1. p. 10
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?
"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
How about new paradigms beyond 3 paradigms? (for example, speculative turn)
NTU companion :