Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Design as Intercultural Dialogue
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Design as Intercultural Dialogue

132

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
132
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. INTERACT 2011, September 9th, Lisboa DESIGN AS INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE: COUPLING HUMAN-CENTERED DESIGN WITH REQUIREMENT ENGINEERING METHODS Chiara Leonardi, Luca Sabatucci, Angelo Susi, and Massimo Zancanaro Speaker: Luca Sabatucci, Software Engineering Unit, FBK
  • 2. 2ACube• Critical Context• Acceptability• Privacy and Value• Low Intrusiveness
  • 3. 3Human-Centered Design Strengths Limits• Ethnographic Study • Does not support• Engagement of users traceability• Concrete representation • Does not support of the domain abstraction• Stories prioritize • Coverage problem requirements
  • 4. The Tropos MethodologyAn Overview• Agent-oriented design process,• Based on goal-oriented language and notation.• The focus is on capturing intentional and strategic dependencies among actors of a domain.• Five phases: from early/later requirements to architecture, implementation and deployment.Giunchiglia et al. 2003. The Tropos Software Development Methodology:Processes, Models and Diagrams. In Agent-Oriented Software EngineeringIII, Springer
  • 5. 5Tropos Strengths Lacks and Limits• Strategic view of the • Prioritization of domain requirements• Analysis of motivations • Needs translation to and dependencies involve users• Check of quality and • Model mainly invariant coverage elements of the domain• Support traceability • Can’t model physical context
  • 6. Tropos and UCD:a Promising Synergy• Purpose: • synergy without reducing advantages• Enablers: • Ground on information about people • Similar “High Level” objectives (requirements) • Similar Language (goal/need, actor/persona) • Similar methodological approach (data exploration, filtering)
  • 7. 7Working Together Integration Assimilation• bridge the gap between • transform a specific different research approach to make it fit traditions into another one • to work in a situation of• to work in a situation of methodological purity methodological pluralism • the risk is to loose the• overhead for practitioners strength of one of the approaches • more complex for method designer
  • 8. The Common Meta-Model: a lesson learned UCD META-MODEL ? TROPOS META-MODEL ? persona wish empathy ? need scenario = difficulty in providing a precise semanticsSusi et al. 2005. The TroposMetamodel and its Use. = difficulty in identifying inter-concepts relationshipsINFORMATICA ? = uncertainty to bridge concepts
  • 9. 9Ambiguity:a different perspective
  • 10. The Integrated Process• Iterative process• Design threads in parallel • shared design vision • common problem space • no priority• Inform without constraining• Frequent, small evaluations
  • 11. 11The aim is to find under whatconditions our experience can begeneralized • Strengths/limits analysisRECIPE • Making the divides explicit • Mutual learning
  • 12. Slide 12Strengths/limits analysis• It relies on the identification of strengths and limits• This allows to define integration points to create a beneficial dialogue• It allows to preserve their strengths.
  • 13. Slide 13Making the divides explicitIdentifying barriers that may hinder the dialogue betweenthe two methods. • Epistemological divides • Linguistic and conceptual divides
  • 14. Slide 14Mutual learningMutual learning represent the crucial aspect to mediatebetween the different epistemologies and languages • Definition of a shared dictionary of terms (natural language) • Collaborative negotiation of the definition of terms in the dictionary which leads to discover hidden relationships between terms • Iteration with refinement until the agreement
  • 15. Operative Example CONTEXT NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION TROPOS EARLY CRITICALITIES REQUIREMENTS PERSONAS/ SCENARIOS• A criticality is a situation in the organization for which the system is being designed.• A criticality is represented as a view on the organization model that focuses on highlighting actors, goals and tasks when a critical situation occurs.• The description is enriched with information about the context in which the problem may occur and the impact on the standard stakeholder activities.
  • 16. 16Conclusion Strengths/Limits Identify Barriers Mutual Learning

×