The PRInCiPleS Design Framework

Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS, volume 20)

Abstract

Some disciplines focus on analytic research and some disciplines focus on synthesis. Design disciplines are interesting because designers need to do both analysis and synthesis tasks. The HCI and design program I presently direct is organized around a framework I have named with the acronym PRInCiPleS, both at the curricular scale and as an organizing device for individual design projects within classes that serves as a kind of design rationale framework. The PRInCiPleS framework is not a scientific framework, but it does have an analogy to an idealized notion of a scientific framework. One of the biggest issues in design pedagogy and practice is how to get students and practicing designers to ensure that analysis leads to synthesis in a sound way and that synthesis follows from analysis in a sound way-that is, the issue of how to bridge the creative, semantic gap between design research and insights and concepts. In much of the curriculum, design research projects are paired with design concept projects in a way that is targeted at addressing this issue by means of iterative practice. Taking a curatorial attitude towards designs constructed according to the PRInCiPleS or indeed other frameworks is an appropriate way to connect notions of creativity to notions of design rationale.

Keywords

Design Creativity PRInCiPleS design framework Design challenge based learning (DCBL) Transdisciplinarity Transdisciplinary design Sustainability & food. 

References

  1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatz, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Blevis, E. (2004). What design is matters less than what designs are: Explanations for HCI and design, a case story. In J. Zimmerman, S. Evenson, K. Baumann, & P. Purgathofer. Workshop on the relationship between design and HCI. ACM CHI 2004 conference on Human factors and computing systems, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  4. Blevis, E. (2010). Design Challenge Based Learning (DCBL) and sustainable pedagogical practice. Interactions, 17(3), 64–69. doi 10.1145/1744161.1744176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blevis, E. (2011). Digital imagery as meaning and form in HCI and design: An introduction to the Visual Thinking Backpage Gallery. Interactions, 18(5), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blevis, E., & Blevis, S. A. (2013, anticipated) Design in the age of climate change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blevis, E., & Coleman Morse, S. (2009). Food, dude. Interactions, 16(2), 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blevis, E., & Siegel M. (2005). The explanation for design explanations. 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Interaction Design Education and Research: Current and Future Trends, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  9. Blevis, E., & Stolterman, E. (2007). Ensoulment and sustainable interaction design. In Proceedings of International Association of Design Research Societies Conference (IASDR) Hong Kong, China: HKPT.Google Scholar
  10. Blevis, E., & Stolterman, E. (2008). The confluence of interaction design and design: From disciplinary to transdisciplinary perspectives. In Proceedings of 2008 Design Research Society Conference. Sheffield, UK: Design Research Society. 344/1–12.Google Scholar
  11. Blevis, E., & Stolterman, E. (2009). Transcending disciplinary boundaries in interaction design. Interactions, 16(5), 48–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blevis, E., Lim, Y. K., & Stolterman, E. (2006). Regarding software as a material of design. In Proceedings of WonderGround 2006. Lisbon: Design Research Society.Google Scholar
  13. Blevis, E., Lim, Y. K., Stolterman, E., & Makice, K. (2008). The iterative design of a virtual design studio. Techtrends: A Journal of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 52(1), 74–83. Springer, US.Google Scholar
  14. Burtynsky, E. (2005). Edward Burtynsky: China. Essays by Ted Fishman, Mark Kingwell, Marc Mayer, and the artist. Göttingen, Germany: Steidl.Google Scholar
  15. Choi, J. H., & Blevis, E. (2010). HCI & sustainable food culture: a design framework for engagement. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Extending boundaries (NordiCHI ‘10) (pp. 112–117). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Choi, J. H., & Blevis, E. (2011). Advancing design for sustainable food cultures. In M. Foth, L. Forlano, C. Satchell, & M. Gibbs (Eds.), From social butterfly to engaged citizen: Urban informatics, social media, ubiquitous computing, and mobile technology to support citizen engagement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55 (MIT Press).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedman, B. (Ed.). (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fry, T. (2008). Design futuring: Sustainability, ethics and new practice. London: Berg.Google Scholar
  20. Hirsch, T., Sengers, P., Blevis, E., Beckwith, R., & Parikh, T. (2010). PANEL: Making food, producing sustainability. In Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ‘10) (pp. 3147–3150). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC. (2007). Summary for policymakers. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 7–22). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (www.ipcc.ch)
  22. Margolin, V. (2002). The politics of the artificial: Essays on design and design studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Menzel, P., & D’Aluisio, F. (2007). Hungry planet: What the world eats. Random House Digital, Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Minsky, M. (1988). The society of mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, G. (1999). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers (Rev. ed.). New York: Harper Business Essentials.Google Scholar
  27. Moran, T. P., & Carroll, J. M. (Eds.). (1996). Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Nardi, B., & O’Day, V. (1999). Information ecology: Using technology with heart. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way—Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Saddle Brook: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  30. Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. (Trans. V. Karen-Claire ). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  31. Notess, M., & Blevis, E. (2004). Comparing human-centered design methods from different disciplines: Contextual design and PRInCiPleS. In Proceedings of the design research society futureground 2004 conference. Melbourne: Design Research Society.Google Scholar
  32. Papanek, V. (1984). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change (2nd ed.). Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Ranjan, A., & Ranjan, M. P. (2010). Handmade in India: A geographic encyclopaedia of India handicrafts. New York: Abbeville. http://www.amazon.com/Handmade-India-Geographic-Encyclopedia-Handicrafts/dp/0789120479/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338930834&sr=1-4 Google Scholar
  34. Reed, C., Wang, H. W., & Blevis, E. (2005). Recognizing individual needs and desires in the case of designing an inventory of humanity-centered, sustainability-directed concepts for time and travel. DPPI 2005 Designing Pleasurable Product Interfaces. Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  35. Wang, H., & Blevis, E. (2004). Concepts that support collocated collaborative work inspired by the specific context of industrial designers. ACM CSCW 2004 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  36. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. New York: Addison-Wesley, Inc.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction Design, School of Informatics and Computing (SoIC)Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations