Advertisement

First Steps in Developing Tangible Artifacts for All: Enabling Ideation and Discussion Processes

  • Vanessa R. M. L. MaikeEmail author
  • M. Cecília C. Baranauskas
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 527)

Abstract

Including everyone in the process of designing information systems is a challenge, especially considering that techniques and tools traditionally used in this process are written documents. This can make them non-accessible to people in special conditions, e.g., the visually impaired. Therefore, in this paper we present the first steps we took towards redesigning some of these techniques and tools, turning them into tangible digital artifacts. These initiatives are presented as two case studies. One intends to tackle the problem of materializing an idea discussion tool that has an existing graphical representation. The other, takes on the challenge of re-interpreting an ideation technique with well-defined dynamics. In the end, they point towards how to redesign other artifacts.

Keywords

Universal Design Tangible User Interface TUI Organizational Semiotics Participatory Design Human-Computer Interaction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is financially supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) through grants #2015/16528-0 and #2015/24300-9, by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) through grant #01-P-04554/2013 and by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) through grants #160911/2015-0 and #306272/2017-2.

References

  1. 1.
    Baranauskas, M.C.C., Bonacin, R.: Design – indicating through signs. Des. Issues 24(3), 30–45 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2008.24.3.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baranauskas, M.C.C., Schimiguel, J., Simoni, C.A., Medeiros, C.B.: Guiding the process of requirements elicitation with a semiotic-based approach – a case study. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 100–111 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchdid, S.B., Pereira, R., Baranauskas, M.C.C.: Creating an iDTV application from inside a TV company: a situated and participatory approach. In: Liu, K., Gulliver, S.R., Li, W., Yu, C. (eds.) ICISO 2014. IAICT, vol. 426, pp. 63–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55355-4_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ishii, H., Ullmer, B.: Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 234–241. ACM (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kyng, M.: Designing for cooperation: cooperating in design. Commun. ACM 34(12), 65–73 (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1145/125319.125323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu, K.: Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge University Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, X.: Employing MEASUR Methods for Process Reengineering in China (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muller, M.J., Haslwanter, J.H., Dayton, T.: Participatory practices in the software lifecycle. In: Helander, M.G., Landauer, T.K., Prabhu, P.V. (eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn, pp. 255–297. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1997). Chap. 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuler, D., Namioka, A.: Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stamper, R.K.: Information in Business and Administrative Systems. Wiley, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stamper, R.K.: Language and computer in organised behaviour. In: Riet, R.P.V.D., Meersman, R.A. (eds.) Linguistic Instruments in Knowledge Engineering, pp. 143–163. Elsevier Science Inc., Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stephanidis, C., Salvendy, G., Akoumianakis, D., Arnold, A., Bevan, N., Dardailler, D., Emiliani, P.L., Iakovidis, I., Jenkins, P., Karshmer, A., Korn, P., Marcus, A., Murphy, H., Oppermann, C., Stary, C., Tamura, H., Tscheligi, M., Ueda, H., Weber, G., Ziegler, J.: Toward an information society for all: HCI challenges and R&D recommendations. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 11(1), 1–28 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1101_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Story, M.F., Mueller, J.L., Mace, R.L.: The Universal Design File: Designing for People of all Ages and Abilities. ERIC (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    VanGundy, A.B.: Brain writing for new product ideas: an alternative to brainstorming. J. Consum. Mark. 1(2), 67–74 (1984).  https://doi.org/10.1108/eb008097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weiser, M.: The computer for the 21st century. Sci. Am. 265(3), 94–104 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanessa R. M. L. Maike
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Cecília C. Baranauskas
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of ComputingUniversity of Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations