Advertisement

Probing – Two Perspectives to Participation

  • Tuuli Mattelmäki
  • Andrés Lucero
  • Jung-Joo Lee
Chapter

Abstract

Practitioners from different fields of design and research apply the ‘Probing’ method as means of getting a better understanding of their users and to inspire their designs. During the 15 years since its first appearance, the probing method has been extended for deployment in different contexts and for different uses. In this chapter we first briefly introduce what probes are about, then we look at probing from two perspectives: (a) as a process of collaborative discovery and learning, and (b) as a tool for entering the users’ contexts. We illustrate these perspectives through cases in which probes have been introduced in educational and professional environments. Based on the findings, we discuss how a making process of probes can engage a design research team to the issues of concern, and present a set of problems and challenges encountered while probing professional work. Finally, we propose a set of considerations for designing probes for different purposes.

Keywords

Augmented Reality Design Team Industrial Designer Probe Task Design Studio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Key References for Further Reading

  1. Boehner K, Vertesi J, Sengers P, Dourish P (2007) How HCI interprets the probes. In Proc. of CHI’07, ACM Press, 1077–1086.Google Scholar
  2. Gaver W, Dunne T, Pacenti E (1999) Cultural probes. Interactions 6(1), January, ACM, 21–29.Google Scholar
  3. Gaver W, Boucher A, Pennington S, Walker B (2004) Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions 11(5), September, ACM, 53–56.Google Scholar
  4. Lucero A, Lashina T, Diederiks E, Mattelmäki T (2007) How probes inform and influence the design process. In Proc. DPPI '07, ACM Press, 377–391.Google Scholar
  5. Mattelmäki T (2006) Design probes. Dissertation. University of Art and Design Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  6. Wallace J, McCarthy J, Wright PC, Olivier P (2013) Making design probes work. In Proc. of CHI’13, ACM Press, 3441–3450.Google Scholar

References

  1. Boehner K, Vertesi J, Sengers P, Dourish P (2007) How HCI interprets the probes. In: Proceedings of CHI ’07, ACM Press, 1077–1086Google Scholar
  2. Brandt E (2006) Designing exploratory design games: a framework for participation in Participatory Design? In: Proceedings of PDC ’06, ACM Press, 57–66Google Scholar
  3. Carter S, Mankoff J (2005) When participants do the capturing: the role of media in diary studies. In: Proceedings of CHI ’05, ACM Press, 899–908Google Scholar
  4. Ellis C (2004) The ethnographic I: a methodological novel about auto ethnography. AltaMira Press, Walnut CreekGoogle Scholar
  5. Fogg BJ (2003) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaver W, Dunne T, Pacenti E (1999) Cultural probes. Interactions 6(1):21–29, ACMGoogle Scholar
  7. Gaver W, Boucher A, Pennington S, Walker B (2004) Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions 11(5):53–56, ACMGoogle Scholar
  8. Hemmings T, Crabtree A, Rodden T, Clark K, Rouncefiled M (2002) Probing the probes. In: Proceedings of PDC ’02, pp 42–50Google Scholar
  9. Hulkko S, Mattelmäki T, Virtanen K, Keinonen T (2004) Mobile probes. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI ’04, ACM Press, pp 43–51Google Scholar
  10. Hutchinson H, Mackay W, Westerlund B, Bederson BB, Druin A, Plaisant C, Beau-douin-Lafon M, Conversy S, Evans H, Hansen H, Roussel N, Eiderbäck B (2003) Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In: Proceedings of CHI ’03, ACM Press, pp 17–24Google Scholar
  11. Jääskö V, Mattelmäki T (2003) Methods for empathic design: observing and probing. In: Proceedings of DPPI ’03, ACM Press, pp 126–131Google Scholar
  12. Lee J (2014) The true benefits of designing design methods. Artifacts 3(2):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lucero A (2009) Co-designing interactive spaces for and with designers: supporting mood-board making. Doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  14. Lucero A, Martens J-B (2006) Supporting the creation of mood boards: industrial design in mixed reality. In: Proceedings of TableTop 2006, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  15. Lucero A, Mattelmäki T (2007) Professional probes: a pleasurable little extra for the participant’s work. In: Proceedings of IASTED-HCI 2007, ACTA Press, pp 170–176Google Scholar
  16. Lucero A, Lashina T, Diederiks EMA (2004) From imagination to experience: the role of feasibility studies in gathering requirements for ambient intelligent products. In: Proceedings of EUSAI 2004. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 92–99Google Scholar
  17. Lucero A, Lashina T, Diederiks E, Mattelmäki T (2007) How probes inform and influence the design process. In: Proceedings DPPI ’07, ACM Press, pp 377–391Google Scholar
  18. Mattelmäki T (2003) Probes – studying experiences for design empathy. Empathic design – user experience in product design. IT Press, Helsinki, 119–130Google Scholar
  19. Mattelmäki T (2005) Applying probes – from inspirational notes to collaborative insights. CoDesign 1(2):83–102, Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Mattelmäki T (2006) Design probes. Dissertation, University of Art and Design Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Mattelmäki T (2008) Probing for co-exploring. CoDesign 4(1):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mattelmäki T, Battarbee K (2002) Empathy probes. In: Proceedings of PDC 2002, CPSR, pp266–271Google Scholar
  23. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms – children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Paulos E, Jenkins T (2005) Urban probes: encountering our emerging urban atmospheres. In: Proceedings of CHI ’05, ACM Press, pp 341–350Google Scholar
  25. Sanders EB (2001) Virtuosos of the experience domain. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IDSA education conferenceGoogle Scholar
  26. Wallace J, McCarthy J, Wright PC, Olivier P (2013) Making design probes work. In: Proceedings of CHI’13, ACM Press, pp 3441–3450Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tuuli Mattelmäki
    • 1
  • Andrés Lucero
    • 2
  • Jung-Joo Lee
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Arts, Design and ArchitectureAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Mads Clausen InstituteUniversity of Southern DenmarkKoldingDenmark
  3. 3.Division of Industrial DesignNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations