INTERAKTIONSDESIGN I ET HISTORISK PERSPEKTIV forelæser: Nanna Inie november 2015
målet for i dag den studerende skal kunne redegøre for og forstå interaktions-design i et historisk perspektiv
dagsorden: masser af teori obligatorisk opgave 2
nsole, remote terminals
nye genrer
pervasive/ubiquitous computing
augmented reality
physical computing
interactive architecture
urban computing
hvorfor historisk perspektiv? 1. understanding how it was 2. history forms the basis for design decisions we make today
changing computers 1. new interaction forms 2. new display forms 3. mobile devices 4. autonomous, intelligent robots 5. digital footprints 6. decentralization of software 7. digital ever-presence four computing eras (Harper et al. 2008, pp. 14)
changing lives 1. learning differently 2. changed family life 3. supporting the elderly
changing society meget mere komplekst forhold mellem autoritet og borger
transformations in interaction hvad betyder det for interaktionsdesigneren?
transformations in interaction hvad betyder det for interaktionsdesigneren? 1. the end of interface stability 2. the growth of techno-dependency 3. the growth of hyper-connectivity 4. the end of the ephemeral 5. the growth of creative engagement
1. the end of interface stability the boundary between digital systems and bodies is moving closer to us
2. the growth of techno-dependency an important set of issues has to do with the skill-sets that change over generations, and also those that will increasingly disappear
3. the growth of hyperconnectivity the boundaries between the office and home, and between work and play are disappearing
4. the end of the ephemeral humans place great value on being selective in what they remember. It is important that we sometimes forget and that we can rely on the tendency of others to forget our past actions and activities too
5. the growth of creative engagement if people can assemble digital pieces to produce their own creations, this radically alters what it means to design an interface or a finished product
previously, on interaktionsdesign
the architect
the emergence of interaction design 1. Computation Communication 2. Machinery Habitat 3. Aliens Agents (Winograd 1997)
technological somnambulism: Teknologien er neutral og værdifri. En værktøjsmetafor (Langdon Winner 1986) technological determinism: Teknologi som en selvstændig kraft i samfundsudviklingen. Når teknologien udvikles, udvikles samfundet (MacKenzie & Wajman,1985) ingen af disse ekstremer er meningsfulde: we shape technology and technology shapes us (Löwgren & Stolterman, 20046 s. 142)
applied science // basic science
living with technology Hence, it is important for a thoughtful designer to understand the forces that affect our society and shape our future. Even if these reflections have no direct influence on the practicalities of the design work, they do constitute a foundational element in any design activity. Interaction design is part of the ongoing design of our society. Löwgreen & Stolterman 2004, p. 144
Today we don t just use technology, we live with it. Much more deeply than ever before we are aware that interacting with technology involves us emotionally, intellectually and sensually. So people who design, use, and evaluate systems need to be able to understand and analyze people s felt experience with technology....interactive technologies have become part of our everyday experiences at work and home. McCarthy and Wright, 2004
what is a research tradition? a research tradition is based on a set of basic ideas and values, shared by a group of researchers 1. knowledge interest (erkendelsesinteresse) 2. metaphysical assumptions (antagelser) 3. basic notions (vokabular) 4. practical results (resultater) (Bansler 1989, pp. 4-5)
the three theoretical traditions the systems theoretical tradition the socio-technical tradition the critical tradition
the systems theoretical tradition perspective: Computer based systems should eliminate waste in labour, time and materials goal: Efficiency, Rationalization and Control method: ISAC: A procedure and a set of tools for analyzing flows of information and materials One can define the optimal behavior of the system The behavior can be described in rules/response to external factors are predictable An algorithm or procedure can be made for optimal control of the system
the socio-technical tradition perspective: A focus on human factors can lead to both job satisfaction and higher productivity (based on sociotechnical systems theory). goal: The two systems must be adapted to each other and be in a state of harmony. method: A participative approach; users as experts obstacles: focus on individual workplace + no impact on system assume that workers and capitalists share a common interest - a historical mistake?
the critical tradition perspective: System Development is class struggle. Focus on work place democracy. goal: Emancipation of the blue colored workers through system development Democracy, Quality, Emancipation method: Cooperative design > Participatory Design
opsummering den studerende skal kunne redegøre for og forstå interaktions-design i et historisk perspektiv
næste gang: OBS: forelæsning tirsdag i stedet for torsdag! designeren I Schön, D.A. (1987). Kap. 1,2 & 7. Löwgren, J. & Stolterman, E. (2004). Kap. 3 & 7
obligatorisk opgave 2 1. find, i grupperne, en godkendt artikel på ACM Digital Library om en ny designteknik, vi ikke har lært om i kursusforløbet. OBS: Artiklen SKAL godkendes af Nanna eller Pernille 2. beskriv designteknikken, dens styrker, svagheder og praktiske anvendelse på en konkret case. 3. gruppens poster fremlægges på den følgende undervisningsgang.