2012年10月29日 星期一

week 7. annotated portfolios

Annotated portfolios

What should we expect from research through design?

Annotated Portfolios

1.  p. 40
"Instead, it was by looking at specific examples
of practice that we found guidance
for our work and, in discussing
exactly how those examples were
relevant to us, began to develop our
design thinking."

2. p. 42
"Instead we
focused on those aspects we want
to promote in future designs. Our
theoretical work didn’t just concern
what is, but what ought to be."

"So, how could
design count as research?"

"Coinciding with a
general trend for computing to be
applied in all aspects of everyday
life, design seems to offer the ability
to reflect emotional, aesthetic,
cultural, and critical concerns
alongside those of functionality
and usability."

"The outcomes offered by design often take the form of prototype products and systems, sometimes developed to a high degree of finish technically, physically, and aesthetically, and sometimes accompanied by accounts of field trials of these products in use or in exhibitions.
In addition, “manifestos” occasionally appear, arguing for the value of “supple” or “ludic” or “reflective” design as a direction for future work."

"But is
that enough to make design a form
of research, or is it merely fodder (飼料) to
be turned into research by others?"

"Methodologies and theories may well produce respectable research, but the danger is that this
will come at the expense of design." (方法論與理論可能會產出值得尊敬的研究, 但是其危險是以犧牲設計為代價)

4. p. 43
"These choices are varied, multifaceted, and heterogeneous. They reflect a very wide range of concerns that
may include:

  • the functionality of the design
  • its aesthetics
  • the practicalities of its production
  • the motivation for making
  • the identities and capabilities of the people for whom the artifact is intended
  • sociopolitical concerns

"From this point of view, a
designed artifact can be seen
as a kind of position statement
from its designers, not
only about what is important to
consider in a given design situation,
but also about how to best
respond to those considerations."

"The trouble with this perspective on artifacts, however, is that neither dimensions of concern nor
designers’ orientations to them can be read directly from the artifacts themselves." (設計考量與設計師的想法無法從設計物本身解讀出來)

"we point out what
makes the design new and valuable,
rather than leaving the artifact to
speak for itself—as if it could."

"Much of our knowledge of making is tacit."

文字對 design 的角色:

"This means that textual accounts  (e.g., published papers, catalog  entries, online descriptions) in  design research have an indexical  character. That is, they point to features of our designs and connect  them to matters of further concern,  in the case of research, making them topical for discussion within a given community. "

"On the contrary, we see textual accounts of artifacts, including any theoretical pronouncements about them, as annotations. The textual account
achieves its sense and relevance by virtue of its indexical connection
with an artifact."

"This line of reasoning implies  that designs need to be annotated if
they are to make clear and accountable contributions to research. "

5. p. 44
a single design occupies a point in
design space, a collection of designs
by the same or related designers
establishes an area in that space.
A single artifact embodies propositions about a specific configuration of properties. A comparison
of multiple items in a portfolio, on
the other hand, can make clear
a domain of design, its relevant

dimensions, and the designer’s
opinion about the fruitful locations
and configurations to develop on
those dimensions."

"An annotated portfolio, then, is
a means for explicating design
thinking that retains an intimate
indexical connection with artifacts
themselves while addressing broader concerns in the research community. "

6. p. 45
"both the
Photostroller and the Prayer
Companion construe their senior
users not as individuals requiring
medical care or assistance with living, but as people who are actively
curious and engaged with the wider
world. "

"In each case also, the form of the
device has been carefully crafted to
be mindful of several concerns: the
everyday settings in which it is likely to be used, the affordances of the
materials and technologies used in
construction, culturally significant
aesthetic traditions that are drawn
upon, and so forth."

7. p. 48

"Annotated portfolios might take the
form of videos, or a stage show, or
a collection of postcards. "

"We propose the notion of annotated
portfolios as a way to communicate design research. In part, we
do this to provide an alternative to
accounts that suggest for design to
become productive as research,..."

"Rather than predict the future,
we seek to inspire novel work and
offer a mapping of the dimensions of emerging design spaces
in which it might be situated."

"Any particular set of annotations is perspectival, allowing
other annotations to be made.
Annotations allow family resemblances to be reasoned about,
rather than theoretical deductions to be made. "

may help us understand its successes and failings and inspire
future work, but the logic seems
to us rather different from that
governing theory construction and
hypothesis testing, at least as those
processes are typically described
by writers who call for more rigor
in design research or for theoretical or methodological integration
with more traditional approaches."

"We feel reasoning about portfolios is a practice
that is indigenous (固有的, 與生俱來的)to design and,
accordingly, many designers in
HCI will feel more comfortable
working up annotated portfolios
than having to integrate their
work with theoretical constructs
that may not have had a clear
role in motivating what they do. "

"Annotated portfolios do not
propose a format of presentation or
a set of concerns to be addressed.
They do not mandate (命令) a particular graphical style, or prescribe (指定) a
series of categories to be employed,

or advocate (提倡) an elaborate ontology (精緻的本體論)
of entities and relationships.

"In  some sense, what we are offering
here is a methodology for communicating design research, but not 
a restricted toolkit of methods."

2012年10月22日 星期一

week 6. research through design

Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI

1.  p. 493

"Following a research through design approach, designers
produce novel integrations of HCI research in an attempt to
make the right thing: a product that transforms the world
from its current state to a preferred state."

 Christopher Frayling: research through design, 1993

3. What in RtD?

"What is unique to this approach to
interaction design research is that it stresses design artifacts
as outcomes that can transform the world from its current
state to a preferred state"

4. Why RtD?

"The artifacts produced in this type
of research become design exemplars, providing an
appropriate conduit for research findings to easily transfer
to the HCI research and practice communities."

5. How does RtD contribute?

"While we in no way intend for this to be the only type of research
contribution interaction designers can make, we view it as
an important contribution in that it allows designers to
employ their strongest skills in making a research
contribution and in that it fits well within the current
collaborative and interdisciplinary structure of HCI

6. p. 495

"In adding to the research discussion of design methods,
Donald Schön introduced the idea of design as a reflective
practice where designers reflect back on the actions taken in
order to improve design methodology [22]. While this may
seem counter to the science of design, where the practice of
design is the focus of a scientific inquiry, several design
researchers have argued that reflective practice and a
science of design can co-exist in harmony"

"...Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber proposed the concept of a
Wicked Problem,” a problem that because of the
conflicting perspectives of the stakeholders cannot be
accurately modeled and cannot be addressed using the

reductionist approaches of science and engineering [21].
They argued that many problems can never be accurately
modeled, thus an engineering approach to addressing them
would fail."


"Christopher Alexander’s work on Pattern Languages....

His work asks design researchers to
examine the context, system of forces, and solutions used to
address repeated design problems in order to extract a set
underlying “design patterns”, thereby producing a “pattern

The method
turns the work of many designers addressing the same
interaction problems into a discourse for the community,
allowing interaction designers to more clearly observe the
formation of conventions as the technology matures and is
reinterpreted by users."

9. p. 496

"Critical design presents a model of interaction/product
design making as a model of research [9]. Unlike design
practice, where the making focuses on making a
commercially successful product, design researchers
engaged in critical design create artifacts intended to be
carefully crafted questions. These artifacts stimulate
discourse around a topic by challenging the status quo and
by placing the design researcher in the role of a critic. The
Drift Table offers a well known example of critical design
in HCI, where the design of an interactive table that has no
intended task for users to perform raises the issue of the
community’s possibly too narrow focus on successful
completion of tasks as a core metric of evaluation and
product success"


"Harold Nelson and
Erik Stolterman frame interaction design—and more
generally the practice of design—as a broad culture of
inquiry and action. They claim that rather than focusing on
problem solving to avoid undesirable states, designers work
to frame problems in terms of intentional actions that lead
to a desirable and appropriate state of reality."

11. p. 497

"It follows from Christopher Frayling’s
concept of conducting research through design where
design researchers focus on making the right thing; artifacts
intended to transform the world from the current state to a
preferred state."

"Through an active process of ideating, iterating, and
critiquing potential solutions, design researchers continually
reframe the problem as they attempt to make the right
thing. The final output of this activity is a concrete problem
framing and articulation of the preferred state, and a series
of artifacts—models, prototypes, products, and
documentation of the design process."

reference: "epistemic artifacts"

13. p. 498

"Design artifacts are the currency of
design communication. In education they are the content
that teachers use to help design students understand what
design is and how the activity can be done."

"These research artifacts provide
the catalyst and subject matter for discourse in the
community, with each new artifact continuing the

15. p. 499

"We differentiate research artifacts from design practice
artifacts in two important ways. First, the intent going into
the research is to produce knowledge for the research and
practice communities, not to make a commercially viable
product. To this end, we expect research projects that take
this research through design approach will ignore or deemphasize perspectives in framing the problem, such as the
detailed economics associated with manufacturability and
distribution, the integration of the product into a product
line, the effect of the product on a company’s identity, etc.
In this way design researchers focus on making the right
things, while design practitioners focus on making
commercially successful things."

 "research contributions should be artifacts that
demonstrate significant invention."



(1) Process

  • In documenting their contributions, interaction design researchers must provide    enough detail that the process they employed can be reproduced.
  • they must provide a rationale for their selection of the specific methods they employed.

(2) Invention
  • Interaction design researchers must demonstrate that they have produced a novel integration of various subject matters to address a specific situation.
  • In addition, in articulating the integration as invention, interaction designers must detail how advances in technology could result in a significant advancement
  • It is in the articulation of the invention that the detail about the technical opportunities is communicated to the engineers in the HCI research community, providing them with guidance on what to build.

(3) Relevance

  • This constitutes a shift from what is true (the focus of behavioral scientists) to what is real (the focus of anthropologists).
  • However, in addition to framing the work within the real world, interaction design  researchers must also articulate the preferred state their design attempts to achieve and provide support for why the community should consider this state to be preferred.

(4) Extensibility

  • Extensibility means that the design research has been described and documented in a way that the community can leverage the knowledge derived from the work.

Short report 2 (within 400 words)

Describe the above design projects with a research-through-design approach.

(You may need to briefly introduce this artifact and then discourse on four criteria in evaluation)

2012年10月15日 星期一

week 5. designerly ways of knowing

designerly ways of knowing : Design discipline versus Design Science by N. Cross

1. p. 49

Theo van Doesburg,
expressed his perception of a new spirit in art and design:
“Our epoch is hostile to every subjective speculation in art, science, technology, etc. The new spirit, which already governs almost all modern life, is opposed to animal spontaneity, to nature’s domination, to artistic flummery. In order to construct a new object we need a method, that is to say, an objective system.”

the architect Le Corbusier wrote about the house as an objectively
designed “machine for living:”
“The use of the house consists of a regular sequence of definite functions. The regular sequence of these
functions is a traffic phenomenon. To render that traffic exact, economical, and rapid is the key effort of modern architectural science.”

In both comments, and throughout much of the modern movement, we see a desire to produce works of art and design based on objectivity and rationality, that is, on the values of science.

2. p.50
1960s: "design science decade"
1970s: a backlash against design methodology
            Christopher Alexander, who had originated a rational method for architecture
               and planning, now said:
              “I’ve disassociated myself from the field...
               There is so little in what is called “design methods” that has
               anything useful to say about how to design buildings that I never
               even read the literature anymore... I would say forget it, forget the
               whole thing.”
           J. Christopher Jones, said:
              “In the 1970s, I reacted against design methods. I dislike the
               machine language, the behaviorism, the continual attempt to fix the
               whole of life into a logical framework.

             Fundamental issues also were raised by Rittel and Webber,
             who characterized design and planning problems as “wicked”
             problems, fundamentally unamenable to the techniques of science
             and engineering, which dealt with “tame” problems.

3. p. 51

             Scientists try to identify the components of existing structures,
             designers try to shape the components of new structures.

             The scientific method is a pattern of problem-solving
             behavior employed in finding out the nature of what exists,
             whereas the design method is a pattern of behavior
             employed in inventing things...which do not yet exist.
             Science is analytic; design is constructive.

             The natural sciences are concerned with how things
             are...design on the other hand is concerned with how things
             ought to be.

"There may indeed be a critical distinction to be made: method may
be vital to the practice of science (where it validates the results), but
not to the practice of design (where results do not have to be repeatable,
and, in most cases, must not be repeated, or copied)."

Cross et al. claimed that the epistemology of science was, in any case, in disarray
and, therefore, had little to offer an epistemology of design.
Glynn later suggested that “It is the epistemology of design that
has inherited the task of developing the logic of creativity, hypothesis
innovation, or invention that has proved so elusive to the philosophers of science.”

4. Scientific Design p. 52
"...scientific design refers to modern, industrialized design—as distinct from pre-industrial, craft-oriented
design-based on scientific knowledge but utilizing a mix of both intuitive and nonintuitive design methods."

5. Design Science p. 52-53

"...design science refers to an explicitly organized, rational, and wholly systematic approach to design;
not just the utilization of scientific knowledge of artifacts, but design in some sense as a scientific activity itself."

This certainly is a controversial concept, challenged by many designers and design theorists.
Grant wrote:
       "Most opinion among design methodologists and among
        designers holds that the act of designing itself is not and
        will not ever be a scientific activity; that is, that designing is
        itself a nonscientific or ascientific activity."

6. Science of Design p. 53

design methodology”; the study of the principles, practices, and procedures of design.

...the science of design refers to that
body of work which attempts to improve our understanding of
design through “scientific” (i.e., systematic, reliable) methods of
investigation. And let us be clear that a “science of design” is not the
same as a “design science.”

7. Design as a Discipline p. 53-54

     Donald Schön explicitly challenged the positivist doctrine underlying much of the “design science” movement, and offered instead a constructivist paradigm.

     Schön proposed, instead, to search for “an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which some practitioners do bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict,” and which he characterized as “reflective practice.”

   1990s in “design thinking research”

   "Design as a discipline, therefore, can mean design studied on its own terms, and within its own rigorous culture. It can mean a science of design based on the reflective practice of design: design as a discipline, but not design as a science."

"What designers especially know about is the “artificial world”—the human-made world of artifacts. What they especially know how to do is the proposing of additions to and changes to the
artificial world. Their knowledge, skills, and values lie in the techniques of the artificial. (Not “the sciences of the artificial.”) So design knowledge is of and about the artificial world and how to contribute to the creation and maintenance of that world."

Designerly Ways of Knowing (book)

1. The discipline of design (p. 29)
  "First, I have to stressed that we must seek to interpret this core of knowledge in terms of its intrinsic educational value, and not in the instrumental terms that are associated with traditional, vocational design education."

   Five aspects of designerly ways of knowing:

  • Designers tackle 'ill-defined' problems.
  • Their mode of problem-solving is 'solution-focused'.
  • Their model of thinking is 'constructive'.
  • They use 'codes' that translate abstract requirements into concrete objects.
  • They use these codes to both 'read' and 'write' in 'object languages'.

week 4. critical dialogue and phenomenology

Critical dialogue: interaction, experience and cultural theory

"This workshop will explore the 
ways in which HCI can benefit from a constructive 
dialogue between critical theory and experience in 
questions of design and evaluation."

HCI has broadened from usability to experience and 

from productivity to fun, affect, aesthetics, and ethics. 
Experience, culture, enjoyment, design, and other 
related terms are now much used but under-theorized 
concepts in HCI. Yet they are all associated with rich 
histories of scholarship in other domains, and they 
include their own epistemologies, approaches, and 
outputs. Leveraging these terms in HCI will require 
thoughtful engagement with these traditions, and in 
particular, critical theory"

critical theory...
"These include: semiotics (the study of
signs and symbols), hermeneutics (the study of 
interpretation and meaning), structuralism (the study 
of underlying structures of cultural artefacts), post 
structuralism (the denial of the existence of such 
structures), deconstruction (well this is getting
complicated now), psychoanalysis (yes and perhaps 
each of these deserves a paragraph on their own), 
feminism, Marxism, and postmodernism. "

4. "Since post-structuralist semiotics critiqued the notion
that there was a direct correspondence between a
cultural artifact and any single interpretation of it, ideas
based in critical traditions such as reader-response
theory have supplemented traditional semiotic readings
of how interaction takes place. These approaches argue
that meaning is emergent, constructed through a
“performance” of the text in a particular context.
Clearly this kind of theory is more difficult to implement
as a set of design guidelines and perhaps for this
reason hermeneutics has received less attention in HCI
(however, see for instance [12]). "

  "When Winograd and Flores followed Heidegger in
rejecting the view that things are the bearer of
properties independent of interpretation [18],
phenomenology’s emphasis on both phenomena and
the consciousness experiencing them began to be
influential in HCI, e.g. [8][10]. When attention turned
from usability to user experience, connections to critical
theory became more frequent and complex. McCarthy 
and Wright’s [14] book Technology as Experience drew
extensively on the Russian literary critic and
philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin and his problematic
relationship with formal theory and preference for a
decentred dialogue grounded in the particularities and
uncertainties of lived experience."

Technology as experience

1. 社會科學的理路 pp. 352-353, 365-366, 384-387
2. 反身性方法論: 質性研究的新視野, pp. 60-61

2012年10月8日 星期一

week 3. embodied interaction

Paul Dourish, Embodied Interaction: Exploring the foundations of a new approach to HCI


1. Embodiment is the property of being manifest in and of the everyday world. Embodiment constitutes the transition from the realm of ideas to the realm of everyday
experience. (p. 8)

2. Embodiment, then, denotes not physical reality but participative status. When I talk of “embodied interaction”, I mean that interaction is an embodied phenomenon. It happens in the world, and that world (a physical world and a social world) lends form, substance and meaning to the interaction. (p. 8)

3. It (tangible computing) also tries to make computation manifest to us in the world in the same way as we encounter other phenomena, both as a way of making computation fit more naturally with the everyday world and as a way of enriching our experiences with the physical. (p. 8)

5.1 The Phenomenological Backdrop

1. Husserl argued that everyday experience is of concrete phenomena, and it is from such experience and phenomena that our conception of number and of mathematics exists. Phenomenology, then, was based in the phenomena of human experience, in contrast to the abstract entities at the heart of scientific and mathematical
practice. (p. 9)

2. For Heidegger, everyday experience happened not in the head, but out in the world.
Heidegger’s “hermeneutic phenomenology” rejected the detached, mentalistic intentionality of Husserl’s “transcendental” form. (p. 9)

3. Where Husserl had conceived of a progression from perception to
meaning to action, Heidegger stressed how we ordinarily act in a world that is already organised in terms of meaning and purpose. Heidegger took “shoot first, ask questions later” not as an imperative, but as a description of our mode of being. (p. 10)

4. Heidegger’s distinction between “ready-to-hand” and “present-at-hand.”
Heidegger argued that the ontological structure of the world is not a given, but arises through interaction....The critical thing to observe here is that this can happen only through involved, embodied action. Winograd and Flores use this to illustrate
that activity is constitutive of ontology, not independent of it. (p. 10)

5. ...the concept of “embodiment” features perhaps most strongly in the phenomenology of perception developed by Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1962). Merleau-Ponty saw perception as an active process, and one carried out by an embodied subject. The embodied nature of action (and actors) was central to Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. (p. 10)

6. Foundations

1. What does phenomenology have to tell us about interaction? For the purposes at hand, I take three main points from this work: that interaction is physically and socially embodied; that ontology arises out of activity; and that meaning subsists in embodied action. (p. 12)

2. The relationship between action and meaning is, in many ways, the crucial one here...., the two pillars supporting a foundational model of interaction are intentionality and coupling. (p. 12)

3. Intentionality, loosely, is “about-ness.” It describes a referential relationship between two entities. Words, images and ideas are intentional phenomena; they are about things, in a way in which rocks, carpets and trees are not. Intentionality is the essence of how entities bear meaning. Coupling refers to the degree of coordination of two elements, and to how that coordination is maintained. (p. 12)

4. ...the meanings assigned to the objects in the interface depend on the coupling
of actions. Coupling and intentionality are directly related. By implication, then, in order to manage meaning, we must be able to manage coupling.(p. 12)

5. Coupling, then, is at the heart of our ability to work with artifacts and control them. Intentionality is an everyday phenomenon; arguably, it is the phenomenon of human experience, which works its way out in the interactions in which we engage with the world and with each other. It is rooted in our socialisation and our lives as social animals in a web of social and cultural relations which give meaning to everyday actionFluid coupling provides us with the means to negotiate this web.
Embodiment lies in the relationship between the two. (p. 12)

6. What tangible computing does, by moving computation out into the world, is to open up new ways for us to be coupled to the intentional phenomena of computation.

In particular, it provides new ways for us to explore them. What turns out to be important about tangible computing, then, is not the physical nature of the objects through which we interact, but with what they represent and how we use them.

At the same time, social computing emphasises how context lends meaning, and places a primary emphasis on action rather than abstract representation.

Embodied interaction provides us with a perspective on computational representation that takes action as a primary constituent.

7. Conclusions

Embodied interaction, then, suggests that the future of interaction lies not in the interface “disappearing”, but rather in the interface becoming even more visible, or rather, available for a wider range of engagements and interactions. The question is, what form will that heightened visibility take? (p. 14)

Short report (within 300 words):

Describe the above embodied interaction with a phenomenological approach.

(note: you might identify possible terms first, for example, intention, coupling, meaning, everyday experience, human experience, social computing, embodied action, everyday world, phenomena, felt experience, encountering, rich experience, embodied perception...)

2012年10月1日 星期一

week 2. Paradigms

Paradigms: ontology, epistemology, and methodology

HCI v.s. Tangible Interaction
1. Tangible User Interface: MIT Media Lab, Tangible Media by Hiroshi Ishii

   "Tangible User Interfaces were envisioned as an alternative to graphical displays that would bring some of the richness of interaction we have with physical devices back into our interaction with digital content (Ishii, Ullmer 1997)."

    conference: TEI (Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction)

Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms

2. Tangible Interaction: (from Industrial Design and Arts)

   "Some design researchers have come to investigate how form and digital behavior can be more closely coupled and how users could interact in richer ways with digital products (Djajadiningrat et al 2004; Jensen, Buur, Djajadiningrat 2005). "

  "Interaction designers have also developed an interest in bodily interaction, which can be pure movement (gestures, dance) or is related to physical objects (Hummels, Overbeeke, Klooster 2007)."

 Bodily Rich Interaction


Tangible products: redressing the balance between appearance and action

Move to get moved: a search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based interaction

The Three Paradigms of HCI
1. 1st paradigm: engineering/human factors
2. 2nd paradigm: cognitive science
3. 3rd paradigm: phenomenological matrix:
       "...addressing issues that are bad fits to prior paradigms, ranging from embodiment to situated meaning to values and social issues."

"These include participatory
design, value-sensitive design, user experience
design, ethnomethodology, embodied interaction, interaction
analysis, and critical design." (p. 2)

"a third (“3rd”) paradigm, which treats interaction not as a
form of information processing but as a form of meaning
making in which the artifact and its context at all
levels are mutually defining and subject to multiple interpretations." (p. 2)

強行將舊的 paradigm 套用到 HCI 的後果:
 "when force-fitting new insights to old paradigms
CHI fails to capitalize on the full value of these approaches." (p. 3)

 沒有清楚的認識論, 會限制 HCI 的發展:
"(3) the lack of clarity about the
epistemological distinctions between paradigms is a
limiting factor in the development of the field,..." (p. 3)

Thomas Kuhn's theory of the structure of scientific revolutions:
"A paradigm shift, then, is accompanied by a shift
in the examples which are considered to be central to
the field." (p. 3)

"In particular, Agre argues, following a long line of research
in scientific metaphor, that technical fields tend
to be structured around particular metaphors which
suggest the questions that are interesting to ask and
methods for arriving at answers to them. So, for example,
the metaphor underlying cognitive science –
that human minds are like information processors –
suggests questions it could be interesting to ask - how
humans process their input, how they represent information
internally, how they access memory, etc. - and
also suggests methods for finding answers to those
questions, for example that we can effectively model
human mental activity using computational code and
validate these models by comparing computational and
human input and output."  (p. 4)

"Following Agre, we argue that central to each paradigm
in HCI is a different metaphor of interaction. Each such
metaphor introduces ‘centers’ and ‘margins’ that drive
choices about what methods are appropriate for studying
and designing interaction and for how knowledge
claims about interaction can be validated." (p. 4)

為何 usability study 對 non-task-oriented interaction 無效?
"A fourth set of issues arises out of the domain of nontask-
oriented computing. These approaches tend to
be bad fits to the 1st and 2nd paradigms, whose methods
tend to require problems to be formalized and expressed
in terms of tasks, goals and efficiency - precisely
what non-task-oriented approaches are intended
to question. It is difficult, for example, to apply usability
studies to ambient interfaces, since standard
evaluation techniques are ‘task-focused’ in the sense of
asking users to pay attention to and evaluate the interface,
precisely what the system is devised to avoid." (p. 4)

Embodiment 在三種 paradigms 的角色:
1. In human factors, attention is paid to such factors as the fit of a mouse to the human hand or the amenability of particular font sizes to be easily read.
2. Cognitively based work in HCI has laid out physical constraints that usefully inform interface
design such as the speed at which humans are able to react in various situations.
3. Embodiment in the 3rd paradigm is based on a different, central stance drawing on phenomenology: that the way in which we come to understand the world, ourselves, and interaction derives crucially from our location in a physical and social world as embodied actors.

"A focus on embodied interaction
moves from the 2nd paradigm idea that thinking is
cognitive, abstract, and information-based to one
where thinking is also achieved through doing things in
the world, for example expression through gestures,
learning through manipulation, or thinking through
building prototypes." (p. 7)

3rd paradigm 的 中心是 現象學觀點, 而非物理的體現性:
"Despite the centrality of embodied interaction to the 3rd
paradigm, it would be a mistake to take physical embodiment
– i.e. having a body - as its central, defining
characteristic. Rather, what is central is a phenomenological
viewpoint, in which all action, interaction, and

knowledge is seen as embodied in situated human actors.
This position leads to a number of intellectual
commitments that contrast with those taken by the first
two paradigms."  (p. 7)

意義在三種 paradigms 中的角色:
"meaning, ignoring it unless it causes a problem, while
the 2nd interprets meaning in terms of information
flows. The 3rd paradigm, in contrast, sees meaning and
meaning construction as a central focus. It adopts the
stance that meaning is constructed on the fly, often
collaboratively, by people in specific contexts and
situations, and therefore that interaction itself is an
essential element in meaning construction."

3rd paradigm 的 central metaphor:
" ...whose central metaphor is interaction
as phenomenologically situated." (p. 9)

1st paradigm: reduce error
2nd paradigm: more efficiently
3rd paradigm: situated meaning-making

Different Ways of Knowing

"The three issues described previously – limited and inappropriate measures of success, acceptable methods,
and recognition of innovation – can be traced to a lack of awareness of the epistemological distinctions between the paradigms,..."

see Table 2: Epistemological distinctions between the paradigms

Objective vs. Subjective Knowledge
Generalized vs. Situated Knowledge
Information vs. Interpretation
“Clean” vs. “Messy” Formalisms

所有的 paper 都應該交代 underlying paradigms:
"We would expect that calling out the underlying paradigm
will become a standard part of every publication
in our field." (p. 17)