Rapidly Exploring Application Design Through Speed Dating

  • Scott Davidoff
  • Min Kyung Lee
  • Anind K. Dey
  • John Zimmerman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4717)


While the user-centered design methods we bring from human-computer interaction to ubicomp help sketch ideas and refine prototypes, few tools or techniques help explore divergent design concepts, reflect on their merits, and come to a new understanding of design opportunities and ways to address them. We present Speed Dating, a design method for rapidly exploring application concepts and their interactions and contextual dimensions without requiring any technology implementation. Situated between sketching and prototyping, Speed Dating structures comparison of concepts, helping identify and understand contextual risk factors and develop approaches to address them. We illustrate how to use Speed Dating by applying it to our research on the smart home and dual-income families, and highlight our findings from using this method.


Design methods need validation user enactments Speed Dating Matrix future breaching experiments sketching prototyping reflection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abowd, G.D.: Classroom 2000: An Experiment with the instrumentation of a living educational environment. IBM Systems Journal 38(4), 508–530 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M.: A Pattern language. Oxford University Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchenau, M., Fulton Suri, J.: Experience prototyping. In: Proceedings of DIS 2000, pp. 424–433 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burns, C., Dishman, E., Verplank, W., Lassiter, B.: Actors, hairdos & videotape—informance design. In: Proceedings of CHI 1994, pp. 119–120 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buxton, B.: Sketching users experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carroll, J.: Making use: Scenario-based design of Human-Computer Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carter, S., Mankoff, J., Klemmer, S., Matthews, T.: Exiting the cleanroom: On Ecological validity and Ubiquitous Computing. Human-Computer Interaction (in press)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooper, A., Reimann, R.: About Face 2.0: The essentials of Interaction Design. Wiley, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davidoff, S., Lee, M.K., Yiu, C.M., Zimmerman, J., Dey, A.K.: Principles of smart home control. In: Dourish, P., Friday, A. (eds.) UbiComp 2006. LNCS, vol. 4206, pp. 19–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forlizzi, J., DiSalvo, C., Zimmerman, J., Mutlu, B., Hurst, A.: The SenseChair: The lounge chair as an intelligent assistive device for elders. In: Proceedings of DUX (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garfinkel, H.: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity, Cambridge (1967)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gould, J., Conti, J., Hovanyecz, T.: Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter. Communications of the ACM 26(4), 295–308 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halloran, J., Hornecker, E., Fitzpatrick, G., Weal, M., Millard, D., Michaelides, D., Cruickshank, D., De Roure, D.: Unfolding understandings: Co-designing UbiComp in situ, over time. In: Proceedings of DIS, pp. 109–118 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hartmann, B., Klemmer, S.R., Bernstein, M., Abdulla, L., Burr, B., Robinson-Mosher, A., Gee, J.: Reflective physical prototyping through integrated design, test, and analysis. In: Proceedings of UIST 2006, pp. 299–308 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hartmann, B., Doorley, S., Kim, S., Vora, P.: Wizard of Oz sketch animation for experience prototyping. In: Dourish, P., Friday, A. (eds.) UbiComp 2006. LNCS, vol. 4206, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., et al.: Technology probes: Inspiring design for and with families. In: Proceedings CHI 2003, pp. 17–24 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, J., Zimmerman, J.: Cherish: Smart digital photo frames. In: Proceedings of Design and Emotion 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Landay, J.A., Myers, B.A.: Sketching storyboards to illustrate interface behaviors. In: Proceedings of CHI 1996 Extended Abstracts, pp. 193–194 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee, M.K., Davdoff, S., Zimmerman, J., Dey, A.K.: Smart homes, families and control. In: Proceedings of Design & Emotion 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mackay, W.E., Ratzer, A.V., Janacek, P.: Video artifacts for design: Bridging the gap between abstraction and detail. In: Proceedings of DIS 2000, pp. 72–82 (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matthews, T., Carter, S., Pail, C., Fong, J., Mankoff, J.: Scribe4Me: Evaluating a mobile sound transcription tool for the deaf. In: Dourish, P., Friday, A. (eds.) UbiComp 2006. LNCS, vol. 4206, pp. 159–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Muller, M.J.: Retrospective on a year of participatory design using the PICTIVE technique. In: Proceedings CHI 1992, pp. 455–462 (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mynatt., E.D., Rowan, J., Jacobs, A., Craighill, S.: Digital family portraits: Supporting peace of mind for extended family members. In: Proceedings of CHI 2001, pp. 333–340 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rettig, M.: Prototyping for tiny fingers. Communications of ACM 37(4), 21–27 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schon, D.A.: The reflective practitioner. Basic Books, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Snyder, C.: Paper Prototyping: The fast and easy way to design and refine user interfaces. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tohidi, M., Buxton, B., Baecker, R., Sellen, A.: User sketches: A quick, inexpensive, and effective way to elicit more reflective user feedback. In: Proceedings of NordCHI 2006, pp. 105–114 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Trevor, J., Hilbert, D.M., Schilit, B.N.: Issues in personalizing shared ubiquitous devices. In: Borriello, G., Holmquist, L.E. (eds.) UbiComp 2002. LNCS, vol. 2498, pp. 56–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Truong, K.N., Hayes, G.R., Abowd, G.D.: Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. In: Proceedings of DIS 2006, pp. 12–21 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zimmerman, J.: Video Sketches: Exploring pervasive computing interaction designs. IEEE Computing 4(4), 91–94 (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zimmerman, J., Dimitrova, N., Agnihotri, L., Janevski, A., Nikolovska, L.: Interface design for MyInfo: A personal news demonstrator combining Web and TV content. In: Proceedings of INTERACT, pp. 41–48 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Davidoff
    • 1
  • Min Kyung Lee
    • 1
  • Anind K. Dey
    • 1
  • John Zimmerman
    • 1
  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon Human-Computer Interaction Institute + School of Design 

Personalised recommendations