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.
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.

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
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

Studio Actions:
  Annotated portfolios

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)

week 8. the logic of annotated portfolios

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

摘要:

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.”

4.

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

OVERVIEW

...

• 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.

...




Annotations 
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

CONCLUSION


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.


p.76


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.


9.


Annotated
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.


Ref:

http://www.mce.ndhu.edu.tw/~gimewww/epaper/9501/epaper9501.htm#explain

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.

week 7. annotated portfolios

Annotated portfolios

What should we expect from research through design?

The logic of annotated portfolios: communicating the value of '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."

3.
"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
"If
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. "

"This
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."

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."

2. 

 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

research."

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"

7.
"...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."

8.

"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
language”...

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"


http://designapproaches.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/bill-gaver/

10.
"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."

12.
"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."

14.
"These research artifacts provide
the catalyst and subject matter for discourse in the
community, with each new artifact continuing the
conversation."

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."

16.
 "research contributions should be artifacts that
demonstrate significant invention."

17.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING INTERACTION DESIGN
RESEARCH WITHIN HCI

(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)

http://interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/user_experience_and_experience_design.html

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)