Advertisement

Speculative Design in HCI: From Corporate Imaginations to Critical Orientations

  • Richmond Y. Wong
  • Vera Khovanskaya
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

In this chapter we analyze the rhetorical work of speculative design methods to advance third wave agendas in HCI. We contrast the history of speculative design that is often cited in HCI papers from the mid 2000s onward that frames speculative design as a critical methodological intervention in HCI linked to radical art practice and critical theory, with the history of how speculative design was introduced to HCI publications through corporate design research initiatives from the RED group at Xerox PARC. Our argument is that third wave, critically oriented, speculative design “works” in HCI because it is highly compatible with other forms of conventional corporate speculation (e.g. concept videos and scenario planning). This reading of speculative design re-centers the “criticality” from the method itself to its ability to advance agendas that challenge dominant practices in technology design. We will look at how practitioners trade on the rhetorical ambiguity of future oriented design practices to introduce these ideas in contexts where they may not otherwise have much purchase. Our chapter concludes with a call for critically oriented practitioners in this space to share their experiences navigating speculative design ambiguity and to document the disciplinary history of the method’s development.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Morgan Ames, Anne Jonas, Noura Howell, Nick Merrill, Tyler Fox, and Paul Duguid for their comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.

References

  1. Agre PE (1997) Computation and human experience. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auger J (2013) Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digit Creat 24:11–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balsamo A, Gorbet M, Harrison S, Minneman S (2000) The methods of our madness: research on experimental documents. In: CHI ‘00 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI ‘00. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, p 207Google Scholar
  4. Bardzell S (2010) Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an Agenda for design. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ‘10. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, p 1301Google Scholar
  5. Bardzell J, Bardzell S (2011) “Pleasure is your birthright”: digitally enabled designer sex toys as a case of third-wave HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2011), pp 257–266 . https://doi.org/cg75kh
  6. Bardzell J, Bardzell S (2013) What is “critical” about critical design? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ‘13 3297.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466451
  7. Bardzell J, Bardzell S (2015) Humanistic HCI. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San RafaelGoogle Scholar
  8. Bardzell S, Bardzell J, Forlizzi J, et al (2012) Critical design and critical theory. In: Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference—DIS ’12, pp 288–297.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318001
  9. Bell G, Dourish P (2007) Yesterday’s tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 11:133–143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-006-0071-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blythe M (2017) Research fiction: storytelling, plot and design. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘17), pp 5400–5411Google Scholar
  11. Campbell RL (1992) Will the real scenario please stand up? ACM SIGCHI Bull 24:6–8.  https://doi.org/10.1145/142386.1054872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll JM (2000) Making use: scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. The MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity (2016) Cybersecurity futures 2020. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalton M, Gabereau A, Gallacher S, et al (2014) Quantified toilets. http://quantifiedtoilets.com. Accessed 27 July 2017
  15. Deutsch CH (2000) The fading copier king; xerox has failed to capitalize on its own innovations. New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  16. Devendorf L (2016) Strange and unstable fabrication. University of California Berkeley, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. Devendorf L, Ryokai K (2015) Being the Machine. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ‘15. pp 2477–2486Google Scholar
  18. DiSalvo C, Jenkins T, Lodato T (2016) designing speculative civics. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ‘16. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp 4979–4990Google Scholar
  19. Dourish P (2004) What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8:19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dourish P, Bell G (2011) Divining a digital future: mess and mythology in ubiquitous computing. The MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunne A (1999) Hertzian tales: electronic products, aesthetic experience and critical design. RCA CRD Research Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunne A, Gaver W (1997) The Pillow: artist-designers in the digital age. In: CHI ‘97 extended abstracts on human factors in computing. ACM Press, New York, pp 361–362Google Scholar
  23. Dunne A, Raby F (2001) Design noir: the secret life of electronic objects. Birkhauser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunne A, Raby F (2013) Speculative everything. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Elsden C, Chatting D, Durrant AC, et al (2017) On speculative enactments. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘17). pp 5386–5399Google Scholar
  26. Friedman B (1996) Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3:16–23.  https://doi.org/10.1145/242485.242493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gaver W (2002) Designing for homo ludens. I3 Magazine. pp 3–6.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538
  28. Gaver W (2011) Making spaces: how design workbooks work. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘11). pp 1551–1560Google Scholar
  29. Gaver B, Martin H (2000) Alternatives: exploring information appliances through conceptual design proposals. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘00). pp 209–216.  https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332433
  30. Go K, Carroll JM (2004) The blind men and the elephant: views of scenario-based system design. Interactions 11:44–53.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1029036.1029037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall S (1980) Encoding/decoding. Cult Media Lang 4:128–138.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harmon E, Mazmanian M (2013) Stories of the smartphone in everyday discourse: conflict, tension & instability. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘13). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, p 1051Google Scholar
  33. Harmon E, Bopp C, Voida A (2017) The design fictions of philanthropic IT: stuck between an imperfect present and an impossible future. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘17), ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Harrison S, Henderson A, Minneman S et al (2001a) The what of XFR: eXperiments in the future of reading. Interactions 8:21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1145/369825.369829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harrison S, Minneman S, Balsamo A (2001b) The How of XFR: “eXperiments in the future of reading.”. Interactions 8:31–41.  https://doi.org/10.1145/369825.369830 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harrison S, Tatar D, Sengers P (2007) The three paradigms of HCI. Alt Chi Sess SIGCHI …. pp 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1234/12345678
  37. Hiltzik M (2000) Dealers of lightning: xerox PARC and the dawn of the computer age. Orion Business Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Jasanoff S, Kim S-H (2009) Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47:119–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahn H (1962) Thinking about the unthinkable. Horizon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Khovanskaya V, Baumer EPS, Sengers P (2015) Double binds and double blinds: evaluation tactics in critically oriented HCI. In: The fifth decennial Aarhus conference on critical alternatives (AA ‘15). p 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kinsley S (2010) Representing “things to come”: feeling the visions of future technologies. Environ Plan A 42:2771–2790.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a42371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lakoff A (2008) The generic biothreat, or, how we became unprepared. Cult Anthropol 23:399–428.  https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2008.23.3.399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Latour B (1992) Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 225–258Google Scholar
  44. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Malpass M (2016) Critical design practice: theoretical perspectives and methods of engagement. Des J 19:473–489.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2016.1161943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mankoff J, Rode JA, Faste H (2013) Looking past yesterday’s tomorrow: using futures studies methods to extend the research horizon. Chi 2013:1629–1638.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Matsuda K (2016) Hyper-reality. Video. (16 May 2016). https://vimeo.com/166807261. Accessed 20 Sept 2016
  48. Pargman D, Eriksson E, Höjer M, et al (2017) The (un)sustainability of imagined future information societies. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ‘17. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp 773–785Google Scholar
  49. Pierce J, Sengers P, Hirsch T, et al (2015) Expanding and refining design and criticality in HCI. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘15). pp 2083–2092Google Scholar
  50. Samimian-Darash L (2013) Governing future potential biothreats. Curr Anthropol 54:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1086/669114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sengers P, Gaver B (2006) Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on designing interactive systems—DIS ‘06. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, p 99Google Scholar
  52. Singer N (2014) Intel’s sharp-eyed social scientist. New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  53. Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Superflux (2015) Drone aviary video (7 April 2015). https://vimeo.com/124292043. Accessed 20 Sept 2011
  55. Tanenbaum K, Tanenbaum J, Williams A, et al (2014) Critical making hackathon: situated hacking,surveillance. In: CHI ‘14 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ‘14). ACM, pp 17–20Google Scholar
  56. Tognazzini B (1994) The “Starfire” video prototype project. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems celebrating interdependence—CHI ‘94. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp 99–105Google Scholar
  57. Vertelney L (1989) Using video to prototype user interfaces. ACM SIGCHI Bull 21:57–61.  https://doi.org/10.1145/70609.70615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wack P (1985) Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead. Harv Bus Rev 63:73–89. doi: ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Wakkary R, Odom W, Hauser S, et al (2015) Material speculation: actual artifacts for critical inquiry. In: Proceedings of the 5th decennial Aarhus conference on critical alternatives (AA ‘15). vol 1, pp 97–108.  https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weber S (1996) Counterfactuals, past and future. In: Tetlock PE, Belkin A (eds) Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilkinson A, Kupers R (2013) Living in the futures. Harv Bus Rev 91:119–127Google Scholar
  62. Winograd T, Flores F (1987) Understanding computers and cognition. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. Wong RY, Mulligan DK (2016a) These aren’t the autonomous drones you’re looking for: investigating privacy concerns through concept videos. J Human-Robot Interact 5:26.  https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.5.3.Wong CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wong RY, Mulligan DK (2016b) When a product is still fictional: anticipating and speculating futures through concept videos. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on designing interactive systems (DIS ‘16). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp 121–133Google Scholar
  65. Wong RY, Van Wyk E, Pierce J (2017) Real—fictional entanglements: using science fiction and design fiction to interrogate sensing technologies. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on designing interactive systems (DIS ‘17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 567–579Google Scholar
  66. Wyche SP (2005) Designing speculative household cleaning products for older adults. In: Conference on designing for user eXperience (DUX ‘05). AIGA: American Institute of graphic arts, p 49Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations