By karenmmartin on methodology
I am becoming increasingly aware of the differences in the design process as understood by designers and as understood by researchers. Or, to put it another way, the differences between research-by-design or design-by-research. While my training is research-by-design the conventions of my EngD programme require design-by-research. In trying to find a resolution to this I am doing a lot of reading on the subject of design process and evaluation.
I am interested in the following paper because it presents the underlying methodological and theoretical basis of one particular aspect of the design process – the decisions a designer makes regarding the choice of sensor / interaction pairs. Their discussion on the purpose of frameworks gives several references to examples of different approaches and attempts to represent the design process in a schematic way.
A Framework for Designing Sensor-Based Interactions to Promote Exploration and Reflection in Play: Yvonne Rogers, Henk Muller
Sensor-based objects and environments are increasingly being used as an interface for information. These often use everyday actions of the participants, for example, walking, or activities such as reading a book, to trigger a response from the system.
By analysing the core characteristics of sensors, and aspects of user experience, a framework for orienting designers working with sensor-based systems is created. The aim of the framework is to guide designers and researchers in the process of designing sensor-based systems, focusing on the use of provocative experiences for the particpant are triggered by novel forms of interaction.
Sensor-based interactions shift the ‘agency of control’ from people to systems. The resulting uncertainty and ambiguity might be seen as an opportunity to be exploited, leading to awareness and reflection of the user on the systems behaviour. The authors suggest that the uncertainty inherent in sensors might be augmented by uncertainty in the interface and presented information resulting in greater reflection by participants on the behaviour of the system.
Discrete-Continuous, Level of Precision, Explicit-Implicit
Rogers & Muller emphasise the importance of matching the capabilities of the sensor response (discrete or continuous) with the type of user action (discrete or continuous). Similarly, while precise sensors can be used to measure imprecise actions, it is preferable to match the possible level of precision of the sensor with the level of precision needed to detect and respond to the action of the participant. At this point they also refer to the difference between deterministic and non-deterministic responses. Explicit and implicit refers to type of interaction rather than a quality of the sensors .
Transforms
The authors suggest that due to the differences between sensor-based interactions and GUI-based interactions it is essential to find a new conceptual model for structuring the design process. They suggest the use of ‘transforms’ as a way of thinking about the relationship between sensor and participant.
“Transforms involves some implicit or explicit theory of what causes changes of perceptual/cognitive states, i.e. some sort of causal link is usually involved. Transforms are a constant feature of ongoing perception and cognition and constitute the phenomenology of experience. Likewise, we see them as central to the design of sensor-based interactions.”
Transforms involve the core phenomenological processes of perceiving, understanding and reflecting, processes Rogers & Muller describe as integral to learning and engagement.
The Framework
i) List the types of desired activities / actions and the locations in which these activities would take place
ii) Couple participant action to system response. Use unpredictability of responses, i.e. the participant would not get a response every time they performed the same action, to initiate reflection on the system.
iii) Consider sensor characteristics and capabilities. The suitability of particular sensors was explored through user studies which searched for diversity of possible participant behaviours.
Read the full paper here.. mcs.open.ac.uk/pervasive/pdfs/rogersIJHCI06.pdf
* Keep New:
* Posted on: Mon, Jul 10 2006 10:34 AM
* Updated: Mon, Jul 10 2006 11:11 PM
* Email This
* Clip/Blog This