MikeMadison.net » HCI Theory

HCI Theory Liveblog – 11/4/08

Mike Madison — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:13:07 +0000

There’s a grab bag of interaction design practices. These link up with different theories in HCI. Once you get to a company, that company has certain pieces of the bigger picture that they focus on / use.

It’s important to scale these various components… including:
World View
Philosophy
Theory
Methodology
Method
Techniques
Tools

And to see where the company stresses its focus.Once you see what sort of method the company wants to focus on, you can see where it fits into Theory, what Philosophy it uses, where it sits in the company’s World View, and etc.

HCI Has 3 Components (Disciplines)

Psychology
Computer Science / Information Science
Design

Any of these three disciplines can be used to describe different aspects of HCI. In the early days of the field, Computer Science was the primary backbone. In the late 80′s / 90′s however, CS was replaced by Psychology as the major way of looking at / describing / defining HCI. Today, Design is becoming stronger and stronger. In the next 5-15 years design may end up being the “new” primary aspect of the field.

Rogers
Part 1: Describes the existing contemporary theories of Interaction Design
Part 2: Goes through research on how practitioners respond if they understand (or use) theories
Part 3: Own discussion around this topic (what can we do, what are the solutions)

Theories:

Early Theoretical Developments

Scientific Theories regarding human beings
Rogers has a background in HCI, however she has education in Psychology.
Look at… Memory, Cognition, Perception
Example: I want to build “this” so I’m going to design “that.” If I know everything about “this” then I’ll be able to figure out what “that” is going to look like. Research was done on memory / cognition / perception because it was believed that if you know everything about a human being, you can build a perfect interact.
Cognitive Modeling
Human Beings use models to understand things. So, the user has a model about the system. Its not about the user, its about how the user thinks.
However, this lead to questions about what the difference between the designer’s model of the user, which is then used to understand the user’s model of the system, which then leads to a model of the system itself.
This also assumes that the system has a model of the user.
The goal here to get the user’s model of the system, and the system’s model of the user, to match up.
Goms theory: Users / methods / selections

New Theories

Ethnomethodological Approaches
Practitioners Perspective

HCI Theory Liveblog – 10/21/08

Mike Madison — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:10:29 +0000

1st Part of the Presentation Who you are / what you’re doing
2nd Part of the Presentation is a sort of mock presentation to the “client.”

Possible Design Models:

Principles
Frameworks
Notions / concepts

So far this semester on the Theory channel…

Philosophy!
Designer / Designerly Thinking
Relationship between the designer’s way of thinking and the design process
What is a design and what is the outcome of design (evil, splendor, common good, etc.) – bigger picture / societal aspects

Today: How does a designer critique design?

Realities of Design
Do designers think of some of the core concepts that we’re discussing?

Maybe… Most of them don’t think of them in the same light that we do as we work through the course.
Very few people read the things that we read. We’re unique!

The practical problem… how can I think about the design product?

There are an infinite number of criteria or qualities to think about…
There are an infinite number of proposals to tell you how to sort through the criteria.

Do people buy it?

What if there’s monopoly or market saturation?
If they buy it, do they actually use it? Do they actually like it?
One purchase doesn’t necessarily mean repeated purchase, or “like”

By the way… are we talking about a market wide sample, or an individual client?

What happens when a field evolves to the point that there are no clear performance leaders? Fashion

If a product doesn’t sell… and the question of “Why” it didn’t is raise… we’re in trouble!

Performance
Usability
Functionality
Speed
It just can’t be used
Looks

Now you can ask people who didn’t buy it why they didn’t buy it, and try to fit it into the above categories (or others.)
Experience is being focused on in the field because it is believed that measuring experience (however you do that) can lead to an understanding of why people do or don’t do something, and why

Krippendorff

“Form Follows Meaning”

“For me, its all about the context”

Operation – In context of how its being used / interacted with

Breaks down into 10 variables… that will help to define, describe, and add meaning to the operation

Sociolinguistic –
Context of – Genesis
Ecological Context –

Argues that the designer and the user look at a product in a radically different way.

Product Semantics should inform the designer to help create the artifact.
The user creates / builds meaning

What is the difference between meaning and aesthetics?

Meaning infers something more than is typically seen / felt / experienced by others… i.e. “My Grandfather gave me this pen!”
Aesthetics don’t have to be defined as the artifact relates to other entities… the artifact is what it is.

Form / Meaning is also called Function / Experience

Interaction has everything that you find in film theory… It is temporal… there are rising and falling actions… different genres within interaction design…

An ATM for example is incredibly different than a sound board: The ATM is experienced in an entirely different, and often much more simplistic way than the sound board.

Literature Theory can lend to Interaction Criticism. You might go check out Jeff Bardzell’s blog

HCI Theory Liveblog – 10/14/08

Mike Madison — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:24:39 +0000

Evil

Why do we need to think about good and evil when it comes to design?

It’s easy as a designer to be caught up in the complexity of “am I doing good” or “am I not doing good?”
It can be good for a design to have a certain naivety as it can lead to creation

This idea leads to the thought that with creation comes destruction
In creating something new… something old is destroyed.
Types of Evil:
Necessity

When you create something, you make a conscious decision
This is a pretty soft example… probably not something that would cause a person to go to jail.

Accidental

Very easy to do something bad… without meeting to do something bad.
Probably the biggest of the categories
You have the power to design, but you don’t have complete understanding over the consequences of what you’re doing
Somewhat of a gray area… are you responsible for this or not?
Cause without connection… are you able to predict something happening that is totally unrelated?

Intentional

Someone who is deliberate in their design… someone who tries to create something that is inherently evil

In design, we are always faced with questions of good vs. evil.
Can we really define a “universal evil” if we can’t define a “universal good.”
If a designer tries to do something good and fails… is that evil?
To be considered…
1. Is the designer good / evil?
2. Is the product good / evil?
3. Is the process successful or not?
There is a power in design… you can’t be a designer without accepting that power. Any design you participate in will change the world.
As a designer, we will change the world.
Some of us may have products and designs that will have a CONSIDERABLE influence on the future of the world
The first step in many programs… is acceptance. You can’t get anything done if you can’t accept that you are what you are. In this case… a designer.

Ensoulment

Things that are!

A Ship
Democracy
Social Network
Vietnam Memorial
A gift (Leather Bag)
Nature

Things that aren’t!

A plastic Bag
A simple 5 function calculator
A Nail

Value vs. Meaning
i.e. Erik found a rice cooker in a study that hadn’t been used in nearly 6 years. However, it was quite important to the person as it was a gift from her mother. Does this item have value? Obviously it has meaning to the owner.
Designers often come in with the plan of redesigning. Often, the first thing they choose to redesign is something that they see as not having any value. However, they don’t understand what the people who use the product find meaningful about that feature and as a result, the entire project is doomed because the design removed that one, key, critical thing that the users wanted.
Can you ensoul an object by design!?