A summary of:

Wakkary, R. & Maestri, L., 2008. Aspects of Everyday Design: Resourcefulness, Adaptation, and Emergence. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(5), 478-491 (online article).

Figure 1: Using lawn chairs as temporary tables (from Wakkary & Maestri 2008).

This paper describes the results of an ethnographic study of the use of artifacts in a domestic setting. Rather than focusing on how artifacts support a particular task (e.g. supporting communication), they instead examined how people engage in processes of appropriation and design of artifacts to incorporate them in everyday practices. They refer to this process as ‘everyday design’, and relate it to John Dewey’s notion of constant doing and undergoing, whereby we both adjust to our surroundings and adjust our surroundings to us (Dewey 1934).

The method used for studying people’s everyday design was something the researchers refer to as ‘design ethnography’. When I read this term, I imagined a process that utilized the practice of design as a way of understanding aspects of participant’s practice. However, I was a little disappointed that this is (seemingly) not the case. The authors present their concept of design ethnography in terms of how it is distinct from (regular) ethnography. The difference being that

"...the main aim is not to create holistic representations of entire cultures or subgroups, but rather the focus is on generating accounts of specific social activities and interactions in which design is present within the observed interplay of artifacts, people, and contexts" (Wakkary & Maestri, 2008 p.49).

The results of the design ethnography were developed and refined within the framework of a ‘pattern language’ (Alexander 1964) that emerged with the findings. This approach is in line with several other ethnographic studies of domestic life, such as (Crabtree, A et. al 2002).

The authors present their observations of people’s everyday design (patterns) clustered around the following three groups:

Resourcefulness: Appropriating artefacts and using them in expedient ways.
Adaptation: How the actions of various members of a household differ in how they relate to the established patterns of use and how individual’s actions can provoke or invite change in these patterns.
Emergence: Artifacts and the patterns of use that surround them can evolve over time to the extent where some change in the form of the original artifact becomes necessary.

Each of these clusters is illustrated in the paper with observations and excerpts from the field material. An example from the theme of ‘Resourcefulness’ was that one couple used garden chairs as makeshift tables (figure 1, above). In most cases, such use is opportunistic and not stable, but in some cases, routines of unorthodox use may emerge, such as when a child in a house used a shelf as a step to be able to reach up and put glasses away in the cupboard. Another example, used for the ‘Emergence’ theme was of a woman who was given a Filofax planner by a friend, but never actually used it in the intended manner. Instead, she adapted it to fit her own style and developed new patterns of use around it. Instead of using the pre-defined categories, she began using post-it notes to stick in to the pages of the diary, which allowed her to continue using the diary even after pages had been used. Later, she developed a new set of practices and artifacts for keeping track of notes that didn’t involve the planner at all.

The conclusion of the paper is that we should reconsider notions of use, and the user away from predefined relations and roles between people and artifacts. Rather than seeking to define and predict use (what technology can do for us), we can try to open up for people to act as creative agents, (what people can do with technology).