Identifying the Interplay of Design Artifacts and Decisions in Practice: A Case Study

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10513)

Abstract

Interaction design is a complex and challenging process. It encompasses skills and knowledge from design in general as well as from HCI and software design in particular. In order to find better ways to support interaction design and propose methods and tools to further the research in this area we must first better understand the nature of interaction design in practice. In this paper we present two small case studies which attempt to analyse design and decision-making through the lens of one particular theoretical framework. The framework seeks to focus design activities via its artifacts and the design spaces that exist in order to support reasoning about the process and the evolution of the artifacts. Our case studies show that we can use such a framework to consider real-world design projects, and also that there are further considerations that might usefully be included in such a framework.

Keywords

Design Design artifacts Case-study 

References

  1. 1.
    Baker, A., van der Hoek, A.: Ideas, subjects, and cycles as lenses for understanding the software design process. Des. Stud. 31(6), 590–613 (2010). Special Issue Studying Professional Software DesignCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blomquist, A., Arvola, M.: Personas in action: ethnography in an interaction design team. In: Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, NordiCHI 2002, pp. 197–200. ACM, New York, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bødker, S.: A human activity approach to user interfaces. Hum. Comput. Interact. 4(3), 171–195 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowen, J., Dittmar, A.: A semi-formal framework for describing interaction design spaces. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, EICS 2016, Brussels, Belgium, June 21–24, 2016, pp. 229–238 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buxton, B.: Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. M. Kaufmann, San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christiaans, H., Almendra, R.A.: Accessing decision-making in software design. Des. Stud. 31(6), 641–662 (2010). Special Issue Studying Professional Software DesignCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodman, E., Stolterman, E., Wakkary, R.: Understanding interaction design practices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2011, pp. 1061–1070. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., Moran, T.: Questions, options, and criteria: elements of design space analysis. Hum. Comput. Inter. 6(3), 201–250 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCarthy, J., Wright, P.: Technology as experience. Interactions 11(5), 42–43 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nardi, B.A. (ed.): Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-computer Interaction. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nielsen, L., Storgaard Hansen, K.: Personas is applicable: a study on the use of personas in denmark. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2014, pp. 1665–1674. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olson, G.M., Olson, J.S., Carter, M.R., Storrøsten, M.: Small group design meetings: an analysis of collaboration. Hum. Comput. Inter. 7(4), 347–374 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stolterman, E.: The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. Int. J. Des. 2(1), 55–65 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vredenburg, K., Mao, J.Y., Smith, P.W., Carey, T.: A survey of user-centered design practice. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2002, pp. 471–478. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhao, M.: Seek it or let it come: how designers achieve inspirations. In: CHI 2013 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2013, pp. 2779–2784. ACM, New York, USA (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations