HUMAN-CENTR

ED

DESIGN R

ESEARCH:

A HIS

TORIC

AL

INTR

ODUCTION

PR

OF E

SS

OR

GI L

BE

RT

CO

CK T

ON

J UN

E 1

ST

20

15

AA

LTO

AR

TS

UN

I VE

RS

I TY

HE

L SI N

KI

OVERVIEW

1. Gould & Lewis’ 3 Key Principles for Designing for Usability

2. HCD Before HCI

3. Poor diffusion of HCI research into practice

4. Three waves of HCI research and practice• The late arrival of design• The promise of research through design• The contribution of practitioner communities: Personas as an example

3 Key Principles

THREE KEY PRINCIPLES FOR USABILITY

Good and Lewis’ principles are thoroughly institutionalised in HCI value systems

1. Early [- and continual -] focus on users (and tasks, v1 only) [V2? & V3]

2. Empirical Measurement

3. Iterative Design

V1: Gould, J., and Lewis, C. (1985) “Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think,” Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 300-311.

V2: Gould, J (1988) “How to Design Usable Systems in M. Helander (Ed.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 1st Edition, North-Holland, 757–789.

V3: Gould, J., Boies, S.J. and Ukelson, J. (1997) “How To Design Usable Systems” in M. Helander, T.K. Landauer, & P.V. Prabhu (Eds). Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Edn, 231-254.

For 12 years, principles had “stood up to the passage of time”

Cockton, G. “Revisiting Usability’s Three Key Principles”, CHI 2008 Extended Abstracts,

Eds. M. Czerwinski, A. M. Lund & D.S. Tan, 2473-2484. (academia.edu)

WERE THESE THREE PRINCIPLES

1. Derived from prior concepts?2. Grounded in primary experience?3. Synthesised from secondary literature?4. Proposed tactically to achieve political

ends?

1. NOT CONCEPTUALLY DERIVED

Exempt on grounds of home discipline, psychology

Prefered provisional demonstration over argument

“ours are not universal truths” “principles of design are arguable, of course”As empiricists, Gould and colleagues

would not rely on derivation via conceptual analysis

disdain for “power of reason”

2. NO PRIMARY EVIDENCE

“sufficiently rigorous and conform to the traditional scientific approach”

This claim fails as the examples neither test nor reveal the principles, hence no scientific grounding

Principles are post hoc garnishes “principled type of thinking” emerged within evolving processes Few examples on the nature and proven impact of an early

focus on users or tasks (pre-design), but many on prototyping (“hallway” and “storefront methodologies”)

No examples of successful effective use of empirical measurement in driving iteration, which instead was driven by ‘unmeasured’ formative feedback,

Unlike Whiteside, Bennett and Holtzblatt (1988) who suspended it (HCI Remixed, MIT Press)

3. SECONDARY LITERATURE IGNOREDTwo principles had for

existed 30 years in design literature

Designing for PeopleHenry Dreyfus, 1955

Focus on people Joe and JosephineIterative designNo empirical measurement

of performance! just anthropometricsDisdain for design(ers) impeded design-led HCI for over a decade (despite e.g., 1996 Terry Winograd’s Bringing Design to Software)

4. LOOKS POLITICAL

“real control of the user interface to the people who had responsibility for [it]”

The Three Key Principles gave key control over UI elements of the development process

Enough to “ensure” and “assure” without recourse to marginalised “power of reason”

Design was only controllable architecturally, due to separable UIs (ITS, an example of a marginalised “power of technology to succeed”), so was only practically feasible without back end re engineering (e.g. one failed project)

AND LOOK WHAT THEY MISSED …

Some prescient details of technology probes (2003), appropriation and experience design

Executive appropriation: from remote dictation to voicemail User suggestions/ dissatisfaction: pending message box,

self/others’ message editing; Illinois system: ‘empirically determined required improvements … adding functions’

Fun at EXPO 92: laughter, empowerment, quality of life, lingering to learn

More effective than early focus on users/tasks 75% effort after installation (1997 Handbook v2)

Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B. Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, and Björn Eiderbäck. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. CHI'03, 17-24, ACM.

MORE CREDIBLE PRINCIPLES ARE

1. Ask and Consult

2. Watch and Listen

3. Fix what needs fixing

In other words1. Acknowledge two principles from Dreyfus: user/usage

focus and iteration

2. Drop empirical measurement3. And perhaps learn something about (engineering)

design

HCD before

HCI

80AD: DE ARCHITECTURA

Vitruvius clearly separated intended value from design concepts, that is, ends from means

in architecture, as in other arts, two considerations must be constantly kept in view; namely, the intention, and the matter used to express that intention: but the intention is founded on a conviction that the matter wrought will fully suit the purpose; he, therefore, who is not familiar with both branches of the art, has no pretension to the title of the architect (1.1.3)

Gwilt 1826 translation at penelope.uchicago.edu/thayer/e/roman/texts/vitruvius/1*.html

 

1. Regularity is beautiful

2. The highest beauty lies in harmony

3. Beauty arises from practicality

4. Order is the origin of beauty

5. That which is most practical is also most beautiful

MID 19TH CENTURY SHAKERS’ GUIDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES

http://www.shakerworkshops.com/

cart/new_images_in_db/13F07.jpg

DESIGN: A CONCISE HISTORY THOMAS HAUFFE, LAURENCE KING, 1998.

1950S: ERGONOMICS AND HUMAN FACTORS

“Fit the Machine to Man, not Man to the Machine”

Hywell Murray

Visible, tangible, directly measurable

Newtonian - size, weight, reach, force

Occupational - stress, reliability, acceptability

UCD WAS BLINKERED TO (THE PAST OF)

DESIGN

THE RESULT OF BLINKERS WAS

…

POOR DIFFUSION OF HCI RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE

MANY STUDIES OF POOR DIFFUSION

• Victoria Bellotti. 1988. Implications of current design practice for the use of HCI techniques. People and Computers IV, 13-34, Cambridge University Press.

• Research into design for research for design

• Buckingham Shum, S. 1996. Analyzing the Usability of a Design Rationale Notation. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, T. P. Moran and J. M. Carroll, (Eds.) 185-215, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Research through design for research for design

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION

Process by which an an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. (Rogers) Perspective: the spreading of innovations as a phenomenon Innovation: idea, practice or object that is perceived as new

by an individual or other unit of adoption (Rogers) Two reflections by Arnold Vermeeren for TwinTide COST project

(2009-13) IBM Netherlands’ usability group wanting to install a usability lab ABN AMRO Bank wanting to introduce usability work into the process of

developing their software for employees More factors than ‘just’:

Matching an approach’s resources with the work Results from a process of adoption, adaptation, implementation

INNOVATION DECISION PROCESSES

1.Agenda setting

2.Matching

3.Redefining innovation/restructuring organization

4.Routinizing

INNOVATION DECISION PROCESSESORGANIZATION VIEW

1. Agenda setting stage Problem in organization that needs to be solved Confrontation with innovation uncovers a thus far unknown need

2. Matching stage Figure out whether it seems worthwhile to adopt an innovation Imagining the consequences of implementing it in the

organization

3. Redefining/restructuring stage Finding a solution for an imperfect match between organization

and innovation Re-invent the innovation Restructure the organization

4. Routinizing stage Innovation becomes part of daily life

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONORGANIZATION VERSUS INDIVIDUAL VIEW

O R G A N I Z A T I O N V I E W

Agenda setting

Matching

Redefine/restructure

Routinize

I N D I V I D U A L ’ S V I E W

Knowledge/awareness

Persuasion

Decision making

Implementation

Confirm

INFLUENCES ON ADOPTION DECISIONS

Adoption-relevant attributes of innovations, as perceived by members of social system:

Relative advantage Compatibility Complexity Trialibility Observability

Change agent success factors, relation of change agent to ‘client’

Empathy (do they respect each other) Homophily (are they alike?) Credibility (in the client’s eyes) Opinion leaders (importance of what they do?)

CHANCES OF SUCCESSFUL

DIFFUSION HAVE INCREASED

After Three Waves of HCI, we’re almost

there

WAVE 0 (1970S) BEFORE HCI Practice-based research Research through design

Example UI designs and elements

Guidelines from practitioners

Attacked in 1980s for lack of evidence base (by psychologists with a lack of design base)

www.infomagic.net/~grog

7TIMESHARING

WAVE 1 (1980S) Dominance of Cognitive

Psychology Modelling devices, users

and interactions Research for design

Engineering Psychology mind-set optimised efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction

Pragmatic user testing filled gaps that psychology and engineering could not fill

http://www.sapdesignguild.org/community/images/hum_inf_proc.gif

PERSONAL COMPUTERS

WAVE 2 (1990S) Turn to the social Ethnomethodology prominent Field replaces lab Contextual Design Field understandings produce

greater improvements than lab testing

Gould et al. experienced this too, but clung to their principles

https://quriosity.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/whenuserhitsmachinexeroxstills.png

LOCAL AND WIDE AREA NETWORKS

WAVE 3 (2000S+) Affective psychology user experience

Value, values and worth Critical design: Arts &

Humanities Feminism, Post-Colonialism,

Sexuality, … Sustainable computing Design lead Interaction Design And loads more …

http://gil.poly.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/objectsview2Crisper.png

INTERNET AND INTERACTIVE DIGITAL MEDIA

Did someone

say Design?

ISO 9241-210: HUMAN-CENTRED DESIGN PROCESSES FOR INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS

http://www.system-concepts.com/assets/images/usability/usability%20diagram%20for%20blog.jpg

iterative design

early focus on users and tasks

empirical measurement

But you can’t do design

research, can you?

ART & DESIGN RESEARCH Christopher Frayling. 1994,

Research in Art and DesignRoyal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1)http://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/

Based on Herbert Read on Art Education Research into Art and Design Research for Art and Design Research through Art and Design

HCI ousted ‘through’ and focused on ‘for’ with very little ‘into’.

Science: Ideal and Reality (bit arty really)

Design then and Now

Research for Art

Definitions of research don’t help very much

Art in Fact and Film

Science left art behind

All art cannot be research

But some can

And there has been

clear design

research …

… since a long timeback

ArtistDesignerScientist

Practitioner

Practices

ResearchInto

Through,and ForDesign

Research and the Object

Seeing into and

through

Telling what

The Best Bits ← → The Rushed Bits

FRAYLING: THE BEST BITS

What actually gets done, past and present in art, design and science

Fictions, ideals, post-rationalisations, [identities], realities Institutions, especially ones for Art and Design Education (Read), and

more recently for Art and Design research

Insights and Issues Unconscious subjectivity in all practices, the creative in all practice,

intuitions without any second thought, the fear and loathing of research, toxic mental lucubrations (artificial light), uncomfortable verbalisation, artefacts that speak for themselves, [faithful] expression and autobiography versus [forced distanced] reconstruction

Research as a worthy objective Beyond preparation (e.g., reference materials) in the spirit of research to

actual research for a worthwhile purpose beyond status, promotion and funding

FRAYLING’S RUSHED BITS (1)

Last page of 5 [my glosses on Originality, Significance and Rigour]

We don’t need to be scared of (or protected from) research, let the debate begin

Research into Art and Design Humanities and Human Science studies of art and design outside of the

designer Searching for/after, original sense of research, looking for, not finding Objectivity, originality, significance and rigorous planning and practices are

most possible here, writing reveals thoughts

Research through Art and Design Creative practices make internal external for some purpose beyond a made

object Exploring via creative practices and [erudite] critical reflection,

but not rigorous planning throughout Subjectivity is inescapable here, making reveals thoughts review reveals

originality and significance

FRAYLING: RUSHED BITS

Research for Art [and Design] Common place practices within practice, not necessarily

original, significant or rigorous, can only be scholarly research when it has a purpose beyond one project, person or studio

Searching or constructing support for creative practices Subjectivity is inescapable when constructing and using

created resources Challenges for design rationale and evaluation of

supportive resources Searching and making reveals possibilities that must be

realised by others Dilemmas over autobiographical personal development as

communicable knowledge, what someone is, rather than what they think [really?]

Working paper fizzles out in consideration of research for art “Needs a great deal of further research”

FILLING FRAYLING IN AND OUT

HistoricalAestheticsPerception

Perspectives (PESTLE,

Ethics, …)

STEM opportunities,

Action research in the studio

(LAB)

Reference materials for

artwork

INTO

THROUGH

FOR

Current Practice

Otherresearch imperativ

es

Re-usable design

knowledge and

methods

YEE: MODES NOT EXCLUSIVE

INTO

THROUGH

FOR DesignFOR the

world

Underpinning Conceptual Frameworks?

Methodological innovation in practice-based design doctorates, Journal of Research Practice, 6(2), Article M15. Online Journal.

FOR Science

OTHER FRAMEWORKS (YEE 2010)

• Cross (1999): Research foci on• People (designers), process (designing), product (designs)

•Fallman (2008) Holistic model (but still gappy)• Research within design practice (through for a project, does

not meed Frascati definition of research), in design studies (into), and design exploration (through for critique, public, etc.)

• Koskinen et al. (2011) (not in Yee 2010), research loci:

• lab, field, showroom

•Divergence or refinement?

CONSTRUCTIVE DESIGN RESEARCH

BRINGING IN DESIGN MEANS

• Research into design

• Research through design

• As well as research for design

• also making research for design really for DESIGN

• not for some imaginary engineering design ideal with fully rationalised and evidenced decisions that are demonstrably optimal

• False understandings have impeded diffusion of HCI research

Designers are not waiting for

researchers

PRACTITIONERS MADE

PERSONAS ROUTINE

PERSONA LIFECYCLE

Phase 1: Family Planning (planning a persona effort)

Phase 2: Conception and Gestation (creating personas)

Phase 3: Birth and Maturation (launching and communicating personas)

Phase 4: Adulthood (using personas)

Phase 5: Lifetime Achievement and Retirement (ROI and reuse of personas)

A COMMUNITY EFFORT, PRACTITIONER CONTRIBUTIONS

PERSONA EXAMPLE (1)

http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/03/16/a-little-thing-about-personas/

PERSONA EXAMPLE (2)

www.pleiportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/workshop-persona-example-med.jpg

PERSONA EXAMPLE (3)

http://blog.highlandbusinessresearch.com/2007/12/

PERSONA SKELETONS

How to express your personasDecide on content and layout

pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/CPSC681/topic-wan-personas.pdf – quoted from Pruitt and Adlin book

Five Histories

HISTORIES OF HCI, HCD AND MORE

• Pre-HCI Computing

• Pre-HCI Design and Human Factors/Ergonomics

• HCI and HCD and more human sciences

• Art and Design Research

• IxD and practitioner communities (e..g, UXPA, IxDA)

So What?

HUMAN SCIENCES ARE ENOUGH FOR

• Research into Design• But HCI scientists have tried to research

for design solely through the application of human sciecne (but even then they had to design)

• This could use data from a research through design study

• This could provide insights on adoption and diffusion for research for design initiatives.

HUMAN SCIENCES NOT ENOUGH FOR

• Research through Design• Experienced competent effective

designers are needed to deliver complete coherent designs to a high standard of production

• Research for design

• Experienced competent effective designers are needed to demonstrate how new approaches can become methods in use

Be Nice to

Designers

Learn about Learn fromLearn with

Suspect your

discipline

Know its limits

Critique eveything

Find and question

assumptions

Are you researching?

(When) are you human-centred or focused?

Whose design

process is it?

SUMMARY

• User-Centred Design isn’t enough Not enough design (HCI smothered it)

• Poor diffusion of HCI research into practice

Not enough real design (HCI invents/simplifies)

• After Three waves of HCI research and practice

HCI has time for design realities (research into)

HCI can benefit from design (research through)

HCI may even support design (research for)

If not, Interaction Design will continue to progress on its own

Questions?

THANK YOU