2012年11月26日 星期一

week 10. framing design in the third paradigm

Framing Design in the Third Paradigm

Salu Ylirisku, Virtu Halttunen, Johanna Nuojua, and Antti Juustila, ACM CHI 2009

1. p. 1131.

"...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.


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

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


‘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



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 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 leapfrom 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


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 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

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.

2012年11月19日 星期一

week 9. revisiting 3 paradigms in HCI

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 evaluation 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

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.


  • 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

Studio Actions:
  Annotated portfolios

2012年11月14日 星期三

Short report 1 -Liaison Ceramic / 莊偉銘 D10010301

Over the last few years, there are more and more interaction designs that have been widely discussed in HCI community. However, most research focuses on the functionality or usability, but fewer on construction of meaning in interaction. We manifest a social computing design, Liaison Ceramic. Our intention is to unfold a new form of interaction in terms of the everyday practice through a house-like lamp, which can range from embodiment to personal meaning and social meaning. Through placing a candle onto one roof of the lamp to achieve a perceptual conversation, a user and his/her friends could be involved in at the same time, and keep in touch in the different space. The main study described the phenomenon of using our product in the life world. Besides, it’s also an alternative form of embodied interaction to enrich everyday experience. We argue that, moreover, our design itself is not a physical form used to light up only, but rather a perceptual medium to warm up the communication of users and their friends. In particular, we put emphasis on how this everyday practice provides us a new kind of user experience. We would expect that our design could be an exemplary of embodied interaction. Further, this research should contribute understanding of embodied interaction to the HCI community.

Draft of Oct. 2012 by Chung, Wei-Ming (D10010301)

2012年11月5日 星期一

week 8. the logic of annotated portfolios

The logic of annotated portfolios: communicating the value of 'research through design'

1. "Limited rationality"  在 RtD 中的重要性
2. abstraction 的不可行性
3. 科學正規化設計的不可行性

1. p. 68
Cooper and Bowers: Human Computer Interaction (HCI) in terms of two conceptual and historical 'waves'.

First Wave HCI predominately used the
methods and theories of experimental cognitive psychology
to understand such scenarios. First Wave HCI tended to be
critical of perceived tendencies in ergonomics and software
engineering to not take the user seriously as an active
cognizing individual. In contrast, according to Cooper and
Bowers, Second Wave HCI was critical of the First Wave
for not capturing the social identity of the user, the social
organization of the user’s activities, and the social context
of computing technology. The growth of Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) as a research field
was cited as emblematic of Second Wave concerns.

the Third
Wave is characterised by non-work settings and topics such
as lived-experience, intimacy, pleasure and embodiment.

 notice: embodied interaction 通常不是 work settings, 所以 1st 的 experimental cognitive psychology 和  2nd 的 Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 並不適合.

2. Manifesto Pieces  in HCI

   Ludic Design (Gaver)
   Reflective Design (Sengers)
   Ambiguity  (Gaver)

3. p. 69

RtD 的源頭: (RtD 只看 artefact, 認為 thinking 會自己出現在 artefact 中)

This phrase
has its origins in Frayling [11] and denotes “research where
the end product is an artefact – where the thinking is, so to
speak, embodied in the artefact, where the goal is not
primarily communicable knowledge in the sense of verbal
communication, but in the sense of visual or iconic or
imagistic communication.”


Gaver warns against
importing inappropriate standards from other disciplines,
but unlike them, he does not map design research so as to
develop anxiety-relieving ‘criteria for rigour and
relevance’. Instead, he is concerned to head off (阻止) a creeping (躡手躡腳的)
scientism’ he fears may lurk (潛伏) behind such anxieties or be
crudely seen as their remedy.

Gaver gives various characterisations as to
what design theory could be – “generative”, “suggestive”,
“provisional”, “aspirational”, “annotative” – which point to
a very different identity from the explanatory and testable
theories which dominate thinking about science.

Feyerabend’s Against Method is a subtle
philosophical argument against adopting universal
standards for conduct in the sciences.

...Rather, Feyerabend is urging us to be aware of
the limits of all rationalisms.

5. p.70

Textual accounts (published papers, documents,
descriptions, catalogue entries, whatever) in RtD have an
indexical character. That is, they point to features of
artefacts of interest and connect those features to matters of
further concern. They highlight features and make them
topical for discussion within a given community.

Barthes [2] made
analogous points about how photographs and text (e.g.
captions) interrelate in newspaper and magazine articles.
The text points to features of interest and establishes
connotations’ (言外之意) with other concerns not explicitly depicted.

Gaver [12] puts it that textual accounts of artefacts,
including any theoretical pronouncements about them, are
to be seen as  annotations.  He continues: “Beyond single
artefacts, however, annotated portfolios may serve an even
more valuable role as an alternative to more formalised
theory in conceptual development and practical guidance
for design. (AP 比正式理論更有價值)

If a single design occupies a point in design
space, a collection of designs by the same or associated
designers – a portfolio – establishes an area in that space.
Comparing different individual items can make clear a
domain of design, its relevant dimensions, and the
designer's opinion about the relevant places and
configurations to adopt on those dimensions.”

6. p. 71



  • Typically a portfolio can be annotated in several different ways reflecting different purposes and interests and with different audiences in mind. 

  • Annotations and the designs they annotate are mutually informing. Artefacts are illuminated by annotations. Annotations are illustrated by artefacts.


are a major resource for creating a portfolio. Works do not 
speak for themselves. They are annotated so as to show
how they fit into a portfolio of related endeavour.

7. p. 73

Annotations can configure use, appreciation, aesthetics, and
scientific value, as well as suggesting future research and
design possibilities. An annotated portfolio is a pragmatic 
thing. It is not an abstractly organised collection of work. I
have already said that how we annotate and how we select
works for inclusion in a portfolio reflects interests and 
purposes. Interests and purposes are future-looking. They
shape what we can expect people to do with designs
(questions of use and usability), how they will appreciate
and value designs (questions of aesthetics), and what
knowledge we can expect to derive from all this (questions
of science, broadly construed).

8. p. 75


Having situated Research Through Design (RtD) as a
characteristic contribution to Third Wave HCI, this paper
has noted the disciplinary anxieties [8] that this research
tendency has given rise to.


Annotations were characterised as indexically
connected to artefacts, while connoting topics of broader
interest to whatever the intended audience might be.

An annotated portfolio has a self-conscious logic of limited 
rationality. Any particular set of annotations is perspectival,
allowing other annotations to be made. Annotations allow
family resemblances to be reasoned about, rather than
deductions made. Annotations help us understand what has
made a body of work characterful.

Annotations have weak explanatory and predictive power
and tend to be local to a particular portfolio of work. This is
a (welcome) feature of their limited rationality.

Annotated portfolios relate to past occurrences and future  possibility in a different fashion than that suggested by the  notions of explanation and prediction commonly discussed  regarding theory.

Annotated portfolios are  descriptive (of past occurrences) and intended to be  generative inspirational (of future possibility) with their primary  business constituting a portfolio in close contact to the existing ‘ultimate particulars’ [12, 33] of design – the actual  artefacts themselves. This dual of descriptive/generative is,  perhaps, a more truthful designerly orientation to past/future than explanatory/predictive.

descriptive/generative v.s. explanatory/predictive.


portfolios insist on the indexical ties between texts about
designs and the designs themselves. Annotations and actual
artefacts are seen as mutually explicating and illuminating.
In this sense,  annotations are not abstractions as they
cannot be ‘dragged away from’ the particularities of actual
artefacts (abstraction deriving from the Latin  abtraho
meaning ‘I drag away’). They retain their attachment.

Gaver 對科學解釋的疑慮, 在高壓的學派政治壓力下:

Gaver [12] is suspicious of the potentially coercive (高壓的)
disciplinary politics behind attempts to normalise design
research through a more ‘scientistic’ construal of what HCI
should be about.



Short report 1 / 彭傳旋 M10010206

Ambient Communication: a case study on liaison ceramic

Until very recently, embodied interaction has been primarily concerned with one phenomenon. A growing number of studies are now available to shed some light on the human experience of social computing. Lowgren’s theory offered a sounder theoretical basis for embodied interaction, a substantial body of research documents our tendency to return to the life world. Although only a few isolated recent efforts have continued to address everyday experience and social computing.

In light of these concerns, this article has two purposes: (1) to provide a definition less intrusive way of embodied interaction research; (2) to recommend promising poetic interaction artifact of phenomenological research paradigm. To that end, the following questions were posed: What is the experience and meaning of artifacts in everyday life? To what extent is everyday experience beneficial to people embodied perception? The factors studied here may be of importance in explaining the everyday world of this phenomenon. The practicality of the proposed methodology is demonstrated through a case study.

Figure 1 Conditions of using liaison ceramic

In this work, we propose the following phenomenological method. The people who volunteered for the study were chosen on a random basic. In this experiment, we provide a desktop light as shown in Fig.1 that consists of a light and a white house in shape with an interactive system. the subject was asked to fill out a questionnaire which elicited information concerning his attitude and motivation. Following the test, subjects were interviewed for approximately half an hour about their emotion and behavior. To address this issue, phenomenological analyses were conducted.

To summarize the salient features of the analysis, several findings are of interest, but this report focuses on three themes concerning the human experience: (1) their concentration on good experience, (2) their preference to hide bad experience, and (3) their view of the influence of persistent experience can open selectively and shut down the experience.

Numerous themes emerged from the interview data. Because of space limitations, the following discussion focuses on findings that relate specifically to experience and meaning. The findings suggest that the two orientations are not necessarily mutually exclusive and lead us to believe that more experiential elements should be used in order to design the encountering artifacts and to underscore the importance of recognizing human rich experience. In addition, it is important to emphasize that methodological problems in the research design limit our interpretations. Future research is obviously required, but this is an exciting first step. I am presenting preliminary results of a pilot experiment that will be further analyzed, expanded and replicated.