The Three Paradigms of HCI
1. p. 10
Paradigms compared:
Metaphor of interaction:
- P1: Interaction as man-machine coupling
- P2: Interaction as information communication
- P3: Interaction as phenomenologically situated
Central goal for interaction:
- P1: Optimizing fit between man and machine
- P2: Optimizing accuracy and efficiency of information transfer
- P3: Support for situated action in the world
Typical questions of interest:
- P1: How can we fix specific problems that arise in interaction?
- P2: (1) What mismatches come up in communication between computers and people? (2) How can we accurately model what people do? (3) How can we improve the efficiency of computer use?
- P3: (1) What existing situated activities in the world should we support? (2) How do users appropriate technologies, and how can we support those appropriations? (3) How can we support interaction without constraining it too strongly by what a computer can do or understand? (4) What are the politics and values at the site of interaction, and how can we support those in design?
2. p. 11
"The primary challenge, however for the 3rd paradigm to
fully bloom is to
break out of the standards which have
been set up by incompatible paradigms."
人誌學法還是被
誤解為"抽取使用者需求" 的方法, 而非分析整個 HCI 基地的學門.
Dourish, for example, argues that 20 years after the
introduction of
ethnography into the HCI canon it is still
systematically
misunderstood as
a method for extracting
user requirements rather than a discipline that
analyzes the entire site of human-computer interaction.
Thus, an ethnography, by itself, does not constitute
a legitimate CHI publication without an additional
instrumental component such as
user requirements or
an e
valuation of the interface using information processing
criteria. (還是回到 2nd Paradigm 的標準)
3. p. 13
Objective vs. Subjective Knowledge
The 1st and 2nd paradigms emphasize the importance of
objective knowledge. The 3rd paradigm, in contrast, sees knowledge as
arising from situated viewpoints in the world and often sees the dominant focus on objective knowledge as suspect in riding roughshod (
馬蹄鐵上裝有防滑釘的) over the complexities of multiple perspectives at the scene of action.
...
A number of HCI researchers have taken it a step further, recognizing the
subjectivity of the researcher and the relationship between the researcher and the researched; where issues of
intersubjectivity (互為主體性) are common in anthropology, they are remote and difficult to address in the 2nd paradigm.
Generalized vs. Situated Knowledge
The 2nd paradigm values
generalized models such as
GOMS. But because the 3rd paradigm sees knowledge
as
arising and becoming meaningful in specific situations,
it has a greater appreciation for detailed,
rich
descriptions of specific situations.
....we all now recognize that “
externalities” are often central
figures in the understanding of interaction.
Information vs. Interpretation
The
2nd paradigm arises out of a combination of computer
science and
laboratory behavioral sciences that
emphasize analytic means such as
statistical analysis,
classification and
corroboration (確證) in making sense of what
is going on at the site of interaction, often under
controlled
conditions.
...
The
epistemological stance
brought to this site is generally
hermeneutic, not analytic,
and focuses on developing
wholistic, reflective
understanding while staying open to the possibility of
simultaneous,
conflicting interpretation.
“Clean” vs. “Messy” Formalisms
The 2nd paradigm, reacting to the a-theoretical orientation
of the 1st paradigm, values clean, principled, well-defined
forms of knowledge.
The difference between
these ways of thinking is rooted in whether researchers
place the
cleanliness and
certitude (確實) of formal
models at the center of their thinking or whether they
instead place an
appreciation for the complexity of real-world,
messy behavior and activity at the center.
4. p. 16
We are not arguing that the 3rd paradigm is right, while
the 1st and 2nd paradigms are wrong. Rather, we argue
that
paradigms highlight different kinds of questions
that are interesting and methods for answering them.
...
(
不同的 knowledge 就用不同的 paradigm)
it would probably be unwise to attempt to uncover the
rich appropriations of a situated technology with an
objective laboratory test.
5. p. 14
Epistemological distinctions between the paradigms
Appropriate disciplines for interaction
- P1: Engineering, programming, ergonomics
- P2: Laboratory and theoretical behavioral science
- P3: Ethnography, action research, practicebased research, interaction analysis
Kind of methods strived for
- P1: Cool hacks
- P2: Verified design and evaluation methods that can be applied regardless of context
- P3: A palette of situated design and evaluation strategies
Legitimate kinds of knowledge
- P1: Pragmatic, objective details
- P2: Objective statements with general applicability
- P3: Thick description, stakeholder “careabouts”
How you know something is true
- P1: You tried it out and it worked.
- P2: You refute the idea that the difference between experimental conditions is due to chance
- P3: You argue about the relationship between your data(s) and what you seek to understand.
Values
- P1: (1) reduce errors (2) ad hoc is OK (3) cool hacks desired
- P2: (1) optimization (2) generalizability wherever possible (3) principled evaluation is a priori better than ad hoc, since design can be structured to reflect paradigm (4) structured design better than unstructured (5) reduction of ambiguity (6) top-down view of knowledge
- P3: (1) Construction of meaning is intrinsic to interaction activity (2) what goes on around systems is more interesting than what’s happening at the interface (3) “zensign” – what you don’t build is as important as what you do build (4) goal is to grapple with (搏鬥) the full complexity around the system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Framing Design in the Third Paradigm
Salu Ylirisku, Virtu Halttunen, Johanna Nuojua, and Antti Juustila, ACM CHI 2009
1. p. 1131.
ABSTRACT:
"...the new design paradigm, which considers
designing as
a situated and constructive activity of meaning
making rather than as problem solving."
...how design projects proceed from the fuzzy early phases
towards the issues of central relevance to designing.
A central concept is framing,...Several aspects of framing
are explicated, exploratory, anticipatory and social framing,
and related
concepts of ‘focusing’, ‘priming’, and
‘
grounding’ are explained.
2.
INTRODUCTION
A new paradigm is emerging within HCI. Harrison et al.
[14] identified three waves of paradigms within HCI, the
first being “Human Factors/Engineering”, the second
“Cognitive Revolution”, and
the third “Situated
Perspectives”.
Innovation projects are those that aim at creating novel
products, systems, or services. The central dilemma in such
projects is the question “
what to build”....While the first two paradigms
focused predominantly on the optimization of the
performance of man-machine systems based on identified
problems, the third paradigm promotes a view towards
the
situated and emergent properties of interaction [14].
Already in the 1970s
Rittel and Webber [27] problematized
the idea of the design problem. They contended that design
problems are “
wicked” by nature and that every attempt to
solve a design problem frames the problem anew [27].
Due to the open-endedness and the explorative character of
innovation design, it is possible that
a design problem does
not exist at the outset of a project.
Instead of design problems, the third paradigm promotes
meaning making to the center of focus [14].
Understanding designing as
a constructive activity of meaning making
renders the terminology of problems and solutions
obsolete (過時的).
p. 1132
The early phases of innovation therefore cannot be
grounded in the idea of
design problems nor tied to the
traditional ideals of
optimization, but new theoretical
understanding of the design process in the third paradigm is
required.
3. SITUATED FRAMING
‘framing’...This paper builds on
Schön and Rein’s
[31] use of the term to refer to
a process of perceiving and
making sense of social reality. These authors contend that
there is no way of perceiving and making sense of this
reality except through a frame [31].
Blumer [3] described
the issue within sociology: the “
empirical world necessarily
exists always in the form of human pictures and
conceptions of it.”
"...Harrison et al. [14], who
acknowledge that the
artifact and its context are mutually
defining within the third paradigm of HCI."
People create different framing
depending on their “disciplinary backgrounds,
organizational roles, interests, political and economic
perspectives” [30].
跨領域 framing 的問題:
Collaborative designing hence features great varieties of structurally interwoven, overlapping and
transitional frames in effect simultaneously.
Framing 的角色:
This complexity is perplexing when approached at once.
However,
constructive frame-mediated interpretation
provides a path through the complexity. As underlying
“structures of belief, perception, and appreciation” [31]
frames help to narrow down the number of available
features by selecting “for attention a few salient features
and relations from what would otherwise be an
overwhelmingly complex reality.”
The dilemma of relevance
In this
paper ‘
relevant’ refers simply to an idea that survives until
the end of the process, i.e. is not abandoned.
...
improvised acting as described by
Keith
Johnstone [17]. He illustrates
improvisation as walking
backwards into the future: The walker may not know what
lies behind (in the direction he is actually heading) but
knows the path from which he came [17].
Schön [30] described the dilemma as the “
paradox
of learning.” He wrote that “a student cannot at first
understand what he needs to learn, can learn it only by
educating himself, and can educate himself only by
beginning to do what he does not yet understand.” [30]
Designers must therefore act upfront, and relevance
becomes apparent afterwards.
According to
Schön [29] designers
develop framing through
experimentation, or what he calls ‘
design moves’: “what if I
did this?” Schön wrote: “When [design] moves function in
an exploratory way, the designer allows the situation to
‘
talk back’ to him, causing him to see things in a new way.”
TWO CASE STUDIES: Designing ideas for wellbeing at work, Design a town vision
...
DISCUSSION
p. 1137
Exploratory Framing:
This
exploratory framing (formed mainly by ICTs and the Situated Make
Tools method) functioned as scaffolding that supported
collaborative experimentation, ideation and exploration
with the materials available in the design situations.
...
In short,
exploratory framing functioned as a platform for
divergent
thinking, which was grounded in
empirical reality.
Anticipatory Framing:
The
anticipatory framing, which was grounded in these themes and
primed
by the visits to the physical environment helped designers
to focus their effort on the relevant issues.
The process with anticipatory framing appeared
very efficient, as the teachers could successfully restructure
the entire urban planning project in a matter of a half-hour
session (Situation 2.4).
The framing also helped to design the
Persona descriptions, in which the
design of the final concepts was grounded.
Social Framing:
Social framing thus refers to the conceptual
designing of co-design events for the co-designers.
One aspect of social framing is the role assigned to the codesigners. They may be framed as experts, who have the capacity to judge, design, and guide the direction of a project.
p. 1138
Focusing
Focusing refers to the iterative process of developing a
comprehensive conception of a design object.
...
When these structures, which
guide perception and appreciation, become available,
designers gain the ability to tell whether something is
relevant or not. This ‘
sense of relevance’ is apparent in how
designers expressed their feelings about the value of the
photographs in the Kuntis case.
This ability
is precisely what the evolving frames provide designers
with. At the same time as frames structure
perception and
sense making, they constitute what
Schön and Rein [31]
call the “
normative leap”
from fact to values, from “is” to
“ought.” This leap is fundamental in designing, when
designing is understood in the spirit of the definition by
Simon [32] as
the activity to transform existing situations
into preferred ones.
The “normative leap” happens once
designers develop the sense of relevance.
(
設計中的 normative leap 發生在 the sense of relevance 清楚之後）
Priming
The concept of
priming draws attention to the timely
development of framing.
For example, the exploration,
ideation, and evaluation primed the reframing (Situation
2.4) of the whole project in the Kuntis case. Similarly the
whole set of consecutive design events and workshops
primed the conceptual restructuring of the mobile tool
concepts (Situation 1.8) in the Konkari project.
Sleeswijk-Visser et al. [33] called ‘
sensitization’ the
increased readiness of the participants to express projectrelevant comments when they spend a period of time with a
sensitization package. Priming sensitizes, and more
precisely, develops initial and vague structures on which
sub-sequent design-cognitions can be grounded.
Grounding
Grounding ultimately refers to the connection of designing
to the structures in
empirical reality in which the designs
will eventually be placed. For example, the
Personas in the
Konkari project were grounded in the knowledge about the
workers.
Priming 與 Grounding 的比較：
While priming promotes the timely
relation between events, grounding draws attention to the
hierarchical nesting of framing.
Grounding thus ties closely
to thinking while priming associates more with action.
Framing Artifacts (設計過程中, 用來幫助 framing 的人造物)
The ideas, forms, artifacts, which are
needed to (re)construct a framing, sustain from one
situation to another. This phenomenon is evident in the
studied projects and is facilitated by
physical artifacts, and
both case studies reveal the role that the material artifacts
played in the reproduction of a certain frame at a later stage.
....
Artifacts were also utilized to frame memories for the
service of design.
...
Zimmerman et al. [41] claim “
design artifacts are the
currency of design communication.”
Framing artifacts have
a similar value. Framing artifacts also feature a
mnemonic
function in the reconstruction of framing as the above
examples illustrate.
