2. “Did You Say ‘Couples?’”
“‘look at this area of life and find
us something interesting!’”
(Bannon, 2011)
HCI researchers are already
designing for couples
“Is your blackberry ruining your
sex life?”
Forbes article
2
3. Research Questions
Could or should we design
technologies for couples?
What does it mean to be a couple?
What technologies might we
design for couples?
3
4. Outline
Background
Methodology
Completed Work
Proposed Work
4
7. Background
distant partners:
cannot readily have f2f
access on a regular basis
abstracted presence:
abstract
sensory: aural, tactile, visual
emotional communication
ephemeral, lightweight
7
8. Background
Existing Design Space
abstracted
presence
distant
partners
8
9. Background
Existing Design Space
abstracted
presence
distant
partners
Is this all there is to couples?
9
10. Background
local partners:
have f2f access on a
regular basis
deep interpersonal sharing:
mutual reflection:
grounded
intellectual: language
reflective communication
ongoing, serious
10
13. Background
Expanded Design Space
Technologies
published in HCI
13
14. Background
Expanded Design Space
Technologies
that have been built
14
15. Background
Expanded Design Space
Technologies
that have been studied in use
15
16. Summary & Questions
Background
Background
Existing Design Space
abstracted
Backgro
presence
und
distant
partners Expanded
Design Spa
ce
9
Hug
Over a
Distance
7
16
that hav Technolo
e not bee
n studied gies
in use
16
17. Methodology
Design-Based Research Cycle
analyze
analyze data to
confirm/revise 3
prototheories
1
design
deploy
(re)design
deploy intervention
intervention based
and collect field
on (revised)
data
prototheories
2
17
18. Methodology
semi-structured interviews
grounded theory
case studies
design journal
design narrative
18
19. Methodology
DBR and qualitative methods
acknowledge complexity
DBR is pragmatic
DBR is action-oriented
DBR supports longitudinal
engagement
19
20. Summary & Questions
Methodology
Design-Based Res
ea rch Cycle
Methodology
analyze
analyze data to 3 semi-structured interviews
confirm/revise
prototheories grounded theory
1 case studies
design deploy
(re)design deploy interventio
n design narrative
intervention based and collect field
on (revised) data
prototheories
2
22
20
20
21. Completed Work
My Design-Based Research Cycle
analyze
currently transcribing
3 interviews and using
open coding towards
answering
prototheories
2
design deploy
primer deployed low-fidelity
sketched out aDBFT
interviewed family 0
and documented prototype to 10 couples
studies experts prototheories for 2 weeks, 50+
hours of interviews
1
21
22. Completed Work
4 MFTs, 1 LCSW
1 hour phone interview
$50 gift card
how do couples argue?
what strategies/tools do therapists use to help?
how does/might technology help?
primer
interviewed family 0
studies experts
22
23. Completed Work
“arguments themselves are not
necessarily the problem”
“the absence of positive in a
relationship is more important
than the absence of negative.”
even healthy relationships can use
a regular “tune-up” or benefit from
“check-ins to remind [them] what
[they] already know.”
primer
interviewed family 0
studies experts
23
24. Completed Work
re-pattern:
“sleepwalking through life”
“patterned and stuck”
reflect, re-story:
“helping people see themselves differently is
certainly a big function of therapy.”
re-connect:
“in a sense a relationship needs to be
rebuilt everyday.”
primer
interviewed family 0
studies experts
24
25. Completed Work
Expanded Design Space
4 R’s of Connection
primer
interviewed family 0
studies experts
25
26. Completed Work
Re-pattern Reflect / Re-story Reconnect
a Diary
Built for
Tw
Meg pulls her Diary Built for Two, a She turns to the next page in her diary and begins to She highlights as she writes, indicating
mobile touchscreen device, from her bag recount and reflect upon her day, an activity that portions of her journal that she would
as she sits down to her daily coffee. begets new interpretations of herself and her partner. like to share with her partner.
design
sketched out aDBFT
and documented
prototheories
26 1
27. Completed Work
Expanded Design Space
aDBFT
design
sketched out aDBFT
and documented
prototheories
27 1
28. Completed Work
2 weeks, 10 couples
recruited via craigslist
$100, light meals, journal
journaling activity
3 interviews each
deploy 2
deployed low-fidelity
prototype to 10
couples for 2 weeks,
50+ hours of
28 interviews
29. Completed Work
Study Timeline
Week 1: Week 2:
each partner writes continue daily entries,
daily in personal journal share 1-3 parts daily
Interview 1: Interview 2: Interview 3:
discussed relationship, discussed last week, discussed previous week,
current reflection practice, journal use, journal use,
gave journals journal summaries journal summaries,
study retrospective
deploy 2
deployed low-fidelity
prototype to 10
couples for 2 weeks,
50+ hours of
29 interviews
30. Completed Work
from
hiding that
e're just
e, that w
world insid
somebody
k as a s> yeah
[00:03:11.07
] es you wor [F]: <laugh
u think mak
<F>: W hat do yo said
[00:05:42.05
] ncing, you
couple? l the time. he's experie
at we talk al e both re
ally his is what
[F]: I thin k the fact th we'r <F >: Ok, so--t
think, ah, neurotic--
, I thi--I that you're
[M]: yeah ghs>
people we are <lau
interested in [F]:
pretty neur
otic
e and we're
that's-- yeah, we're e come hom
[M]: I think es each othe
r [M]: little like, w or you
hich includ [F]: w e're both a ks I'm stupid'
[F]: well, w uh-- ofessor thin ings--
in cludes--but ch ot her out like like 'I think my pr ing ab out little th
[M]: which to figure ea nd of obsess d other
w e both try whate ver, like, ki etimes avoi
[F]: I think ing> we av
oid--som
psychologi
cally [M]: <laugh r <laughs>
feel inferio
people because we
[M ]: yeah
s> ghs>
<F>: oh real
ly? [F]: <laugh ferior? <lau e '[M],
ily, at least e you feel in b is I'm lik
]: yeah not necessar <F>: becaus and my jo you
[F
r parents ar
e is like so, ridiculous,'
[M]: I gues
s ou [F]: which ing me, th
at's
parent s are-- you've go t to be kidd <lau gh>
one of our ], come on' her
laughs> t I mean at he's like '[F help the ot
[F]: nuts--< ell, yeah, bu know, and like sort of
n't care--w you have to
[M]: like re
ally do
- <F>: ok, so
our parents- person person dow
n
least one of lk the other
[F]: yeah, ta
s>
[00:03:53.28
] <F>: <laugh
you say? s>
<F>: what'd
<laughs>
[F]: <laugh
really amaz
ing. um, ar
e [fiancee]
[F]: are nuts <F>: that's lationship,
or
<F>: <l aughs> ng parents [0 0:06:35.19] stres s on the re
me interesti saying, that cause
we've got so t were you there things
[M]: yeah, ly care--wha re you--
[F]: but th ey don't real lik e areas whe
y doesn't definitely
like?! d I would sa [M]: yeah,
e of, my da
[M]: yeah , at least on [F]: <laughs> ings?
ople <laugh
s>
0:04:05.14][?
??] are those th
really like pe
[F]: yeah, he
's, he's a lit
tle drama [0
in pe ople
<F>: what
[F]: well-- [fiancee]
t interested habits
uch, he's no [M]: work him to wor
k a ton.
[M]: very m ]--I consider
that like there's [F]: yes. [M
<F>: yeah ea n, I think to get
ah. But I m like, we try <F>: mm hm
m e
[F]: and, ye at we both time from m
about us th r person
is takes away
something wha t the othe [F]: which fferent
ok, this is <F>: huh <pause> di
like 'oh, me sort of
experiencin
g no w--"
-I [F]: and we have so [fiancee]
t, figure the- friends.
[M]: yeah e figure ou really
try to sort of lik <F>: mm hm ends I don't
[F]: like we like-- me of his fri
to fig ure [M] out [F]: I mea n just that so
mean, I try ing out with
.
and that-- enjoy hang
[M]: yeah, vel- of um--
[F]: on a deeper
le
e're both ki
nd <F>: mm hm annoy him
k, too, w my friends
ible> I thin [F]: some of
[M]: <inaud s>
<laugh <F>: mm hm m <laughs>
[F]: neurotic r annoys hi
[M]: <laugh
s> [F]: my siste
<F>: uh oh hat else [M
]?
of thing, w
[00:04:35.20
] [F]: that kind
s> , sm all
ic? <laugh feel like, uh
<F>: neurot sometimes the big
...
k we both deal with
[M]: I thin pr epared to
children that are un
analyze
currently transcribing
3 interviews and using
open coding towards
answering
30 prototheories
31. Completed Work
Expanded Design Space uplehood as Culture: Exploring Intim
Co
ate Couples
through a Domestic Me
dia Space
Re-pattern Reflect / Re-story †Cen
Stacy M. Branham†, Tad
ter for Human Computer Inter
Virginia Tech
action Reconnect
Hirsch‡,
DesigniStevfo rison†
e Har
ng‡ r Coupl
eh hts Lab
Experience Insigood
Blacksburg, VA 24060 Stacy Branha Intel Labs
m, Steve Harri
{sbranham, srh}@vt.edu son
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Center for Hu tad.h
man-Compuirsch@intel.com
ABSTRACT ter
Department of Interaction
Computer
We propose that the intimate
couple is a significant cultu Virgiimportant to People. Science
nia Tech
construct that, like “the user” ral Bl explored Yet, very rarely has couplehoo
or collaborative groups, ough acksbu as a construct that technology d been
to be studied and designed t {sb pushrg, VAst, or
again might conform to,
for in HCI. Towards making ranham, srh}@ otherwise interact with.
the character of couplehoo out vt.edu
d, we consulted with coup The trouble with couplehoo
therapists and developed a le d is that it is at once public
guiding design framework priva and
resulting design is a mobi . The Abstract te. You and I know what a couple is
le media space––A Diary been partn because we have
for Two––that opens a porta Built Though thea de er in a couple or a child
l between the personal digita sign
couples on theof technologies for to a couple. We see
“diaries” of intimate partn l de e no the big screen, in magazines, on
ers. We deployed a paper cadhandw, and in ducts we pro couples hastreets holding
s
prototype of our system s, ma production Yet, been thriving for well ov
other cultural ke and the s.
to 10 couples and conducted are surprisingly narrow. much of
happens We overw ens behin presumed coupwhat eds er a
a Diary
extensive interviews. We lightware ht intwithin couples happhelminglydde les ne
constructed both in and out
recognize the couple
aswa eractions thabedroom doors many blinds. There
eig household
walls, t can sign for partn we address
of domestic settings and belie rds phone gpassw
movin coup ords, best be dediary locks and ers at a distance an
,
scribed as cell
that the domestic and non-d ve clothes
les technologie and makeup, conv abstracted d
omes ma filters, and ersati
We also suggest that the home tic are mutually defined. ny other facets more.uplehwhile s into lehood” waters and onal presence. To-
of co So, oo “coupbroader (like “the user”
does not stop at the door; ludes easily name
inc is techn d, helpi) us ex
ng
there are external, home and imagI proposeis just nded
ologiesdfor loc ined, it an expa easily plore the
Built for
-like spaces that should plored represented. The al pa as coupmis-
les
considered in the design of
mobile domestic technologi
be design concern
s. I the of our d ric reflect initia design space that
purpose rtners anwork h is
to ion te
exploration of couple n show tha
es. motivated by
the needs of t motiv ati the notio ––hitherto underex-
culture and the createon
Author Keywords couple-centered design. les as
an example of coup n of
of these new
characterized spaces can be
couplehood, culture, domestic a new technolo by couples ex
media space, design experieOur wi gy that
nce approach to understanding embodies the perts and pre
th couples in coup sent
design-oriented. We the field to ide les and se. Finally, I draw fro
for when coup technology is
Tw
began by consideringear
ntify res arguments as m my
ACM Classification Keyw
ords theme les are the user regard
about which to explore ch and desiga n consideration
H5.m. Information interfaces ing gender, les, because
coup
and presentation (e.g.,, HCI) trodudomestic exploration in HCI has navig power, values, mostethics
In and
s
Miscellaneous. : ction
views of ated towards Utopist .
When I tell som the home (see [3], [4]) or avoided family
relationships altogether
eone
INTRODUCTION often ask the iews for the firs(e.g.,e[5]).t However, initial probing
t
interv question Marriagetim tha I design tec
There may be few things as with hy
“w and Fami hnologies
present and profound in huma posedabout t couple relatidesign for couply ;Therapists (MFTfor couples, they
op to jus anyone onships les what’s so s)
n
culture as couplehood. Intim
ate partnership has persisted geoning arguments to ?” This question shifted our focusspecial about them
is on tha
research on do underlying conflict eto t str from
across time and geography mesti techn connection.the co
ikes to We as
; it extends as far back seriouslydeveloped a design c frame ologies,
address in HC re of the bur-
prehistory and is as wide as as I. Re-stwe work tho our is one that we
the world. To get a sense for individu pattern, Reflect, When ory,desig from ugh itfindings––Re- ha
scope, consider that nearly its al, the couple, Reconnect––and, using our
n for the home ve yet to
90% of citizens aged 45-49 bene framework the ch a syste , are we de
been married at least once have fit from techn , designed ildren, ormthe fam for supporting intimatesigning for the
in three quarters of the world couple ologies desig and ily? Mightn’
sometimes wa communicationned for domestin––a Diary Builtclose friends als
’s conn t
countries [1]. And, in the
United States today, nearly Two. nt to beatreate eek study ectioc relationships? for
We ran two-w o
of citizens aged 25-44 62% d as of 10 couples using a And, don’t co
are married, with another roles at various times?type of our individuals or friends
fidelity proto In low- uples
cohabitating [2]. Clearly, 8% essence, design as a way to or any numb
couplehood is pervasive. family, and so lehood and develop our desig kes a coup both probe er of other
coup on)? what ma
It is n. le a couple (or
a family a
MAR
An example RIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY
As aI firsts foray into couples
Meg pulls her Diary Built for Two, a wa at first ske INTERVIEWS
She turns to the next page in her diary and begins to She highlights as she writes, indicating
couple-center
ed
one-h -design––that is, un
ptical myself
and argument, we conducted
about the ne
an abbreviated our, semi-structured phone edinterviews ed for what I now
til the ne hit
mobile touchscreen device, from her bag as recount and reflect upon her day, an activity that begets portions of her journal that she would
MFTsexample from
1 close towith five
have neglecte . We asked abouown excomes to counseling, me. Below, I sha
andd my needscouples argue
why; how as a
my t who pe
rience with
ho
when,
call
re
partner inand, what stratea technology that see
she sits down to her daily coffee. new interpretations of herself and her partner. like to share with her partner.
; a
therapists use. We also asked relationship. gies and tools
The cu of is
about the importancelprittheNe
ms to
tflix circa
1We understand that by choo
sing this entry-point we are
privileging a particular unde
rstanding of couples wher
dissolving relationships are ein
problematized. Again, we
taking a design-oriented appro are
ach, not a truth-seeking one.
analyze
currently transcribing
3 interviews and using
open coding towards
answering
31 prototheories
