They list six intellectual commitments of the ‘situated perspective’, which is the third paradigm of the title. These are:
The construction of meaning as a central focus and seen as constructed on the fly by people in specific contexts through interaction.
Putting users in their place entails seeing the understandings that people have of their world are strongly tied to and informed by their varying physical and social situations. Understanding the local, situated practices of users.
Putting interfaces in their place means recognizing that the specifics of the place where interaction with interfaces takes place is a strong determinant of the meaning that people make of those interfaces.
Putting researchers in their place means also seeing the knowledge of researchers as situated within their own particular practices and, following from this, opening up for a diversity of research traditions to be brought together to understand a phenomenon of interest.
Explicit focus on values in design means a widening (and plurality) of possible criteria by which the worth of a design might be judged, including political, emotional, aesthetic and value-based criteria.
The necessity, but inadequacy, of theory entails a position toward theory that sees it as a useful lens for making sense of a setting, but at the same time as contingent upon the meaning that emerges through a process of design in a setting.
“…if one truly likes to design for movement-based interaction, one has to be or become an expert in movement, not just theoretically, by imagination or on paper, but by doing and experiencing while designing. So, besides having knowledge of the salient aspects of embodied interaction, one has to move in order to design movements.”
Hummels, C., Overbeeke, K., & Klooster, S. (2007). Move to get moved: a search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based interaction. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11(8), 677-690. doi:10.1007/s00779-006-0135-y
‘Location-based games’ is another term used in HCI research that relates to interaction from the ground up theme. In this game, players were chased through the city by runners equipped with wifi and GPS sensors.
Benford, S., Crabtree, A., Flintham, M., Drozd, A., Anastasi, R., Paxton, M., Tandavanitj, N., et al. (2006). Can you see me now? ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 13(1), 100-133. doi:10.1145/1143518.1143522
Lots of references to follow and makes some sensible sounding points for things you might want to consider when design such an interface.
Mueller, F. ‘., Gibbs, M. R., & Vetere, F. (2009). Design influence on social play in distributed exertion games. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1539-1548). Boston, MA, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518938
Again, some brief notes about the second week of the course.
Continued with the servo-motor activity.
Concentrated on refining the movement towards the two words.
Got to a stage where the sculptures could be left to run by themselves.
Set up a little exhibition at 14:00. Invited the first years and staff.
Placed the cards out on the table and asked people to guess what the pair for each sculpture was.
Lecture in class on the idea of research though design.
Discussion of four papers on this topic.
Discussion of initial ideas for a design project.
We decided to run a video card game as a survey of possible interesting design contexts
Fallman, D. (2007). Why Research-Oriented Design Isn’t Design-Oriented Research: On the Tensions Between Design and Research in an Implicit Design Discipline. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(3), 193-200. doi:Article
Wolf, T. V., Rode, J. A., Sussman, J., & Kellogg, W. A. (2006). Dispelling “design” as the black art of CHI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems (pp. 521-530). Montréal, Québec, Canada: ACM. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124853
Wright, P., Blythe, M., & McCarthy, J. (2006). User Experience and the Idea of Design in HCI. In Interactive Systems (pp. 1-14). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11752707_1
Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 310-319). Aarhus, Denmark: ACM. doi:10.1145/1858171.1858228
A couple of additional references were mentioned in the lecture and discussions. These are included below.
Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-design, 6-13.
Braa, K., & Vidgen, R. (1995). Action Case: Exploring the middle kingdom in information system research methods. In Proceedings of 3rd Decennial Conference Computers in context: Joining Forces in Design (pp. 50-60). Århus, Denmark.
Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action Research: Its Nature and Validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 9-21. doi:10.1023/A:1022908820784
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1-5.
Mackay, W. E., & Fayard, A. (1997). HCI, natural science and design: a framework for triangulation across disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 223-234). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ACM. doi:10.1145/263552.263612