• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Midi keynote 2013
 

Midi keynote 2013

on

  • 258 views

Slides from MIDI 2013 Keynote, June 24th 2013 - http://midi.pjwstk.edu.pl/programme.html, paper available at ...

Slides from MIDI 2013 Keynote, June 24th 2013 - http://midi.pjwstk.edu.pl/programme.html, paper available at http://www.academia.edu/3773648/Design_isnt_a_Shape_and_It_Hasnt_Got_A_Centre_Thinking_BIG_About_Excellences_in_Post-Centric_Interaction_Design

Statistics

Views

Total Views
258
Views on SlideShare
258
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Midi keynote 2013 Midi keynote 2013 Presentation Transcript

    • Dzień Dobry
    • OVERVIEWCentring DesignBeneficiaries, Artefacts, DesignersPost-Centric Design: The BIG PictureDesign Work: Finer DetailResources, approaches, method andprocessThe BIG AgendaA few big challenges for research andpractice
    • Centring Design
    • BeingHuman-Centred
    • ISO 9241-210HUMAN-CENTRED DESIGN PROCESSES FOR INTERACTIVE SYSTEMShttp://www.system-concepts.com/assets/images/usability/usability%20diagram%20for%20blog.jpgiterativedesignearly focus on users andtasksempirical measurementJohn D. Gould and Clayton Lewis. 1985.Designing for usability: key principlesand what designers think. Commun. ACM28(3), 300-11.
    • Homogeneous StagesStage 1: Understand The initial – and new – stage we suggestis to focus on human values and to pinpoint those that we wishto design for and to research. This will require reflective thoughtand conceptual analysis drawing on other disciplines, whichmight include those as diverse asphilosophy, psychology, art, literary theory, culturalstudies, anthropology, sociology or design. It willalso mean talking to stakeholders, including users as well asthose involved in developing or designing the technology inquestion(if this is the goal) to ascertain what kinds of enduring value theybelieve their users will get from their technology; and what kindsof users and what domains are of interest.http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/hci2020/downloads/beinghuman_a4.pdf
    • BeingThing-Centredhttp://uofcmarket.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/691043.jpg
    • Homogeneous Stages (Again)Engineering design is the systematic, intelligent generation and evaluation ofspecifications for artefacts whose form and functionachieve stated objectives and satisfy specified constraints.C.L. Dym.Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views, Cambridge, 1994Engineering Design: A ProjectBased Introduction, 3rd EditionClive L. Dym & Patrick Little, 2009ThingsSpecificationsand artefactsProblemSolution
    • BeingDesigner-CentredCross, N.Designerly Ways ofKnowing, Springer, 2006
    • Parallel Interacting ProcessesGero, J. S. and Maher, M. L. (1997) A framework for research in design computing, inB. Martens, H. Linzer &A. Voigt (eds), ECAADE97, Osterreichischer Kunst undKulturverlag, Vienna (CD-ROM), Topic 1, paper 8.ProblemSolution
    • Conklin‘s Generalization OfProblem Wickedness• The problem is not understood until after theformulation of a solution.• Wicked problems have no stopping rule.• Solutions to wicked problems are not right orwrong.• Every wicked problem is essentially novel andunique.• Every solution to a wicked problem is a one shotoperation.• Wicked problems have no given alternativesolutions.Conklin, Jeffrey (2006). Dialogue mapping : building sharedunderstanding of wicked problems. Chichester, England: Wiley.
    • Three Centres
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/citizenerased/425130174/sizes/l/in/photostream/humans
    • http://www.designing-media.com/billdesignersBillMoggridge1943-2012
    • SUCCESS CRITERIA• Human-Centred• Others are satisfied• Artefact-Centred• Requirements are satisfied• Designer-Centred• Designers are satisfied• Success criteria relate to the „centre‟ ofeach major design paradigm
    • UNBALANCEDDETACHMENTIN HUMAN-CENTREDDESIGNEvaluationBeneficiariesArtefact
    • THE BENEFITS OF HCDBenefits can arise from researchingexpected usage contexts and evaluatingusage with proposed designsDemonstrate desirability and/or worthBenefits outweigh usage and other costsSupport for ethical design (VSD)But not alwaysThese data-bound activities delay design
    • THE COSTS OF HCDThere is no D in HCD, introducing risks ofImbalance, sometimes due to marginalisingUnfair Contempt for Design(er)(s)Wasted project resourcesProject inefficiencies of delayed designingand misdirected iterationsDamage due to missed opportunities
    • We HCYou D
    • http://hci.stanford.edu/courses/cs247/2009/handouts/prototype_tabs.jpg
    • http://www.disambiguity.com/images/mobiletesting.jpg
    • http://www.uie.com/images/pp22.gif
    • WIREFRAMEhttp://www.kaplang.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/wireframe_example.png
    • WORKFLOWhttp://www.redconstellation.com/vickihuynh/2007_WF_FraudPortal_ScreenFlow.gif
    • SCREEN FLOWhttp://docs.sun.com/source/817-1243-10/images/shipments_flow.gif
    • CONCEPTUAL (E-R) MODELhttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/2578785769_760bc1d791_o.jpg
    • UML DIAGRAMSHTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/FILE:UML_DIAGRAMS.JPG
    • ENGINEERINGSPECIFICATIONSAS KEYSTONESArtefactEvaluation
    • CREATIVECONVERSATIONSWITH MATERIALSEvaluationArtefactPurposeDESIGNER
    • These are not thesame shapes
    • They do not havethe same centres
    • They are noteven design
    • They arediagrams
    • DIAGRAMS AND THE WORLDDesign work (and diagrams of it) have foci, notcentresAchieved via emphases on fociDiagrams can be very abstract, and over idealisedActual design practices are much more complexand vary massivelyCreative engineering technology, commercialproduct and service design, publicDesignArt, human factors engineering, …Paradigm diagrams highlight differences inCOMMITMENT to different TYPES of designchoicesand their co-ordination
    • POST-CENTRIC DESIGN:THE BIG PICTURE
    • DESIGN ISNOT A SHAPE,SO IT CANNOT HAVEA CENTRE
    • These are at least 4Types of Centre forInteraction Design
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/flybritishairways/4793367997/sizes/l/in/photostreamhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/7726011@N07/3913667355/sizes/l/in/photostream/http://www.flickr.com/photos/citizenerased/425130174/sizes/l/in/photostream/http://www.flickr.com/photos/cinteractionlab/4311167359/sizes/z/in/photostream/?
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/stacylynn/4634101795/sizes/z/in/photostream/THE BEST VIEWS AREN’T ALWAYS AT THE CENTRE
    • Four Foci forDesign Activities
    • FUSING ANDBALANCINGDESIGNPARADIGMSPurposeArtefactBenefici-ariesWorth Maps withbeneficiary experiencesEvalu-ation
    • DON’TCENTRE, SOAKEVERYTHING INEVERYTHINGUP TO SATURATION
    • WORTHWHILE POST-CENTRIC FUSIONSDifferent types of design choice need to be balanced Value maximising synergiesDifferent types of design choice need to be co-ordinated Value preserving integrationChoice of design purpose has a core role in post-centricdesign Deliberate source of generosity Not the satisfaction of either people, requirements ordesigners alone, but making the world a better place thanwas thought possible, i.e., through generousity Design Purpose needs to be more ambitious than thesuccess criteria for existing design paradigms
    • POST-CENTRIC DESIGN PURPOSEPost-Centric Design Purpose can never be simply to: Be Creative – Engineering and Applied Arts Design can dothat in Thing- and Designer-Centred ways Solve Problems – Engineering Design and Human-CentredDesign can do that in Thing- and Human-Centred waysInstead it must improve some slice of life through generousworthwhile innovation that surprises and delights Worthwhile from valuable benefits that warrant(potentially adverse) costs, delightfully and surprisingly so Innovations delivered in specific locales for any mix of: Mind, body, spirit; individuals, relationships or growth inboth or either; families, communities or organisationsL-ERG-IKK(allergic)Locales of Existence, Relationships and Growthfor Institutions, Kin and Kind
    • BALANCEDINTEGRATEDGENEROUSBIGSee papers on academia.edu
    • POST-CENTRIC DESIGN: SUMMARYNo single centre, no dominant focusDesigns‟ foci move during project processesPhases or stages of design process are not homogeneous,but may involve development and co-ordination ofone or more types of design choiceEach phase or stage has its own primary generator (notnecessarily only artefact choices, both other choicetypes, or a mix)Design teams have to COMMIT and re-commit to evolvingbalances and integrations in each stage, as well ascommitments to standards of design workJ. Darke. 1979. The primary generator and the design process, Design Studies 1(1). 36-44.
    • The Finer Detailsof Design Work
    • WORKING TO CHOOSEDesigners work to choose, design work is working tochooseInteraction Design research and practice cansupport design work through: Development Processes Design and Evaluation Methods Tools, techniques and knowledgeSupport for Design work: Sources options Supports choices Co-ordinates choices
    • BIG HAS TO FILL HCD’S GAPSWHERE INTERACTION DESIGN HASN’T ALREADYEvalu-ationArtefactBenefici-ariesPurpose
    • WHERE ANDHOW DOMETHODSAPPLY?PurposeArtefactBenefici-ariesEvalu-ationRECORDSOURCESTRENGTHENSHARE
    • METHODS AS IDEALS“a well-organized and well-planned way of doing something”(Longman Online Dictionary of Contemporary English)1 2 3 4 …
    • APPROACHES AS REALITIESUser Testing – Instrument or Agenda (PromptList)?Get testusersInstructtestusersRecordinteract-ionsAnalysedataPlanre-designKeinonen, T. 2009. Design method -- instrument, competence oragenda? Multiple ways to Design Research.Swiss Design Research Network Symposium09, Lugano, Switzerland.Get testusersInstruct testusersRecordinteractionsAnalysedataPlanre-design
    • APPROACHES AS REALITIESCognitive Walkthrough – Agenda with InstrumentSpecify TasksAnswerWalkthroughQuestionsDecidesuccess/failure caseApproaches do not supply all required design resources, missing orincomplete resources need to be sourced or completed from public orlocal sourcesWoolrych, A. Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E. & Cockton, G. 2011. Ingredientsand Meals Rather Than Recipes: a Proposal for Research that Does NotTreat Usability Evaluation Methods as Indivisible Wholes. IJHCI27(10), 940-970
    • APPROACHES AND RESOURCESWhat are named as methods in Interaction Design are („branded‟)approaches that comprise an incomplete set of resources Heuristic Evaluation: heuristic set, inspectionprocedure(s), multiple analysts – 3 resources: first complete, lastno more than a prompt Personas: Expressive visual form; grounded, strengthened andcommunicated by additional resources in the Persona Lifecycle(Pruitt and Adlin) – one resource (examples) plus additionalresources ‘beyond the method’ Worth Maps (Cockton): Expressive integrative visual form;grounded, strengthened and communicated by extra resources inHCI 2009 and INTERACT 2009 papers –one complete resourcecomplemented by additional resources ‘beyond the method’Approaches incomplete, resources mostly incomplete, requiringadditional public and local resourcesPruitt, J. and Adlin, T. 2006. The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People inMind Throughout Product Design. Morgan Kaufmann.Cockton, G., 2008. Designing Worth: Connecting Preferred Meanswith Probable Ends. interactions, 15(4 - July+August), 54-57
    • RESOURCE FUNCTIONSCockton, G. 2013. A Load of Cobbler’s Children: Beyond the Model Designing Processor. Proc. CHI 2013Extended Abstracts. ACM, 2139-2148Sketching can have inquisitive and directive functions, not just an expressive one. Specific forms ofsketch, informed by expert knowledge, have a performative role. Evans, M. and Pei, E. 2011. iD Cards. ATaxonomy of Design Representations to Support Communication and Understanding During New ProductDevelopment. Loughborough University School of Design.www.lboro.ac.uk/media/wwwlboroacuk/content/lds/downloads/ newsandevents/generalnews/2011/id-recordEXPRESSIVEsourceINQUISITIVEstrengthenDIRECTIVEsharePERFORMATIVEtellINFORMATIVE
    • APPROACH AND PROCESS FUNCTIONSScoping (Adumbrative) Describes coverage of choice types and co-ordinations, at varying levels ofabstraction, including specific technologies, users and evaluationapproachesValuing (Ameliorative) States the values that motivate a deisgn approach or processLinking (Integrative) Supports one or more of the co-ordinations within an approach or processEnergising (Invigorative) Transforms approaches or processes into states that vigourously motivatea design teamCaring (Protective) Prevents approaches or processes from entering or remaining in states thatdemotivate a design team
    • MindBodyBuddiesDesigners need a 3rd Wave tooNo more Cobbler’s ChildrenMoods
    • BIG AND RESOURCE FUNCTIONSResource functions, as well as design choicetypes, need to be balanced and integrated toenable generosity and delivery of othercommitments for a design teamCommittedness of design teams determinesextent of balance, integration and generosityDesign settings and processes must allowbalance, integration and generosity asappropriate in each stage of design work
    • PHASES, BALANCE AND INTEGRATIONIanus Keller PhD, Delft, 2005 Basis for new processstructuresDifferent design foci inparallel, not sequence Phases of parallel activitiespunctuated by periods ofconsolidating integration Balance managed acrossphases Phase activities are nothomogeneous Coherence from primarygenerator Stages are not in a fixed linearorder, sorry ISO 9241-210Beneficiaries Evaluations Purpose ArtefactsWorth
    • THE BIG AGENDANew Challenges ForResearch And Practice
    • THE BIG AGENDANew challenges for research and practiceAccepting the realities of designers Subjective, creative, adventurous, expert, relevant, independentMatching the accountability of engineers Objective verifiersRetaining and enhancing the achievements of HCD Informed, empathic, selflessReducing the limitations of existing designparadigms Deluded, defensive, uncritical, cautious, conservative, unadventurous, arrogant, poorly focused, wasteful …BIG challenges – will you embrace them?
    • DziękujęBardzo
    • QUESTIONS?