Coordinating, Contributing, Contesting, Representing: HCI Specialists Surviving Distributed Design

Conference paper
First Online:

Abstract

This paper examines distributed design that involved educational science, information and communication technology (ICT) and human–computer interaction (HCI) specialists collaboratively designing a learning application. The design process is characterized by coordinating, contributing, contesting and representing. The HCI specialists “represented the user”, but users remained silent during the design process. The design work was dominated by ‘coordinating’ activity, but also ‘proposing’ and ‘evaluating’ activities were prominent. The educational science specialists were the most active ones in the design discussions, heavily involved in ‘proposing’ and ‘coordinating’ activities. The HCI specialists were involved in those as well, but distinctly contributed through ‘evaluating’ activity. Interestingly, also ‘challenging’ and ‘ignoring’ activities characterized the distributed design process among the educational science specialists and HCI specialists: design emerged as a political, conflictual process. The very limited ICT support for distributed design became also accentuated. This study opens up interesting avenues for future research in this respect.

Keywords

Human Computer Interaction Interface Design Design Work Collaborative Design Software Requirement 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the project partners for participating in this study as well as the Academy of Finland and EU for providing funding for this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Avram G, Bannon L, Bowers J, Sheehan A, Sullivan D (2009) Bridging, patching, and keeping the work flowing: defect resolution in distributed software development. Comput Support Coop Work 18:477–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barcellini F, Détienne F, Burkhardt J, Sack W (2008) A socio-cognitive analysis of online design discussions in an Open Source Software community. Interact Comput 20(1):141–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barcellini F, Detienne F, Burkhardt J (2009) Participation in online interaction spaces: design-use mediation in an Open Source Software community. Int J Ind Ergon 39:533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blomkvist J, Persson J, Åberg J (2015) Communication through boundary objects in distributed agile teams. In: Proceedings of CHI ’15, pp 1875–1884Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bødker S, Buur J (2002) The design collaboratorium – a place for usability design. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 9(2):152–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bødker S, Ehn P, Knudsen J, Kyng M, Madsen K (1988) Computer support for cooperative design. In: Proceedings of CSCW 1988, pp 377–394Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boivie I, Åborg C, Persson J, Löfberg M (2003) Why usability gets lost or usability in in-house software development. Interact Comput 15(4):623–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carmel E, Agarwal R (2001) Tactical approaches for alleviating distance in global software development. IEEE Softw 18(2):22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooper A (1999) The inmates are running the asylum: why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Sams, IndianapolisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooper C, Bowers J (1995) Representing the users: notes on the disciplinary rhetoric of human-computer interaction. In: Thomas P (ed) The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 48–66Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cooper A, Reimann R (2003) About face 2.0: the essentials of interaction design. Wiley, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Detienne F, Boujut J, Hohman B (2004) Characterization of collaborative design and interaction management activities in a distant engineering design situation. In: Proceedings of COOP 2004, pp 83–98Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer G (2011) Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. Interactions 18(3):42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) (1991) Design at work. Cooperative design of computer systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gulliksen J, Boivie I, Göransson B (2006) Usability professionals—current practices and future development. Interact Comput 18(4):568–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gumm D (2006) Distributed software development – a taxonomy. IEEE Softw 23(5):45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gumm D, Janneck M, Finck M (2006) Distributed participatory design – a case study. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI 2004 Workshop on Distributed Participatory Design. 5 pGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hanisch J, Corbitt B (2007) Impediments to requirements engineering during global software development. Eur J Inf Syst 16(6):793–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Høegh RT, Nielsen C, Overgaard M, Pedersen M, Stage J (2006) The impact of usability reports and user test observations on developers’ understanding of usability data: an exploratory study. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 21(2):173–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iivari N (2006) Understanding the work of an HCI practitioner. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI 2006, pp 185–194Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iivari N (2011) Participatory design in OSS development: interpretive case studies in company and community OSS development contexts. Behav Inform Technol 30(3):309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iivari N (2013) Usability specialists as boundary spanners – an appraisal of usability specialists’ work in multiparty distributed open source software development effort. In: Proceedings of INTERACT 2013, pp 571–588Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iivari N, Karasti H, Molin-Juustila T, Salmela S, Syrjänen A, Halkola E (2009) Mediation between design and use – revisiting five empirical studies. Hum IT J Inf Technol Stud Hum Sci 10(2):81–126Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karasti H (2001) Increasing sensitivity towards everyday work practice in system design. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, Scientiae Rerum Naturalium, A 362. Oulu University Press, OuluGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Klein H, Myers M (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q 23(1):67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kotlarsky J, Oshri I (2005) Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. Eur J Inf Syst 14(1):37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Law E (2006) Evaluating the downstream utility of user tests and examining the developer effect: a case study. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 21(2):147–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lawrence K (2006) Walking the tightrope: the balancing acts of a large e-research project. Comput Supported Coop Work 15(4):385–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee C (2007) Boundary negotiating artifacts: unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Comput Supported Coop Work 16(3):307–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Levina N (2006) Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects: a collective reflection-in-action view. Inf Syst Res 16(2):109–130Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Levina N, Vaast E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Q 29(2):335–363Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Markus M, Mao Y (2004) User participation in development and implementation: updating an old tired concept for today’s IS contexts. J Assoc Inf Syst 5(11–12):514–544Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nichols D, McKay D, Twidale M (2003) Participatory usability: supporting proactive users. In: Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction – New Zealand Chapter, pp 63–68Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nichols D, Twidale M (2006) Usability processes in open source projects. Softw Process Improv Pract 11:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Obendorf H, Janneck M, Finck M (2009) Inter-contextual distributed participatory design. Scand J Inf Syst 21(1):51–76Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Olson GM, Olson JS, Carter MR, Storrosten M (1992) Small group design meetings: an analysis of collaboration. Hum-Comput Interact 7(4):347–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sack W, Détienne F, Ducheneaut N, Burkhardt J, Mahendran D, Barcellini F (2006) A methodological framework for socio-cognitive analyses of collaborative design of open source software. Comput Supported Coop Work 15(2):229–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sarker S, Sahay S (2004) Implications of space and time for distributed work: an interpretive study of US-Norwegian systems development teams. Eur J Inf Syst 13(1):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Titlestad O, Staring K, Braa J (2009) Distributed development to enable user participation. Scand J Inf Syst 21(1):27–50Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. Eur J Inf Syst 4:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhu L, Mussio P, Barricelli BR (2010) Hive-mind space model for creative, collaborative design. In: Proceedings of DESIRE 2010, pp 121–130Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INTERACT Research Unit, Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations