MyReDiary: Co-Designing for Collaborative Articulation in Physical Rehabilitation

  • Naveen BagalkotEmail author
  • Tomas Sokoler
Conference paper


In this paper we present our exploration of co-designing for supporting a collaborative articulation of rehabilitation process. Based on our reading of key CSCW literature, we describe three facets of a collaboratively articulated rehab process: Interdependence, Distributed Process, and Interoperability. We highlight Magic-Mirror- Spiral, the design ideal guiding the co-designing of MyReDiary that is aimed to support the three facets as an example in this regard. We offer the conceptual understanding of Collaborative Articulation, the Magic-Mirror-Spiral and MyReDiary as a ‘compositional Whole’: an example manifestation providing an enhanced conceptual understanding that is built around our experiences of designing for collaborative articulation in specific design situations.


Conceptual Understanding Rehabilitation Process Digital Technology Senior Citizen Physical Rehabilitation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen, T. et al., 2010. Designing for collaborative interpretation in telemonitoring: Reintroducing patients as diagnostic agents. International Journal of Medical Informatics.–1/abstract
  2. Bagalkot, N., et al., 2010. Facilitating Continuity: Exploring the Role of Digital Technology in Physical Rehabilitation. In Proc. Of NordiCHI 2010. ACM, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagalkot, N., Sokoler, T., 2011, MagicMirror: Towards Enhancing Collaborative Rehabilitation Practices, To appear In Proc. Of CSCW 2011.Google Scholar
  4. Bagalkot, N., et al., 2011 (forthcoming). Magic-Mirror-Spiral: Looking into the role of ‘design ideal’ in interaction design research projects. Accepted for publication in Proc. Of Nordes 2011, Helsinki, Finland, May 29–31.Google Scholar
  5. Björgvinsson, E. & Hillgren, P.-A., 2004. On the spot experiments within healthcare. In Proc. of PDC 04. USA: ACM, p. 93–101.Google Scholar
  6. Hillgren, P. A. & Linde, P., 2006. Collaborative articulation in healthcare settings: towards increased visibility, negotiation and mutual understanding. In Proc. of NordiCHI ’06. USA: ACMGoogle Scholar
  7. McClain, C., 2005, Collaborative Rehabilitation Goal Setting, Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, Volume 12, Issue 4.Google Scholar
  8. Nicholls, D.A. & Gibson, B.E., 2010. The body and physiotherapy. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 26(8), pp.497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pratt, W. et al., 2004. Incorporating ideas from computer-supported cooperative work. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 37(2), pp.128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schmidt, K. & Bannon, L., 1992. Taking CSCW seriously. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(1–2), pp.7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Simone, C., Mark, G. & Giubbilei, D., 1999. Interoperability as a means of articulation work. In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. New York, NY, USA: ACM, pp. 39–48.Google Scholar
  12. Sokoler, T. et al., 2006. The CARE Concept: Holding on to augmentable paper during post surgery rehabilitation. In 2006 Pervasive Health Conference and Workshops. Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  13. Sokoler, T., et al., 2007. Explicit interaction for surgical rehabilitation. In Proc. of TEI’07 ACM, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Stolterman, E. & Wiberg, M., 2010. Concept-Driven Interaction Design Research. Human-Computer Interaction, 25(2), pp.95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zimmerman, J., et al., 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proc. Of CHI’07. ACM, USA, 493–502.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IT-University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations