Creative Figures of Users

  • Annie Gentes
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)


In this chapter, the reader will follow the trail of the “user”. Many disciplines claim to best represent her: ergonomics and engineering research focus on the system made of humans and machines, aesthetics concentrates on the sensitive experience, media studies focus on audiences and spectators. Rather than trying to catch the reality of the user, the chapter shows that the design process relies on several “figures” of the user. These figures are poetic productions and “indirect representations” of user models that support the expansion of the design project beyond a mere replication of standard uses.


ALLEN NEWELL Multidisciplinary Computer Information Society Technologies Advisory Group Game Design Conservatoire National Des Arts Et Métiers (CNAM) 
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.


  1. Aarts, E., & Appelo, L. (1999). Ambient Intelligence: thuisomgevingen van de toekomst. IT Monitor. 9/99, 7–11, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Akrich, M. (1987). Comment décrire les objets techniques? Techniques & Culture, 49–64.
  3. Akrich, M. (1990). De la sociologie des techniques à une sociologie des usages. Techniques & Culture, 83–110.
  4. Akrich, M., Callon, M., & Latour, B. (2006). Sociologie de la traduction : Textes fondateurs. Paris: Presses de l’Ecole des Mines.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bannon, L. (2011). Reimagining HCI toward a more human-centered perspective. Interactions, July-August, 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardini, T. (2000). Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, coevolution, and the origins of personal computing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, H. S. (1966). Outsiders, studies in the sociology of deviance (reprintth ed.). London: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berthelot, J.-M. (2001). Epistémologie des sciences sociales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France – PUF.Google Scholar
  9. Blum, A. (2013). Tubes: Behind the scenes at the internet. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  10. Boehner, K., Sengers, P., & Warner, S. (2008). Interfaces with the ineffable: Meeting aesthetic experience on its own terms. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 15(3), 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boy, J., et al. (2014). A principled way of assessing visualization literacy. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12), 1963–1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bucciarelli, L. L. (1996). Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Castells, M., Cardoso, G., Paul, H., & Nitze School of Advanced International Studies Center for Transatlantic Relations. (2006). The network society: From knowledge to policy. Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  14. Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: Technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies, 31(4), 311–344.doi: Scholar
  15. Cummings, J. N. (2005), octobre 1. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722. doi:
  16. Davallon, J. (2000). L’exposition à l’oeuvre. Paris/Montréal: Editions L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  17. Davidson, D., Kelley, H. & Kücklich, J. 2007. Space time play (F. von Borries, S. P. Walz & M. Böttger, 1st ed.). Boston: Birkhäuser Architecture.Google Scholar
  18. de Ruyter, B. (Ed.). (2003). 365 days’ ambient intelligence research in HomeLab. Eindhoven: Philips Research.Google Scholar
  19. Delamotte, E., & Liquête, V. (2010). La trans-littératie informationnelle. Eléments de réflexion autour de la notion de compétence infocommunicationnelle scolaire et privée des jeunes. Recherches en Communication, 33, 17–34.Google Scholar
  20. Ducatel, K., & Bélgica. (2001). Dirección General de la Sociedad de la Información Comisión Europea (Bruselas, Scenarios for ambient intelligence in 2010). Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  21. Durkheim, E. (1997). Suicide: A study in sociology (reissue edition). Glencoe, III.: Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gentès, A., & Jutant, C. (2009). Pervasive gaming: Testing future context aware applications. Communications and Strategies, 73, 81–104.Google Scholar
  23. Halskov, K., & Hansen, N. B. (2015), février. The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002–2012. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 81–92. doi:
  24. Harris, R. (1993). La sémiologie de l’écriture (CNRS langage). Paris: CNRS editions.Google Scholar
  25. Hoggart, R. (1957). The uses of literacy: Aspects of working-class life. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  26. Hsi, S. (2002). The Electronic Guidebook: A Study of User Experiences using Mobile Web Content in a Museum. International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile technologies in Education. Danvers: IEEE.Google Scholar
  27. Ilpo Koskinen, K. B., & Mattelmaki, T. (Eds.). (2003). Empathic design: User experience in product design. Helsinki: IT Press, Edita Prima Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. Jeanneret, Y. (2007a). Usages de l’usage, figures de la médiatisation. Communication et langages, 151(1), 3–19. Scholar
  29. Jeanneret, Y. (2007b). Y a-t-il (vraiment) des technologies de l’information ? Villeneuved’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
  30. Jordan, P. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. London: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keinonen, T. (2010). Protect and appreciate–notes on the justification of user-centered design. International Journal of Design, 4(1), 17–27.Google Scholar
  33. Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “design is making sense (of things)”. Design Issues, 5(2, Spring), 9–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In Science observed (pp. 141–170). London/Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Le Marec, J. (2012). Publics et musées : La confiance éprouvée. Paris: Harmattan.Google Scholar
  36. Lévy, P. (1994). L’Intelligence collective : Pour une anthropologie du cyberspace. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  37. Mackay, W., et Fayard A.-L. (1997). HCI, natural science and design: A framework for triangulation across disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 223–234).Google Scholar
  38. Manovich, L. (2002). The language of new media. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2007). Technology as experience. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Montola, M. (2005). Exploring the edge of the magic circle: Defining pervasive games. In Proceedings of DAC, p. 103.
  42. Nigel Cross & Design Research Society (1972). Design Participation: Proceedings of the Design Research Society’s Conference, Manchester, September 1971. Academy Editions.Google Scholar
  43. Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (Ed.). 1986). User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction (1st ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  44. Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004), janvier. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. doi:
  45. Redström, J. (2008). RE:Definitions of use. Design Studies, 29(4, juillet), 410–423. doi:
  46. Ritzer, & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, Prosumption the nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36.Google Scholar
  47. Rochlitz, R. (1998). L’art au banc d’essai: esthétique et critique. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  48. Sanders, E. B.-N. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences: Making connections (pp. 1–8). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  49. Satyanarayanan, M. (2001). Pervasive computing: Vision and challenges. Personal Communications, IEEE, 8(4), 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scott, P. (1991). Levers and counterweights: A laboratory that failed to raise the world. Social Studies of Science, 21(1, janvier 2), 7–35. doi:
  51. Simatic, M., et al. (2009). “Plug: Secrets of the museum”: A pervasive game taking place in a museum. In Entertainment computing–ICEC 2009 (pp. 302–313). Springer.
  52. Souchier, E., Jeanneret, Y., & Le Marec, J. (2003). Lire, écrire, récrire: Objets, signes et pratiques des médias informatisés. Paris: Bibliothèque Publique d’Information.Google Scholar
  53. Vedel, T. (1994). Introduction à une socio-politique des usages, in André Vitalis «Médias et nouvelles technologies ». Rennes: éditions Apogée.Google Scholar
  54. Virilio, P. (1986). Speed & politics. New York: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  55. Von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2007). Trying to prosume: Toward a theory of consumers as co-creators of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1, août 1), 109–122. doi:
  57. Zelkha, E. (1998). The Future of Information Appliances and Consumer Devices, Palo Alto Ventures, Palo Alto, California (unpublished document).Google Scholar
  58. Zwick, D., Bonsu, S. K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Putting consumers to work co-creationand new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2), 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations