Quote on designers and expert subjectivity

“An expert subjectivity is needed in design, because “design professionals” require a cultivated ability to read socio-cultural signs and trends; a creative and reasoned ability to explore alternative futures; a verbal ability to articulate these activities; a receptiveness to alternative framings and a willingness to explore highly variable alternative directions; and above all a personal identity or coherence that holds all of these moving parts together through a given process.”

Jeff Bardzell (2012)


Bardzell, J. (2012) Commentary on: Shusterman, Richard (2014) [sic]: Somaesthetics. In The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed. [online] ed. by Soegaard, M. and Dam, R.F. Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation. available from https://www. interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/somaesthetics.html. 39, 93, 95, 96, 106

On deprivation and user experience

In the book, “Experience Design: Technology for All the Right Reasons” by Marc Hassenzahl (2010), there’s a section labeled, “Do needs have different priorities?” Below is last paragraph of that,

“Identifying situations, which imply the systematic deprivation of a need, is an important starting point for Experience Design. It is difficult to “sell” an experience of a certain type to somebody, who is already saturated. However, the true challenge for Experience Design is to fulfill needs without making this too obvious.” (Hassenzahl, 2010)

For some reason, this paragraph made think quickly of

  • Issues that I’ve experienced as educator and the possible relation between saturation and learning experiences,
  • the relevance of contrast in design and its use as a mechanism to avoid saturation,
  • and the connection between the use of a particular design and the so-called north-south in the sense that
    • even though the deprivation of needs occurs worldwide, it is likely that they result different for all the people or regions in the world,
    • and how that might imply that a design
      • just cannot guarantee a uniform user experience at all, or
      • it is important for any design to leave enough room for the users to adapt it and thus support the creation of a meaningful user experience.

A small but powerful paragraph from my perspective.

Definition of “an experience-oriented approach”

Below, there is an extract (part of the introduction) from the paper “Experience-Oriented and Product-Oriented Evaluation: Psychological Need Fulfillment, Positive Affect, and Product Perception” by Hassenzahl, Wiklund-Engblom, Bengs, Hägglund, and Diefenbach (2015).

Sometimes I feel that we have diluted the notion of UX. However, this text reminds me that academia is there for the study and examination of phenomena, including the so-called UX, and that a good aspect of academic work is providing coherent and robust (based on previous research and studies) concepts and methods. What caught my attention from this paper is how it defines “experience-oriented approach” and includes the concepts of emotion, meaning, and dynamic story.

Extract

“Accordingly, Hassenzahl (2010) argued to put “experience before the product” (p. 63), which requires rethinking what technology actually is, why it matters, and what its intended effects are (Forlizzi & Battarbee, 2004; Hassenzahl, 2010; Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006; McCarthy & Wright, 2004). As opposed to a task-oriented approach, the experience-oriented approach focuses on the personal, subjective side of interaction with a product, understanding interaction as a dynamic story, able to create emotions and meaning. Admittedly, we are far from a common accepted definition of what user experience could or should be (Law, Roto, Hassenzahl, Vermeeren, & Korte, 2009) and experience research can be biased and sub-optimal (Bargas-Avila & Hornbæk, 2011). But experience is at the heart of the emerging postmaterialistic, experiential society (Schulze, 1992) and economy (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). Technology firms can hardly afford to ignore it (Hassenzahl, 2011).

In addition to changes in how to think about or even design technology, a focus on experience suggests reconsidering the models and assumptions underlying well-accepted approaches to evaluation. So far, the “product” is often quite narrowly understood as the tangible set of materials it is made of (e.g., screens, keys, buttons, knobs, windows, sliders) and evaluation focuses on those material aspects. An experience-oriented perspective, however, acknowledges that people foremost create meaningful and memorable stories through interacting with a product. These stories become in fact a part of the product and in turn serve as a basis for a more explicit product evaluation. In other words, if asked about aspects of a product, such as its perceived usefulness or the quality of certain features, people will likely probe their memory for experiences they have had and then base judgments upon a particular or a collection of remembered moments. This process is so pervasive that it even works with imagined experiences (Rajagopal & Montgomery, 2011).

This calls for an extended perspective on evaluation, including products and experiences, as well as a better understanding of how people derive judgments from recollected experiences…
…[W]e define an experience (Forlizzi & Battarbee, 2004) as a retrospectively constructed personal narrative, based on feelings, thoughts, and actions remembered from a collection of moments…”

(emphasis added)

 

 

The need for a philosophy of technology

If interactive systems are knowingly designed to change human attitudes and behaviors, we would also need a philosophy of technology that provides us the means for revealing, analyzing, and discussing the human, social, cultural, ethical, and political implications of these changes—that helps us understand ‘the new good’.

Daniel Fallman, 2007
@dfallman
Paper URL: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-77006-0_35

 

 

Social media, thoughts and rhetorical situation

In the paper “The Rhetorical Situation,” Bitzer (1992) claims that rhetoricians don’t treat the formal aspects of the type of situation in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse. In the same text, he remarks,

“Each reader probably can recall a specific time and place when there was opportunity to speak on some urgent matter, and after the opportunity was gone he created in private thought, the speech he should have uttered earlier in the situation.”

I really enjoyed that quote. After reading it, one of the things that came to my mind was social media. A couple of times, I’ve considered venting what happens in my mind after facing a situation like the one above. I censor myself and decide not to post anything most of the times, though. Sometimes, I think it’s the “heat” of the moment. Sometimes, I think I need to think things better. Sometimes, I simply forget what I wanted to “conjecture” from that situation.

Later, I’ve seen some Facebook friend’s venting what they think or feel regarding everyday situations. I’ve always wondered, why aren’t they open to say things out loud? Recently, I noted that one of my closest friends posted, “sad.” Of course, I went to check the comments and no response (at that moment) about the reason of being sad. I think I’ve done something similar a couple of times, as well. Not putting just “sad,” but expressing indirectly how I feel towards a certain person, thing or situation. However, externalizing thought was the key thing that I needed: to express it, to make it real.

The Bitzer’s quote made think that, somehow, social media is not strong enough sometimes to encourage the user to express her thoughts. In other words, to avoid self-censorship.Notwithstanding, when we don’t care (or perhaps, we care too much), social media allows to throw what we think in a easy and quick way. I wonder,

  • what is the difference between throwing a “second-chance-to-argue” “private” thought and other forms of self-expression? For example, a graffiti.
  • Why is it safe sometimes to externalize that type of thought or inner conversation in social media? When is not it?
  • Where do we learn such awareness? Does that awareness follow or go against the free of speech in social media?

I don’t really know.

What do you think? Are you having a conversation in private thought already?

 

Cheers.

 

Reference.
Bitzer, L.F. (1992). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 25, Selections from Volume 1, pp. 1-14.

Interaction Criticism

“For many scientists, ‘subjective knowledge’ and ‘opinion’ are synonyms for the same low quality thing, but that reflects a misunderstanding of critical knowledge practices and is precisely the sort of confusion that we in HCI need to clear up.”

Bardzell, J. (2011). Interaction criticism: An introduction to the practice. Interacting with Computers 23, 604–621.

“The act of criticism is to [think/see] better”

Bardzell, J. (2014). Interaction Culture. Course Notes. Indiana University Bloomington. Spring. 2014.

 

Participatory Design: making, telling, and enacting.

“Design participation is an evolving practice of making, telling and enacting. The iterative flow of events between these activities is essential, not only for participation to occur naturally, but for participation to occur with ease and with joy. When we can fully engage people’s minds, hearts and bodies in imagining and expressing future situations of use, we can be assured that they have an opportunity to influence future ways of living, learning and being.”

 

* Eva Brandt, Thomas Binder and Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders. Routledge Handbook of Participatory Design (Routledge International Handbooks) (p. 176). Taylor and Francis. 2012.

Critical Judgement

“Critical judgments typically have tow key features: they are defended with arguments (compromising both verifiable evidence and reasoning), and they assert that others should agree with them (which does not imply the empirical fact that others necessarily do).”

 

Bardzell J., Bardzell S., and Stolterman E, 2014. Reading Critical Designs: Supporting Reasoned Interpretations of Critical Design. In Proc. of  CHI 2014. ACM.