Design. Stephen Barrass Faculty of Arts and Design University of Canberra

Transcription

1 ic n rm at n io S o fo In Design Stephen Barrass Faculty of Arts and Design University of Canberra

2 Third Wave HCI Third Knowledge Culture Overview The Design Triangle

3 The 3 Paradigms of HCI Harrison, S., Tatar, D., and Sengers, P. (2006) The three paradigms of HCI. In Alt. chi. Proceedings of CHI '07. ACM Press, NY, First Wave-HUMAN FACTORS In origin, human factors is an a-theoretic and pragmatic approach to identifying problems in industrial systems and ergonomics. When applied to HCI, human factors conceptualizes interaction as a form of man-machine coupling. The goal of work in this paradigm is to optimize the fit between humans and machines; the questions to be answered focus on problems in coupling, and developing pragmatic solutions to them. At the center are concrete problems that arise in interaction and cause disruption; at the margin are phenomena that underlie interaction but do not directly lead to noticeable trouble. The name of the Computer Human Interfaces (CHI) conference and field still reflects these roots, as does the use of simple performance metrics. Second Wave-CLASSICAL COGNITIVISM/INFORMATION PROCESSING In this paradigm the problem is abstracted to the

4 Third Wave - PHENOMENOLOGICALLY-SITUATED The goal for interaction is to support situated action and meaning-making in specific contexts, and the questions that arise revolve around how to complement formalized, computational representations and actions with the rich, complex, and messy situations at hand around them. The elements of the phenomenologically situated paradigm are a 1. focus on meaning and meaning creation, 2. based on human experience, and 3. therefore represented through multiple perspectives, and the relationship amongst those perspectives. Because of its emphasis on multiple perspectives, the third paradigm does not espouse a single, correct set of methods or approaches to answer these questions. Instead, we see a variety of approaches that are embedded in a similar epistemological substrate. In contrast to the second paradigm, which often sees theory as primary and design and evaluation as ways of instantiating, testing, and developing theories, third- paradigm approaches focus on theory more as heuristics to be drawn on, with full understanding emerging from the combination of theoretical lenses and what happens practically at the scene of action what Gaver calls humble theory (2006). * Phenomonology: A method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness. The study of experiences usually regarded as subjective, such as judgments, perceptions, and emotions. Although phenomenology seeks to be scientific, it does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology or neurology. Instead, it seeks to determine the essential properties and structures of experience through systematic reflection.

5 Intellectual Commitments 1. THE CONSTRUCTION OF MEANING: The first paradigm takes a pragmatic approach to meaning, ignoring it unless it causes a problem, while the second interprets meaning in terms of information flows. The third paradigm sees meaning as central, constructed on the fly, often collaboratively, by people in specific contexts and situations. 2. SEEING USERS IN THEIR SETTINGS: Designing interaction moves from attempting to establish one correct understanding and set of metrics, to studying the local, situated practices of users, taking into account the varying, and perhaps conflicting, perspectives of users. 3. PUTTING INTERFACES IN THEIR PLACE: The first and second paradigms acknowledge context primarily as non-technological factors that affect the use of the technology. In the third paradigm, the context includes aspects that may be irrelevant to the immediate goal of the interaction. Researchers ask how does context give our design meaning?, and how does our design accommodate the context? 4. PUTTING RESEARCHERS IN THEIR PLACE: If users knowledge is situated, so is that of the researchers studying them. Compared to the second paradigm, the range of disciplines and perspectives constituting the third paradigm is remarkably catholic (i.e. universal), ranging from the arts to sociology to policy. Rather than seeking to establish one discipline as the gold standard, the preference is for multiple interpretations, rather than a single objective description. 5. EXPLICIT FOCUS ON VALUES IN DESIGN: Evaluation can no longer be rooted a-priori measures said to be universally valid. Instead of being marginalized as a confounding factor, the context of design is seen as central, leading to questions such as Who is making the design decision?, Who is paying for it?, What is this saying about the user? and so on. Likewise, in aesthetic evaluation of interfaces, elegance is no longer primary; it is just as likely that appropriate or appropriable are central aesthetic requirements.

6 Intellectual Commitments 6. THE NECESSITY, BUT INADEQUACY, OF THEORY: In comparison to the first paradigm, the third paradigm has a much greater emphasis on theory as a resource for making sense of what is happening at the site of interaction. Nevertheless, because context is seen as an equally essential ingredient for knowledge-making, the third paradigm recognizes that theory in the abstract has necessary limitations. In contrast to the second paradigm, which often sees theory as primary and design and evaluation as ways of instantiating, testing, and developing theories, third-paradigm approaches view theory as heuristics to be drawn on. 7. THE UNDERLYING ROLE OF EMBODIMENT: Embodied interaction moves from the second paradigm idea that thinking is cognitive, abstract, and information-based, to one where thinking is also achieved through doing things in the world, for example expression through gestures, learning through manipulation, or thinking through building prototypes. While under the first and second paradigms we have tended to focus on aspects of activity that are easily automated, real-world practice is complex and rich, interleaving physical activity and awareness with abstract thoughts, rituals, and social interaction in ways that defy a purely informational approach. 8. THE TERM SITUATED : There are at least three widespread definitions of the term situated : the interactionist, the ecological, and the cultural.

7 Listening to the Cold War: The Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations, Seismology, and Psychoacoustics, Axel Volmar, Department of Media Studies, Siegen University Abstract: This article shows how sound was used as an epistemic tool for seismological research during the Cold War, when the ability to distinguish underground nuclear explosions from natural earthquakes, the so-called detection or discrimination problem, became a critical issue of international arms control. In 1960, the psycho- acoustician Sheridan Speeth created an auditory display for presenting seismographic records to the ear. Despite promising initial results, neither seismologists nor military officials seemed to welcome Speeth s work. I place his efforts within a Cold War framework and show how the sounds of science can be politicized and why it is important to take into account the disciplinary and sociopolitical contexts in which research enterprises are embedded. Conclusion: Speeth may have failed in his endeavor to promote his method among geophysicists, but this was certainly not due to the prevalence of a general hegemony of vision within Western culture and the sciences. Instead Speeth faced concrete scientific, disciplinary, and sociopolitical problems. Historians of sound should therefore be careful not to hold a general visual primacy responsible when auditory methods for creating scientific knowledge fail to gain popularity. In evaluating the question of why the use of sound in laboratories proves to be successful in some cases but not in others, we should try to determine the place auditory practices occupy within the chain of inscriptions and the network of the research process as a whole. Regardless of how promising, or not, Speeth s method of auditory detection and discrimination actually was compared to other seismological approaches, the major difference between Speeth and the rest of the Vela seismologists was that they were asking different questions and following different goals. If we wish to determine the status of auditory knowledge production in the sciences, we therefore should not only emphasize the scientific answers that can be provided by such methods, but also consider which of them are actually desired in the course of a specific research process, and to what extent these answers are shaped by reasoning based on technological transformations and representational practices.

8 Paradigms Compared Paradigm : distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field. Paradigm 1: Human Factors Metaphor of interaction Interaction as manmachine coupling Central goal for interaction Optimizing fit between man and machine Typical questions of interest How can we fix specific problems that arise in interaction? Harrison, S., Tatar, D., and Sengers, P. (2006) The three paradigms of HCI. In Alt. chi. Proceedings of CHI '07. ACM Press, NY, Paradigm 2: Classical Cognitivism/ Information Processing Interaction as information communication Paradigm 3: Phenomenologically Situated Interaction as phenomenologically situated Optimizing accuracy and Support for situated efficiency of information action in the world transfer What mismatches come What existing situated up in communication activities in the world between computers and should we support? people? How do users appropriate technologies, and how How can we accurately can we support those model what people do? appropriations? How can we improve the How can we support efficiency of computer interaction without use? constraining it too strongly by what a computer can do or understand? What are the politics and values at the site of interaction, and how can we support those in design?

9 Epistemological Distinctions Epistomology: the study of knowledge and how it relates to notions such as truth, belief, and justification. Paradigm 1: Human Factors Appropriate disciplines Engineering, for interaction programming, ergonomics Kind of methods strived Cool hacks for Paradigm 2: Classical Cognitivism/ Information Processing Laboratory and theoretical behavioral sciences Paradigm 3: Phenomenologically Situated Ethnography, ethnomethodology, ethology, action research, practice-based research, interaction analysis Verified design and A palette of situated evaluation methods that design and evaluation can be applied regardless strategies of context. Objective statements with Thick description, general applicability stakeholder care-abouts Legitimate kinds of knowledge Pragmatic, objective details How you know something is true? You tried it out and it worked You refute the idea that the difference between experimental conditions is due to chance. You argue about the relationship between your data and what you seek to understand Values Reduce errors Ad hoc is OK Cool hacks desired Generalisability. Principled evaluation is a priori better than adhoc. Structured design better than unstructured. Reduction of ambiguity. Top-down view of knowledge. Construction of meaning is intrinsic to interaction. What goes on around systems is more interesting than what s happening at the interface Zensign what you don t build is as important as what you do build. Goal is to grapple with the full complexity around the system Harrison, S., Tatar, D., and Sengers, P. (2006) The three paradigms of HCI. In Alt. chi. Proceedings of CHI '07. ACM Press, NY, 2006.

10 The Third Culture [Cross, 1999] Cross, N, Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation, Design Issues, 15, 2 (1999). The view of design as a distinct culture is embodied in attempts to break away from C.P.Snow's two cultures view of Western intellectual tradition, the two cultures of the Arts and Sciences. It has to be recognised that there is at least one other culture, which we might regard as the culture of Design, which can be articulated in comparison with the other two. The things to know, are the natural world in science, human experience in art, and the artificial world in design. The ways of knowing, are rationality and objectivity in science, reflection and subjectivity in art, and imagination and practicality in design. The ways of finding out, are experiment and analysis in science, criticism and evaluation in art, and modeling and synthesis in design.

11 Research Through Design W. Gaver, What should we expect from research through design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2012, William Gaver describes how the influx of designers into the culture of "scientism" in the Computer Human Interaction (CHI) research community led to concerns about the "rigour" of practice-based research, and questions about what should be considered as good research. He argues for research through design as a legitimate method for discovery and the advancement of knowledge in Computer Human Interaction. Research through design is a generative process of exploration, speculation, particularization and diversification that leads to the proliferation of new realities. Results are provisional, contingent, and aspirational, allowing richer and more situated understandings than those produced through analytic methods. Knowledge is manifested in artifacts that have much more detail than any written or diagrammatic documentation.

12 Interaction Design Unlike the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) community, interaction design fully recognizes itself as a design discipline in that its ultimate objective is to create new [artifacts] and change existing interactive systems for the better. Fallman, D. (2003) Design-Oriented Human-Computer Interaction, Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference (2003):

13 Interaction Design Interaction design takes a holistic view of the relationship between designed artifacts, those that are exposed to these artifacts, and the social, cultural, and business context in which the meeting takes place. While there is no commonly agreed definition of interaction design, its core can be found in an orientation towards shaping digital artifacts products, services, and spaces with particular attention paid to the qualities of the user experience. To be able to deal with user experience including physical, sensual, cognitive, emotional, and aesthetical issues; the relationship between form, function, and content; as well as fuzzy concepts such as fun and playability a number of recent efforts have been made in the direction of establishing a better understanding of the role of the user experience in interactive systems design. Fallman, D. (2008) The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues 24 (3): 4 18.

14 Design Triangle [Fallman,2008] Combining these three activities distinguishes interaction design research from other disciplines with related interests, including HumanComputer Interaction (HCI), Computer-Supporter Collaborative Work (CSCW), Informatics, Computer Science, Anthropology, Sociology, Philosophy, and so on. What if? Fallman, D. (2008) The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues 24 (3): 4 18.

15 Fallman, D. (2008) The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues 24 (3): 4 18.

16 Fallman, D. (2008) The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues 24 (3): 4 18.

17 (a) Philosophical approach: What are its ontological and epistemological influences? (b) Methodology: How did the researcher describe the general methodology applied in their research? (c) Methods used: What were the research methods employed in the data collection and analysis? (d) Thesis structure: Does the thesis structure provide clues to the way the study was conducted? (e) Research purpose: How was the research conducted (using Frayling s [1993] framework)? {into, by, for} (f) Inquiry domain: Which knowledge area did the inquiry focused on (using Cross s [1999] framework)? {epistomology, praxiology, phenomonology} Yee, J. (2010) Methodological Innovation in Practice-Based Design Doctorates, Journal of Research Practice, Volume 6, Issue 2, Article M15, 2010.

18 First Wave Auditory Display The term Auditory Display The definition of Sonification T. Hermann (2008). Taxonomy and definitions for sonification and auditory display, Proc. ICAD 2008, IRCAM, France Sonification is the data-dependent generation of sound, if the transformation is systematic, objective and reproducible, so that it can be used as scientific method. A distinction between data and information is concerning the definition irrelevant. Sonification refers to the technique and the process, the algorithm. Often and with equal right, the resulting sounds are called sonifications.

19 Second Wave - Theory of Sonification Walker, B. N., & Nees, M. A. (2011). Theory of Sonification. In T. Hermann, A. Hunt, & J. Neuhoff (Eds.), The Sonification Handbook (pp. 9-39). Berlin, Germany: Logos Publishing House.. Although the field of auditory display has benefited tremendously from multidisciplinary approaches in research and practice, this same diversity has likely been an obstacle to the formation of a unified account of sound as an information display medium. To date, few theories or models of human interaction with auditory displays exist. It seems inevitable that the field of sonification will need to develop fuller explanatory models in order to realize the full potential of the field. The development of new models, or the expansion of existing models of human interaction with information systems to include auditory displays, will benefit twofold: 1) In research, models of human interaction with auditory displays will provide testable hypotheses that will guide a systematic, programmatic approach to auditory display research, and 2) In practice, auditory display designers will be able to turn to models for basic guidelines. These benefits notwithstanding, the development of theory remains difficult, especially in pragmatic and somewhat design--oriented fields like sonification. [Walker and Nees, 2011]

20 Design Practice 3. data analysts report visualization does not scale to high-dimensional data, and data exploratory tools do not allow them to visualize more than two of three dimensions. Alarm fatigue occurs when the number and frequency of monitor alarms becomes overwhelming, which leads to delayed or failed responses, and even the disabling and silencing of alarms. ICAD 2014, Sonic Information Design Workshop Papers Design Studies Designers have a specific concept (brand, product, trend, or emotion) that they must meet with their products. Sounds should be assessed on the prototype system according to the actual usage scenarios before being implemented in the real product. There is no overarching tool or method to satisfy all the cases Sonification includes sound design based on different paradigms and frameworks, spatial hearing research, development of playback methods/devices or personalized solutions for different target groups and individuals 5 8.A user-centered design approach was adopted. First, we recruited experts and end- users (dancers) to assess their vision on how a dancesonification system should work. The sessions included guided interviews and sharing of dance videos to establish requirements, guidelines, and preferences. We collected videos of improvisational dances with specific emotions in mind (joy, anger, content, and sadness). Then, we sat down with the dancers to watch the videos together to identify the basic gestural units. 2. We hypothesized that auditory objects with unique identities would be less susceptible to change deafness than an auditory scene consisting of multiples of the same object separated by location. 1.Measuring listener comprehension allows designers to truly evaluate the usability and utility offered by their designs. Design Exploration 4. An approach based on activity patterns to uncover design patterns from two phases of a typical design process. Actions are characterised in terms of how they are organised within a community context, and how they are regulated by internal rules and mediated by a division of labour. 5. The Hypertension Singing Bowl is an early example of an Acoustic Sonification [6]. It is also an early example of Design Research in the field of data sonification. The sound of the singing bowl draws attention to blood pressure readings by making them audible, providing a sonic meditation on personal well being, and a reminder to live a healthy lifestyle. This collection of artifacts provides a basis for annotated portfolios as a way to formulate theory from research through design. 1. An Auditory Scene Analysis Approach to Multi-stream Sonification Design, Jonathan H. Schuett, Bruce N. Walker 2. Individual Differences in Change Deafness: Implications for Display Design, Carryl L. Baldwin 3. Using Spatial Audio to Augment Big Data Analysis, Kyla McMullen 4. An Activity Patterns Approach to Cross-modal Interface Design, Oussama Metatla, Fiore Martin, Tony Stockman, Nick-Bryan-Kinns 5. The Hypertension Singing Bowl: Research through Design in Acoustic Sonification, Stephen Barrass 6. How Can Lay People Participate in Sound Design? Introduction to Sound Mapping Tools and Methods, Myounghoon Jeon 7. Design Methods and Considerations for Case Studies Targeting the Blind Community, György Wersényi 8. Design Issues and Considerations for Dance-based Sonification, Steven Landry, Joseph D. Ryan, Myounghoon Jeon

21 Draws on Multiple Theories fo In Situated Studies Iterative Process Data sensitive Holistic Multiple decision points Design Ask not the meaning, but the use Information is the answer to a question Personal Cultural Political Contextual Aesthetic Artifacts Emotional Aspirational Pro-active What if? Reusable by others n io Case-based Impact Testable Falsifiable Multiple Solutions Patterns Probes heuristic at S o n Authentic Users rm ic Evaluated in-situ Participatory Interdisciplinary Can be built on by others Theory as

22 Auditory Scene Analysis Product Sound Design Augmented Film Sound Design Interfaces Accessible Interfaces Nueroscience Perceptual Psychology Visualisation Sonic Information Design Interaction Design Cognitive Psychology Information Design Acoustic Ecology Phenomonology NIME ICMC Music Composition Sonic Arts Affective Computing