Advertisement

Scaffolding a Methodology for Situating Cognitive Technology Within Everyday Contexts

  • Michael HeidtEmail author
  • Madlen Wuttke
  • Peter Ohler
  • Paul Rosenthal
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9746)

Abstract

Cognitive technology is leaving the lab and entering the world of the everyday. Systems such as knowledge navigators, conversational agents, and intelligent personal assistants are increasingly incorporated into real-world systems. This success of cognitive technologies poses novel methodological challenges for interdisciplinary teams tasked with their development. In order to behave successfully within the variegated conditions of the everyday, systems have to be developed within processes of continuous iterative evaluation and analysis. These development processes necessarily proceed in an interdisciplinary manner, combining the expertise of cognitive science and the productive know-how of interaction design. These disciplines operate within incompatible methodological and epistemological framings, complicating synthesis of their results. However, in order to situate cognitive technology productively within everyday situations their respective results have to be integrated into a single research process. We discuss a methodological framework facilitating this synthesis which was developed within concrete projects of interdisciplinary cooperation.

Keywords

HCI Methodology Practice based research Cognitive science 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based partially upon work funded by the European Union with the European Social Fund (ESF) and by the state of Saxony.

References

  1. 1.
    Ambite, J.L., Chaudhri, V.K., Fikes, R., Jenkins, J., Mishra, S., Muslea, M., Uribe, T., Yang, G.: Design and implementation of the CALO query manager. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2006, vol. 2, pp. 1751–1758. AAAI Press, Boston (2006). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1597122.1597133
  2. 2.
    Bannon, L.: From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human-computer interaction studies in system design. Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems, pp. 25–44 (1991). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Liam_Bannon/publication/242569963_From_human_factors_to_human_actors_the_role_of_psychology_and_human-computer_interaction_studies_in_system_design/links/550616400cf24cee3a0509da.pdf
  3. 3.
    Bechky, B.A.: Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Sci. 14(3), 312–330 (2003). http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/ref/10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck, K.: Embracing change with extreme programming. Computer 32(10), 70–77 (1999). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=796139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., et al.: Manifesto for Agile Software Development (2001). http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/cis/sfleisher/Chapter_03_sim.pdf
  6. 6.
    Berger, A., Heidt, M.: Exploring prototypes in interaction design – qualitative analysis and playful design method. In: Proceedings of the International Associationof Societies of Design Research Conference 2015 – Interplay, Brisbane, Australia (2015). http://iasdr2015.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IASDR_Proceedings_Final_Reduced.pdf
  7. 7.
    Berger, A., Heidt, M., Eibl, M.: Towards a vocabulary of prototypes in interaction design – a criticism of current practice. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8517, pp. 25–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-07668-3_3 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berger, A., Heidt, M., Eibl, M.: Conduplicated symmetries: renegotiating the material basis of prototype research. In: Chakrabarti, A. (ed.) ICoRD 15 Research into Design Across Boundaries. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 1, pp. 71–78. No. 34. Springer India. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-81-322-2232-3_7
  9. 9.
    Bischof, A., Obländer, V., Heidt, M., Kanellopoulos, K., Küszter, V., Liebold, B., Martin, K.U., Pietschmann, D., Storz, M., Tallig, A., Teichmann, M., Wuttke, M.: Interdisziplinäre Impulse für den Begriff “Interaktion”. In: Hobohm, H.C. (ed.) Informationswissenschaft zwischen virtueller Infrastruktur und materiellen Lebenswelten. Tagungsband des 13. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2013), pp. 448–453. Hülsbusch, Glückstadt (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bødker, S.: When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, pp. 1–8. NordiCHI 2006, NY, USA (2006). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1182475.1182476
  11. 11.
    Cockburn, A.: Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams. Pearson Education (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carroll, J.M., Kellogg, W.A.: Artifact as theory-nexus: hermeneutics meets theory-based design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 1989, pp. 7–14, NY, USA (1989). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/67449.67452
  13. 13.
    Cockburn, A.: Agile software development: the cooperative game. Pearson Education (2006). https://books.google.com/books?hl=de&lr=&id=i39yimbrzh4C&oi=fnd&pg=PT15&dq=agile+software&ots=Y6W_d2U-bY&sig=bjxtqfNxqcdwp-ATqXPghxteL58
  14. 14.
    Cordella, A., Shaikh, M.: Actor-network theory and after: what’s new for IS research. Naples, Italy, June 2003. http://home.aisnet.org/associations/7499/files/Index_Markup.cfm
  15. 15.
    Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Tolmie, P., Button, G.: Ethnography considered harmful. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2009, pp. 879–888, NY, USA (2009). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1518701.1518835
  16. 16.
    Crabtree, A., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Tennent, P., Chalmers, M., Brown, B.: Supporting ethnographic studies of ubiquitous computing in the wild. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, DIS 2006, pp. 60–69, NY, USA (2006). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1142405.1142417
  17. 17.
    Dourish, P.: What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 8(1), 19–30 (2004). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8
  18. 18.
    Dourish, P.: Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fuchsberger, V.: Generational divides in terms of actor-network theory: Potential crises and the potential of crises. In: Online Proceedings of the 7th Media in Transition Conference. MIT, Cambridge (2011). http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/mit7/papers/Fuchsberger_MiT7.pdf
  20. 20.
    Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M.: Human-computer non-interaction: the activity of non-use. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, DIS Companion 2014, NY, USA, pp. 57–60 (2014). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2598784.2602781
  21. 21.
    Harrison, S., Sengers, P., Tatar, D.: Making epistemological trouble: Third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interact. Comput. 23(5), 385–392 (2011). http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/5/385
  22. 22.
    Harrison, S., Tatar, D., Sengers, P.: The three paradigms of HCI. In: Alt. Chi. Session at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems San Jose, California, USA, pp. 1–18 (2007). http://people.cs.vt.edu/~srh/Downloads/HCIJournalTheThreeParadigmsofHCI.pdf
  23. 23.
    Hartmanis, J., Stearns, R.E.: On the computational complexity of algorithms. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 117, 285–306 (1965). http://www.jstor.org/stable/1994208 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heidt, M.: Examining interdisciplinary prototyping in the context of cultural communication. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8013, pp. 54–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-39241-2_7 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heidt, M., Kanellopoulos, K., Pfeiffer, L., Rosenthal, P.: Diverse ecologies – interdisciplinary development for cultural education. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 8120, pp. 539–546. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heidt, M., Moulder, V.: The aesthetics of activism. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, C&C 2015, NY, USA, pp. 155–156 (2015). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2757226.2764550
  27. 27.
    Heidt, M., Pfeiffer, L., Berger, A., Rosenthal, P.: PRMD. In: Mensch & Computer 2014 - Workshopband, pp. 45–48. De Gruyter Oldenbourg (2014). http://dl.mensch-und-computer.de/handle/123456789/3908
  28. 28.
    Heidt, M., Pfeiffer, L., Bischof, A., Rosenthal, P.: Tangible disparity - different notions of the material as catalyst of interdisciplinary communication. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8510, pp. 199–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-07233-3_19 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Henderson, A.: A development perspective on interface, design, and theory. In: Designing Interaction, pp. 254–268. Cambridge University Press, New York (1991). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=120365
  30. 30.
    Hinrichs, U., Carpendale, S.: Gestures in the wild: studying multi-touch gesture sequences on interactive tabletop exhibits. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2011, NY, USA, pp. 3023–3032 (2011). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1979391
  31. 31.
    Hornecker, E., Nicol, E.: What do lab-based user studies tell us about in-the-wild behavior? Insights from a study of museum interactives. In: Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS 2012, NY, USA, pp. 358–367 (2012). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2317956.2318010
  32. 32.
    Kuhn, T.S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1962)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kuutti, K., Bannon, L.J.: The turn to practice in HCI: towards a research agenda. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2014, NY, USA, pp. 3543–3552 (2014). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2556288.2557111
  34. 34.
    Larman, C., Basili, V.R.: Iterative and incremental development: A brief history. Computer 36(6), 47–56 (2003). http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/co/2003/06/r6047.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Latour, B.: On interobjectivity. Mind Cult. Act. 3(4), 228–245 (1996).http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15327884mca0304_2
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    Law, J.: After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. In: Actor Network Theory and After, pp. 1–14. Oxford, Blackwall (1999)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Löwgren, J., Stolterman, E.: Thoughtful Interaction Design a Design Perspective on Information Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004). http://site.ebrary.com/id/10405262
  40. 40.
    Marshall, P., Morris, R., Rogers, Y., Kreitmayer, S., Davies, M.: Rethinking ‘Multi-user’: an in-the-wild study of how groups approach a walk-up-and-use tabletop interface. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2011, NY, USA, pp. 3033–3042 (2011). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1979392
  41. 41.
    Moulder, V., Heidt, M., Boschman, L.: Transcoding the aesthetics of activism. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Electronic Art ISEA 2015 - Disruption, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2015). http://isea2015.org/proceeding/submissions/ISEA2015_submission_259.pdf
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    Ricœur, P.: Time and Narrative. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1984)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rogers, Y.: Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. Interactions 18(4), 58–62 (2011).http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978822.1978834
  45. 45.
    Rogers, Y.: HCI theory: classical, modern, and contemporary. Synth. Lect. Hum. Centered Inf. 5(2), 1–129 (2012).http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/abs/10.2200/S00418ED1V01Y201205HCI014
  46. 46.
    Rogers, Y., Connelly, K.H., Tedesco, L., Hazlewood, W., Kurtz, A., Hall, R.E., Hursey, J., Toscos, T.: Why it’s worth the hassle: the value of in-situ studies when designing ubicomp. In: Krumm, J., Abowd, G.D., Seneviratne, A., Strang, T. (eds.) UbiComp 2007. LNCS, vol. 4717, pp. 336–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-74853-3_20. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-74853-3_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sarker, S., Lau, F., Sahay, S.: Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team development. SIGMIS Database 32(1), 38–56 (2000). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/506740.506745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schwaber, K.: SCRUM development process. In: Sutherland, D.J., Casanave, C., Miller, J., Patel, D.P., Hollowell, G. (eds.) Business Object Design and Implementation, pp. 117–134. Springer, London (1997). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-0947-1_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R.: Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19(3), 387–420 (1989). http://sss.sagepub.com/content/19/3/387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Turing, A.M.: On Computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. s2–42(1), 230–265 (1937). http://plms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wakkary, R.: Framing complexity, design and experience: a reflective analysis. Digital Creativity 16(2), 65–78 (2005). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14626260500173013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wuttke, M.: Pro-active pedagogical agents. In: International Summerworkshop Computer Science 2013, vol. 17, p. 59 (2013). http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/documents/11854/CSR-2013-04.pdf#page=61
  53. 53.
    Wuttke, M., Belentschikow, V., Müller, N.H.: Storytelling as a means to transfer knowledge via narration. i-com 14(2), 155–160 (2015). http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/icom.2015.14.issue-2/icom-2015-0034/icom-2015-0034.xml CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wuttke, M., Heidt, M.: Beyond presentation - employing proactive intelligent agents as social catalysts. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8511, pp. 182–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yamazaki, K., Yamazaki, A., Okada, M., Kuno, Y., Kobayashi, Y., Hoshi, Y., Pitsch, K., Luff, P., vom Lehn, D., Heath, C.: Revealing gauguin: engaging visitors in robot guide’s explanation in an art museum. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2009, NY, USA, pp. 1437–1446 (2009). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1518701.1518919

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Heidt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Madlen Wuttke
    • 2
  • Peter Ohler
    • 2
  • Paul Rosenthal
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemnitz University of Technology, Visual Computing GroupChemnitzGermany
  2. 2.Chemnitz University of Technology, Chair Media PsychologyChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations