hcid2011 - Creativity for open spaces - Dr Sara Jones (HCID)

Centre for HCI DesignCentre for Creativity

Information Spaces for Creative Design

HCID Open DayApril 19th, 2011

Sara JonesCentre for HCI Design and Centre for Creativity in Professional PracticeCity University London

[email protected]://hcid.soi.city.ac.uk/people/Sarajones.html

mailto:[email protected]


Team photos

• Neil Maiden

• Kristine Karlsen

• Kos Zachos

• Helena Sustar

• Meirion Williams


Outline

• Background• Creativity research at City

• Techniques• Creativity workshops

• Technologies• Software tools• Interactive surfaces and digitally augmented spaces


Context

Interactive systemrequirements and design


Creativity research at City


Creativity research at City (contd)

• 5 year RCUK research fellowship: Creativity and the development of interactive systems

• 2 year JISC-funded project: Information Spaces for Creative Conversations

• Centre for Creativity in Professional Practice

• Masters in Innovation, Creativity and Leadership


Techniques used in creativity workshops

• Constraint removal

• Challenging boundaries

• Creativity triggers

• Analogical reasoning

• Solution presentation

• Storyboarding

Divergent

Convergent


Structuring a creativity workshop


Structuring a creativity workshop (contd)


Creativity workshop process and outputs


Creativity triggers


Creativity triggers


Constraint removal


The challenge in developing creativity support tools

‘preserve appropriate elements of existing knowledge work [creative practice] while shaping new technologies and then integrating them into the workplace’

Shneiderman, 2000


Schön’s view of activities to support

• According to Schön (1983) :

oThe ‘language of designing’ includes sketching and talking – sketching enables experimentation, and when the designer talks about designing, this allows reflection

oA designer designs by utilizing her/his repertoire of examples, images, understandings and actions from existing knowledge

oAt a certain point, the designer evaluates her/his ideas by considering desirability of their consequences


Design principles for support tools

• According to Resnick et al, NSF workshop, 2005:

oChoose black boxes carefully: primitive elements available determine outputs

oSupport exploration: easy to try things out, then backtrack; make functionality self-revealing; pleasurable and fun; sketching; trying ‘what if’s’.

oSupport many paths and many styles: ‘hard’ and ‘soft’; ‘left brain’ and ‘right brain’.

oSupport collaboration: teams of different talents; foster communityoSupport open interchange: seamless operation with other tools; data

import/export; extensibility.


Some useful tools are already out there

Google wonder wheel- allows you to follow associations of interest


Mind mapping

http://sourceforge.net/projects/freemind/


Sticky notes

http://www.labnol.org/software/create-affinity-diagrams-with-sticky-sorter/5465/


Compendium

• Compendium is ‘a knowledge map software tool for visual thinking’

• We used it in a constraint removal exercise to map out constraints, ideas and their pros and cons

http://compendium.open.ac.uk/openlearn/screencasts.html


Combinformation

http://ecologylab.cse.tamu.edu/combinFormation/

For searching for inspiration,organising ideas andexploring combinations ofideas


Antique

• Analysts reason with analogical services retrieved by AnTiQue to invent previously unspecified requirements

• These requirements are ranked as more creative by domain experts

(Zachos et al 2008)


Cris

• Analysts do a scenario walkthrough

with Combinformation providing creative stimuli

• Requirements generated are judged as more creative

(Karlsen et al, 2009)


Support for collaborative creativity

• Historical focus on lone genius being replaced by interest in social creativity, ‘co-creation’.

We believe in the importanceof neighborhoods andcommunities in fostering innovation

IDEO (Kelley and Litman, 2001)


Additional design principles for collaborative support tools

• From Mamykina et al, 2002: enable groups to devise shared language and understanding, and to share knowledge resources

• From Fischer et al, 2005: enable development of Communities of Practice and Communities of Interest eg through externalisations or boundary objects

• From Warr and O’Neill 2005:• Reduce or eliminate production blocking by allowing multiple users

to act in parallel• Reduce evaluation apprehension by making ideas anonymous

OR• Reduce social loafing (or free riding) by attributing ideas


Our first exploratory study

• With children doing a design task (designing a classroom layout) on a multitouch table

• Lots of production blocking!• Also evaluation apprehension• Social loafing not such a

problem

• Adults may be different?!


Another exploratory study

• With adults doing a design task (sketching the user interface for a mobile calendar/clock application)

• 2 – 3 team members working together on a multitouch table, and 1 in a remote location using a tablet PC

• Team connected using Adobe Connect and Skype


Mezatop

Purpose-built interactive surface is supportingwider range of studies


Further exploration of digitally augmented spaces

Inspired by product design involving physicalartefacts and dynamic sketching


Creative Design Station capabilities

WhiteboardWhiteboard with projection

Whiteboard with projection and recording


Creative Design Stations in action – year 1


Creative Design Station use – year 1

Viewing – sharing previously identified or created artefacts

Doing – co-designing or building

Planning, recording


Creative Design Stations in action – year 2


Creative Design Station use – year 2

Shared access to reference materials from online spaces, inspirations from internet searches.Joint creation of written materials in online spaces.

Shared access to physical artefacts.Private and joint creation of outputs eg storyboards.

Joint work on creativity techniques eg brainstorming, challenging boundaries, creativity triggers, storyboarding.


Ongoing work and future plans

• Further evaluation of techniques and technologies- looking for more case studies!

• FP7 MIRROR project: • supporting learning at work through creative problem solving• combination of mobile apps and on-line discussion fora

• Discussion after this!


Online forum for further discussion


Please get in touch!

Sara JonesCentre for HCI Design and Centre for Creativity in Professional PracticeCity University London

[email protected]://hcid.soi.city.ac.uk/people/Sarajones.html@svjaok

Online discussion at:http://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=7274fI’ll tweet the link!

mailto:[email protected]

http://hcid.soi.city.ac.uk/people/Sarajones.html

http://hcid.soi.city.ac.uk/people/Sarajones.html

http://www.google.com/moderator/%2316/e=7274f

http://www.google.com/moderator/%2316/e=7274f


References and Related Reading

• Shneiderman, B., 2000, ‘Creating Creativity: User Interfaces for Supporting Innovation’, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol 7, no 1, pp114-138

• Johnson, H and Carruthers, L, 2006, ‘Supporting Creative and Reflective Processes’, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, vol 64, pp998-1030

• Shneiderman, B, Fischer, G, Czerwinski, M, Myers, B and Resnick, M, 2005, ‘Creativity Support Tools: A workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation’

• Schon, D, 1983, The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action’, Basic Books, New York



• Hewett, T T, 2005, ‘Informing the design of computer-based environments to support creativity’, Int J Human-Computer Studies 63, pp383-409

• Zachos, K. Maiden, N., ‘Inventing Requirements from Software: An Empirical Investigation with Web Services’, in Proceedings 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE08, 2008

• Karlsen, I.K, Maiden, M., Kerne, A., ‘Inventing Requirements with Creativity Support Tools’, in Proceedings REFSQ09, LNCS 5512/2009, Springer, 2009

Centre for HCI Design



• Streitz, N et al, 1999, ‘i-Land: An interactive Landscape for Creativity and Innovation’, CHI’99

• Arias et al, 2000, ‘Transcending the Individual Human Mind—Creating Shared Understanding through Collaborative Design’, ACM ToCHI, 7(1), 84-113

• Sugimoto et al, 2004, ‘Caretta: A System for Supporting Face-to-Face Collaboration by Integrating Personal and Shared Spaces’, CHI’04




• Rogers et al, 2006, ‘Extending Tabletops to Support Flexible Collaborative Interactions’, IEEE Tabletop

• Hilliges et al, 2007, ‘Designing for Collaborative Creative Problem Solving’, Creativity and Cognition 07

• Buisine et al, 2007, ‘Computer-Supported Creativity: Evaluation of a Tabletop Mind-Map Application’, LNCS 4562/2007

• Mamykina et al, 2002, ‘Collaborative Creativity’, CACM 45(10)• Fischer et al, 2005, ‘Beyond Binay Choices: Integrating Individual and

Social Creativity’, IJHCS 63, 482-512• Warr, A and O’Neill, E, 2005, ‘Understanding Design as a Social

Creative Process’, Creativity and Cognition 05




• Fischer, G, 2004, ‘Social Creativity: Turning Barriers into Opportunities for Collaborative Design’, Proc 8th Conference on Participatory Design

• Gumm, D, et al, 2006, ‘Distributed Participatory Design – A Case Study’ Proc Nordichi workshop on DPD

• Farooq et al, 2005, ‘Supporting Creativity in Distributed Svientific Communities’ Conference on Supporting Group Work

• Fischer, G, 2005, ‘Distances and Diversity: Sources for Social Creativity’, Proceedings of the 5th conference on Creativity & Cognition


Technology

hcid2011 - Creativity for open spaces - Dr Sara Jones (HCID)