A philosophy of interaction design - conceptual framework behind Interaction|12
When planning the programme for Interaction|12 we started by setting forth a philosophy or conceptual framework for interaction design, as a way of helping to structure the content and ensure an overall coherent 'story'. I thought it might be of interest to the community.
A philosophy of Interaction Design
Theory: underpins our process, and provides our connection between the activities we undertake and the results we expect to ensue.
Process is the layer at which we see similarity with other design disciplines. There is a clear design heritage showing in the human-centredness, empathy, compassion; on the use of sketching, prototyping, critique, deconstruction, multiplicity.
Underpinning this process is a twin heritage in theory drawing on a tradition of design on the one hand, and a tradition of HCI on the other. It is through HCI that Cognitive and Behavioural psychology comes to Interaction design. It is also from HCI that we receive much of our understanding of the mechanics of the dialogue that occurs through a plane of interaction made physically manifest through digital interfaces.
A session - presentation or workshop - might plot a course vertically through one of the 'elements', covering theory, process, outcome. Or the presenter might explore a single element in the context of theory or process or outcome.
As a whole, the program plots an arc through the entire territory. For an individual the program offers opportunities to trace a path within a very narrow frame of reference; or one that touches lightly across each segment.
analysis = bridge from research to context
Keynote presentations
Theory: e.g. the integration of design & HCI traditions in modern ixd practice.
Context: e.g. what does "understanding" context look like? What do we mean by context? Different types of context - cultural, physical, emotional.
Strategy: e.g. how do we plot a path from where we are to where we want to be? The role of vision. Futuristic concepts - envisaging the future. Competition on the basis of interaction.
Dialogue: e.g. focused in on the immediate environs of the plane of interaction. New interaction paradigms (touch, gesture) or interfaces (Wii, Kinect, tablets, neural). Exploring the boundary/impacts of context on the design of specific interactions.
Ecosystems: e.g. the integrated, interdependent system of objects, services, spaces and people within which our desired, designed behaviour takes place
Behaviour: an exploration of, or examples of large-scale behavioural change and the role of interaction design on that behaviour.
Keynote presentations hit the big topics at a level of the entire layer or individual 'element'. They are intended to ask big questions or propose bold ideas, or pour cold water over a hyped-up idea or fad.
Presentation sessions: With less time at their disposal presentation slots will tend to focus more narrowly than the keynote sessions. Presentations - whether invited or not - will fit into the overall story arc, providing threading and context. For the Interaction conference sessions of a purely theoretical nature are acceptable. Theory is one layer of the philosophy and so can be covered on its own.
Get the feed
Comments
Thanks for sharing this! I'm surprised that it's attracted no other comments.
I'll throw a question out there. In the elements of "Context, Purpose/Strategy, Dialogue, Ecosystems", where does human desire and willingness to engage or act fit in? Yes, behavior is the intention, but we affect behavior in most cases after a decision at some level has been made. Prior to that, there is attraction or discovery or something similar that feels like an element.
Or is that all accounted for in one of the four elements? If so, which?
I think Doc described that as part of "Context" - "an understanding of the physical, mental and emotional triggers, conditions and motivations for the participants of/in the object of our design."
No?
Sorry, meant to call that out and explain why I was excluding it. Certainly mental and emotional triggers would be part of the context once an interaction begins. But there is still something prior. Something that is not in the same context as the designed thing but that leads to interaction with it.
An overly simplistic example is interacting with an airport kiosk to check-in. Given alternatives, what is it that makes the person choose the kiosk? It's probably not something that's explicitly designed into the interaction model of the kiosk. Perhaps into the encompassing service, but not the kiosk software. Do we need to account for this? Call the approach trigger or something like that. It might be fleeting, but crucial.
This seems to be outside of what is considered context in the model, though perhaps I'm thinking too narrowly about the intended meaning.
I've been waiting to comment until I had time to fully digest the model :) Since Philip is leading the charge, I'll jump in.
This is an interesting model, I'd like to understand better how/why the elements are in layers. Each layer is a familiar construct, but I'm not sure the layer metaphor works for me. I tend to think of these things as more of a web, as each has different relationships with the other elements. For instance, Ecosystems (which I've often refered to as Networks) and Behaviour actually have a multifaceted relationship. One isn't necessarily built on the other, rather they constantly interact with eachother with one acting to create and modify the other.
In that regard, maybe Behaviour isn't really the intent of interaction design, but one of the possible outcomes from, or inputs to, a System/Network/Ecosystem.
This general model aslo fits really well with the concept expressed by Dick Buchanan at Interaction|11, that interaction design is the primary framework/worldview of design in the 21st century. It is an all encompassing model for design given the context of the new networked world.
One aspect to add, and I'm not sure exactly how it fits right now, is the idea of a personal philosophy that guides our design intent. Design is a way of building the future you want to see, so as designers we should have a view of what that future should be. That can be individual, based on movements (or creating movements), or loosely grouped, but I really think it's important to think about what type of future we are making with the new objects that we put in it. Looking at it now, this is where ethics come in to a certain extent. If we create a future by making things today we also have to try to understand the impacts of those new things... We will likely be wrong, but it's important to keep this in mind.
Matt
Last paragraph. The long view of our short-sighted influence. Yes, very important.
Phillip, Thanks for the comments.