Skip to main content

Designing interaction: How do interaction design students address interaction?

Abstract

Interaction design is usually described as being concerned with interactions with and through artifacts but independent of a specific implementation. Design work has been characterized as a conversation between the designer and the situation and this conversation poses a particular challenge for interaction design as interactions can be elusive and difficult to describe. Moreover, current trends in interaction design introduce physical materials to a higher degree resulting in even more complex design situations. There is a lack of knowledge about how interaction designers, and especially students, address the very phenomenon of interaction. This study contributes by describing how interaction design students attempt to address aspects of interaction and by presenting an in-depth analysis in the context of an interactionary-type design exercise. The quantitative and qualitative findings showed that (1) the design students brought up aspects of interactivity and dynamics through talk and gestures but (2) a comprehensive design idea about interaction did not guide the design work and they were to a little degree engaged in planning sequences of interactions or interaction on a longer time scale, (3) using physical materials disrupted interaction design, and, (4) there was a lack of continuity when addressing interaction compared to how proposals about artifacts were pursued. As interaction is the core of interaction design, the findings are discussed in terms of how the immaterial design materials may “talk back” to designers. Practical strategies for how the observed phenomena could be constructively addressed within interaction design education are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  • Arvola, M., & Artman, H. (2006). Enactments in interaction design: How designers make sketches behave. ArtifactJournal of Virtual Design, 10, 106–119.

  • Barros, G., & Velloso, L. (2013). How the communication between designers was affected by ActionSketch, a technique to improve sketches in interaction design. Revista Brasileira de Design da Informação/Brazilian Journal of Information Design, 10(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benyon, D. (2010). Designing interactive systems—A comprehensive guide to HCI and interaction design. New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkun, S. (2001). Interactionary 2000. http://scottberkun.com/essays/interactionary-and-design-sports/interactionary-2000/. (Accessed June 2, 2013).

  • Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experience. Getting the design right and the right design. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum—Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Carmel: Sams.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crampton Smith, G. (2007). Foreword: What is interaction design? In B. Moggridge (Ed.), Designing interactions (pp. vi–xix). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearden, A. M. (2006). Designing as a conversation with digital materials. Design Studies, 27(3), 399–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gedenryd, H. (1998). How designers work: Making sense of authentic cognitive activity. Lund: Lund University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, B. (2009). Gaining design insight through interaction prototyping tools. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford.

  • Jacob, R. J. K., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L. M., Horn, M. S., Shaer, O., Solovey, E. T., et al. (2008). Reality-based interaction: A framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘08), Florence, Italy, April 05–10.

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlgren, K., & Ramberg, R. (2012). The use of design patterns in overcoming misunderstandings in collaborative interaction design. CoDesign—Special Issue on Quality of Collaboration in Design, 8(4), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P., & Gustavsson, L. (Eds.) (1987). Initiativ och respons—Om dialogens dynamik, dominans och koherens. In Studies in communication (Vol. 15). Linköping: Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University.

  • Löwgren, J. (2002). The use qualities of digital designs. http://webzone.k3.mah.se/k3jolo/Material/uqDDv1.pdf.

  • Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design—A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., Park, S. Y., Nakano, Y., Mueller, G., & Ko, A. (2008). How designers design and program interactive behaviors. In Paper presented at the IEEE symposium on visual language and human-centric computing, Herrsching am Ammersee, Germany, September 15–19.

  • Ozenc, F. K., Kim, M., Zimmermann, J., Oney, S., & Myers, B. (2010). How to support designers in getting hold of the immaterial material of software. In Paper presented at the CHI, Atlanta, GA, April 10–15.

  • Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor—An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6), 535–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramberg, R., Artman, H., & Karlgren, K. (2013). Designing learning opportunities in interaction design: Interactionaries as a means to study and teach student design processes. Designs for Learning, 6(1–2), 30–56.

  • Robles, E., & Wiberg, M. (2010). Texturing the “material turn” in interaction design. In Paper presented at the TEI ‘10, Cambridge, MA, USA, January 24–27.

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). Simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50((4, Part 1)), 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saffer, D. (2007). Designing for interaction: Creating smart applications and clever devices. San Francisco: New Riders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sas, C. (2006). Learning approaches for teaching interaction design. In Paper presented at the HCI educators workshop, Limerick, Ireland, 23–24 March.

  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, K. (2007). What puts the design in interaction design. http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2007/07/what-puts-the-design-in-interaction-design.php.

  • Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions—The problem of human machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundholm, H., Artman, H., & Ramberg, R. (2004). Backdoor creativity: Collaborative creativity in technology supported teams. In F. Darses, R. Dieng, C. Simone, & M. Zacklad (Eds.), Cooperative systems design: Scenario-based design of collaborative systems. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundström, P., Taylor, A. S., & O’Hara, K. (2011). Sketching in software and hardware bluetooth as a design material. In Paper presented at the 13th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Stockholm, Sweden, August 30–September 2.

  • Tholander, J., Karlgren, K., Ramberg, R., & Sökjer, P. (2008). Where all the interaction is—Sketching in interaction design as an embodied practice. In Paper presented at the designing interactive systems (DIS 2008), Cape Town, South Africa, February 25–27.

  • Van Campenhout, L., Frens, J., Overbeeke, K., Standaert, A., & Peremans, H. (2013). Physical interaction in a dematerialized world. International Journal of Design, 7(1), 1–18.

  • Van Campenhout, L., Hummels, C., Frens, J., Standaert, A., & Peremans, H. (2012). Hard cash in a dematerialized world. In Paper presented at the the 14th international conference on engineering and product design education (E&PDE 2012), Artesis University College, Antwerp, Belgium, September 6–7.

  • Wiberg, M. (2013). Methodology for materiality: Interaction design research through a material lens. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(3), 625–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T. (1997). The design of interaction. In P. J. Denning & R. M. Metcalfe (Eds.), Beyond calculation: The next fifty years of computers (pp. 149–161). New York: Copernicus.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Swedish Research Council (Reg. No. 2009-5660).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klas Karlgren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karlgren, K., Ramberg, R. & Artman, H. Designing interaction: How do interaction design students address interaction?. Int J Technol Des Educ 26, 439–459 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9314-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9314-3

Keywords

  • Interaction design
  • Design education
  • Interaction
  • Interactivity
  • Sketching
  • Interactionary