Advertisement

Design for Me?

  • Charlotte Magnusson
  • Per-Olof Hedvall
  • Björn Breidegard
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10896)

Abstract

In this paper, as a generative contrast to the notion of design “for all”, we present and discuss the potential benefits of a design “for me” approach, where the design process from the starts from, and initially is targeted at, just one person. Given many things developed for a user group or a constructed average user, in this text we describe starting from design for a single user as an alternative approach for achieving useful and useworthy designs. We provide an example from the development of an assistive device as the starting point and discuss how and why this alternative approach should be of interest for everyone interested in usability.

Keywords

Design User-centered Method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We want to thank everyone involved in the Minimeter project. In addition we want to thank NordForsk for funding the ActivAbles project and the EU for funding the STARR project.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderberg, P.: FACE-disabled people, technology and Internet. Lund University (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bødker, S., Kyng, M., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Sundblad, Y.: A UTOPIAN experience: on design of powerful computer-based tools for skilled graphic workers. In: Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., Kyng, M. (eds.) Computers and Democracy - A Scandinavian Challenge, pp. 251–278. Gower Publishing (1987). http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/publications/a-utopian-experience(405d1260-c86f-11de-a30a-000ea68e967b)/export.html
  3. 3.
    Bødker, S., et al.: Creativity, cooperation and interactive design. In: Proceedings of 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, pp. 252–261 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bødker, S., Iversen, O.S.: Staging a professional participatory design practice - moving PD beyond the initial fascination of user involvement. In: Proceedings of Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 11–18, January 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breidegard, B.: Doing for understanding – on rehabilitation engineering design. Lund University (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, T., Katz, B.: Change by design. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 28(3), 381–383 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bφdker, S., et al.: Cooperative design: techniques and experiences from the Scandinavian scene. In: Readings in Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 215–224 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang, Y., et al.: Personas: from theory to practices. In: Proceedings of Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Building Bridges, Nord 2008, pp. 439–442 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dell’Era, C., Landoni, P.: Living lab: a methodology between user-centred design and participatory design. Creat. Innov. Manag. 23(2), 137–154 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dong, H.: Shifting paradigms in universal design. In: Universal Access in Human Computer Interaction, pp. 66–74 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ehn, P.: Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Umeå University (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaver, W., et al.: Anatomy of a failure: how we knew when our design went wrong, and what we learned from it. In: SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2213–2222 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaver, W.W., et al.: Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions 11(5), 53 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gould, J.D., Lewis, C.: Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM 28(3), 300–311 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greenbaum, J., Kyng, M.: Introduction: situated design. In: Design at Work, pp. 1–24. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hedvall, P.-O.: The Activity Diamond – Modeling An Enhanced Accessibility. Lund University (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    von Hippel, E.: Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Manag. Sci. 32(7), 791–805 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luthje, C., Herstatt, C.: The Lead User method: an outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. R D Manag. 34(5), 553–568 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Newell, A.F., et al.: User-sensitive inclusive design. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 10(3), 235–243 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1993). https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=529793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ringbauer, B., Peissner, M., Gemou, M.: From “Design for All” towards “Design for One” – a modular user interface approach. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) UAHCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 517–526. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73279-2_58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sears, A., et al.: When computers fade: pervasive computing and situationally induced impairments and disabilities. In: Proceedings of HCI International, vol. 2, pp. 1298–1302 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Story, M., et al.: The universal design file: designing for people of all ages and abilities. Des. Res. Methods J. 1(5), 165 (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wixon, D., et al.: Contextual design: an emergent view of system design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Empowering People - CHI 1990, pp. 329–336 (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlotte Magnusson
    • 1
  • Per-Olof Hedvall
    • 1
  • Björn Breidegard
    • 1
  1. 1.Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations