Advertisement

From Interactive Design to Reflective Design

  • Annie Gentes
Chapter
First Online:
  • 188 Downloads
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

This chapter offers to switch from the interactive to the reflective design paradigm. The book posits that interactive design relies on a model that focuses on activities and does not question the values and aesthetics of the artifact and therefore restricts the expansion into new norms, or new aesthetics. On the contrary, reflective design is about methods that generate new questions not only about functionalities, but also that explore new formats. Here media are considered as design tools and materials that contribute to “denaturalize” activities and forms and lay new foundations for a design project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arasse, D. (1997). Le détail. Pour une histoire rapprochée de la peinture. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  2. Babcock, B. A. (1980). Reflexivity: Definitions and discriminations. Semiotica, 30(1–2), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bannon, L. (2011). Reimagining HCI: Toward a more human-centered perspective. Interactions, 18(4), 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baudrillard, J. (1979). De la séduction. Paris: Galilée.Google Scholar
  5. Boehner, K., DePaula, R., Dourish, P., & Sengers, P. (2005). Affect: From information to interaction, critical computing (p. 59e68). Arhus: ACM.Google Scholar
  6. Bosma, J. (2011). Nettitudes: Let’s talk net art. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Candy, L., & Costello, B. (2008). Interaction design and creative practice. Design Studies, 29(6), 521–524.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cayeux, A. d. (2003). I’m just married. Paris.Google Scholar
  9. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleridge, S. T. (1985). Biographia literaria: The collected works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, biographical sketches of my literary life & opinions (First Paperback Edition). Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity (1st ed.p. 29). Indianapolis: Sams – Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  12. Crilly, N. (2011). The design stance in user-system interaction. Design Issues, 27(4), 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (1st ed.). New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  14. Demeure, I., Gentes, A., & Guyot-Mbodji, A. (2008, May 19–23). Transhumance: A platform on a mobile ad-hoc network challenging collaborative gaming. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on collaborative technologies and systems, Irvine, California. New Jersey: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  15. Encyclopaedia Universalis. (2005). Dictionnaire des Notions. Paris: Encyclopaedia Universalis.Google Scholar
  16. Fleck, R., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2010). Reflecting on reflection: Framing a design landscape. In Proceedings of the 22nd conference of the computer-human interaction special interest group of Australia on computer-human interaction, 216–223, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1952269
  17. Gelter, H. (2003). Why is reflective thinking uncommon, Reflective Practice, 4(3), 337–344.Google Scholar
  18. Genette, G. (1979). Introduction à l’architexte, SEUIL (Seuil).Google Scholar
  19. Gentes, A., & Mollon, M. (2015). Critical Design: A delicate balance between the thrill of the uncanny and the interrogation of the unknown. In Empowering users through design: Interdisciplinary studies and combined approaches for technological products and services (New York: David Bihanic, s. d, pp. 79–101). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Gentès, A., Guyot-Mbodji, A., & Demeure, I. (2008). Gaming on the move: Urban experience as a new paradigm for mobile pervasive game design. In Proceedings of Mindtreck 2008, ACM, Tampere, Finlande Mindtrek 2008, Tampere, Finlande, 6–9 Octobre 2008.Google Scholar
  21. Gentes, A., Jutant, C., Guyot-Mbodji, A., & Simatic, M. (2009, June). RFID technology: Fostering human interactions. In K. Blashki (Ed.), Proceedings of IADIS international conference game and entertainment technologies 2009 (pp. 67–74). IADIS Press.Google Scholar
  22. Grau, O. (2004). Virtual art: From illusion to immersion. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Greene, R. (2004). Internet art. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  24. Grudin, J. (2012). Introduction: A moving target: The evolution of HCI. In J. A. Jacko (Ed.), Human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications (3rd ed.). New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  25. Harrison, S. (1996). Re-P1ace-ing space: The roles of place collaborative systems. Citeseer, 7, 67–76.Google Scholar
  26. Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259. (avril 1944).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (trans: Macquarrie, J., & Robinson, E.). New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Heskett, J. (2005). Design: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iversen, M. (2005). The discourse of perspective in the 20th century: Panofsky, Damisch, Lacan. Oxford Art Journal, 28(2), 191–202. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jeanneret, Y., & Souchier, E. (1999). Pour une poétique de l’écrit d’écran. Xoana, 6–7, 97–107.Google Scholar
  31. Johnston, A., Amitani, S., & Edmonds, E. (2005). Amplifying reflective thinking in musical performance. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on creativity & cognition, pp. 166–75. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1056248
  32. Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design Studies, 23(3), 287–302.Google Scholar
  33. Le Marec, J. (2001). « Dialogue interdisciplinaire sur l’« interactivité » », Communication et langages, 128 (1), 97–110. doi: https://doi.org/10.3406/colan.2001.3079.
  34. Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Pachet, F. (2006a). Enhancing individual creativity with interactive musical reflective systems, musical creativity. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pachet, F. (2006b). Interactions réflexives. In Y. Orlarey (Ed.), Actes des rencontres musicales pluridiscipinaires. Lyon: Grame.Google Scholar
  37. Pearson, R. E., & Simpson, P. (2001). From the entry for ‘Reflexivity’. In: Critical dictionary of film and television theory (pp. 377–378). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Phay-Vakalis, S. (2001). Le Miroir in l’Art, de Manet à Richter. Toulouse: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  39. Quintilian. (2002). The Orator’s Education. Vol. I: Books 1–2. (trans. Russell, D. A.). Loeb Classical Library.Google Scholar
  40. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier (revised edition). (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schaeffer, J.-M. (1989). Qu’est-ce qu’un genre littéraire? Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  42. Schon, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1st ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Schon, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sengers, P., & Gaver, B. (2006), Staying open to interpretation: Engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on designing interactive systems, pp. 99–108.Google Scholar
  45. Sengers, P., et al. (2005). Reflective design. In Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on critical computing: Between sense and sensibility, pp. 49–58.Google Scholar
  46. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.p. 22). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (2002). The Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Stam, R. (1992). Reflexivity in film and culture: From don Quixote to Jean-Luc Godard. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 377–391.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (2001). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces1. In J. Yates & J. Van Maanen (Eds.), Information technology and organizational transformation: History, rhetoric, and practice (p. 305).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Todorov, T. (1990). Genres in discourse (trans: Porter, C.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Turkle, S. (2005), The second self: Computers and the human Spirit (Twentieth Anniversary Edition). (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Virilio, P. (1986). Speed and Politics: An Essay on Dromology. New York: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  55. Witkowski, N. (Ed.). (2001). Dictionnaire culturel des sciences. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annie Gentes
    • 1
  1. 1.Codesign Lab, I3Telecom ParisTechParisFrance

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options