in a deep understanding of design.
A new understanding of design as a knowledge producing approach can be established but not by trying to make design into something it is not. This means that the road forward is not to make or force design to become more scientific or to use scientific methods, instead it means that we have to acknowledge and externalize what the core strength of design is. This is what Gaver, Bowers and Löwgren is doing so well. Löwgren states this well in his article when he concludes:
"To conclude, I strongly support Gaver and Bowers in claiming that design practice has a place in HCI research today, and that the researcher can add knowledge value by providing annotations in addition to the artifacts. My own contribution here is to recognize the proposal for annotated portfolios as an intermediate-level knowledge practice among other such practices. To me, those practices appear to be promising paths toward fruitful academic discourse and collaborative knowledge production that accommodates the nature of design practice without undue “scientistic” reduction."
This is exactly the way forward. However, this is also a challenge of magnitude since it requires anyone who engages with this issue to be equally well prepared in the philosophy of science as well as in the philosophy of design. Even if we are making progress, there are still few who have the ability to make thoughtful contributions based on such double competence, but with a new generation of thinkers who see it as natural to be equally competent in science and design there is hope.
----------------------
Löwgren has a great list of references in his article. To me, these selected references are examples of this new and growing understanding of design as research. I am pleased to see my own writings among the ones I selected :-)
Gaver, B. and Bowers, J. Annotated portfolios. interactions 19, 4 (2012), 40–49.
Stolterman, E. The nature of design practice and implications for design research. Int. J. Design 2, 1 (2008), 55–65.
Gaver, W. What should we expect from research through design? Proc. Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, 2012, 937–946.
Höök, K. and Löwgren, J. Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Trans. Computer-Human Interaction (2012).
Book note: Design thinking supporting radically different purposes
On my desk I have for a while had two books that both offer toolkits for design and design thinking. One is aimed at supporting "growths" in terms of business and revenue and one is aimed at developing products and services for communities in need in Africa, Asia and Latin America. With such different purposes, it is interesting to note that what they present as design thinking and the design process is so similar (at least on the surface).
The two books are "Designing for growth -- a design thinking tool kit for managers" by Jeanne Liedtka and Tim Ogilvie, and "Human Centered Design Toolkit" by IDEO.
When looking at the table of content for the two books the similarities becomes even more obvious. For instance, it is maybe surprising to learn that the chapter "Develop a sustainable revenue model"is to be found in the IDEO book while "Journey Mapping" is found in the Liedtka & Ogilvie book. Several other topics can be found in both, such as brainstorming, conceptual development, prototyping, etc. Both books also push the idea that thinking designerly is not only about thinking but about doing. They also focus intensely on innovation.
Of course the two books deal with very different settings and challenges and therefore also frame design thinking in different ways. The titles are not only labels, they do tell us about some core values that are reflected all through the chapters. Human centered as a value can be contrasted to the notion of growth. Helping people versus helping companies. But this is also a superficial difference since in both cases (as with all design), at the core is ability to design a sustainable model that makes a design robust when it comes to both finances and use over time.
It would be quite interesting to see a careful analysis and comparison of these two books with the purpose to reveal their fundamental design philosophy and theory, their basic design principles, postulates, and assumptions, and how they are translated into prescriptive guidelines and "toolkits". If anyone wants to conduct such an analysis, send me the results.
With the growing interest and excitement around design as a human approach to change in so many areas, the possibility for comparative studies of design thinking also increases. Even though it is possible to find some attempts, I think there is a need for many more studies of that sort. I would also like to see studies like that done with much more critical ambitions. For instance, the two books discussed here could, apart from being critically analyzed in the light of the other book, also be analyzed in relation to contemporary design theory and philosophy of design. More work....
The two books are "Designing for growth -- a design thinking tool kit for managers" by Jeanne Liedtka and Tim Ogilvie, and "Human Centered Design Toolkit" by IDEO.When looking at the table of content for the two books the similarities becomes even more obvious. For instance, it is maybe surprising to learn that the chapter "Develop a sustainable revenue model"is to be found in the IDEO book while "Journey Mapping" is found in the Liedtka & Ogilvie book. Several other topics can be found in both, such as brainstorming, conceptual development, prototyping, etc. Both books also push the idea that thinking designerly is not only about thinking but about doing. They also focus intensely on innovation.
It would be quite interesting to see a careful analysis and comparison of these two books with the purpose to reveal their fundamental design philosophy and theory, their basic design principles, postulates, and assumptions, and how they are translated into prescriptive guidelines and "toolkits". If anyone wants to conduct such an analysis, send me the results.
With the growing interest and excitement around design as a human approach to change in so many areas, the possibility for comparative studies of design thinking also increases. Even though it is possible to find some attempts, I think there is a need for many more studies of that sort. I would also like to see studies like that done with much more critical ambitions. For instance, the two books discussed here could, apart from being critically analyzed in the light of the other book, also be analyzed in relation to contemporary design theory and philosophy of design. More work....
Book Note: "Observing the user experience" by Goodman, Kuniavsky, and Moed
I just got a copy of the second edition of "Observing the user experience--a practitioner's guide to user research" by Elizabeth Goodman, Mike Kuniavsky and Andrea Moed (Morgan Kaufmann, 2012). To me, this is a book that is not in-between. It is "a practitioner's guide" written in a language and at a level that is very useful. Each aspect of user research is presented in a simple and clear way with concrete and practical guidelines on how to do it. I find the book excellent for anyone who is new to the field and who not just want to know how important user research is but how to actually do it. The authors stay away from making large claims and from relating the practical guidance to more or less developed theoretical frameworks.
However, I think it is important that anyone who uses a book like this complements it other readings that in a solid intellectual way examines the broader aspects of practice and its relationship to theoretical traditions and paradigms.
How to stay competent in the field of interaction design
I am at the moment in Seattle for a few days doing interviews for our NSF project. The project is mainly focused on how professionals understand and use methods and tools. The study I am doing at the moment is aimed at the examination of professional competence and especially on what professionals do to stay competent over time. So far I have done four interviews with highly skilled and experienced UX professionals. They all have impressive experience and competence. It is fascinating with professionals at this level, they are confident, they know that they are competent, and they can explain why. They also know how the industry works and what it takes to stay ahead and to survive in this competitive environment.
In my interviews, these professionals reveal their way of thinking about competence and what they do to stay competent in a rapidly developing field. Not staying ahead of the field, not knowing what is going on, not engaging with colleagues and networks to constantly learn, mean that you will not be the one who will be asked to lead the next project or to work on new creative initiatives. It is a competitive world where a large part of the professional competence is about understanding the corporate environment than knowing the correct tool or method.
The thoughtfulness of these professionals, something they reveal have developed over time, and their insights on what it means to be competent is something that every young professional in the field need to know. I hope that over time I will be able to write brief reports on this ongoing research. I am quite sure that the results will be highly valuable for professionals interested in developing their career. But I also think that the findings are extremely valuable for any employer who is interested in creating a culture where each professional can grow to become the best they can in a way that fits their individual personality and competence.
The interviews will continue. If you are interested in this topic, let me know, either as a professional (maybe to let me interview you) or as an employer who wants to learn more about how highly skilled professionals really think about themselves and their professional environment.
In my interviews, these professionals reveal their way of thinking about competence and what they do to stay competent in a rapidly developing field. Not staying ahead of the field, not knowing what is going on, not engaging with colleagues and networks to constantly learn, mean that you will not be the one who will be asked to lead the next project or to work on new creative initiatives. It is a competitive world where a large part of the professional competence is about understanding the corporate environment than knowing the correct tool or method.
The thoughtfulness of these professionals, something they reveal have developed over time, and their insights on what it means to be competent is something that every young professional in the field need to know. I hope that over time I will be able to write brief reports on this ongoing research. I am quite sure that the results will be highly valuable for professionals interested in developing their career. But I also think that the findings are extremely valuable for any employer who is interested in creating a culture where each professional can grow to become the best they can in a way that fits their individual personality and competence.
The interviews will continue. If you are interested in this topic, let me know, either as a professional (maybe to let me interview you) or as an employer who wants to learn more about how highly skilled professionals really think about themselves and their professional environment.
Understanding Interaction Design Practice
The research project on design methods that we started in September (funded by NSF) is coming along. We are now in the middle of a first interview study where we focus on a range of aspects related to design practice and particularly the use of design methods ("methods" in its broadest possible meaning).
As always when you interview professionals they impress you with the competence they express and their understanding of design and the design process. These practitioners stress aspects of the design process that in many ways are opposite to what non-designers or students believe, for instance that process is more important than outcome, and that judgment is more important than method. They are constantly unwilling to make clear statements about "what works best", "what method is best", "what are crucial skills", etc. Instead they always bring the discussion back to the particular, the particular situation, particular user, particular client, particular technology, and particular design challenge.
It is also fascinating to find that, even though they are highly skilled and competent in what they do, they are also somewhat worried that other professionals in the field are doing things differently and maybe in a better way. This is the case even though they are engaged in professional communities, workshops, conferences, and reads a lot.
It is also clear that the level of knowledge when it comes to design methods, their names, their history, their usefulness, etc. differ drastically.
Anyway, every interview leads to new insights about the everyday conditions of professional practice for interaction design. I am now more than ever looking forward to this research and can see many exciting results in the coming years.
As always when you interview professionals they impress you with the competence they express and their understanding of design and the design process. These practitioners stress aspects of the design process that in many ways are opposite to what non-designers or students believe, for instance that process is more important than outcome, and that judgment is more important than method. They are constantly unwilling to make clear statements about "what works best", "what method is best", "what are crucial skills", etc. Instead they always bring the discussion back to the particular, the particular situation, particular user, particular client, particular technology, and particular design challenge.
It is also fascinating to find that, even though they are highly skilled and competent in what they do, they are also somewhat worried that other professionals in the field are doing things differently and maybe in a better way. This is the case even though they are engaged in professional communities, workshops, conferences, and reads a lot.
It is also clear that the level of knowledge when it comes to design methods, their names, their history, their usefulness, etc. differ drastically.
Anyway, every interview leads to new insights about the everyday conditions of professional practice for interaction design. I am now more than ever looking forward to this research and can see many exciting results in the coming years.
An excellent design "Out of the box"
I do not often write about particular designs on my blog but when I saw this video today I felt the urge to do so. The design is to me a wonderful example of a design composition that manifests many different aspects of interaction design. The design is all about the confluence of the physical and the digital, about embodied and tangible design. It is an excellent example of how a design creates a space of possible actions (a concept I have developed elsewhere). And also what inscription might look like in the meaning of Bruno Latour. The design shows that when design is cared for and the user is considered -- a great design can follow. Take a look!
Book note: "Universal methods of design"
I just got a copy of the book "Universal Methods of Design" by Bella Martin and Bruce Hanington. It is a book that presents a collection of 100 design methods. Each method is presented in brief and clear way on two pages with great images and graphics. Each methods is categorized in a straightforward and simple way for when during the design process it might fit and for what aspect of design. The explanations of each method are short, to the point and instructive. I find this to be an excellent handbook of design methods. The authors takes a great position in relation to methods. They write
"Consider these 100 methods and techniques just as means to get to a better design, rather than ends in and of themselves. Review them, try them, prioritize them, and sequence them based on the success criteria and focus of problems you want to solve. Treat them as conversations. We have." (page 7)
This is an excellent approach. Methods are only means to an end, they are to be used intentionally. Measure of success are to be constructed by the user of the method. It forces each method user to take responsibility for the choice of methods. It is all good. Recommended!
This is an excellent approach. Methods are only means to an end, they are to be used intentionally. Measure of success are to be constructed by the user of the method. It forces each method user to take responsibility for the choice of methods. It is all good. Recommended!
Dewey, user experience, and design
I know I have written about this before, but yesterday I lectured in my course, "Experience Design", about human experience based on a text by John Dewey. The text is the chapter "Having an experience" from his book "Art as experience". Reading this text and explaining it, once again I realized how extremely rich it is. The way Dewey discusses human experience and what it means to have "an" experience is amazingly valuable to any designer.
It is fascinating that with the notions that Dewey develops to analyze human experience he reveals and opens up for so many questions that are not usually addressed when it comes to user experience design in our field. For instance, it becomes clear that having "an" experience is in itself not a goal, and that "an" experience might be highly uncomfortable but still leading to intended results. Dewey makes it clear that we have to distinguish between the purpose (intention) of designing something to lead to "an" experience and the nature of the experience itself. His analysis also covers issues around what determines people's experiences, by bringing in aspects such as competence, background, and culture. He makes it clear that a carefully designed artifact by a thoughtful designer requires the same kind of carefulness when it comes to the perceiving and appreciation on the behalf of the "user". These are only a few aspects to be found in this great text.
Dewey also addresses the role of the designer versus the user, even though he is not using those concepts. He argues for prototyping (again not with that word), and he covers so many aspects of design and use that I think the text should be a core reading for any designer and maybe the only needed one. IT is also fascinating to see how much of Donald Schon's ideas are already present here. Schon did his PhD dissertation on Dewey and it is obvious how Dewey inspired Schon. That is why anyone who appreciates the work of Schon, should also read Dewey.
It is fascinating that with the notions that Dewey develops to analyze human experience he reveals and opens up for so many questions that are not usually addressed when it comes to user experience design in our field. For instance, it becomes clear that having "an" experience is in itself not a goal, and that "an" experience might be highly uncomfortable but still leading to intended results. Dewey makes it clear that we have to distinguish between the purpose (intention) of designing something to lead to "an" experience and the nature of the experience itself. His analysis also covers issues around what determines people's experiences, by bringing in aspects such as competence, background, and culture. He makes it clear that a carefully designed artifact by a thoughtful designer requires the same kind of carefulness when it comes to the perceiving and appreciation on the behalf of the "user". These are only a few aspects to be found in this great text.
Dewey also addresses the role of the designer versus the user, even though he is not using those concepts. He argues for prototyping (again not with that word), and he covers so many aspects of design and use that I think the text should be a core reading for any designer and maybe the only needed one. IT is also fascinating to see how much of Donald Schon's ideas are already present here. Schon did his PhD dissertation on Dewey and it is obvious how Dewey inspired Schon. That is why anyone who appreciates the work of Schon, should also read Dewey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
For some time now, my good friend and colleague Ron Wakkary has talked about the book " Thing knowledge - a philosophy of scientific in... -
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...